No faith, no pulse, no ideas, no understanding, no calculators, not history.
Just the Bigoted, racist, homophobic party that are the democrats.
Your scumbag professors know more about running contries- straight into the ground
Scumbags ALL OF YOU AMERICANS that voted for these a-holes.
Every single mooching one of you democrats. You are the lifeless pill for the world.
Why be a democrat? Hate the world? Hate Justice? Hate fags? Hate blacks? = be a democrat. You can prosecute everyone.
But why not be a moslem instead of a democrat?
Because a rats ass is better than being one?
If the democrat party does not stop this now, I brand all democrats assholes for life for destroying Gods finest country, and I will point at you and laugh until you die for being the stupidist generation in history.
I think you are the dumbest voters on the planet, and nothing I tell you will be true until it IS.
Background: On March 18, 2010, just days before the House votes on the Democrats' government takeover of health care, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) announced he would introduce legislation to preemptively state that TRICARE and the Department of Defense non-appropriated fund (NAF) health plans meet all of the health care requirements currently under consideration by Congress for individual health insurance.
TRICARE and the NAF health plans programs provide health coverage to members of the military and their families, military retirees and their families, and employees of U.S. military post/base exchanges. Chairman Skelton even stated he would also insert this legislative language into the national defense authorization bill, reiterating the threat the health care bill currently poses to military health plans. This is an explicit admission that the final Democrat health care bill does not protect these plans.
Military Protections Scrapped: The Senate-passed health care bill, which the House is expected to deem' passed on March 21, 2010, omitted protections for military health plans that were included in the House bill. Specifically, the Senate language does not appear to give the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) health care system specific protection from interference by other government agencies administering the various authorities contained in the massive bill, as it pertains to minimum essential coverage.'
The minimum essential coverage language in the Senate bill does cover the veterans health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code,' but it is unclear whether that covers veterans' survivors and dependents.
The final bill would leave it up to a bureaucrat at the Department of the Treasury to determine whether TRICARE meets the minimum standards under the Democrats' individual health insurance mandate. If that bureaucrat decides against TRICARE, service members and their families would have to buy some other health coverage or pay a penalty.
In an effort to bolster support for the House health care takeover back in August 2009, the White House advertised that bill's exemption for 9.2 million military personnel, families, and retirees covered under TRICARE and the military health plan. In August, the White House website stated that:
Health reform legislation that is being considered would enable those who are covered by TRICARE to meet the shared responsibility requirement for individuals to have insurance, thereby exempting such members of the uniformed services and dependants from being assessed penalties. If enacted, the President will ensure that this exemption is implemented aggressively.
Of course, the final health care bill does not include this promised exemption for military plans.
#1
The old battle cry "Take the hill!" is now "Take the Hill!"
Posted by: War on Terror ||
03/20/2010 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...Don't expect DOD or DVA to utter so much as a whisper against this - DOD in particular has been quietly looking for a way out of dependent and retired medical care for 15 years now, and they're not going to argue with this.
#3
TRICARE was good enough for the soldier and veteran but falls short of the coverage enlightened objectives of OBAMACARE? I believe I am beginning to get the picture. I have a feeling TRICARE will soon be history.
#5
Not me. You guys really need to chill. I come here to rant as much as anyone else, and I've despised the Barry phenom since I first became acquainted with it in '04, but really, we'll get through this. 1968 was worse. 1979 was a LOT worse.
#6
I disagree, lex. 1968 was worse from a public posturing position, but it was all 'fake' - driven by selfish/cowardly spoiled kids. The civil rights progress was real and worthwhile, though later abused and corrupted.
1979 was energy supply driven. This is too, though we haven't yet seen the full impact. When we do, assuming China doesn't collapse, the impact will be greater. And we have nowhere near the underlying economic strength to recover that we had then.
The bank/finance damage is worse than anything since 1929, and quite possibly even including then. We face a long, painful recovery.
Initially I thought Obama was a mixed bag - that the positives might mostly offset the negatives - but he has ignored the potential positives (eg. race model) and accentuated the negatives (victicratization), and he seems much less intelligent than his nominal credentials would have suggested (see Prof. Gates discussion re affirmative action elsewhere). He has however shown just how he got where he is - he is a superb political machine operator out of the LBJ mold.
#9
1979 was only partly energy-driven. We also had structural inflation @ IIRC 13%. It was deeply embedded in every part of the economy, and it took three wrenching years of Volckerite root-canal policies to uproot these structural factors from the economy.
You may be right on the bank/finance damage-- it really does seem as if the bankers and their cronies have captured the regulatory apparat, and are just arbitraging the state to the tune of hundreds of billions-- but I'd still say the real economy is much stronger in many crucial ways than it was in 1979.
At that time it was not at all clear that American business would ever be competitive again. over the next two decades American managers retooled, refocused, got MUCH more efficient, got a lot smarter, and attained extraordinary advances in productivity. Our firms are without question better off than they were in 1979. Even Ford and GM will come out of this better off than they were a few brief years ago. Ford's already a better company for it.
Also, related to the above, at our backs we've got the wind provided by a very sharp increase in immigration by brilliant engineers and scientists from around the world since 1979. Most of them into new high tech companies like Intel Cisco Genentech MSFT Oracle Google etc which, if you look closely, are going from strength to strength. They're loaded with cash, unrivalled in their fields, and even (in Google and Genentech's case) on a hiring spree.
Old saying: in good times, be cautious. In bad times, be confident. We've seen worse.
