Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Health care reform doesn't provide the coverage I would like to see.
That's what pandering to the party of "no" gets us; less than adquate health care reform.
Funny how the Rs are whining about it now.
Amazing!! Now the 'Passed by Demorats' healthcare reform is the Republican's fault???? Enough said! You are the quintessential democrat.
Health care reform doesn't provide the coverage I would like to see.
That's what pandering to the party of "no" gets us; less than adquate health care reform.
Funny how the Rs are whining about it now.
Pandering? The democrats passed this abomination.....get over it.
You want more health coverage? PAY for it...........oh wait, doing so could soon be considered criminal.
It's a progressive health care bill....the democrats got into bed with the progressives, NOT the Republicans. The Republican Party had NO input into it.
But go ahead, BLAME those who didn't support it. Somehow, that justifies your case.
You people got WHAT you wanted......grow up and accept it. You can't whine forever.......oh wait, yes you can.....WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
Without a link, I don't know how you can even have an intelligent discussion around this. "Top Democrat Saying Health Care Reform Wrong" means exactly WHAT. Is the whole policy wrong, is part of it wrong, does he suggest something different, is he suggesting modifications, or scrapping the whole plan--it could be any or all of the above. I'm thinking the OP was after a controversial headline vs. a real discussion.
Without a link, I don't know how you can even have an intelligent discussion around this. "Top Democrat Saying Health Care Reform Wrong" means exactly WHAT. Is the whole policy wrong, is part of it wrong, does he suggest something different, is he suggesting modifications, or scrapping the whole plan--it could be any or all of the above. I'm thinking the OP was after a controversial headline vs. a real discussion.
So here's his point: "Bredesen’s proposed solution: a financing model built like the one for Social Security, where the program is funded outside of general government revenues by something like a payroll tax. A trust fund is set up, and benefits are funded from that."
He wants to essentially add payroll taxes to create a government trust. He didn't say healthcare reform was WRONG--he said the way we went about it was wrong. Think the R's would have supported creating another SSI type program? Think again. Your headline is misleading.
So here's his point: "Bredesen’s proposed solution: a financing model built like the one for Social Security, where the program is funded outside of general government revenues by something like a payroll tax. A trust fund is set up, and benefits are funded from that."
He wants to essentially add payroll taxes to create a government trust. He didn't say healthcare reform was WRONG--he said the way we went about it was wrong. Think the R's would have supported creating another SSI type program? Think again. Your headline is misleading.
I quoted the article. That's what he proposed. Just exactly WHAT was your point with this whole thread, because to be honest, I'm having a pretty hard time trying to sort it out.
One more point--calling every poster who points out the problems with your premise here a "a quintessential Democrat!" doesn't exactly help your case. I absolutely think the current health care reform bill isn't the best way to approach the problem, but that's a whole different story than saying we don't need healthcare reform at all. Funny the R's should whine about that, because what we have now is basically what Romney (R) did in Massachusetts, and pretty much word for word what the republicans proposed in response to the health care debate during the Clinton administration. It wasn't a great plan then, and it's not a great plan now, but I'm assuming the Dem's were trying to pass a bill where the R's couldn't WHINE so much. That sure didn't work out. The current process--private insurers-- is a mess.
Your link was unclear over whether or not he's proposing scrapping the whole program to create an SSI style program funded by a trust, or simply putting in place a payroll tax (like SSI) to fund a trust that would cover the governments portion of the current bill. That could be added to the current legislation.
Do you think they should have been bussed in to support garbage? That would be very odd..
I don't think they should have been bused in at all.
The town hall meeting is a forum where an elected official and his constituents get to have an exchange of information and ideas. People outside the constituency shouldn't be attending or speaking. The fact that they did distorted the purpose and outcome of the town hall meetings.
Health care reform doesn't provide the coverage I would like to see.
That's what pandering to the party of "no" gets us; less than adquate health care reform.
Funny how the Rs are whining about it now.
Its always the Republicans fault that you dont get things you want..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.