N****rs and F****ts

[Choada_Boy]

Yes. More threats of violence. Of course, you could always slash your wrists.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Choada_Boy

[Choada_Boy]

From the floor of the House from the mouth of a Republican:

 

"BABY KILLER!"

 

Must watch TV.

[StevenSeagal]

 

Nope. Talking about the Tenth, and probably parts of the Fourteenth. I think it's sad that so-called liberals are so gleefully choosing to impose their will upon heretofore free citizens for what is really only a perceived amendment to the social pact. This won't stand.

 

If in time it does what it is proposed to do (not as proposed according to Rush), I predict it WILL stand, and will one day be looked back upon in a similar manner as Medicare, Social Security, and civil rights, all issues that the opposition were violently opposed to, the reasons for which have all been debunked by history.

 

Gleeful? Should people who fought for this be glum, angry? Conservatives weren't the least bit smug during Bush's era, as I recall.

 

 

I love this "Imposing their will"...how dare the majority party pass legislation in Congress that reflects a campaign pledge. The fact that the opposition is hysterically angry and violent (let's not mention misinformed by the hyperbole of Fox "News) doesn't change the fact that they're the minority.

 

I can't say I'm "gleeful", though, to be fair. I think there's a lot of good things in the bill but also flaws; I don't really know if it will work as planned but I'm happy to see movement in the government on issues that need it: and the Republican strategy of doing nothing in order to facilitate their return to power, at which point the status quo of corporatocracy they cherish can be secured for yet another generation- is no option.

 

I'm rolling with this. Let's see where it goes.

 

 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

--Thomas Jefferson

 

You guys are such martyrs, so dramatic. Again, your anger over this issue changes not the fact that you're apparently outnumbered. When that's the case, democracy kinda sucks. Now you know how the other half felt from 2000-2008. Except we weren't plotting revolution. So who's blood do you have in mind? You polishing your guns? Good luck getting past the troops (who, despite your "support", won't hesitate to shoot civilians if so ordered). Is Glenn Beck the head of this terrorist insurgency? All of that executive power Bush/Cheney instilled and surveillance on American citizenry must not seem like such a great idea now, in retrospect...

 

 

I've read that quote before. I do wonder if Jefferson's house slaves heard him say that.

 

 

[Stonehead]

[video:youtube]

[prole]

This won't stand.

 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

--Thomas Jefferson

 

TALK MINUS ACTION EQUALS ZERO! WE'RE ROOTING FOR YOU, BUDDY!! GIT 'ER DONE! MAKE US PROUD!!!

[Fairweather]

TALK MINUS ACTION EQUALS ZERO! WE'RE ROOTING FOR YOU, BUDDY!! GIT 'ER DONE! MAKE US PROUD!!!

 

Prole!! I thought you had already left for Greece with the New Lincoln Brigade to s'port the peeps! Where's your spine, man?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

This won't stand.

 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

--Thomas Jefferson

 

TALK MINUS ACTION EQUALS ZERO! WE'RE ROOTING FOR YOU, BUDDY!! GIT 'ER DONE! MAKE US PROUD!!!

 

STFU, Prole. You were just rooting for violence in Greece and spanking off at how bourgeois capitalist pig shopkeepers got their shops all busted up by the proletariat.

[prole]

Hey, when you decide to shoot up that Wendy's or the Tacoma Mall or whatever in the name of freedom, could you be sure to let your old pals here in Spray know when and where beforehand so we don't get caught up in any crossfire and whatnot? Thanks in advance.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hey, when you decide to shoot up that Wendy's or the Tacoma Mall or whatever in the name of freedom, could you be sure to let your old pals here in Spray know when and where beforehand so we don't get caught up in any crossfire and whatnot? Thanks in advance.

 

More spank material for Prole! Workers of the world unite!

[prole]

You were just rooting for violence in Greece and spanking off...

 

More spank material for Prole!...

 

Two posts, two references to "spanking". Interesting...

Edited March 22, 2010 by prole

[Fairweather]

Hey, when you decide to shoot up that Wendy's or the Tacoma Mall or whatever in the name of freedom, could you be sure to let your old pals here in Spray know when and where beforehand so we don't get caught up in any crossfire and whatnot? Thanks in advance.

