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.
What's tragic is that a lot of conservatives are more angry about providing everyone with health care than they were about our former President taking us into an unnecessary war and then outing a CIA Agent out of spite.
1. The former congress AUTHORIZED the president to get us into that war. Without congressional authorization, he couldn't have done this. (understand our constitution and laws much?).
2. The CIA agent - copy from another article -
In September 2003, on CNN's Crossfire, Novak asserted: "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. There is no great crime here," adding that while he learned from two administration officials that Plame was a CIA employee, "[The CIA] asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators."[46]
In "The CIA Leak," published on October 1, 2003, Novak describes how he had obtained the information for his July 14, 2003, column "Mission to Niger":
I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one. During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.
Actually they are.. Since the healthcare bill doesnt have a constitutionality clause in the bill, if any part of the bill dies, the whole thing is gone..
B.S.
If one part is ruled out a Judge would determine if the other provisions would have been passed regardless....and likely the age 26 provision would stay because it has nothing to do with mandating of insurance purchases.
All the "Blues" are part on one big umbrella agency. Ditto UHC. When we get our policy, it is written up for all the states, with exceptions noted. They're not separate companies the way "Mom and Pops" are.
No they arent.. they share investors, but each one is a different corporation. Blue Cross of PA is not the same as Blue Cross of OH etc..
"Our family of companies delivers innovative products and services to approximately 70 million Americans. "
Sometimes it's buried. It's all a matter of how they are set up. Multinationals have their own setup as well where they can operate in other countries as separate entities.
In the end though..they all have a "mother company" which is protected by laws our country made to protect them.
If one part is ruled out a Judge would determine if the other provisions would have been passed regardless....and likely the age 26 provision would stay because it has nothing to do with mandating of insurance purchases.
The age 26 provision indeed has something to do with mandating insurance.. It allows those under 26 to obtain care thats now MANDATORY under the bill under their parents plan.
p.s. had you read the link, you would have seen that it also acknowledges the accuracy of what I said..
They don't even pretend to be separate companies in each state.
Anyone who has moved across the state lines can tell you that policies are not good from state to state.. When you move, new policies are established. They might be under the same "Blue Cross" umbrella, but that doesnt mean they are the same..one business state refers the business to the other operating in a different state..
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.
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.
Comprehnd much?
