Democrats refuse bill that would require them to enroll in public health option

[politicaladdict]

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill (H. Res. 615) that would require democrat congressmen to enroll in the public-option system when it turned into a single-payer one.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756

Why did these donkey-leftists struck down this bill?

WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPOCRYTES!

And alot of libs are saying they have hopes a public option would transform into a single-payer one including Barney Frank.

[Mechaman]

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill (H. Res. 615) that would require democrat congressmen to enroll in the public-option system they would introduce to the public, and they struck it down.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756

Why did these donkey-leftists struck down this bill?

WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPOCRYTES!

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

[Sewer]

politicaladdict has a point.

:/

[Meeker]

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill (H. Res. 615) that would require democrat congressmen to enroll in the public-option system they would introduce to the public, and they struck it down.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756

Why did these donkey-leftists struck down this bill?

WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPOCRYTES!

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

No he doesn't. This legislation isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. It's about providing options. If you want to choose the public plan because you can't afford a private plan or you don't like your private plan or you don't like paying a for-profit company for health insurance or whatever other reason you may have, you have the option of enrolling in the public plan. Why should members of congress be deprived of that option?

Fleming also didn't introduce a bill, he introduced a non-binding resolution, meaning he had no intention of actually trying to make this a law but rather just wanted to make a stunt.

And it's spelled "hypocrite".

[politicaladdict]

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill (H. Res. 615) that would require democrat congressmen to enroll in the public-option system they would introduce to the public, and they struck it down.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756

Why did these donkey-leftists struck down this bill?

WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPOCRYTES!

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

No he doesn't. This legislation isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. It's about providing options. If you want to choose the public plan because you can't afford a private plan or you don't like your private plan or you don't like paying a for-profit company for health insurance or whatever other reason you may have, you have the option of enrolling in the public plan. Why should members of congress be deprived of that option?

Fleming also didn't introduce a bill, he introduced a non-binding resolution, meaning he had no intention of actually trying to make this a law but rather just wanted to make a stunt.

And it's spelled "hypocrite".

Well, they have something in the bill that would make insurance companies illegal in about five years, so no choice there.

STUNT?... PLEASE!

[Meeker]

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill (H. Res. 615) that would require democrat congressmen to enroll in the public-option system they would introduce to the public, and they struck it down.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756

Why did these donkey-leftists struck down this bill?

WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPOCRYTES!

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

No he doesn't. This legislation isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. It's about providing options. If you want to choose the public plan because you can't afford a private plan or you don't like your private plan or you don't like paying a for-profit company for health insurance or whatever other reason you may have, you have the option of enrolling in the public plan. Why should members of congress be deprived of that option?

Fleming also didn't introduce a bill, he introduced a non-binding resolution, meaning he had no intention of actually trying to make this a law but rather just wanted to make a stunt.

And it's spelled "hypocrite".

Well, they have something in the bill that would make insurance companies illegal in about five years, so no choice there.

STUNT?... PLEASE!

No, they don't. Read the bill you idiot.

Fleming's proposal is a stunt. Learn to understand pronouns.

[Lief 🗽]

An amendment like this actually passed in the HELP committee in the Senate; one of the dumbass Republicans introduced it because he thought it would win him some political points, and Kennedy and the rest of the Democrats voted in favor of it.

[Mechaman]

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill (H. Res. 615) that would require democrat congressmen to enroll in the public-option system they would introduce to the public, and they struck it down.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756

Why did these donkey-leftists struck down this bill?

WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPOCRYTES!

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

No he doesn't. This legislation isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. It's about providing options. If you want to choose the public plan because you can't afford a private plan or you don't like your private plan or you don't like paying a for-profit company for health insurance or whatever other reason you may have, you have the option of enrolling in the public plan. Why should members of congress be deprived of that option?

Fleming also didn't introduce a bill, he introduced a non-binding resolution, meaning he had no intention of actually trying to make this a law but rather just wanted to make a stunt.

And it's spelled "hypocrite".

I see, so this bill would've forced congressmen to go with the public choice. That makes little more sense now.

[Person Man]

Yes....nice try, though.

[Meeker]

Let me try to word it a little more correctly for your little libby-brains.

When I say "require into the government-option" is that when it does become a single-payer system.