 

I think it's funny/sad that you tools are too dull to see the irony in the quote I posted. Anyhow, what do you think of Obama's upcoming executive order?

[Fairweather]

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

 

Section 1. Policy.

 

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors--Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers--are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

 

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

 

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

 

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

 

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

 

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.

 

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

 

Section 4. General Provisions.

 

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

 

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

 

© This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

[prole]

I think it's funny that you tools are too dull to see the irony in the quote I posted.

 

I'll try to remember your sophisticated, nuanced wit when some waterhead Teabagger uses the quote to justify another suicide attack on innocents.

[prole]

Anyhow, what do you think of Obama's upcoming executive order?

 

I think Lord Emperor Ming's master plan is finally complete. Mmmuuuhhahhahahha!

 

[Choada_Boy]

Here come the Hawkmen to kill all the blacks and homos that voted a Nigerian into the White House and save us from mandatory retroactive abortions, with Fairweather leading the charge! If only he could spit on Barney Frank from that altitude.

 

[Fairweather]

Funny...coming from the same psycho who recently PM'd me his home address so he could meet and kill me!

 

 

[Choada_Boy]

Wet that tree.

[Fairweather]

But first: the fertilizer...

[StevenSeagal]

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

 

Section 1. Policy.

 

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors--Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers--are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

 

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

 

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

 

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

 

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

 

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.

 

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

 

Section 4. General Provisions.

 

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

 

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

 

© This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

 

Where's the clause describing the operation of the gas chambers and forced labor camps? I must have missed it, because I know it's in there somewhere. Probably hidden amongst all those elitist Ivy league educated words.

[prole]

This is Fairweather's favorite part. It's where freedumb is reaffirmed by striking at a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy if she so desires. The inherent contradiction implied here and elsewhere is the hallmark of modern conservatism. Get it?

[prole]

 

Love the timing of this piece. Heh, who knew?

 

In Reform, Boons for Hospitals and Drug Makers

By REED ABELSON

NYT 3/21/10

 

With a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system, Congress would be giving the health care industry as many as 32 million additional paying customers in the next few years.

 

That would mean millions more Americans buying private health insurance and better able to pay for their hospital stays, doctors’ visits, prescription drugs and medical devices.

 

And some analysts said as the vote neared that the final legislation was shaping up as much kinder to the industry than many initially feared. Hospitals and drug makers, which supported the final legislation, would be clear beneficiaries, analysts say, even if the outlook for insurers was less certain.

 

Yet the bill would not create the thing that insurers feared most: a government-run public option, a health plan that would compete with the private insurers.

 

Over all, the legislation would be a positive for much of the industry, said Les Funtleyder, who oversees health care strategy for Miller Tabak & Company, a New York investment firm.

 

There is no question that insurers would face the most strikingly different business environment, with drastic changes in the way insurance is sold to individuals and small businesses, one of the industry’s most profitable areas. There would also be much heavier regulation.

 

“It’s a huge business risk,” said Rick Weissenstein, a health care policy analyst at Concept Capital, which follows developments for investors. “There are going to be some insurers that aren’t going to adapt very well.”

 

But insurers are expected to benefit from the influx of new customers after years of shrinking enrollments. About 16 million of the newly insured are expected to enroll in private plans. The rest would become eligible for Medicaid, the state-administered program for the poor, but some of those would probably sign up for privately run Medicaid plans available in different states.

 

One place where the rules of the insurance game may shift most significantly is in a new kind of state-supervised marketplace, called exchanges, in which insurers would be required to sell their policies for individuals and small businesses. The exchanges are expected to involve much greater regulatory oversight than insurers now typically face and to alter their business models drastically. Currently, insurers seek to protect profits by trying to enroll only the healthiest individuals, while also charging enough to recoup the expense of covering sick people. But the legislation requires insurers to cover even people with potentially costly pre-existing conditions.

 

The new law would also place strict limits on how much more an insurer could vary premiums among the people taking out the same policy, largely to factor in age differences.

 

As a result, the insurers, whose main trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, vehemently opposed the legislation, have been quite vocal about their concern that young and healthy people will not enroll because the new requirements will make their premiums higher to help subsidize the older and sicker.

 

To help spread the costs and risks of insurance, the legislation would eventually require most Americans to have insurance or pay a federal penalty. But insurers have worried that the penalties are too low or will not be enforced.

