What you're doing is falling hook, line, and sinker for the RW lie here. And you seem pretty willing to do so. Pelosi never said that she didn't read the bill but if you cut her quote in half, it does appear that is what she said. It's not true, but the RW'ers choose their own reality. The bill was discussed and debated for over a year. Everyone debating the bill knew what was in it and everyone knew the lies being told about it. The public was the only ones in the dark or fog about the bill thanks to the numerous lies spread by the RW but that is supposed to translate to Pelosi's lack of ethics somehow. The problem with ethics seems to lie with those telling the lies about the legislation and they are the same people that you choose to believe now. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and well, you have no one to blame but your own gullibility at that point.
What did you think of the timeline of the biggest lie of the year? It was pretty pervasive on the Right and still is. Yet, no death panels. Hum? That's the kind of thing that makes "some people" think. The other people are Right-wingers.
You are free to hold whatever opinion the liberal elites force on you but it sure doesn't change the facts. You know as well as I do that Pelosi did not read the entire final bill nor did very many in Congress- she admitted to it at the time. Her quote about "needing to pass it to see what's in it" is exactly what she meant and is exactly what happened. Heck, BO was going around the country proclaiming we can keep the doctor of our choice (even after the bill was passed) until someone pointed out to him that he was wrong. Even today BO's people can't explain details of the bill or the economic ramifications.
And they drone on and on don't they? Tell me O'wise one, what part of the PPACA went into effect just this week and what was the effect that it had?
....if you aren't sure, call those folks BO is sending around the country to "explain" Obamacare....maybe they can help. Oh, on second thought, based on my experience thay can't. Sorry 'bout that.
Based on your experience man and dinosaurs roamed around together on a flat earth but hey, I didn't think you were informed about the law you are berating and I was right. Ignorance IS bliss apparently.
Did your far left leaders tell you about this?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...polies-and-drive-premiums-skyward-hallelujah/
No they told me about this, whoever "they" are.... The provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit.
Perhaps it's this one: Thousands Of Oklahoma Children May Get Insurance Coverage Governor Hopes Signing Will Encourage Insurance Companies UPDATED: 1:15 pm CST December 6, 2011 OKLAHOMA CITY -- Thousands of Oklahoma children without insurance may now have a chance to get coverage. Monday, Gov. Mary Fallin signed the paperwork and she hopes companies will choose to insure children between the ages of 1 and 19. However, newborns of families most at need will still not be included. Deputy General Counsel Susan Dobbins said, “It will give us the opportunity to help as many children as possible. ”The passing of the Child Only Rule is a huge victory for the insurance commission. Fallin signed the rule, which she is hoping will encourage insurance companies to provide coverage for those children whose parents or guardians don’t have coverage through work, Sooner Care, or by private means. “We won’t be able to help all children because insurers have told us they are not willing to write newborns,” Dobbins said. The Federal Health Care Law’s passage in March of 2010 forced many companies to pull out of Oklahoma, halting new policies for children between birth and 19 years old. Companies weren’t willing to foot the bill of pre-existing conditions as the federal law required. “It created a market where parents or guardians could wait until their child was ill and purchase insurance on them for their illness,” Dobbins said. Despite the rule being signed by Fallin, insurance companies can still decide not to provide coverage. Oklahoma does not mandate the insurance coverage offered by private companies. Read more: http://www.koco.com/health/29934280/detail.html#ixzz1fs2Zxxcw
I once again fail to see why private insurance companies refusing to cover people are the fault of the new health care law. If they don't wish to cover people, we'll do it through a public program like Medicare and we'll do it cheaper. They are really only driving themselves out of business. I say good riddance.
Perhaps you missed part of what the article said: "Companies weren’t willing to foot the bill of pre-existing conditions as the federal law required". If all companies aren't "willing to foot the bill", do you want to place everyone on Medicare? Don't answer that, I already know the answer (and it makes me nauseous).
So people with pre-existing conditions do not deserve health care in your world? (and that makes me nauseous).
Insurance companies collect premiums assuming that the vast majority of people will not collect on the money they pay into the system. Why should they have to "insure" someone who is virtually guaranteed to make a claim? It's not good business sense. It's too bad that you feel ill over an insurance company thinking more about their bottom line than they do about the person with pre-existing conditions, but if they are not able to stay in business, then other people will lose out as well. If you feel that strongly about it, though, you can go ahead and provide insurance to people all but guaranteed to make a claim on their premiums and see how long you stay solvent. Then again, how does this topic have anything to do with Nancy Pelosi and her shaky grasp on ethics? Moen, you sly boots you . . . did you change the subject again?
I don't have much time right now but here are a few points to consider. I understand how pooled risk works. My wife has a PhD in health policy analysis. I have picked up a few things along the way. You defend the insurance companies right to not insure people well enough but do sick people have any right to health care, and by that I mean access to the health care system, in your world? You might notice that the oldest, sickest, and greatest users of health care are people over 65. Why are these people not figured into the risk pool? Because insurance companies only want to insure healthy people. We as a society cover them through Medicare and we do it for far less than private insurers do. Why not take in some of the healthier people under 65 to help off-set the cost of covering people 65 and older? Why do insurance companies get the gravy but none of the risky people? Screw that!
And this has to do with Pelosi because you got you corrupt facts from her? BTW, my guess is that these figures are about as accurate as your previous post on the subject; And you would not believe my actual bills; My wife's 2 surgeries and 3 weeks in the hospital ran about $60,000. My major surgery (lung removal), pneumonia, 3 weeks in the hospital (nearly 2 weeks in ICU) ran a total of $69,000. And then to top it off, my wife spent another 3 days in a Dallas hospital including 1 day in ICU and her total bill including the emergency room was about $6000.
Not being a huge fan of Pelosi I will say this. She's playing policitcs. That's what politicians do. Is she playing dirty politics? I suppose so but will add that anyone here that doesn't think that politics in general is dirty is a friggin' moron. No, I didn't stutter. To me Newt is slippery and Nancy cagey. A good match actually. Her "caginess" was using public record as a weapon. Newt can do the same thing of course but how would it benefit him? What can he dig up and how would it improve his chances? Pelosi put a worm on the hook when she mentioned it and Newt took the bait. He could have just ignored it after all and probably should have. Has anyone considered the timing here? Isn't there an Iowa caucus coming soon? So how does this speak of the Democrats view of the Republican candidates? It would seem to me they would rather knock off Newt and face a Romney. Politics. Who knows but I've noticed a Cain and Perry that have fallen while Romney held steady. Then Newt came out of nowhere seemingly. Finally for the drivelwhiners. The left attacked the right. It wasn't an attack on Cain or Bachmann. Waste of time. Pelosi attacked Gingrich. Politics.
Something to thing about Pelosi name has six letters. Say her name while looking into a mirror that is upside down three times and you have three sixes phonically reflecting on your head. Notice how the devil worshipping media when doing a report on her says her name three times in a story. They are trying to impose the mark of Saten upon all of us. Turning off the sound does not work for then you lip read and the mark is inside of your head. Drilling holes into ones skull does not work. This has been proven medically during the middle ages. I am telling you this because I care.
