GOP forces new House vote on health overhaul

[Slew Foot]

I think its stupid to have totally unrealted things in a bill put together.

But I do find it funny that the Dems denied a motion to ban funding for Viagra for sex offenders.

 

[her209]

BREAKING: Reconciliation Bill passes the Senate. Goes back to the House.

 

[theeedude]

So for those keeping score:
Democratic accomplishment: Reforming health care.
Republican accomplishment: blocking Pell grant money for low income students.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So for those keeping score:
Democratic accomplishment: Reforming health care.
Republican accomplishment: blocking Pell grant money for low income students.

Dem accomplishment: Passing crap.
Rep accomplishment: Flailing about.

The best shot at overturning this is in the courts.

 

[theeedude]

Dem accomplishment: Passing crap.
Rep accomplishment: Flailing about.

The best shot at overturning this is in the courts.

If that's the best shot, then there is not much of a chance it gets overturned 😀
And if individual mandate gets shot down, insurance companies cannot survive, because they have to let people in with pre-existing conditions, and people will just wait till they get sick to buy insurance. So, USSC, go ahead, make our day. Single payer is next. 🙂

 

[her209]

If that's the best shot, then there is not much of a chance it gets overturned 😀
And if individual mandate gets shot down, insurance companies cannot survive, because they have to let people in with pre-existing conditions, and people will just wait till they get sick to buy insurance. So, USSC, go ahead, make our day. Single payer is next. 🙂

I believe if the SCOTUS invalidates the mandate, it invalidates the entire law. Of course, what this means is that the people with children with pre-existing conditions, children age 26 and under covered by their parent's health care plan, etc., will have their coverage rescinded (by the insurance company I might add).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe if the SCOTUS invalidates the mandate, it invalidates the entire law. Of course, what this means is that the people with children with pre-existing conditions, children age 26 and under covered by their parent's health care plan, etc., will have their coverage rescinded (by the insurance company I might add).

He cares about winning. That's all that matters. Perfect partisan.

 

[nick1985]

I believe if the SCOTUS invalidates the mandate, it invalidates the entire law. Of course, what this means is that the people with children with pre-existing conditions, children age 26 and under covered by their parent's health care plan, etc., will have their coverage rescinded (by the insurance company I might add).

How the fuck are people in their mid-twenties "children". Sounds like they need to grow up if they are still on mommy and daddy's insurance

 

[her209]

How the fuck are people in their mid-twenties "children". Sounds like they need to grow up if they are still on mommy and daddy's insurance

Believe or not, not all parents want to throw their children to wolves when they turn 18.

 

[nick1985]

Believe or not, not all parents want to throw their children to wolves when they turn 18.

So do you call males living with their mommy and daddy at 25 boys, and those at that age living independently, men?

 

[xj0hnx]

I believe if the SCOTUS invalidates the mandate, it invalidates the entire law. Of course, what this means is that the people with children with pre-existing conditions, children age 26 and under covered by their parent's health care plan, etc., will have their coverage rescinded (by the insurance company I might add).

All insurance companies I have had do(did) cover preexisting conditions, even if it's after 6 months of being on the plan if you didn't have insurance before, one covered them immediately as long as you weren't without insurance for 3 months, some times may vary, but the point is that the parents should be responsible and not wait until their kids get sick to insure them. How exactly would an insurance company be able to survive and conduct business if everyone just waited until they got sick to get insurance? No one paying into the insurance until it's time for them to pay out is a guaranteed failure. People seem to feel they are just entitled to whatever they need, that is not correct.

 

[her209]

Lets compromise then. Hows 22 sound?

How about we let the parents decide when they want to stop supporting their children?

 

[Perknose]

Quote me now then. After these fall elections Pelosi is out, Boehner is in.

I'm glad I don't live in your particularly delusional world, but I'm happy to quote you on this.

Since you are so certain, how about, say, a $500 bet on the outcome of those elections, to be held by a mutually agreed upon third party.

After all, you're from the party of personal responsibility, aren't you?

 

[xj0hnx]

How about we let the parents decide when they want to stop supporting their children?

Why should the parents get to decide if they want everyone else to pay for their insurance? If they want to insure them until they are 50, whatever, as long as THEY pay for it.

 

[nick1985]

How about we let the parents decide when they want to stop supporting their children?

Hell, lets make the age 55 then. I have an uncle who is 52 that still lives with his parents, he needs coverage still. I mean, who are you to decide that they cant cover their "children" anymore?!

