Cooper, others dispel health care reform myths

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 11:48pm

Speaking to a women’s health care forum at the downtown Nashville Library Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper and a panel of local health care experts discussed the facts and fictions of health care reform.

“It’s incredible, the misinformation about this bill,” Cooper told the crowd of mostly women. He explained that the bill is “not going to hurt anyone” and will cut $700 billion annually of waste from the health care system.

He talked somewhat at length about the cost impact and cost-curbing measures of the $940 billion reform package. With a graph comparing the country’s health care spending with the cost of the bill (with the line indicating current spending soaring far above the legislation’s cost), he said it’s “not going to break the bank.” In fact, delaying reform, he said, costs about $16 billion per day.

“It really costs more to argue about it than to solve the problem,” he said.

Cooper applauded the bill’s measures to cut $50 billion annually from Medicare, the government’s health insurance plan for Americans age 65 and older. But he noted that more must be done to curb the rate of health care spending growth, which is outpacing inflation. Taking even a 1 percent to 2 percent bite out of that growth rate would solve a substantial portion of the cost problem, he said.

Other panelists included Vanderbilt physician John Sergent, Karl Vendevender, an internist and president of The Frist Clinic Medical Group and Nancy Anness, vice president of advocacy, access and community outreach for Saint Thomas Health Services. Each echoed Cooper’s praise for the new law — and applauded the congressman’s decision to vote in favor of them.

Sergent spent time addressing several myths about reform, including the idea that people should have a choice about whether they purchase health insurance — the subject of a state legislative challenge to the national law. The problem with that argument, he said, is it “destroys the concept of insurance” because healthy people would not be paying to help subsidize sicker people (just as drivers without collisions now pay to subsidize bad drivers). It also means people avoid routine care and run the risk of having financially crippling health care bill because “no one has a clue” what their health will be like in a given year.

“People die because they do not have insurance,” Sergent said.

Anness, who is a nurse practitioner who cares only for the poor, is encouraged by estimates that say the law will cover 90 percent to 95 percent of the population. Saint Thomas’ parent company, Ascension Health, is working on a campaign to cover 100 percent of the population by 2020, she said.

“We have a ways to go,” Anness said.

42 Comments on this post:

By: reality on 4/8/10 at 12:10

I have never heard anyone sound as stupid speaking to a women*s health care forum.

John Sergent stated, "healthy people would not be paying to help subsidize sicker people (just as drivers without collisions now pay to subsidize bad drivers)." What he failed to say is that drivers with high collisions or Dui's pay higher premiums than people that don't have any of these problems. Have enough accidents or DUI's and your insurance gets cancelled. You want the insurance companies to pay for healthcare no matter how expensive it gets for them, even if it forces them out of business. This is exactly what our socialist president wants. He wants the government to take over healthcare. He has stated this in many of his speaches while a Senator. Once the government takes over healthcare the next step will be the government taking over all of the hospitals to reduce costs. Then the doctors will be next.

*People die because they do not have insurance,* Sergent said. Wow! What a statement. My Father, my grandmother, and my grandfather all had health insurance and they also died. They got sick, went to the hospital, filled out the insurance forms and died. Here's a good one for you Mr. Sergent. People that drink water die. How about, people that don't drink alcohol die? Or how about this, people that don't own a home die? Do you see how stupid your statement is? Lets try this statement. People die when they have insurance.

Coopers days in office are numbered and all of his hospital buddies won't be able to save him. I guess he is now trying to stay on their good side hoping he gets a cushy job on one of their boards after November.

By: idgaf on 4/8/10 at 4:50

It is time to "dispel" Cooper and other progressives who forgot they work for us not we for them.

By: dooley on 4/8/10 at 5:16

Cooper is there to stay ,like it or not . The majority loves him ..

By: richgoose on 4/8/10 at 6:09

DOOLEY......You may be right,but there is going to be a lot of money going to some worthwhile candidate to stop this idiotic behavior. Cooper may stay but he is going to be go through "h--ll"

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 6:30

“People die because they do not have insurance” - Another myth.

People may die because they don't get medical care, but they do not die because they have no insurance. Do people's houses flood because they have no insurance? Do their cars wreck because they have no insurance?

By: drburr47 on 4/8/10 at 6:33

Richgoose....bring it on! Coop will prevail, as well he should.

