As someone noted the Republican replacement plan for AHA is "Don't get sick and if you do, die before getting to the emergency room."
But seriously, why don't the Republicans want to replace it with the healthcare program Romney, their leader, put in place just yeaterday, when he was a governor?
He loved it, bragged on it, and it was his pride and joy as governor, so why not just adopt as their replacement?
Because it's not the government's place to dictate to people what they have to buy or dictate that people pay for others healthcare. I'm not sure what Romney's plan is/was, but still it is NOT and NEVER should be the government's place.
And dsherron26, that is exactly what the state government did when Romney was governor--install a mandated healthcare program that AHA mimics almost down the line. And it is working very well in that state with 99% enrollment! Why not in all the states then?
What delicious irony it is to see Republicans ranting and raving about AHA and yet endorsing for president a man who put into place the model for AHA.
Asd Jackie Gleason would say, how sweet it is.
dsherron26 you might as well talk to a brick wall than MMW because you will never convince a liberal that working for a living, providing for your family from what you earn make sense.
They have no other desire than to live off the government, create entitlement programs, have the government tell them what to wear, when to wear it and when they can take it off.
They are 100% totally dependent on someone else telling them how to live. They cannot function unless the government says to them "breathe in, now breathe out". Otherwise they would die because no one told them they had to suck in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.
As I said before, Hitler introduced socialized health care to the German population and soon enough he took care of the problems he did not want.
Things like that do not bother MMW because he expects the government to control his future and make all of his decisions for him.
Once again MMW you have the floor to deny or confirm:
Do you deny being a 100% liberal Democrat?
Do you deny being an atheist?
Do you deny believing the government should provide the citizens of this country who can, but won't work every single need they may have using tax dollars from those who work?
Do you deny writing to the Cannon Courier website using another pen name "dailyreader"?
I doubt very seriously you will have the guts to answer one of them. Keep hiding behind your multiple pen names. I would be ashamed to let people know who I was also if I were you.
Lest you take to gloating too much over Romney's supposed predicament Mr. Scratch, I mean MMW, keep in mind that if he is elected president, the legislative body he will be working with is likely to be much more conservative than the one he had to deal with in Massachusetts.
Besides, it is not important what Romney did as governor. We all know politicians often say and do one thing at one point in time and then change direction later. For instance, Obama said taxes would not increase one thin dime on those making less than $250,000 a year. Now they all have to pay the Obamacare tax.
I agree with you both Kevin and Corey. And MMW I don't agree with Romney on that, but as Kevin said he will not be able to keep that position, and would do what is RIGHT for the country. I work and get insurance through my company which will be better than what the government will pay for, and 99% of workplaces have insurance programs in place, those who want insurance need to be pressuring government to create jobs not imposing programs that ARE OUT OF THEIR JURISDICTION.
I dont agree with any of you,i guess, but i will defend your right to your opinion. my guess is we dont know the answer and likely may never.
How bigoted can one be to betray all liberals so callously. Please contain hatred for mmw to mmw. This discord helps nothing or no one.
Bud I don't want to ever place you in the category of MMW. He is in one all his own.
You have stated before you tend to lean toward the liberal side and that is ok with me. However, you are not the fanatical liberal he has so often portrayed himself to be through his writings.
MMW's words speak for themselves. He is so intent on being totally dependent on the government that it is really kind of pathetic.
I would bet you that you do agree with a lot of what many of us think and I will give you examples.
1. I believe you earn what you work for and if you are capable to work then you should and the government should not provide you with so many entitlements that it makes it easier to stay at home than it does to work.
2. We should have affordable health care for everyone.
3. Both Republicans and Democrats should work together to create a law that does not harm the economy by forcing small businesses to not hire employees because the new law will force them to pay more money to the government once they reach a certain number of employees.
4. A health care law should not force a religious group / employer to provide birth control or contraceptives to its employees when it goes against the religion they believe.
