<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - Health Care</title>
		<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/</link>
		<description>A forum for discussing the US health care debate and proposals.  All threads on this subject shall be posted here.</description>
		<language>en</language>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:08:03 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>vBulletin</generator>
		<ttl>60</ttl>
		
		<item>
			<title>Senate Vote on Health Care Reform</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57341-senate-vote-health-care-reform.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:48:44 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>Interesting story: the Senate is moving forward with a vote on Health Care Reform this weekend and there is no room for any Democrat to vote against it. 
 
Senate Dems move ahead on crucial health vote - Health care reform- msnbc.com...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Interesting story: the Senate is moving forward with a vote on Health Care Reform this weekend and there is no room for any Democrat to vote against it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34061492/ns/politics-health_care_reform/" target="_blank">Senate Dems move ahead on crucial health vote - Health care reform- msnbc.com</a><br />
<br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
	<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
	<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td class="alt2">
			<hr />
			
				A wavering moderate Democrat said Friday he'd stand with Senate Democratic leaders on a crucial weekend test vote on their sweeping health care bill amid indications other moderates would fall in line. <br />
<br />
The announcement from Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., came as Senate leaders pushed ahead toward the make-or-break vote with no margin for rebellion on President Barack Obama's signature issue. <br />
<br />
Nelson said in a statement that his support for the procedural measure allowing debate to go forward didn't mean he'd support the final bill, but that Nebraskans wanted changes to the health care system. &quot;The Senate owes them a full and open debate,&quot; he said.
			
			<hr />
		</td>
	</tr>
	</table>
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
This whole issue has turned into a chaotic mess. I am genuinely sorry because I think it would have been possible to create a viable and bipartisan plan <u>after</u> the economy starts to expand again and unemployment falls. In that case, those who refused to participate would have been marginalized. As it is, the GOP will benefit by simply opposing it.<br />
<br />
Instead we have a purely partisan bill that, if passed, will hurt many of the Blue Dog Dems in the next election. <br />
<br />
<b>The idea of slamming through a mammoth plan that will cost a fortune at the bottom of the worst recession in 80 years, with unemployment above 10% and the deficit soaring through the stratosphere, on a purely partisan vote, climbing is so incredibly foolish, arrogant and misguided that it takes on a fascination.</b><br />
<br />
How is it possible that the Obama administration and the left-wingers in congress have misread the public mood to such an extent? <br />
<br />
When were we told during the campaign that this is the number one issue facing the nation and that it would be the number one issue for the Obama administration?<br />
<br />
How can it be that they are slamming through a bill that has not been explained and that the public does not support with even a small majority?<br />
<br />
This is a clear indication of a failure of leadership on a massive scale. Obama is not yet a leader: he has not yet developed the wisdom, the patience and the shrewdness to lead. The congress are much worse.<br />
<br />
The Dems might have held on to power for years if they had handled this with even a small amont of common sense and sense of timing. As it is, they are throwing themselves into a collective garbage can and dragging their Blue Dogs with them.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57341-senate-vote-health-care-reform.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Jesse Jackson: 'You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man']]></title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57307-jesse-jackson-you-cant-vote-against-healthcare-call-yourself-black-man.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:35:38 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[---Quote--- 
*Jesse Jackson: 'You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man'* 
 
The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill. 
 
“We...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
	<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
	<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td class="alt2">
			<hr />
			
				<b><font size="3">Jesse Jackson: 'You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man'</font></b><br />
<br />
The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.<br />
<br />
“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”<br />
<br />
The remark stirred a murmur at the reception, held by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation as part of a series of events revolving around the 25th anniversary of Jackson’s run for president. Several CBC members were in attendance, including Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who’d introduced Jackson. <br />
<br />
Davis, who is running for governor, is the only black member of Congress from Alabama. <br />
<br />
He is also the only member of the CBC to have voted against the healthcare bill earlier this month. <br />
<br />
Davis referred to Jackson’s 1988 run for president in a statement, issued through his office, that said he would not engage Jackson on his criticism.<br />
<br />
“One of the reasons that I like and admire Rev. Jesse Jackson is that 21 years ago he inspired the idea that a black politician would not be judged simply as a black leader,” Davis’s statement said. “<b>The best way to honor Rev. Jackson’s legacy is to decline to engage in an argument with him that begins and ends with race</b>.”
			
