No moaning and groaning or huffing and puffing from 7th C.D. Republican perennial candidate Marvin Scott?

Is there a 'mourning'-after pill?

The bill passed and the end of the world did not occur. Wonder if the same statements and predictions preceded several other major pieces of legislation: Women's right to vote, Social Security, Civil Rights, Medicare, and others. Whether this is good legislation or not, whether it is good for the economy, whether it is within the constitution's allowance, Whether this is a state's right issue–it is no doubt a great partisan (R vs D, C vs L and even informed vs uninformed (and the latter on both sides)) issue that has brought out the big guns of business and even the religious fringe saying the end is coming.
From a side note: with as much $ as has been pumped in by vested interests ($ interest) have to wonder about the recent court ruling on having no limits on spending. Will we be fed more facts or hype in the future?

Andre is an absolute idiot! He, like his grandmother before him, considers it a success to make people dependent on the government. And anybody who believes Andre even read the bill is a stupid as he is.

Democrats ran on a platform of reforming the health care system, got elected, and then went about fulfilling their campaign promises. They tried to work with the GOP, which deliberately chose to ignore the outreach. Left with no alternative, Dems proceeded on their own, and achieved a breakthrough success.

I'm sure our Thug-in-Chief and the House Leadership threatened Ellsworth and the others to vote for this garbage or lose DNC funding for their upcoming campaigns? It's the Chicago way.

I will probably have to close my business in 2014. I won't be able to afford providing heath care. There will be a lot of businesses that will close and jobs lost.

Overwhelmingly the American public was against this bill. Come November watch for the house to revert back to the GOP.

Poor Ernie's still awaiting those grand election victories of Campo, Elrod, Dickerson, Horning, McVey, Scott, Hoffmeister, etc…

Why do you believe they tried to work with the GOP? Because Nancy Pelosi says so? Oh, I forgot who I was responding to.

And their 'breakthrough success' will mean the ultimate collapse of our healthcare system and economy. I look forward to the day when folks like you are turned down by a bureaucrat for a life-saving operation. What goes around comes around.

You're right about that, and this latest round of BS may make it happen sooner than expected.

What do you want to repeal first? Not discriminating against children with pre-existing conditions? Allowing children to stay on their parents insurance until they’re 26? Insurance companies not being allowed to drop you if you get sick or capping the amount they’ll pay if you have a catastrophic illness? Which ones are Republicans against?

Ideas like socialized medicine are supposed to pass through the goose, not become law that's force fed to the gander. Poisoning once golden geese is not health care- it's wealth scare.

Declaring war on the American way of life doesn't make it better.

Congressman Carson… debate? Missed that…

I gotta admit Dave, however wrong you are, you can sure turn a phrase.

Rico, if I were you, I'd be careful about whom you throw the “idiot” card around.

I am careful. I only use the term 'idiot' when referring to idiots. And if you can be believed about your medical history, you would already be dead if national healthcare had been the law of the land. So, folks like yourself who support this are, in fact, idiots. So it is written.

Unlike you Wilson I believe no one should be excluded for preexisting conditions not just the kiddies. I thought one was an adult at 18 and supposed to be able to take care of themselves maybe we should raise the age of adutlhood to 26. There are just so many rules and regulations out there already. If they would have taken the talking points the Prez laid out in his stumping over the weekend and left it at that this would have been a great idea and about 2600 pages smaller. If you have to use loopholes in the rules to push something through, that according to the major poles (take these for what they are worth) no one wants, then expect some major upheavals in the next elections. We saw it in 94 and it will happen again.

In 1994 Indianapolis Democratic Congressman Andy Jacobs Jr. easily won re-election. What about 2007? Bart Peterson “won” in the precincts of the 7th C.D. with 54% of the vote.

Anti-suffrage arguments: (sample only)

Might get hurt in polling brawls

Would lead to foreign aggression and war

Women would exhibit poor morality in voting. After all, women have been trouble since the Garden of Eden

Women would be more prone to regulating working conditions and hours

Women would be more likely to ban alcohol

Overwhelming majority of women don't really want suffrage

Voting was “mens' work”

Women would be more likely to commit vote fraud

Rico, dear Rico…my medical wanderings are sometimes reported here, aind include my family, not just me. And most times, I've noted that. I am the custodial caregiver for an uncle and both my (ill)parents, as well as my tired butt.

So, the experiences are a little too numerous some months, but nonetheless real. I am a heart attack survivor, and could write a book on medical care from the patient side. I wish I didn't have the qualifications, but I do. If you're blessed with good health for yourself and those for whom you care, bully for you.

Clearly, you don't understand the term “idiot.” Got any mirrors in your house?

And Dave is funny sometimes. You're just sorry.

Strident positions seem to be your stock in trade. You're certainly entitled, but what a lousy way to plod through life. Tell me, who or what made you so hard, cold and ridiculously out of touch? Just wondering. There are recovery groups for some of those afflictions.

