Commentary points out its the Democrats

[baldeagle]

Sorry, but you just seem to want to make personal attacks and generalize about the other party which you disdain. The moderator has already said to clean it up. My Perry comments are based on all that I've heard from the media today. There might be other factors, but they haven't been reported. Sorry you don't like the health care system. We are going to use it, like it or not, so if you don't have positive suggestions on how to fix the holes, and surely there are many, then quit complaining---its a "part of the problem or part of the solution" thing, and you don't appear to be attempting to make it better. I have a son who prior to affordable care was unable to buy insurance from anyone at any price do to preexisting conditions. Now he can, so as bad as it may be for you, it has helped at this end. Health care needed to be fixed for years, so what happened is pretty typical. The government stepped in and using heavy hands, imposed a set of rules that few like immediately, but which might work. It might not. What we know is the old system wasn't working. Maybe for you it was, but not for everyone. Write your congressman with specific corrections or changes that would make your personal situation better. Forget about the stock 'repeal it' letters. You got it. Use it, and try hard to fix it.

The health care system wasn't working because the government screwed it up. It worked just fine before the government inserted themselves into it and totally screwed the whole thing up. And yes, I blame Democrats AND Republicans for that. There's very few of them with a single lick of common sense and even fewer that understand what Constitutional Republic means.

[jmra]

Well, I think Democrats are stupid because they don't think $16 trillion in debt is a problem and running trillion dollar plus annual deficits is no big deal. That seems pretty stupid to me. If it doesn't to you, you probably vote for Democrats.

I believe Dick Cheney said in 2002 that deficits don't matter. Most Republicans don't really seem to think spending more money than the country takes in is a problem either, regardless of what they campaign on.

I never said Republicans weren't stupid. Democrats are just stupid on steroids.

Arguing with this guy is like arguing with a Donkey...oh wait

[anygunanywhere]

There is nothing more closed minded than an open minded liberal.

Anygunanywhere

[bdickens]

Yes, living in Henderson County, a Democrat is about as rare as a left handed Swede with a limp. But we do exist, and having an interest in chl does imply that I am not ready to give up just yet. Political party affiliation though is a series of tradeoffs. Party platforms never reflect the opinions and values of all citizens, so as an individual I have to go down the ballot like you and pick and choose those who best reflect my values. These days though, it seems as if you aren't a Tea Party type of Republican, then you must be one of those messed up left wing things, because there just couldn't be any moderate Republicans and heaven knows that there aren't any moderate Democrats, only those wacky left wing types, right? There used to be a large number of yellow dog Democrats in the south. Now they are more like yellow dog Republicans. It's hard to argue otherwise after the party nominated Romney. The thing that I find most disturbing about the Texas electoral process is the top box for voting straight party. It takes all the thought out of the process and I suspect results in poorer government, regardless of who wins.

So what your saying is you're a chicken and you voted for Col. Sanders?

And it is Republicans who are stupid?

[Topbuilder]

"And one more thing, not a single one of these killers were members of the National Rifle Association."

So, if he was wrong on 2 out of 4 states not requiring declarations of party affiliation, How could he be trusted to have examined the private and confidential membership rolls of the NRA to determine that none of the people in question had been members? Apparently some of you hold him to a lower standard. Sad.

If ANY of them were NRA members it would be printed in thousands of articles across the country. Every article would open "NRA member..." Obama would have used it in dozens of speaches by now.

[Jaguar]

Please allow me to add my $0.02 on the current state of healthcare. I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2006, treated very well under a plan provided by my employer through Aetna, and finally after eight cycles of Chemotherapy declared in remission. Since then, my oncologist has had me do PET scans twice a year, until I was four years in remission when after my insurance changed he agreed to once a year due to out of pocket cost to me going up (2010 - go figure).

In 2010 my PET scan found a growing anomaly on my right kidney, and after another scan and a biopsy it was found to be renal cell carcinoma. The ONLY way they found this was through the PET scan, so I was absolutely thankful to be receiving these. In early 2011 I had my right kidney removed and declared RCC free and still in remission for NHL.

So, in 2011 I get another PET scan and all is clear. In 2012 the time rolls around again and to my surprise and my oncologist's disgust, the insurance refused to pay for the doctor's ordered PET scan. Seems that once one is in remission for more than five years, they don't think you are using their resources properly if you have a PET. So what is my alternative? I can have a CT scan. However, since I only have one kidney the radiologist will not give me IV contrast (oh yeah, I still have to drink the berrium) so the scan is viewed by my oncologist as basically a feel good measure - nothing more.

My doctor visit was yesterday to review the results of the last CT (done Monday). The results were predictable, they could not localize any lymph node activity. Discussing this with my doctor he basically told me I would probably be dead from the renal cell carcinoma now if not for the imaging quality of the PET scans, and he could only hope with twice yearly CT scans without contrast we get lucky and if something is going on, they will notice it. Yeah, made me feel good. About that time he told me "welcome to Obamacare, and health care rationing." Told him I wasn't happy to be here, can we go back to 2006?