 

Insurers have also complained that the legislation calls for the government to begin paying them much less in federal payments for the private Medicare Advantage plans that they sell to older people as an alternative to traditional Medicare.

 

The insurers are also subject to a range of new fees, although the timing has been delayed.

 

Indeed, for anyone assessing the impact, it is important to remember that few of the legislation’s main provisions would take place immediately, noted Jason Gurda, an analyst with Leerink Swann. “Most of the health care provisions that would impact the health insurers do not kick in until 2014,” he said. “From an investment horizon, that’s a long time.”

 

Hospitals have little to fear. The number of newly insured is expected to decrease significantly the amount that hospitals now lose each year when they provide care to people with no means to pay.

 

But the expanded enrollments in the low-income Medicaid program could be a mixed blessing, analysts say, because Medicaid typically pays hospitals less than the actual cost of care. So the question becomes whether hospitals were already treating many of these patients without any reimbursement at all, or whether they will now see an influx of new money-losing Medicaid customers.

 

For their part, the hospitals agreed to help defray the costs of the legislation by agreeing to contribute $155 billion over 10 years, largely by accepting lower payments under the Medicare program for older Americans.

 

Doctors are another group likely to benefit from more paying customers, which is a reason that the American Medical Association last week began publicly supporting the legislation.

 

Yet doctors must still wait for Congress to handle the sharp payment cuts they perennially face under Medicare as a result of the formula the government uses to pay doctors. In recent years, Congress has annually stepped in with a so-called doc fix to stave off those cuts.

 

“The fact that there’s not a physician fix leaves in limbo physicians,” said Paul Keckley, the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a research unit of the consulting firm.

 

Drug makers, meanwhile, may have the most clear reason to celebrate the legislation. Pharmaceutical companies are going to be asked to contribute $85 billion toward the cost of the bill in the form of industry fees and lower prices paid under government programs over 10 years. But they can look forward to tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue as more people with insurance visit doctors and fill prescriptions.

 

The legislation will also eventually close the gap in Medicare drug coverage, known as the doughnut hole, in which elderly patients must pay for prescription drugs rather than having them covered by the government. Many chose to stop taking their medicine or switched to lower-price generics.

 

And significantly, the legislation allowed the drug industry to “avoid any of the issues that were particularly of concern — price control or more regulation by the federal government,” said Barbara Ryan, an analyst with Deutsche Bank.

 

As a result, the pharmaceutical industry has been a significant proponent of the legislation, in sharp contrast to its behavior when the Clinton administration tried to pass a similar overhaul. The industry spent an estimated $100 million in TV advertising, grass-roots organizing and other marketing efforts to promote reform.

 

The generic side of the drug industry had somewhat less to celebrate. Legislators left intact a bill provision giving name-brand drug makers 12 years of marketing exclusivity on expensive medications called biologic drugs, which are made out of living cells. Many of those drugs, including cancer treatments, cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a year.

 

“Real reform could have expanded access to affordable medicine to patients in need,” Kathleen Jaeger, the president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, said in a statement.

 

But generic makers could have benefited from a provision that Congress did not include in the final bill: a proposal that would have placed new restrictions on patent settlement agreements. Under such deals, some name-brand drug companies have paid or otherwise compensated generic makers to delay introducing new generics.

 

Critics, including the Federal Trade Commission, argue that such deals are anticompetitive. Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said last week that consumers would suffer if Congress allowed such deals to continue.

 

“The big winners are some of the branded pharmaceutical companies who have engaged in these deals and some of the generics who have done the same,” he said. “The big loser is the American consumer, who is going to have to pay an extra $3.5 billion a year in much-needed drugs.”

 

 

[AlpineK]

There are still plenty of teabagging events for pets to attend.

 

[img:center]http://westernexperience.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/tea-bag-1.jpg[/img]

[billcoe]

Teaparty CC.Com style:

 

 

Looks like he is about to rap off the end of the rope there. Then you'll see some teabagging....

_________________________________________

 

 

[Choada_Boy]

None of the Republicunt cowards has come forward as of yet to take credit for shouting "Baby Killer" at Stupak last night on the floor of the House. What a surprise.

[Doug]

about the same as the anonymous shit that goes on here.