The pendulum will swing back. Barry simply doesn't have the numbers. His coalition's finished. You guys are scared of a mouse.
If American voters only had the following two choices on the Congressional ballot -- keep all current lawmakers in office, or get rid of all incumbents in Congress -- what would they do?
A new Fox News poll asked that question, and the answer could be bad news for incumbents this fall.
Sixty-eight percent of voters would oust all incumbents, while 20 percent would keep all lawmakers in office.
Even 52 percent of Democrats, whose party controls both houses of Congress, would get rid of all incumbents. Thirty-two percent would keep them.
Most Republicans (79 percent) and independents (78 percent) would vote to get rid of all incumbents.
This throw them out' sentiment reflects what the poll also found about voters' perception of Congress: just 18 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76 percent disapprove.
Moreover, 17 percent think Congress cares what the American people want, compared to the large 79 percent majority who think Congress does whatever it wants to do.
In response to the traditional generic ballot question, if the election were held today, 42 percent of American voters say they would back the Republican candidate in their district and 38 percent the Democratic candidate.
A higher number of Republicans (89 percent) would back their party's candidate than Democrats would support theirs (81 percent). By 33 percent to 25 percent, more independents say they would back the Republican candidate, with the remaining 42 percent saying they would vote for another candidate or are unsure.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from March 16 to March 17. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The Obama Factor
Voters who approve of President Obama's job performance favor the Democratic House candidate by 69 percent to 13 percent, while those who disapprove back the Republican by 72 percent to 11 percent.
Among those favoring the health care reform bill, 75 percent would back the Democratic candidate. Those opposed to the reforms largely favor the Republican in their district (66 percent).
In addition, by a slim 2 percentage point margin, more voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes President Obama on key issues (31 percent) than for one who supports Obama (29 percent). The largest number -- 39 percent -- says Obama will not be a major factor in their vote for Congress this year.
#1
And of the smaller percentage that are happy with their self-serving rep who voted for HC Takeover, I'm sure most of them are happy because they benefit from this. I wonder what percentage of them will actually be voting, as compared to the folks who lose because of this. It's not going to be as pretty as many Dems think.
#2
...of that smaller percentage, how many will being paying any income tax this spring? If you have no vesting in the system other than 'more money, more money, more money', why wouldn't you keep the thievesredistributors usual suspects in power?
#3
So, What they're saying here is that Obama has managed to piss off the DEMOCRATIC party as well.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/20/2010 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Not in my district where Republican incumbent Brian Bilbray will face perennial donk challenger Francine Busby who is a moonbat of the first order. She's been recorded asking illegal aliens to help her campaign. She would undoubtedly vote for ObamaCare. Bilbray may not be the greatest but I'm not gonna trade him for Busby.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/20/2010 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Francine is a joke. She and her lesbian activists sure got their backhair up at that Sheriff's deputy, Lolz
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/20/2010 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
[Iran Press TV Latest] US President Barack Obama has characterized the Sunday's congressional vote on his sprawling healthcare reform as historic, saying he would expect a tough vote this weekend. "Right now, we are at the point where we are going to do something historic this weekend," Obama said Friday in a sports arena in northern Virginia as 8,500 supporters were chanting his campaign theme "Yes We Can", AFP reported. The Charge of the Light Brigade was historic, too.
"In just a few days, a century-long struggle will culminate in an historic vote," he said.
After more than a year of intense debate, the US House of Representatives is expected to decide on the sweeping healthcare overhaul on Sunday.
Obama has postponed his trip this week to Indonesia and Australia to concentrate on the healthcare bill.
The bill has faced strong opposition from the Republicans who say it will increase the country's massive budget deficit.
The US Congressional Budget Office, however, said the final version of the healthcare plan would cut the federal deficit by nearly $140 billion over 10 years.
Obama says the bill would enable his administration to provide insurance to some 30 million Americans who currently live without it.
The United States is the only industrialized Western nation which has failed to provide some sort of insurance for all it citizens.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
losing %30 to %40 of our doctors, forcing huge payments at penalty of jail to viperous insurance companies and leaving tort lawyers in the game to drive premiums to the stratosphere - yes it's a historic vote...
#2
Historic passing of a set of laws? Yeah, in the way that the Nürnberg Laws were rammed through by the Nazi Party in the as the beginning of the end.
#3
Bingo OS. Historic indeed, for all the worse reasons.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/20/2010 1:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'd say that the future of the Republic hangs in the balance but actually it might be more accurate to say that the fate of the putrifying corpse of the Republic that's been staggering around since the 1930s hangs in the balance.
#8
"The United States is the only industrialized Western nation which has failed to provide some sort of insurance for all it citizens."
Notice how the lying liar always stops there. He never goes on to point out that the UK has now formed their own tea party movement or that Germany is in the red and will have to either raise taxes or cut services (or both). Or how about France, who let 15,000 of their elderly die in 2003? Or Canada whose own SC had to rule that it's unconstitutional for people to DIE waiting for health care?
#9
"The United States is the only industrialized Western nation which has failed to provide some sort of insurance for all it citizens."
...And yet citizens and illegals alike are not denied treatment at emergency rooms at levels of care that many of the other industrialized Western nations can only wish for.
#10
"The United States is the only industrialized Western nation which has failed to provide some sort of insurance for all it citizens."
Gee, I must have missed the section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal gummint to "provide" insurance of any kind.
And the section that says the gummint can do it by stealing money from working people and businesses (but I repeat myself) at gunpoint and forking it over to others who don't/won't work.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/20/2010 23:18 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