5. Call it a mandate or a tax, but the government should not be allowed to force you to buy a product simply because it deems you need it. If that is the case, then again why could they not force you to join a gym and work out three times a week because we face an obesity epidemic?
I bet you agree on some of those things at least if not all. And even if you don't I can respect your views when you present them as you did in your last post.
MMW is just a bully who wants to run that pie hole so he can start trouble. I don't blame you for not wanting to be placed in that category nor would I put you there.
I might also add as a true 100% conservative I am not of the opinion that if it is not 100% as I believe then it should be nothing at all when it comes to politics as others believe.
There are things about the health care law I liked. Not allowing the insurance companies to deny you for pre-existing conditions, allowing your children to stay on until age 26, no lifetime benefits, etc. were some things I thought were good ideas. For me it was simply about the mandate / tax.
Either side, Republican or Democrat that holds the American people hostage out of pure stubbornness because they choose the needs of their party over the needs of the people should be removed from office.
I believe certain core principals and they will never change, but I personally would rather see a compromise that produced results vs. a lockdown that gave us nothing.
An example of that would be abortion. I am 100% against it. However, I think if we could come to a compromise and say abortion was against the law except in cases of rape, incest or the pregnancy could compromise the life of the mother then at least we could save millions of children a year and that would be progress.
There are many more things like that we could compromise on, but both parties are so intent on forcing their agenda on the American people that neither are willing to WORK for the American people. That is the shame of it all.
Dare all you want Corey but as I said before, why lower oneself to that level when that level lacks the intellect(see "How bigoted can one be to betray all liberals so callously") to engage in a meaningful discourse.
Again, thanks but no thanks.
Well Kevin, that is an interesting observation--a politician's past is unimportant (it is not important what Romney did as governor).
Quite frankly, that is the first time I have every heard that statement made about someone running for an office.
Seems to be able to judge a person, the primary crux of that judgment comes from what that individual has done in the past.
And I have been wrong all these years. I bow to your superior knowledge.
MMW, it was unimportant for Obama with respect to Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and how he voted as a Senator, was it not? But the point was that if elected president, he will not be working with a predominantly liberal legislature as was the case in Massachusetts.
A NOTICE TO ALL:
After roughly a 3 week hiatus from any posting of comments we once again, after much discussion, thought it best to reopen the dialogue. Now it seems as though I must play they role of kindergarten cop and remind all posters of the policy I have for this type of forum:
I.) Keep the comments civil and always address the issue not the person posting the comment. Any personal attacks will result in the banning of the offending commenter from further postings.
II.) Don't show your ignorance nor wear it on your shoulder. Civil discourse is going to be practised and encouraged on any website under the canopy of a publication I own. The debate of issues is as great as the history of the civilized world...left or right...liberal or conservative...democrat or republican...you have been given an opportunity to voice YOUR OPINION not God's. Do not inject your venom, if there is any, toward any individual on this site or it will be your last.
III.) If anyone has a problem with these simple guidelines you may reach me at my published email addresses.
Defender of the 1st amendment
Rep. Black is being a little (more like a great deal) disingenious by stating in this release "I authored and passed a bill repealing a portion of Obamacare, saving taxpayers $13 billion dollars."
How can a congressperson save taxpayers any dollars unless that bill has passed the House and Senate and signed off on?
To claim a saving by simply introducing a bill that never goes anywhere appears to be an attempt to pull more wool over the eyes of fawning followers.
Black also states in this release "Our health care system needs common-sense reforms....."
Since the House has been controlled by her party for a few years, where is the Republican bill they passed on to the Senate that contains these "common-sense" reforms?
A "common-sense" plan that would have addressed the plight of those who have pre-existing conditions but could not obtain coverage or found themselves faced with greatly increased premiums after a devastating illness or even kicked off the rolls after incurring great costs in treatment. A "common-sense" plan that retained young people on their parents coverage until 26 and a "common-sense" plan addressing the billions being absorbed by our healthcare givers (and driving up the insurance costs for all others) when treating those without insurance.