By: Beardone on 4/8/10 at 6:33

We are very fortunate to have Jim Cooper represent us in Congress. He is brave and smart vs most of his detractors who are either ignorant or just want to bring down the government. Nobody talks about the very expensive and inefficient path we were on prior to the health care bill. Republicans talked about repealing Social Security until Ike told them enough.. Wonder how many years it will take before the GOP comes up with another Ike who accepts health care for all? I don't see any tall timber among the shrubs. I consider myself a true conservative who supports our war in Afganistan, free trade, and increased taxation together with spending restraints across the board, including the military to get our budget back in balance where it was before George Junior introduced wars without paying for them, tax cuts that failed to grow the economy enough to cover and prescription drugs with no funding.
Obama inherited a very large mess.. And is doing the necessary.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 6:33

"Sergent spent time addressing several myths about reform, including the idea that people should have a choice about whether they purchase health insurance."

OMG, who is this idiot? The idea that people should be free to buy or not buy insurance is not a myth. It is central to the constitutionality of this whole mess.

By: DaddyDon33 on 4/8/10 at 6:55

Due to underhanded and disingenuous tactics from those that opposed reform, a great deal of explaining will be necessary to bring FOX TV viewer up to speed.

By: GUARDIAN on 4/8/10 at 7:43

All my doctors and the dozen or so that I'm friends with plus all the nurses I know including the 4 in my family all say this is the end of the great health care as we know it. Several say they are retiring some not old enough to retire are changing occupations. I was going to wait a few years at least 5 to retire but I can retire in less than 2 months and that's just what I'm doing. I've already told the people that work for me. I Iike what I do and don't need the money but screw socialism. The parts I have studied of this obummacare are not going to screw me. I'm taking enough money out of the economy to screw a dozen non working welfare cases. Obummacare says I have to give them access to my bank accounts lol well good luck I no longer have one. Instead of sending lots of money in I'll be pulling two checks out. haha I'll get the health care I want even if I have to go out of the country. I'll give what cash I need to help every progressive (AKA socialist-communist- marxist) out of office. I send or spend any money in any state that obumma carried in the last election and buy no product that supported him including everything from Hollywood. If everyone followed these rules it would break the backs of the America haters. Tellalie Cooper and the rest of the progressives in Tennessee politics should thank GOD it's not Andrew Jackson's time. They have destroyed the party of Jackson and Andrew's seconds would be talking to their seconds as to where they should meet. To bad dueling is no longer legal LMAO in Tennessee they would never come home. In short you progressive morons have almost killed the good old U.S.A. and if your gods aren't voted out in the next two elections I hope that no health care on earth can help you and your's. Now I know you are going to say look at the angry republican or tea party member but you will be wrong. I was a proud member of the party of Jackson all my life but you evil liberals stole it from us good conservative democrats and then gave it to the progressives (AKA socialist-communist-marxist) who hate the American way of life. Good luck (NOT) you minions of evil because you can't pray to a GOD you don't believe in.

By: free thinker on 4/8/10 at 7:45

Seems strange to me, the conservatives I spoke with all object to health care reform; yet they have insurance in which someone else is picking up the majority or all of the cost. The younger ones feel they don't need insurance coverage and plan to enter the emergency room when required, knowing someone else will pay the bill. Interesting!

By: RealityRosie on 4/8/10 at 8:02

I'm just so proud of the Honorable Mr. Cooper. He stands firm when conservative hysteria rushes everywhere to the detriment of good taste and truth. He has my vote and that of the majority because he is a virtuous man in his decision making. He has ethics. When there is good at the top, and that is what we have now, the good trickles down. Wealth won't, but goodness and virtue will. We are being led by ethical people, for the most part, and with the exception of conservatives without a pause. Oh, and, yeah, I would have died from lack of adequate insurance had I not left another state on its state employee insurance. Granted, we all die, but no one needs to die because he could not afford to see a doctor.

By: free thinker on 4/8/10 at 8:02

Hey Guardian,
Those 2 checks your going to pull; hope they aren't connected to Social Security or an Employer sponsored retirement plan. Oh yah, just so you are completely independant, no Medicare either. If you get health care out of the country, better be cash or your sucking money from those taxpayers.

By: morpheus120 on 4/8/10 at 8:14

The "mandate" (its really just a tax) was actually one of several Republican ideas that made it into the HCR bill. Conservatives wanted it because they and the "responsible" people who had health insurance were having to pay more because of the freeloaders who were going into emergency rooms and driving up everyone else's costs.

This is the state of the Republican Party today. They get what they want and they still rail against it because some (gasp) Democrats agreed with them on something.


