VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:32:45 07/14/09 Tue
Author: Shirley
Subject: Re: The Rebublican plan to destroy Medicare
In reply to: Jeffman 's message, "Re: The Rebublican plan to destroy Medicare" on 06:33:52 07/14/09 Tue

>“Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted
>and given appropriate time for debate, something the
>budget reconciliation process does not allow,” they
>wrote.

But you see, Jeff, the Republicans were equally guilty in that regard when they passed the Prescription Drug Plan in the middle of the night. Senators were given an 800+ bill the night before and forced to vote on a plan there was no time to read, much less debate.

Prior to passage of that bill, drgu prices could be negotiated with the pharmas and could legally go to Canada to obtain the exact same meds at a much lower price. Those were cut off at the pass with the passage of the bill.

I'm of the opinion that no legislation should be passed until congress has had the opportunity to read it. Further, there's no valid reason for bills to be 800 pages long. Who can possibly read them in a short time span? The devil is always hidden in the details.

I see further ramifications in that campaign finance laws must be tightened so that elected congress people are so side-tracked by raising re-election funds at the expense of time away from the job they were elected to perform.

If I'm not mistaken, it was the majority Republicans who put in place the 60-vote supra manority requirement and they were warned at the time by members of their own party that that rule would come back to bite them in the butt. Has this rule served us well? I have mixed feelings.

As for Harry Reid's statement, I don't always agree with his public statements but in this particular situation, I suspect it was borne of frustration. Grassley has argued in favor of protecting insurance companies and allowing them to continue their existing practices. Unless there is competition, nothing is going to change.

Keep in mind, that Obama's plan calls for people to keep their insurance if they're satisfied with it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.