Leading up to 94 7 out of 10 districts were democratic. After the elections 4 out of 10 were. None of the Repulican districts lost.

Not sure what the 2007 election has to do with my comment, but I think you meant Carson not Peterson.

'Out of touch' is thinking that government healthcare is the answer when it clearly has never worked anywhere else it has been tried, at least not to the benefit of patients. And I hope your dear, ill parents pass peacefully before their care is rationed by our cold, hard government. Think it won't happen? Then your idiocy is far worse than I imagined. I hope your mandated policy covers that.

From day one: parents can keep their children on their health plan until age 26; no denial for pre-existing conditions for people younger than 19 and help getting coverage for those older than that; no lifetime caps on coverage; prescription drug help for Medicare beneficiaries; tax credits for small businesses; and transparency requirements for insurers.

It's ironic that a bill that was created behind closed doors with backroom deals and payoffs demands transparency of insurers.

Will this be the same transparency used to put this catastrophe together?

It has been my personal experience that Mitch is the smartest person in the room and I have been in many rooms with Mitch. If you read his comment you should pay attention-he isn't spinning.
“For best is he who knows all things himself; Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right; But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart Another's wisdom, is a useless wight”.
I'd offer a prize but it doesn't look like any of the posting wights here would have ever heard of Hesiod.

I'm still wondering how the government obtained jurisdiction to mandate that one purchase health care.

I'm also wondering how far they are willing to go to enforce it.

I'm betting that some LiaR has found some language somewhere in the federal Constitution that says the government can mandate We the People purchase (insert commodity here).

No – the world didn't end because the joke that was the healthcare bill and is soon to be the new healthcare law passed. But we did just dig ourselves deeper in a very large hole.

We have just expanded the coverage offered by the prescription drug benefit of Medicare. We have just decided to spend BILLIONS of dollars in tax credits for people to use to purchase health insurance, even if those families make over *84,000* a year (a family of four, larger families might make over 100,000). We have decided to expand the Medicaid rolls.

HOW ARE WE PLANNING ON PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS?

We're going to tax the rich by raising the Medicare tax rate. We will tax employers that don't offer what they government deems to be acceptable health insurance coverage. We will penalize people that do not purchase health insurance. We will reduce fraud. We will hold the line on costs by reducing payments to provider. And if you think that will cover the costs – I would like to talk to about some ocean front property I own in Fort Wayne.

Reduce fraud? Everytime someone wants to do anything with Medicare/Medicaid – they talk about reducing fraud. If that were so easy to do, it would already have been done.

Contain costs by reducing payments to providers? Like they do with Medicare? Like the cost reductions they have managed to postpone for over five years?

Penalize people who don't purchase health insurance. Maybe. Once it goes through every legal challenge imaginable and ends up in the Supreme Court. There is no way it is constitutional for the federal government to require citizens to purchase anything from a private company. That doesn't mean with courts as insane as they are, that the SCOTUS won't rule it constitutional. Oh – and before anyone brings up having to have car insurance keep in mind two things. First – that is at the state level, not federal. Second, you only have to have insurance if you drive the vehicle on public roads.

Tax employers? They can do it – as long as they don't mind losing jobs. How exactly does this make American employers more competitive at the global level again? Wasn't that one of Candidate Obama's reasons for wanting to reform healthcare?

Tax the rich. Sure – we can always do that. It's very easy. It must be their fault. Why else would they be successful?

To be fair, there are a couple of good things about the bill. Restraining the ability of insurance companies to rescind policies is probably the best thing about this bill. Insurance exchanges for those not covered by large employers is another. However we could have gotten those without digging ourselves even deeper in a debt whole. Everyone knows the first thing you do when you realize you are in a hole is to stop digging. Unfortunately President Obama and Congress decided last night that we need to dig even faster instead.

I can't speak for Republicans, but I can speak for me.

I don't want to discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. However, if a parent has not provided health insurance for the child – I don't think an insurance company should be required to pick up the costs for a sick child now that the parent decides insurance is a good idea. Health insurance is a way of spreading risk – you pay money and hope you don't need to use the coverage very much. Insurers take your premiums and hope they won't have to pay much out. But if you do get sick, the insurer covers the costs. How is enrolling someone that is ill spreading risk? You wouldn't expect to purchase house insurance while your house is on fire. You wouldn't expect to purchase car insurance and have it pay for a wreck you had the previous day. But for some reason people feel it is reasonable to only purchase health insurance after they (or their child) become ill.

I absolutely want to get rid of the ridiculous idea that a 26 year is a child.

I agree that insurance companies should not be able to drop individuals that are ill unless they can show fraud or failure to pay the premiums.

Capping benefit amounts is a tougher call. Every insurance has a max it will pay out. Check your car and home insurance – there are max amounts. There isn't anyway to get rid of this cap without increasing costs. However the benefit to the few that need it probably does outweigh the the small incremental costs that everyone will have to pay. That is the whole reason for insurance after all – to spread the risk.