This (and rank incompetence) is why the American people don't trust Republicans and why they've shown them the door in the last two elections. And why they will again in November.

And to all you Democrats who seek to find "bipartisanship" and middle ground with Republicans... don't bother. And I'm talking to you, Jim Cooper. Do what you need to do for the American people and ignore the wingnut Teabaggers - they have no interest in helping clean up the mess they've created and they have no real solutions. They are against America and should be treated accordingly.

By: Walter Sobchak on 4/8/10 at 8:25

Morpheus is correct. This mandate started as a Republican idea, and now it's the one element of this bill that enrages conservatives. The stupidity and paranoia is embarrassing. Don't you dimwits realize that we've been subsidizing private insurance companies for many years, under both Republican and Dem leadership? This changes nothing. All it does is ensure that HMO and MCO entitlements continue. The insurance companies love this legislation because even though they were forced to compromise on some things, they stiil getting an influx of 30+ million new customers into the system, courtesy of the federal government. Also, the insurance companies' legal teams have already identified loopholes that will circumvent the pre-existing condition clauses. This bill actually smells like a Republican bill, and because of media spin, you dummies are calling it "socialist" and "government takeover of medicine". It's laughable, but your gullability is frightening.

By: localboy on 4/8/10 at 8:25

Morpheus120, Free thinker, RealityRosie - all score!

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 8:30


Please read HR3590, starting on page 321. Clearly, the mandate is not a tax and the penalty for non-compliance is not a tax.

As for bipartisanship, there was significant bipartisan opposition to this bill, as well as the opposition of the majority of Americans.

By: Walter Sobchak on 4/8/10 at 8:42

Dragon- What the hell are you talking about? It very clearly states several times, beginning on page 321 that the mandate will be enforced by a taxed penalty which is to be filed and included with your income tax.

By: frodo on 4/8/10 at 8:45

Oh how far and how fast the champion of fiscal responsibility has fallen (Mr. Cooper). I lived under European socialized medicine. Fine if you have a hang-nail. But when Obama lies (and he does), America dies. I'm just sorry Mr. Cooper is so willing to take a myopic view when he understands history and economics.

As for "George Junior" causing us all this mess...get real. Bush left us with some brush fires and an old jalopy on the edge of a cliff. The Obama-Chicago-Hippie-Mafia are now pouring gasoline on the fires and trying to push the car over the cliff.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 8:45

Find the word "tax" and point it out, please.

By: Walter Sobchak on 4/8/10 at 8:58

‘‘(ii) increased by the amount of inter
est received or accrued during the taxable
year which is exempt from TAX imposed by
this chapter

It's clearly a tax.

TAX- A fee charged ("levied") by a government on a product, income, or activity.

The ACTIVITY, in this case, is the taxpayers documented refusal to aquire medical coverage.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 9:17

By: Walter Sobchak on 4/8/10 at 9:58
‘‘(ii) increased by the amount of inter
est received or accrued during the taxable
year which is exempt from TAX imposed by
this chapter

You pull out a portion of the definition of Modified Gross Income? That makes the penalty a tax?

The penalty is NOT a tax, unless you think the fine you pay with that speeding ticket is just a "speeding tax".

By: lassante on 4/8/10 at 9:36

The facts are pretty clear that around 40,000 people die in this country each year because they don't have health insurance. This causes them to not seek care (preventative or other), delays them from seeking care (increasing m&m rates), or causes them to go to the ER (dramatically increasing the cost to the taxpayer for their care).
These are FACTS people, not opinion or conjecture. We KNOW these to be TRUE.

Simple math: Fewer people who go to ER's, the more money we save. The mandate will save lives and save money and is constitutional. I really don't see the problem here. Many Republicans (including Romney, Scott Brown, the first Bush administration) agreed when they pushed for mandates in other health care plans.

Failure to support the overhaul of health insurance will be the albatross than hangs around the GOP's neck for generations.

By: AmyLiorate on 4/8/10 at 9:43

Cooper is really not all that safe today.

All three of his elections he's only topped the 50% mark by 19%. That's within 10% of loosing.

His last election was by only 16%, or within 8% of loosing.

That means that now, with a serious tide of conservatism, if you can find a 50,000 people in District 5 who will vote against him will loose.

How many apathetic voters didn't come out last time for new-comer Gerry Donovan?
Are there enough Dem's in this area who are PO'd at the socialist antics?
Are there enough rednecks in Cheatham County who dislike the direction Cooper and his ilk have taken us?

Maybe, maybe not, we will find out soon enough.