[longtooth]

This is not the 1st someone has told this to me.

[txbirddog]

because my Republican acquaintances see everything in black and white. Pun intended.

Has to be the most racist statement I've seen on this forum.

What am I missing,,,,,,I see every thing in black and white as well,,,,,it is either right; or it is wrong,,,,,,how does that have anything to do with race???

[jmra]

because my Republican acquaintances see everything in black and white. Pun intended.

Has to be the most racist statement I've seen on this forum.

What am I missing,,,,,,I see every thing in black and white as well,,,,,it is either right; or it is wrong,,,,,,how does that have anything to do with race???

The "pun intended" says he meant something completely different.

[The Annoyed Man]

Please allow me to add my $0.02 on the current state of healthcare. I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2006, treated very well under a plan provided by my employer through Aetna, and finally after eight cycles of Chemotherapy declared in remission. Since then, my oncologist has had me do PET scans twice a year, until I was four years in remission when after my insurance changed he agreed to once a year due to out of pocket cost to me going up (2010 - go figure).

In 2010 my PET scan found a growing anomaly on my right kidney, and after another scan and a biopsy it was found to be renal cell carcinoma. The ONLY way they found this was through the PET scan, so I was absolutely thankful to be receiving these. In early 2011 I had my right kidney removed and declared RCC free and still in remission for NHL.

So, in 2011 I get another PET scan and all is clear. In 2012 the time rolls around again and to my surprise and my oncologist's disgust, the insurance refused to pay for the doctor's ordered PET scan. Seems that once one is in remission for more than five years, they don't think you are using their resources properly if you have a PET. So what is my alternative? I can have a CT scan. However, since I only have one kidney the radiologist will not give me IV contrast (oh yeah, I still have to drink the berrium) so the scan is viewed by my oncologist as basically a feel good measure - nothing more.

My doctor visit was yesterday to review the results of the last CT (done Monday). The results were predictable, they could not localize any lymph node activity. Discussing this with my doctor he basically told me I would probably be dead from the renal cell carcinoma now if not for the imaging quality of the PET scans, and he could only hope with twice yearly CT scans without contrast we get lucky and if something is going on, they will notice it. Yeah, made me feel good. About that time he told me "welcome to Obamacare, and health care rationing." Told him I wasn't happy to be here, can we go back to 2006?

Jaguar, your story is exactly another example of the kind of fallout I've previously mentioned. Not "death panel" stuff per se, because it is the insurance company this time doing it, but it is still a consequence of passing Obummercare. My perfectly healthy wife, who has never cost her insurance company a dime other than an annual pap smear, had her health insurance go up 10% within days of passage of the "affordable" healthcare act, and it has gone up significantly again since.

I would go so far as to say that passage of this law was malfeasance bordering on treason.

[sjfcontrol]

I would go so far as to say that passage of this law was malfeasance bordering on treason.

TAM -- I would propose that anytime a congressperson votes for a bill that long, that is incomprehensible, and that he hasn't read -- that THAT would be malfeasance bordering on treason. "Train wreak" is way too weak a description for what this bill is about to impart on us.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

[bigbang]

Well, I think Democrats are stupid because they don't think $16 trillion in debt is a problem and running trillion dollar plus annual deficits is no big deal. That seems pretty stupid to me. If it doesn't to you, you probably vote for Democrats.

I believe Dick Cheney said in 2002 that deficits don't matter. Most Republicans don't really seem to think spending more money than the country takes in is a problem either, regardless of what they campaign on.

I never said Republicans weren't stupid. Democrats are just stupid on steroids.

Arguing with this guy is like arguing with a Donkey...oh wait

A friend of mine calls the Republicans "the Stupid Party" but he calls the Democrats "the Evil Party".

[bdickens]

I would go so far as to say that passage of this law was malfeasance bordering on treason.

TAM -- I would propose that anytime a congressperson votes for a bill that long, that is incomprehensible, and that he hasn't read -- that THAT would be malfeasance bordering on treason. "Train wreak" is way too weak a description for what this bill is about to impart on us.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

We could start out with a Constitutional amendment stating that bills coming before Congress (either house) be no more than two pages.

[sjfcontrol]

I would go so far as to say that passage of this law was malfeasance bordering on treason.

TAM -- I would propose that anytime a congressperson votes for a bill that long, that is incomprehensible, and that he hasn't read -- that THAT would be malfeasance bordering on treason. "Train wreak" is way too weak a description for what this bill is about to impart on us.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

We could start out with a Constitutional amendment stating that bills coming before Congress (either house) be no more than two pages.