I edited my other post, how do you respond?

 

[nick1985]

I'm glad I don't live in your particularly delusional world, but I'm happy to quote you on this.

Since you are so certain, how about, say, a $500 bet on the outcome of those elections, to be held by a mutually agreed upon third party.

After all, you're from the party of personal responsibility, aren't you?

You have elections plural. You betting on reids seat, or just R takeover of the house?

 

[her209]

All insurance companies I have had do(did) cover preexisting conditions, even if it's after 6 months of being on the plan if you didn't have insurance before, one covered them immediately as long as you weren't without insurance for 3 months, some times may vary, but the point is that the parents should be responsible and not wait until their kids get sick to insure them. How exactly would an insurance company be able to survive and conduct business if everyone just waited until they got sick to get insurance? No one paying into the insurance until it's time for them to pay out is a guaranteed failure. People seem to feel they are just entitled to whatever they need, that is not correct.

That's why there should a (short) waiting time for the insurance policy to kick in, like with employer provided health insurance.

 

[shiner]

I'm glad I don't live in your particularly delusional world, but I'm happy to quote you on this.

Since you are so certain, how about, say, a $500 bet on the outcome of those elections, to be held by a mutually agreed upon third party.

After all, you're from the party of personal responsibility, aren't you?

I've always wanted to be a bookie

 

[her209]

Why should the parents get to decide if they want everyone else to pay for their insurance? If they want to insure them until they are 50, whatever, as long as THEY pay for it.

They are paying for it.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Despite all the obstruction and grandstanding by the GOP, the senate defeats all their amendments and passes the bill with only two minor changes on parlamentary issues with the student loan portion of the bill. Pelosi says the house will vote and pass it by the end of the day wrapping up Congresses work on the bill

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1

Thank god we can almost put this nasty chapter of American politics behind us

 

[shiner]

Despite all the obstruction and grandstanding by the GOP, the senate defeats all their amendments and passes the bill with only two minor changes on parlamentary issues with the student loan portion of the bill. Pelosi says the house will vote and pass it by the end of the day wrapping up Congresses work on the bill

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1

Thank god we can almost put this nasty chapter of American politics behind us

You think the nastiness from both sides is over?

Pssst.....wanna buy a bridge?

 

[Perknose]

You have elections plural. You betting on reids seat, or just R takeover of the house?

I'm challenging you to a bet on EXACTLY what you predicted, that the Repubs would take over the House majority. Stop weaseling, you surely can't be THAT reading comp challenged.

HERE, I'll quote you AGAIN on EXACTLY what I'm challenging you to a bet on:

Quote me now then. After these fall elections Pelosi is out, Boehner is in.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

You think the nastiness from both sides is over?

Pssst.....wanna buy a bridge?

Oh no, the nastiness is far from over. Just the official legislative nastiness🙂

 

[cubeless]

So do you call males living with their mommy and daddy at 25 boys, and those at that age living independently, men?

hmmm... my oldest son's birthday was right past the school start age and so he finished 5 years of college with a double degree @ 25.5 years old... doesn't seem too unreasonable from the age side...

it was cheaper when he was on my insurance, because my plan doesn't make any difference for 2+3 or 2+2... i just had to get him a private policy for $150 a month after my insurance dropped him @ 23...

and i think that this thing about bailing kids @ 18 is a bit lame, anyways... i walked out the day i was 18, but i had a lousy situation and was a screwup to boot... my wife wants all the kids to stay until they're married... and as long as they're not screwups i don't personally have a problem with this (but i charge rent if they are not in school)... they have a cheap place to live whilst they go to school or save up $$$... my wife has her babies around and i get my grass mowed... seems like a win-win...

growing up is vastly overrated in my book... i have been putting it off for 50 years, so i don't see 26 being such a big deal...

 

[nick1985]

I'm challenging you to a bet on EXACTLY what you predicted, that the Repubs would take over the House majority. Stop weaseling, you surely can't be THAT reading comp challenged.

HERE, I'll quote you AGAIN on EXACTLY what I'm challenging you to a bet on:

I'm not weasling out of shit, I had made 2 predictions in this thread, and I was making damn sure we were crystal fucking clear on which it was before a bet was made.

And $500 is a bit steep for me at the moment, I just paid 8 grand to own my car and am running on fumes atm. If you want to make a much smaller wager I'd be game.