By: Walter Sobchak on 4/8/10 at 9:43

Yes Dragon, the TAX described in this chapter, is obviously referring to the 750.00 TAX , that is affected by adjusted gross income. What other TAX could it be referring to?

They call it a tax. You may call it a fine. It's moot.

Point is, this was one of the elements left over from Republican reform efforts and happens to be the most unconstitutional element in the bill.

By: AmyLiorate on 4/8/10 at 9:47

If it was a Tax bill then, like ALL revenue bills, it had to have originated in the House of Representatives.

The version that passed DID NOT, that version came from the Senate. Reconciliation may cloud that issue, but clearly it didn't originate in the House.

So the HCR is very likely unconstitutional by that alone.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 9:47

"These are FACTS people, not opinion or conjecture. We KNOW these to be TRUE"

Please show us the source for this statement. Hopefully it is not conclusion from a study that estimates the probable effects and has been repeated so often that people claim it as fact.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 9:50

HR3590 was originated in the House as ‘‘An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.’’ The Senate just deleted everything in it and replaced it with an Amendment.

By: AmyLiorate on 4/8/10 at 9:59

Dragon are you sure about that?
Does the Senate get to change a revenue bill, and can they delete are replace so much? If so then what is the purpose of having revenue bills originate in the House? Clearly that is contrary to the procedure agreed to 230 years ago!

When you delete everything and replace it all - then a new bill has been created.
If it went down as you say, then the only thing left was the number HR3590.

So thanks for pointing out how Frankenstein legislation is so problematic.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 10:03

AmyLiorate, I'm positive since I'm looking at the bill downloaded from the US government printing office.

In the Senate of the United States,
December 24, 2009.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 3590) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers
credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain
other Federal employees, and for other purposes.’’, do
pass with the following
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

By: pswindle on 4/8/10 at 10:07

Just remember GOP, if you are satified with your health insurance, you do nothing, and you stay where you are. But this new way, everyobne will pay into the pot and it takes a litttle off of us who do pay. Good all the way around. If Bush had the sense to come up with an idea, the GOP would be praising it to high heaven.

By: AmyLiorate on 4/8/10 at 10:16

My comment was not as to what was done with HR3590 (which changed fully from Armed Forces bill into PPACA), the context was is that really constitutional.

That by removing and replacing did the Senate not create a new bill altogether. Hell they even changed the title of the bill! So - Are you sure about that, cand the Senate blatantly alter a bill to that extent and still call it the same bill that originated in the other House?

If it was then the House would NOT have had to vote on it a second time, would they?

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 10:27

As was done here and countless times before, the House originated and passed a bill. The Senate took up the bill and modified it (as little or as much as they want). You will hear this termed "an amendment in the nature of a substitute". They passed it and it went back to the House (since it had changed from what they passed). This ping-pong will continue until each chamber passes the exact same bill.

After this bill was passed by both houses and signed into law, the House then initiated and passed a reconcilliation bill (HR4872, a mere 150 pages) which modified the existing law. That bill was passed by both houses and signed into law.

Making sausage? You bet. But, that is the way our legislation works.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 10:30


Assuming you have health insurance and are familiar with your benefits, take a look at the new provisions. I would guess that almost all of them will increase your monthly premiums to cover the increased benefits the insurance company will pay out.

By: free thinker on 4/8/10 at 11:26

Sobchak: "This mandate started as a Republican idea, and now it's the one element of this bill that enrages conservatives".
You are 100% correct. The current issue of AARP Newsletter indicates that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, both offered health reform plans that are eerily close to what has just passed in Washington.

By: sidneyames on 4/8/10 at 12:46

By: dooley on 4/8/10 at 6:16
Cooper is there to stay ,like it or not . The majority loves him ..
By: richgoose on 4/8/10 at 7:09
DOOLEY......You may be right,but there is going to be a lot of money going to some worthwhile candidate to stop this idiotic behavior. Cooper may stay but he is going to be go through "h--ll"

I VOTED for cooper once NEVER again. So dooley, the majority may not love him next time.

By: Dragon on 4/8/10 at 7:30
“People die because they do not have insurance” - Another myth.

You are so right Dragon. It's a myth. Why, my neighbor has good insurance and he just died at 59. So he died, because he died. His insurance or lack thereof had nothing to do with it.

And even the best medical care can't keep a person alive if it's time to die.