			<hr />
		</td>
	</tr>
	</table>
</div><font size="3"><b>ZING!!!!!</b></font>  :biggrin:   That's gotta leave a mark.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/68451-jackson-you-cant-vote-against-healthcare-and-call-yourself-a-black-man=" target="_blank">MORE</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>lug-nut</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57307-jesse-jackson-you-cant-vote-against-healthcare-call-yourself-black-man.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and CBO Report</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57298-patient-protection-affordable-care-act-cbo-report.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:37:38 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[I give you the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf). 
 
And here is the CBO's cost estimate (http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10731&type=1). 
 
I haven't had time to...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>I give you the <a href="http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf" target="_blank">Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act</a>.<br />
<br />
And here is the <a href="http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10731&amp;type=1" target="_blank">CBO's cost estimate</a>.<br />
<br />
I haven't had time to read these yet, but here they are for all to see. I can't wait to see if Senator Coburn makes good on his threat to read the bill on the Senate floor, at least that way we'll get a audio books version.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>Angry American</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57298-patient-protection-affordable-care-act-cbo-report.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>You have Asked, and Now you have</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57296-you-have-asked-now-you-have.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:20:26 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>It has been asked for , and yes Marry it is here. 
 
It is bigger and better than what the House has given us. 
 
Senate bill weighs in at 2,074 pages - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>It has been asked for , and yes Marry it is here.<br />
<br />
It is bigger and better than what the House has given us.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Senate_bill_weighs_in_at_2074_pages.html?showall#" target="_blank">Senate bill weighs in at 2,074 pages - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com</a><br />
<br />
There is No information yet, but it is out. Maybe later after a large meal of Turkey the Senate will let us in on what they are going to be giving us.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>AkDiesel</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57296-you-have-asked-now-you-have.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>They are already starting to ration!</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57252-they-already-starting-ration.html</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:53:25 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Critics See Health Care Rationing Behind New Mammography Recommendations - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/critics-health-care-rationing-new-breast-cancer-screening-recommendations/) 
 
Hell they haven't even passed the damm...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/critics-health-care-rationing-new-breast-cancer-screening-recommendations/" target="_blank">Critics See Health Care Rationing Behind New Mammography Recommendations - FOXNews.com</a><br />
<br />
Hell they haven't even passed the damm healthscare bill yet but they are already hinting at rationing.  I guess they want to get an early start.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>sinebar</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57252-they-already-starting-ration.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Will the federal government force college bound students to become doctors?</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57230-will-federal-government-force-college-bound-students-become-doctors.html</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:59:44 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>This may sound nuts now but if this healthscare bill becomes law they are predicting a huge shortage of doctors on top of the shortage that would occur anyway due to aging baby boomers.  This makes me think that if the federal government can force...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>This may sound nuts now but if this healthscare bill becomes law they are predicting a huge shortage of doctors on top of the shortage that would occur anyway due to aging baby boomers.  This makes me think that if the federal government can force people ,via a tax penalty, to buy a product or service then why couldn't it force college bound students to become doctors instead maybe the engineer they planned on.  The feds could simply refuse student aid if the student didn't comply or a tax penalty just like the insurance mandate.  Yep I agree it sounds crazy but then I thought forcing us to buy a service such as health insurance was crazy too but it sure as hell looks like it going to be a reallity.  Right now I wouldn't put anything past those fuckers.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>sinebar</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57230-will-federal-government-force-college-bound-students-become-doctors.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>GOP Ends Abortion Insurance for RNC Employees</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57191-gop-ends-abortion-insurance-rnc-employees.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:37:23 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, in light of the Republican's stance (which I support)on public healthcare and abortion , it seems as though they had to clean up their own policies for RNC staff.  I'm not surprised at the hyprocrisy of politicians, whether they be from the...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Well, in light of the Republican's stance (which I support)on public healthcare and abortion , it seems as though they had to clean up their own policies for RNC staff.  I'm not surprised at the hyprocrisy of politicians, whether they be from the right or left.  If you don't want to be disappointed, just simply don't hold them in high regard.  After all, they are simply...politicians. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120371332" target="_blank">GOP chairman ends abortion insurance for employees : NPR</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
	<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
	<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td class="alt2">
			<hr />
			