“nce it goes through every legal challenge imaginable and ends up in the Supreme Court. There is no way it is constitutional for the federal government to require citizens to purchase anything from a private company. That doesn't mean with courts as insane as they are, that the SCOTUS won't rule it constitutional.” — Dobie

Give the man a cigar!! Of course, those LIEyers on the court might very well find (invent) some language somewhere that makes this so-called 'law' Constitutional. They've been doing so for about 200 years.

T'was in halcyon days I might've recalled the greek chap, who can rest unconcerned with the homeland's EU status. Heresy of the didactic? Hesoid / she (Pelosi) said?

No wight knights here. Give that prize to Mitch, whose assessment is unfortunately & frighteningly accurate.

What must it be like to go through life so bitter? Do you find any joy in anything other than demeaning other people and complaining?

Nearly the exact words from Abdul's brother this morning, who described himself as “50-50″: “How are we going to pay for this?”

I've never heard Abdul's brother express concerns about economics until this health care bill, passed by this President, and this Congress. Where were his concerns before this President? Looks as suspicous to me as all those white people gathered together in D.C. this summer protesting.

Oh, but THOSE people MUST be racist, aren't they?

I hope somebody beat the snot out of whatever idiots used racial slurs this past weekend in D.C. But, can we possibly have disagreements in discussing economics without the racist/xenophobe/hater bs creeping in?

Or, we're just warming up for immigration?

Let's not. Please. Thank you.

Uh, Hector…I tend to get like that when liberals and socialists use the force of government to steal from me. They do this because they have no moxie of their own.

I have no love of the way our government is currently run. I do cherish the concept of the united States of America.

I'm certainly not STUPAK enough to trust government, or Obama.

I am impressed. These individuals have read, researched, reviewed and digested the 3000 page document in 24 hrs.

I for one will not listen to talk show hosts, bloggers, political pundits, experts (aka former political operatives) and politico's. I will actually think.

Ernie you may be right. I highly doubt it…history tells us that midterm elections produce a net loss for the president's party. For House Dems, that would have to be a catastrophic loss to lose control. It just isn't likely to happen. And Senate Republicans are defending way more vulnerable seats this year.

I read the same polls you do. Here's a subtlety I doubt you've considered: about 14-20% of Americans respond as “opposed” to the bill, who really wanted more aggressive reform, as in: public option or complete public payment for health care. That group of folks is not small, and if you think they're going to vote for the party of Bohner and McConnell, you're crazier than I thought. Today, that group of Americans is pissed they don't have universal care, but they're 75% happy with the new law.

And, as difficult as it is to hear, this is a political fact: elections have consequences. Dems in general, and this President in particular, vowed to reform health care. Were you sleeping in 2008? What's different from the campaign promises? To pay for it, Obama told us he'd tax the top 2-3% of Americans, and generate internal savings with efficiencies and rewritten Medicare rules.

In essence, that's just happened.

So, as politely as possible, I have to say: scoreboard, pal. And once this law starts, there is no way at all to get the toothpaste back into the tube.

Kinda like Bush and Hastert did with the Medicare Drug Reimbursement law they shoved down our throats in 2003, which cost billions and only benefitted Big Pharma. Which they passed, by the way, with deem/pass and reconciliation.

Unconstitutional? Hilarious.

Will no supporter of this bill take me up on my offer? You pay half of my health care increases as a direct result of this bill and I will pay you double any savings I recieve as a direct result of this bill?? What say you?

Side note, I know most people hate the evil insurance companies, but heres a clue for you…who do you think processes and handles all medicare claims.??? Thats right, the governement pays the evil insurance companies to do it already. The feds/state rely on companies like Adminastar…which is owned by WellPoint to process local and surounding states federal and state claims…..

“At least since the conclusion of the Civil War, the Democrats' war on freedom has never been more brazen. Indeed, there is a tie that binds the Democratic Party of the antebellum era with today's Democratic Party:

It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
This would be, of course, Abe Lincoln discussing the major organizing principle of the then Democrat Party and by extension, the current one as well.

Is slavery not greed?

Is envy not hatred?

Is preoccupation with the lives of others somehow healthy if it's done under the guise of “social concern?”

What is elitism, other than an insecurity complex?

Conspiratorial (conspirators are few where the instrumentalized are many), key-worded, key-phrased, talking pointed terminology turned program, like “social security,” is inspired by & trades upon pessimism. The realities of misfortune aren't avoided by counterfeiting “standards” on a forge of fear or hopelessness. Nothing worthwhile is modeled on pessimism, the essence of socialism.

Wilson most small business owners pay their own way when it comes to healthcare. Most small business owners know what they can and cannot afford.
If a small business owner can't afford healthcare even with the proposed tax credits what do you expect that business owner to do…close up shop?…quit?…go bankrupt?…apply for welfare? Please provide the solution. Enquiring minds want to know.