By: TharonChandler on 4/8/10 at 12:59

Tharon Chandler Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:18 AM
To:,,, associates
Cc:,, journal , "rep.jim.cooper" , aparksc ,,,,

04/08/2010, Bank is Unfair1
In this message I attempt to share information with you about a campaign for survival; survival among good people and a nation in transition, and with a chance to have a newly improved fortune for us all. It is not with undue regard that i mention our president, in his monumental task at Washington DC, yet I address the West Coast in the region where I am and the capitol of California; a great land of opportunity where I trust you to help me and everyone survive, healthy and whole as God made us. Many times throughout history the masses of people have become enslaved to few. The 'Spanish Civil War', where author Earnest Hemingway was said to have served as an ambulance driver, is one of the most stark examples of a right-wing fascist group (as that cruel army was led by Generalisimo Francisco Franco) has imagined to use Money and Force in a deadly combination against the will of the common people. Now, anyone, if not everyone, could enjoy to learn and live 'the high life'; a life of advantage over others where the women want the finest of fashions and comforts and the men are willing to fight to keep them comming their way, while the most of concerned citizens are kept to be unenlightened by them being denied the opportunity to use that money or currency and the will to Complain is deadened by powerful forces unwilling to share and fully willing to encarcerate others. I'm telling you this day that Bank of America is acting to be one of those dark forces. While they employ the best of human talent and control an unfair advantage of available capital they are yet unwilling to let a good and honest candidate even have access to a bank account.

When you hear Keifer or Donald or whomever weilds that smooth voice on the TV commercials then those highly paid professionals should also mention that Bank of America personnel are trained to enforce unfair banking opportunities or fascist control of money against good people simply trying to use that national currency in any galant attempt at survival. I was lucky in gaining a 'personal account' in 2009; as I use for my direct deposit or for cashing checks I might recieve. That was even a 'new leaf' or opportunity in the country brought about after our government was wrested from the previous fascist president of the United States. That bank on yesterday was courteous to me in greeting me and they were professional in personnel whom treated me as a peer and were were fully prepared to extend a 'business banking' opportunity to me, in person; the account that I need and must have to use with my internet web-site and the one I use for my current political campaign; my campaign for survival and to represent as I need to be represented, in California where I live and love. In the final analysis they were 'held up by a technicality', at that branch on River street, or the factor of my being poor, previously and currently.

Many or several 'banking practices' are designed to 'make money' on behalf of the bank (such as 'overdraft fees and interest charges'), similar in fact to any gambling casino and not less courteous. In fact I have never lost much money at any casino nor at any wager at all, while I have paid thousands of dollar$ in banking fees and interest charges, and have in fact shorted no-one in any business transaction as recorded. I deserve to use a 'business account' for banking and for internet solicitations, just as much as Anyone else, to use my own money in attempts to make money money and assist others, and every attempt on the part of any bank and/ or collection agent is mere fascism that I must overcome or die completely dead in trying. Another problem is that they or the force in power don't plan to make a good man like me to simply die, some of them rather want me to die slowly and become another man's 'girlfreind' in the process. I'm not Gay. I don't want to be an Economic 'girly man' and you can let the President of California know I said it.

By: pswindle on 4/8/10 at 3:33

Did anyone see Mae Beavers on MSNB, all doubt has been erased? What on earth is happening to TN, the GOP has lost all credibility She help pass a law that will keep TN from joining in the new healthcare benefit. Gov. Spitizer set her straight on the law of the land and how it works. Yes, I have insurance, but the premiums go up each year and the insurance companies pay less and cover less. Do you think that this will stop if something is not done to stop the insurance compnaies from making billions on the backs of us that pay for insurance. If everyone pays something for their insurance it would only help us. If one smokes or drink colas, you could buy insurance by cutting out just those two items. I say give it a chance to work, you may be surprised how well it works. How many would give up the SS and Medicare, I bet not many? We have to do something because we cannot keep paying for all the ones that never pay anything. This is fair and that is what we need. More small companies can join groups to have a lower insurance premiums. Most of the ones that are not for this bill, do not know what is in it. Driving home today, some fool called in to say that he was told that a chip would be imbeded in our bodies with our medical record on it. He was told that is being done today, but it was not imbeded on your body, but in the form of a credit card. He was told if he was in a car wreck or something where the blood type or medical
problems needed to be known, everything would be on the chip. This could be a live saving device. This is just example of all the falsehoods out there. Go read the bill it is online.

By: gofer on 4/8/10 at 5:34

The 940 Billion figure means nothing. They handed CBO some info. and they came back with, what the CBO said was a 'PRELIMINARY" estimate because there wasn't enough data to score the bill which hadn't been completed. There is 6 or less years of benefits but 10 years of taxes. That's one of the tricks. The closer figure is over 2 TRILLION.