				<b>GOP chairman ends abortion insurance for employees</b><br />
<br />
A chagrined GOP Chairman Michael Steele has told Republican National Committee staff to immediately stop providing RNC employees with insurance for elective abortions — an option that Republicans strongly oppose as Democrats try to pass a health care overhaul bill.<br />
<br />
&quot;Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,&quot; Steele said in a statement late Thursday after learning of the abortion coverage from a news report. &quot;I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.&quot;<br />
<br />
Steele instructed staff to inform the insurance carrier that the RNC wanted to opt out of elective abortion coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. She said the policy has been in effect since 1991.<br />
<br />
A memo earlier from RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay to the organization's members said Steele was taking the matter very seriously and &quot;has been engaged by phone on this issue.&quot;<br />
<br />
The GOP platform traditionally includes strong anti-abortion language. All House Republicans, except one, voted for an amendment imposing restrictions of coverage for abortions in the health care bill that passed the House last Saturday. Inclusion of the abortion restrictions prompted an angry backlash from liberal House Democrats, and some are now threatening to vote against a final bill if the curbs stay in.<br />
<br />
The memo said the RNC received a phone call from a reporter on Wednesday asking whether the RNC's health care policy, through Cigna, covered elective abortions for employees. On Thursday, Politico.com published a report citing two sales agents for Cigna who said the RNC's policy covered elective abortion.<br />
<br />
The Cigna employees said the RNC didn't choose to opt out of abortion coverage when given the opportunity, Politico.com reported.<br />
<br />
&quot;Upon learning of this story, at the chairman's direction, we immediately contacted the Executive Committee,&quot; the RNC memo said. &quot;We will be scheduling a call with the Executive Committee in the immediate future to discuss this matter more fully.&quot;<br />
<br />
The memo said the RNC health insurance policy has been in review for some time.<br />
<br />
&quot;Chairman Steele had already called for an official review of our health insurance policy along with a number of other operational items,&quot; the memo said.
			
			<hr />
		</td>
	</tr>
	</table>
</div></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>panteth4H2o</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57191-gop-ends-abortion-insurance-rnc-employees.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gallup- Majority; Gov’s role is not to provide health care</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57186-gallup-majority-gov-s-role-not-provide-health-care.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:34:29 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[I think its dreadfully clear as to the reasons behind the shift; in 2006 we didn&#8217;t have a bill and ongoing attempts at legislation ( look at the graph) , and the more they see of the gov's plan(s), the more they realize 2 things; 
 
 a) even for...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>I think its dreadfully clear as to the reasons behind the shift; in 2006 we didn&#8217;t have a bill and ongoing attempts at legislation ( look at the graph) , and the more they see of the gov's plan(s), the more they realize 2 things;<br />
<br />
 a) even for those that think it may be governments responsibility, they have realized the task is quite simply beyond them, b) trust, pure and simple&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.a 69 to drop 47, wow, before this all ends, I&#8217;ll take a shot and say that number will drop to 40&#8230;.. <br />
<br />
Oh and of course another reason, overall is, this nation still being an overwhelmingly conservative one, most especially when it comes to government, I know how libs hate that fact, but facts are stubborn things. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>More Americans now say it is not the federal government&#8217;s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government&#8217;s responsibility.<br />
<br />
The reason behind this shift is unknown. Certainly the federal government&#8217;s role in the nation&#8217;s healthcare system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the &#8220;public option.&#8221; These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans&#8217; agreement that ensuring all Americans have healthcare coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx" target="_blank">More in U.S. Say Health Coverage Is Not Gov?t. Responsibility</a></div>


	<br />
	<div style="padding:6px">

	

	
		<fieldset class="fieldset">
			<legend>Attached Images</legend>
			<div style="padding:3px">
			<img class="attach" src="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/attachments/health-care/10133d1258137251-gallup-majority-gov-s-role-not-provide-health-care-hc-gov.gif" border="0" alt="" />&nbsp;
			</div>
		</fieldset>
	

	

	

	</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>Imperator</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57186-gallup-majority-gov-s-role-not-provide-health-care.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>40,000+ uninsured deaths a year meme</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57181-40-000-uninsured-deaths-year-meme.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:24:47 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA["40,000+ deaths a year because they lack insurance" is a fraudulently applied meme of the healthcare debate. 
 
