Comments on: Healthcare comedy from the White House

By: Donald Lew

Donald Lew — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:57:17 +0000

Obama Talks Of Need For Compromise With GOP…!

By: Capn Eddie Ricketyback

Capn Eddie Ricketyback — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:40:10 +0000

I’m a little late to this party, but I’ve flagged myself with the following message:

Here’s my contribution to your database, namely, ME. This proposed “reform” program is the biggest attempt of a government takeover of this large segment of the economy in my lifetime of some 75 years. You are trying to fix a 15% problem with a huge disruption in the lives of the 85% of us who have worked all our lives and have provided for our own health care while simultaneously paying into the Medicare fund, and now that sorry program is about to be gutted so that you can give coverage to thoughtless and / or indolent younger people who didn’t have the foresight to provide for their own. It would probably be cheaper just to buy insurance for that 15%, half of whom I suspect are illegals who have no right to be here in the first place.

I spent 12 years of my youth in military service during two wars and various national emergencies such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it’s a good thing I had no idea of how far this country, or at least 52.6% of it, would deteriorate in my lifetime. Unless there is a big change, it looks like I will end my days in utter contempt of what this country has become.

By: Subotai Bahadur

Subotai Bahadur — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:44:05 +0000

Two points. Buraq Hussein’s Stukachi [Soviet slang for "stool-pigeon"] plan is a direct violation of the 1974 Privacy Act. This was passed, ironically, by a Democrat Congress to limit the power of the Executive branch. Amongst its provisions, it barred anyone associated with the Executive Office of the President for collecting any information on political activities of Americans that were protected by the First Amendment. There are both criminal and civil penalties for the government and government workers for each violation, and it specifically waived sovereign immunity from legal action. I am given to understand, albeit I have not yet done my usual double-check to confirm, that the administration response to that was to claim that the White House is not part of the Executive Office of the President.

Second, since Mr. Simon wrote this piece there has been a change in the situation. We have had two incidents, involving either two or three separate assaults by SEIU union members sent by the administration to intimidate those who attend meetings with Congressmen and who are opposed to ObamaMengeleCare. One involved an attack on an elderly late stage cancer patient, and a man who came to his aid was also attacked. The other involved an attack on a protestor, who happened to be black, who was handing out Gadsden Flags as a “Town Hall” ended. The SEIU member who attacked him [also black] employed racial epithets as he attacked him. Charges have been filed in both cases, but as with the New Black Panther Party intimidating voters and having the DOJ dismiss charges after they had pled guilty; there is no confidence that the law will be followed.

The mood is changing rapidly. The violence may not remain at a low level, one sided, or limited to meetings with Congressmen. If this is forced through over the objections of the country, the consequences may be something that takes us outside our political system. Fire is being played with by this administration. Unfortunately, it is being played with in a napalm factory.

Subotai Bahadur

By: jsallison

jsallison — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:25:39 +0000

I promptly emailed with ‘I am Spartacus’

By: Win

Win — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:26:11 +0000

After reading further into the resolution, and despite the apparent unambiguity noted above, I see that there are provisions for individuals to participate via a Health Insurance Exchange. I also understand why no one in the congress plans to read H.R. 3200.

By: Win

Win — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:50:26 +0000

Winner:
Please read Sec. 102 paragraph 1 and explain how the language allows for private payors’ enrollment of any new individuals after the day the bill becomes law. The only exception I see provided (in what seems like unambiguous language) allows adding dependents to an individual policy that was in force prior to the first day of Y1.

Am I missing something? Am I a liar? Anyone?

PDF Link: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

By: Neo

Neo — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:09:38 +0000

It’s so good to see how President Obama has brought us all together … a national “Kumbaya” moment.

Everybody sing …

By: Trunk Junk

Trunk Junk — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:13:24 +0000

I accidentally sent this post to flag@whitehouse.gov 10,000 times. Must have pushed the wrong button or something.

By: Swamp Rabbit

Swamp Rabbit — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:57:25 +0000

I keep sending e-mails containing the the Osama Joker poster pasted in the body.

OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′
(the Terrorist-Uighur-Media choice)
-It’s never too early to campaign-

By: winner

winner — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:52:00 +0000

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE

The lie that is being spread is that people can keep their existing plan, but they can only switch to a government plan.

What is says is that if they switch, or are newly enrolled after legislation takes effect, they have to be put on a plan that meets
the new standards for accessibility, affordability and coverage. But, there’s nothing to prevent a private company from offering
a plan that meets these new standards.