Insurance rates are going to jump. Mass. has the nation's highest rates. Come Jan , when group rates are configured there will be huge increases. Insurance rates and profits are regulated by the State. They are required to keep a certain percentage in escrow for emergencies and percentages are allocated for expenses , payouts and a small profit. It's a total myth that they are making huge profits, around 1-2%. If they gave up all their profits, you could pay for about 2 days of health care. People hate insurance companies because they have been told to hate them and it's easy to do with big premiums to pay, but it's not based on any facts.

Obama's statement about insurance companies "running amok" is highly uniformed since the State would reign them in, unless the State is running amok.

Everybody won't pay into this. A family of four, making up to 88K will be able to get subsidies. The farther down you go, you will recognize that for most people it will become another welfare program. It's going to COST in new taxes, which they are discussing now. You will pay for your insurance and other people's insurance if you are one of those unlucky successful people who work for a living.

When employer's start dumping people into the Medicaid Exchange, be happy, because that's what's going to happen. It's WAY cheaper.

Reading the bill will make most people sick . Wait until they start ordering you how live a "healthy" life.

"We will confiscate your tax refund."......The IRS commissioner on how they would collect their health care monies.l

By: gofer on 4/8/10 at 7:13

300 BILLION in the "doc fix" which was not included in the bill, but to be put in a separate bill. Do you actually believe they will cut 500 Billion from Medicare? If the govt. can mandate that a citizen enter into a contract with another citizen, then they have the power to mandate you purchase other things.

The sham figure of 40,000 dying from a lack of insurance came from a Harvard Study where they asked people back in the 80's or 90's if they had health insurance. They checked back again in several years and determined how many of these people had died. They never asked how or why or if they had health insurance at that time or anytime. Obama's example of the woman who got cancer was bogus. She actually got cancer 16 yrs ago and dropped her insurance because she was afraid she would not be able to make her house pmts. I thot Obama was supposed to help with that. At the same time Obama is talking about her she is in the hospital being treated.

There were ways to "reform" the system without the govt. gobbling it up and heading headlong into what Obama admitted he wants....a "single payer" system. 85% of people have health insurance and the vast majority were satistifed. There were 12 million people that actually needed to be helped. This could have been done without spending trillions and inserting the govt. into personal health care decisions.

Obama wouldn't give up tort reform even though he admitted it would save over 50 Billion!

Bottom line...Obama just gave insurance companies millions of new customers who will HAVE to buy their product and they will making a killing until they run out of other people's money.

If you can't be turned down, why would anybody buy health insurance if you were young and healthy....just buy it when you really needed it. A lot of people will pay few hundred bucks in fines rather than the several thousands in insurance.

Why did people who screamed about the intrusions of the "Patriot Act" not care if the govt. has access to all your health records. (don't smoke dope) and your bank accounts??

Over 150 new govt. agencies including the "National Preventative Health Care Task Force." 16,500 new IRS agents to make sure you are "healthy." BILLIONs in new taxes on everything that's not taxed now. A new VAT and separate "energy" tax of 15 cents on a gallon of gas, for starters. BILLIONS more in taxes on Drug and Insurance companies which will be passed on.

54% of Americans still want it repealed. The more Obama talks, the worse it gets. He's at another all time low approval rating. A THIRD of DEMOCRATS oppose the bill.

Tea Party Make-Up from Associated Press:
Non-Hispanic White - 78%
Black - 6%
Other races - 16%

By: idgaf on 4/9/10 at 5:07

By: lassante on 4/8/10 at 10:36
The facts are pretty clear that around 40,000 people die in this country each year because they don't have health insurance.

BULL SPIN. No one in this country is refused care by law.

This isn't about care or insurance it is about power and control and we will see escalating costs and rationing of care just like the UK , Canada and Massachusetts which was the model..

It takes 45 days to see a doctor in Mass.

By: free thinker on 4/11/10 at 5:09

By: idgaf on 4/9/10 at 6:07
BULL SPIN. No one in this country is refused care by law.

Your spreading the BULL ! I personally know someone who has been refused admittance to the hospital and it required another Doctor and their supervisor to FORCE admittance. Another received cursory exam and returned 3 additional times, until they finally had to admit end stage renal failure causes hospitalization, when it is advance. All the while, you could read the posters clearly stating "No one is refused medical care, it's the law".