Why no plan? Perhaps it wasn't "common-sense" for them to do so?
Thank you, Ron Fryer, for reopening the comments section and thank you for the statement.
Politicians must have a habit of being disengenuous:
OBAMA: "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."
THE FACTS: Nothing in the law ensures that people happy with their policies now can keep them. Employers will continue to have the right to modify coverage or even drop it, and some are expected to do so as more insurance alternatives become available to the population under the law. Nor is there any guarantee that coverage will become cheaper, despite the subsidies many people will get.
Americans may well end up feeling more secure about their ability to obtain and keep coverage once insurance companies can no longer deny, terminate or charge more for coverage for those in poor health. But particular health insurance plans will have no guarantee of ironclad security. Much can change, including the cost.
Obama's soothing words for those who are content with their current coverage have been heard before, rendered with different degrees of accuracy. He's said nothing in the law requires people to change their plans, true enough. But the law does not guarantee the status quo for anyone, either.
OBAMA: "And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses and not enough on your health care."
THE FACTS: Rebates are coming, but not nearly that many Americans are likely to get those checks and for many of those who do, the amount will be decidedly modest.
The government acknowledges it does not know how many households will see rebates in August from a provision of the law that makes insurance companies give back excess money spent on overhead instead of health care delivery. Altogether, the rebates that go out will benefit nearly 13 million people. But most of the benefit will be indirect, going to employers because they cover most of the cost of insurance provided in the workplace.
Employers can plow all the rebate money, including the workers' share, back into the company's health plan, or pass along part of it.
The government says some 4 million people who are due rebates live in households that purchased coverage directly from an insurance company, not through an employer, and experts say those households are the most likely to get a rebate check directly.
OBAMA: "Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parents' health care plans, a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans."
THE FACTS: Obama is overstating this benefit of his health law, and his own administration knows better. The Department of Health and Human Services, in a June 19 news release, said 3.1 million young adults would be uninsured were it not for the new law. Obama's number comes from a June 8 survey by the Commonwealth Fund, a health policy foundation. It said 6.6 million young adults joined or stayed on their parents' health plans who wouldn't have been able to absent the law. But that number includes some who switched to their parents' plans from other coverage, Commonwealth Fund officials told the Los Angeles Times.
The fact is that the AHA is an EPIC FAIL on the part of solving the healthcare problem.
Independent analysis have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the 'amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent...,' an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.
A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation's largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses.
In any direction you turn this law it is simple. It sucks, it was ill conceived, it was rushed through Congress simply to add a notch in the President's belt and it needs full repeal.
I think Mr. Obama's statements in the past have been more than disingenuous as well. To name a few over his illustrious term would be:
1.The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.
2.If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it
3.Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place
4.ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax
5.The Health Care Package will pay for itself
6.We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care
7.Won’t Raise taxes on those making less than 250,000 per year (just did that with this mandate / tax)
8.Would have the most transparent administration in History
9.Seniors Making less than 50,000 will not have to pay taxes
10. I will cut Deficit in half by end of first term (my personal favorite of all of his lies)
All of these lies were stated by the President of the United States Barack Obama over the last three years. There are so many more, but we lack space.
I can abide by the forum rules Mr. Fryar, I just hope your statement applies to everyone equally and is enforced equally.
As to point No. 8 See Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious. That's about as transparent as concrete. Yes, Mr. Fryar I can abide by the rules. My statements have never had the intent or nor do I intend to attack anybody personally here. I just want to voice my opinion on articles, issues, etc.
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. - Plato -
I couldn't have said it better myself, PHATFROG!! The comments above are sooooooo typical of a few certain "frequent commentors". Mr. Ron Fryar, did you expect these fine folks to play by your rules? I believe in freedom of speech, personally, but it's amazing what you can tell about a person by the content of their SPEECH!!