And even if you get the impression that this Fleming bill would force congressmen into a public-choice regardless, wouldn't matter anyways, RIGHT... because it still great, RIGHT?

The bill, or whatever you libs wanna call it, by Fleming, would not make it into law until after the system turns into a single-payer one.

There WAS a proposal in the bill that eventually made insurance companies illegal and even Barney Frank admitted he wants a public-option because he has FAITH it'll turn into a SINGLE-PAYERone. Look at the youtube link for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.newsmax.com%2FManage%2FVideos%2FVideoGallery%2FBarney-Frank--Public-Option-Would-Lead-to-Single-P&feature=player_embedded#t=26

And plus Obama said he wanted a single-Payer system before.

It doesn't hurt to have an amendment ready... just there health plan.

No.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

You haven't read the bill.

You're an idiot.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

Why don't Republicans enroll in the same health care plans that the public has already been forced to suffer?

[politicaladdict]

Let me try to word it a little more correctly for your little libby-brains.

When I say "require into the government-option" is that when it does become a single-payer system.

And even if you get the impression that this Fleming bill would force congressmen into a public-choice regardless, wouldn't matter anyways, RIGHT... because it still great, RIGHT?

The bill, or whatever you libs wanna call it, by Fleming, would not make it into law until after the system turns into a single-payer one.

There WAS a proposal in the bill that eventually made insurance companies illegal and even Barney Frank admitted he wants a public-option because he has FAITH it'll turn into a SINGLE-PAYERone. Look at the youtube link for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.newsmax.com%2FManage%2FVideos%2FVideoGallery%2FBarney-Frank--Public-Option-Would-Lead-to-Single-P&feature=player_embedded#t=26

And plus Obama said he wanted a single-Payer system before.

It doesn't hurt to have an amendment ready... just there health plan.

No.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

You haven't read the bill.

You're an idiot.

Your president hasn't read the bill... YOU IDIOT!

[politicaladdict]

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

Why don't Republicans enroll in the same health care plans that the public has already been forced to suffer?

OH, GEE... I don't want to be in Medicare for the poor.

[Meeker]

Let me try to word it a little more correctly for your little libby-brains.

When I say "require into the government-option" is that when it does become a single-payer system.

And even if you get the impression that this Fleming bill would force congressmen into a public-choice regardless, wouldn't matter anyways, RIGHT... because it still great, RIGHT?

The bill, or whatever you libs wanna call it, by Fleming, would not make it into law until after the system turns into a single-payer one.

There WAS a proposal in the bill that eventually made insurance companies illegal and even Barney Frank admitted he wants a public-option because he has FAITH it'll turn into a SINGLE-PAYERone. Look at the youtube link for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.newsmax.com%2FManage%2FVideos%2FVideoGallery%2FBarney-Frank--Public-Option-Would-Lead-to-Single-P&feature=player_embedded#t=26

And plus Obama said he wanted a single-Payer system before.

It doesn't hurt to have an amendment ready... just there health plan.

No.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

You haven't read the bill.

You're an idiot.

Your president hasn't read the bill... YOU IDIOT!

That's the best you can do? Really?

And he's your president too, bub.

[politicaladdict]

Let me try to word it a little more correctly for your little libby-brains.

When I say "require into the government-option" is that when it does become a single-payer system.

And even if you get the impression that this Fleming bill would force congressmen into a public-choice regardless, wouldn't matter anyways, RIGHT... because it still great, RIGHT?

The bill, or whatever you libs wanna call it, by Fleming, would not make it into law until after the system turns into a single-payer one.

There WAS a proposal in the bill that eventually made insurance companies illegal and even Barney Frank admitted he wants a public-option because he has FAITH it'll turn into a SINGLE-PAYERone. Look at the youtube link for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.newsmax.com%2FManage%2FVideos%2FVideoGallery%2FBarney-Frank--Public-Option-Would-Lead-to-Single-P&feature=player_embedded#t=26

And plus Obama said he wanted a single-Payer system before.

It doesn't hurt to have an amendment ready... just there health plan.

No.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

You haven't read the bill.

You're an idiot.

Your president hasn't read the bill... YOU IDIOT!

That's the best you can do? Really?

And he's your president too, bub.

Unfortunately, he is my president. But your more his slave because I assume you voted for him, and I assume you like your master, right?