Let's do bad math like the 40,000+ deaths a year frauds: 
 
U.S. Population: 307,925,438 
death per year: 2,500,000 
% insured: 85%    
...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>&quot;40,000+ deaths a year because they lack insurance&quot; is a fraudulently applied meme of the healthcare debate.<br />
<br />
Let's do bad math like the 40,000+ deaths a year frauds:<br />
<br />
U.S. Population: 307,925,438<br />
death per year: 2,500,000<br />
% insured: 85%   <br />
<br />
2,500,000 * .85 = 2,125,000<br />
<br />
That means 2,125,000 die every year because they have health insurance !<br />
<br />
That's almost 10 times the rate of the uninsured !!!!<br />
<br />
So why are the uninsured dying at almost 1/10trh the rate of the insured?<br />
<br />
(EDIT:  40,000 divided by 40,000,000 = 0.001     2,125,000 divided by 267,000,000=  0.008)</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>JDJarvis</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57181-40-000-uninsured-deaths-year-meme.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Goldman To Private Insurers: No Health Care Reform At All Is Best</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57174-goldman-private-insurers-no-health-care-reform-all-best.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:49:54 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>Goldman To Private Insurers: No Health Care Reform At All Is Best (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/goldman-to-private-insure_n_355998.html) 
 
 
---Quote--- 
A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as far as...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/goldman-to-private-insure_n_355998.html" target="_blank">Goldman To Private Insurers: No Health Care Reform At All Is Best</a><br />
<br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
	<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
	<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td class="alt2">
			<hr />
			
				A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as far as the bottom line for insurance companies is concerned, the best thing to do is nothing. A close second would be passing a watered-down version of the Senate Finance Committee's bill.<br />
<br />
A study put together by Goldman in mid-October looks at the estimated stock performance of the private insurance industry under four variations of reform legislation. The study focused on the five biggest insurers whose shares are traded on Wall Street: Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, CIGNA and Humana.
			
			<hr />
		</td>
	</tr>
	</table>
</div>Can you effing believe this shit? Well actually this is what Goldman is supposed to do. They are in the business to make money and so are the health insurance companies. But to put the whole thing out there as blatantly obvious as they are is sickening. Keep letting the people die so we can make our money. <br />
<br />
If your wondering who's on the correct side of history its not the guys opposing the public option. Your either with these guys or your for the public option.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>Danny</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57174-goldman-private-insurers-no-health-care-reform-all-best.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RNC insurance plan covers abortion</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57170-rnc-insurance-plan-covers-abortion.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:33:50 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>Well this is intersting. the Republican party. the one that wants women to be deined the choice over their own bodies has elective abortion coverage in their insurance policy.RNC insurance plan covers abortion - Yahoo! News...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Well this is intersting. the Republican party. the one that wants women to be deined the choice over their own bodies has elective abortion coverage in their insurance policy.<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/29456" target="_blank">RNC insurance plan covers abortion - Yahoo! News</a><br />
<br />
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
	<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
	<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td class="alt2">
			<hr />
			
				The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.” <br />
<br />
Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.
			
			<hr />
		</td>
	</tr>
	</table>
</div>I leave it to others to determine how ironic this is as I find it quite. They dont want the national health care bill to cover abortions but their own insurance does.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>Rahmota</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57170-rnc-insurance-plan-covers-abortion.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>At what point does a fetus require its own health insurance in the USA?</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57166-what-point-does-fetus-require-its-own-health-insurance-usa.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:59:43 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>My wife and I are best friends with a couple that have a premature baby born at 25 weeks. The mother was hospitalized for two weeks prior to prevent the birth but the baby came anyways.  
 
Now that the baby is out he is in an intensive care unit...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>My wife and I are best friends with a couple that have a premature baby born at 25 weeks. The mother was hospitalized for two weeks prior to prevent the birth but the baby came anyways. <br />
<br />
Now that the baby is out he is in an intensive care unit and will be for the next few months at least. This couple does not have much money but they pay their taxes and work 9-5 jobs. Because they live in Canada this means they would never have to worry about something not being done to increase the chance of their child's survival. Its just done no matter what. <br />
<br />
If they lived in the USA what would be the procedure? Would her baby have had to have had an insurance policy that covers premature birth? Would it fall to the mother's insurance policy? What if her insurance policy didn't cover all the care the baby needs to survive? <br />
<br />
I cannot imagine how different things would be for this couple if they lived 45 minutes' drive south in upstate New York for example.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>Danny</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57166-what-point-does-fetus-require-its-own-health-insurance-usa.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Taste of Socialized Medicine...in a film.</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57164-taste-socialized-medicine-film.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:55:03 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>You have to watch the entire thing to get the real effect... 
 