But, atleast my party reads the bills.

[Edu]

LOL. Another classic thread from politicaladdict

[politicaladdict]

LOL. Another classic thread from politicaladdict

HHHMMM... is that all you can say?

[Sewer]

LOL. Another classic thread from politicaladdict

HHHMMM... is that all you can say?

HHHMMM... is that all you can say?

[Ban my account ffs!]

My sister's fiance's dad was bitching about the health care bill today (he's a partisan hack Republican)... and his new wife from Arizona was bitching about it as well.

I come to find out that while she is a hardcore conservative Evangelical bible thumping Republican, she is on disability and gets state funded medical insurance because of a "back injury".

So I bit.  I asked why she didn't get a job and go out and pay for her own insurance.. she said she couldn't because she hurt her back.  So I asked her husband why he couldn't go out and get a job to pay for his wife's insurance (he's 'retired' at 62).. all he could come up with was "well.. um... well that's different"

It seems that those two are all for personal responsibility and sticking it to the poor man until it actually comes down to being personally responsible for themselves.

[Meeker]

Let me try to word it a little more correctly for your little libby-brains.

When I say "require into the government-option" is that when it does become a single-payer system.

And even if you get the impression that this Fleming bill would force congressmen into a public-choice regardless, wouldn't matter anyways, RIGHT... because it still great, RIGHT?

The bill, or whatever you libs wanna call it, by Fleming, would not make it into law until after the system turns into a single-payer one.

There WAS a proposal in the bill that eventually made insurance companies illegal and even Barney Frank admitted he wants a public-option because he has FAITH it'll turn into a SINGLE-PAYERone. Look at the youtube link for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.newsmax.com%2FManage%2FVideos%2FVideoGallery%2FBarney-Frank--Public-Option-Would-Lead-to-Single-P&feature=player_embedded#t=26

And plus Obama said he wanted a single-Payer system before.

It doesn't hurt to have an amendment ready... just there health plan.

No.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

You haven't read the bill.

You're an idiot.

Your president hasn't read the bill... YOU IDIOT!

That's the best you can do? Really?

And he's your president too, bub.

Unfortunately, he is my president. But your more his slave because I assume you voted for him, and I assume you like your master, right?

But, atleast my party reads the bills.

Here's a puppy:



You have a good day

[politicaladdict]

My sister's fiance's dad was bitching about the health care bill today (he's a partisan hack Republican)... and his new wife from Arizona was bitching about it as well.

I come to find out that while she is a hardcore conservative Evangelical bible thumping Republican, she is on disability and gets state funded medical insurance because of a "back injury".

So I bit.  I asked why she didn't get a job and go out and pay for her own insurance.. she said she couldn't because she hurt her back.  So I asked her husband why he couldn't go out and get a job to pay for his wife's insurance (he's 'retired' at 62).. all he could come up with was "well.. um... well that's different"

It seems that those two are all for personal responsibility and sticking it to the poor man until it actually comes down to being personally responsible for themselves.

So, she's on disability, I assume she's on government Medicaid(government health care for poor and disabled)  that no one  ever really mentions.

AND ofcourse Medicaid is going bankrupt.

[Mechaman]

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

Why don't Republicans enroll in the same health care plans that the public has already been forced to suffer?

Well played.

I made this comment before I understood the full ramifications of the idea. I was under the impression it would be alot like the "public choice" plan, ie congressmen would be able to decide whether or not they could have private or public health plans. I wasn't aware that it would've forced congressmen to go with the public option. Or am I a retard right now?

Here's a puppy:

No! Damn you politicaladdict! That puppy is mine!

[politicaladdict]

I hate to say it, but politicaladdict has a point. Why won't progressive Democrats enroll in the same health care plans they want to introduce to the public?

Why don't Republicans enroll in the same health care plans that the public has already been forced to suffer?

Well played.

I made this comment before I understood the full ramifications of the idea. I was under the impression it would be alot like the "public choice" plan, ie congressmen would be able to decide whether or not they could have private or public health plans. I wasn't aware that it would've forced congressmen to go with the public option. Or am I a retard right now?

Here's a puppy:

No! Damn you politicaladdict! That puppy is mine!

You can have that puppy!

Because I don't know where it's been, especially when a lib gives it to me.