5 hour wait for broken bone 
1.5 hour wait for a blood test, only to be told it could take 2-3 months. 
And more... 
 
YouTube - ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>You have to watch the entire thing to get the real effect...<br />
<br />
5 hour wait for broken bone<br />
1.5 hour wait for a blood test, only to be told it could take 2-3 months.<br />
And more...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw" target="_blank">YouTube - ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>iamwhatiseem</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57164-taste-socialized-medicine-film.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[State only qualifies if new law "does not limit" attorney fees or impose caps/damages]]></title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57160-state-only-qualifies-if-new-law-does-not-limit-attorney-fees-impose-caps-damages.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:07:04 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[whats the title mean? Here ya go; 
 
-snip- 
 
in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>whats the title mean? Here ya go;<br />
<br />
-snip-<br />
<br />
<i>in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides &quot;incentive payments&quot; to each state that develops an &quot;alternative medical liability law&quot; that encourages &quot;fair resolution&quot; of disputes and &quot;maintains access to affordable liability insurance.&quot; Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: <b>The state only qualifies if its new law &quot;does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages.&quot;</b></i><br />
<br />
:lol:<br />
<br />
No olnly is there NO Tort  reform in the Pelosi bill, they have the above clause.....Tort reform is one of those things that was supposed to be a pillar of HC reform….. yea sure. <br />
<br />
<br />
and continuing on.....<br />
<br />
<i>The Senate bill avoids tort reform entirely, notwithstanding Mr. Obama's showy pledge before a national TV audience. <br />
<br />
Never mind that reducing medical lawsuits is a rare reform provision that really would reduce health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the savings at $54 billion over a decade. Consulting firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin has suggested the direct cost of medical tort litigation is more like $30 billion annually. PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of lawsuits. <br />
<br />
The hidden Pelosi tort bomb is one more example of the stealth radicalism that defines ObamaCare. If it passes in anything like its current form, we are going to be cleaning up the mess for decades to come.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574513752760366872.html" target="_blank">Pelosi Health-Care Bill Lacks Malpractice Reform - WSJ.com</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>Imperator</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57160-state-only-qualifies-if-new-law-does-not-limit-attorney-fees-impose-caps-damages.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pelosi’s New Payroll Tax: A Whip for Socialized Medicine</title>
			<link>http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57123-pelosi-s-new-payroll-tax-whip-socialized-medicine.html</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:57:02 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>---Quote--- 
*Pelosi’s New Payroll Tax: A Whip for Socialized Medicine*  
 
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, set out a startling scenario in floor debate Saturday before the House approved the health...</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
	<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
	<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td class="alt2">
			<hr />
			
				<b><font size="3">Pelosi’s New Payroll Tax: A Whip for Socialized Medicine</font></b> <br />
<br />
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, set out a startling scenario in floor debate Saturday before the House approved the health care bill pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. <br />
 <br />
The bill would slap an 8 percent tax on the payrolls of employers who do not provide health insurance to their workers and pay at least 65 percent of the premiums for an employee who has a family insurance plan and 72.5 percent of the premiums for an employee who has an individual insurance plan. Barton spelled out what he believes will happen if this provision becomes law. <br />
 <br />
Many Americans might be tempted to casually conclude that the purpose of Pelosi’s new payroll tax is to force employers to buy health insurance for their workers and that the parties hurt most by the tax would be the employers who pay it. <br />
 <br />
This is wrong on both counts. The Pelosi tax will not force employers to buy insurance for their workers, it will give them an incentive not buy insurance. The parties most hurt by the Pelosi tax will not be the employers who pay it but the workers dumped into the government-run health care system Pelosi’s plan creates. <br />
 <br />
This will happen when employers discover that paying Pelosi’s tax is cheaper than buying health insurance. The Pelosi payroll tax will be a whip wielded by the state to drive Americans into a socialized health care system from which there will be no escape.
			
			<hr />
		</td>
	</tr>
	</table>
</div><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56977" target="_blank">MORE</a><br />
<br />
This is exactly what Bella Pelosi wants...everyone on Ooooobamacare.  Quality and availablity of care will drop rapidly.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/">Health Care</category>
			<dc:creator>lug-nut</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/health-care/57123-pelosi-s-new-payroll-tax-whip-socialized-medicine.html</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
