Terminalcoffee discussion

28 views
Helping You To Know The News > Midterm Elections Thread...

Comments Showing 1-50 of 79 (79 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments Ok, any comments on the midterms? Big primaries today across the country...


message 2: by Phil (new)

Phil | 11617 comments Ummm... Hey, Delaware, this is your one big shot at national attention. Are you going to vote for the anti-masturbationist?


message 3: by Meels (last edited Sep 14, 2010 07:57AM) (new)

Meels (amelia) What? I didn't get any ballots recently? Maybe Oregon is the odd one out and has a later date...that wouldn't surprise me.

Any other Oregonians get Primary Ballots and I didn't? Course, I'm a Repub. and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one (on GR), so...


message 4: by Phil (new)

Phil | 11617 comments I think Sandy may lean Republican.


message 5: by Sarah (last edited Sep 14, 2010 09:10AM) (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments I think today is the last day of primaries, Amelia, so you must have missed it somehow.

ETA When you move to Canada, you continue to vote from your last place of residence ever after, so my family is still voting in Charlie Rangel's district and I'm watching that one with some curiosity today.


message 6: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) Hmmmmm.


message 7: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24099 comments Mod
Phil wrote: "Ummm... Hey, Delaware, this is your one big shot at national attention. Are you going to vote for the anti-masturbationist?"

Here's hoping!


message 8: by Ken (new)

Ken (playjerist) | 721 comments I’ve suggested to Michael Steele that the GOP change its name to something more descriptive of what the party stands for: Planters Mixed Nuts.


message 9: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24099 comments Mod
And the anti-masturbation Delaware tea party candidate has won....WOOOOOO.

Voters had trouble in NY: "Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer struggled with the new ballot, which has four languages on it, in a small font." Hmm, was English not one of the languages?


message 10: by Lobstergirl, el principe (last edited Sep 14, 2010 10:37PM) (new)

Lobstergirl | 24099 comments Mod
Adrian Fenty falls in D.C.!

"The only thing voters seemed to agree on was that Mayor Adrian Fenty had done some good but has some personality defects...."


message 11: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24099 comments Mod
Rangel's constituents choose the bum they know...


message 12: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments I think he's served them pretty well, current troubles not withstanding.

Baltimore city's state's attorney may actually fall - she and her competitor are locked in a tight battle still that'll come down to absentee ballots.

A long time Baltimore City rep., Della, fell to a young and energetic candidate. The new guy has some good ideas, but I had a soft spot for Della. He has genuinely, personally, made an effort to help constituents and I have spoken with him and seen the results firsthand.


message 13: by Phil (new)

Phil | 11617 comments Will they be installing video cameras in hotel rooms to catch people tossing off?


message 14: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments It was only a primary. She'll very likely lose the election in November.


message 15: by R.C. (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments I don't even know if we had Primaries in Northern VA.

The house Rep here has been in office since the constitution was ratified and the Dems never know how to run a campaign. Last election, the guy who ran against Rep Wolf did nothing but mail out fliers every few days talking about womans's rights.

Why can't the moderates from both party's just leave and form a third party? Let the moderates rule and have the fringe right and left have influence but not enough power to run the country into the ground. It's a shame there are no major parties outside the big two.


message 16: by Jim (new)

Jim | 6485 comments It would be great if the moderate Republicans could break away from the Tea Party Republicans, and get some moderate Democrats to join them. But as it stands right now unless they could take funding from both national parties with them it would never happen.


message 17: by Ken (new)

Ken (playjerist) | 721 comments Phil wrote: "Will they be installing video cameras in hotel rooms to catch people tossing off?"

What’s the legal exposure for chambermaids who fail to report physical evidence, and will Cinemax be named as an unindicted co-conspirator?


message 18: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) Barb, even if she wins the election, it will not be so easy to get the entire state of Delaware to vote for the ban. 79% of the state (according to the 2009 census) are under 65 and over 5. Of those 48.5% are men. None of the men are going to vote for it...since votes are anonymous (clever forefathers!)...and at least half of the women won't vote for it. She doesn't have a chance in hell of passing a law.

Jim, I'd join that group!


message 19: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments CNN was pointing to the O'Donnell win in Delaware as another example of the fractured Republican party, e.g. the idea that the larger Republican machine won't give her money or help her get elected. I imagine the Dems will use the "divided party" message to attack the Republicans throughout the campaign, too. I would if I were them.


message 20: by Ken (new)

Ken (playjerist) | 721 comments My only experience with Delaware is the transference of several thousand dollars worth of my quarters to their state treasury during the minute and a half it took to blow through the place (I now live on the West coast, though not because of Delaware). Despite a segment of the population sending Pete DuPont to Congress, it’s difficult to believe that even in this momentary period of political delirium, the citizens of Delaware would be so manifestly irresponsible as to send a cornflake such as Christine O’ Donnell to the U.S. Senate. Otoh, there are people in Minnesota who sent Michelle Bachman to the House, so who knows?


message 21: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) I'd be willing to bet the Republicans will give anyone money they think has a chance in hell of winning them a seat. ANYONE.


message 22: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments Well, she lost New Castle County, and that's where most of the state's population lives.

And her winning margin was substantial, but not huge. If a lot of those who voted for Castle won't vote for her, she'll be in trouble, and she may be in trouble in either case.

The main Delaware newspaper hates her, and most of the press about her has been about her weird lawsuits and her previous failed campaigns. I would like to think she doesn't have a chance.


message 23: by Ken (new)

Ken (playjerist) | 721 comments RandomAnthony wrote: "CNN was pointing to the O'Donnell win in Delaware as another example of the fractured Republican party, e.g. the idea that the larger Republican machine won't give her money or help her get elected..."

Amelia wrote: "Barb, even if she wins the election, it will not be so easy to get the entire state of Delaware to vote for the ban. 79% of the state (according to the 2009 census) are under 65 and over 5. Of th..."

"Mainstream” Republicans (that designation is nearing extinction) have fed off the hysterical energy of their Know-Nothing and primitivist base for over a year (an energy that was certainly present in nearly identical form in those 2008 Palin and McCain rallies), pandering to them to the point of nearly becoming them. So watching the Republican Party now as it approaches the general election with these Screaming Mimi’s hanging its neck does provide a very pleasant shiver of schadenfreude.


message 24: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) "Mainstream” Republicans (that designation is nearing extinction) have fed off the hysterical energy of their Know-Nothing and primitivist base for over a year...

I think I resent that. All Christians aren't nuts and all Republicans aren't O'Donnells. And, both parties are low-life professional politicians who do everything to spin and win! If you think the Democratic party truly gives a shit about you, well, you just keep thinking that, darlin. Bless.


message 25: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) I remember a couple of years ago when I was lamenting the coming presidential election and Davey gave me some really practical advice. He told me, "Stinky, they're all a bunch of no good lying cheating assholes. You just have to find the one that is going to lie and cheat in your general direction." It was the only thing that made me feel better, like I could come to a decision that I would be able to live with. I truly don't trust any of them. I know that I mean less than nothing to all of them. When I win the lottery I'm going to buy one of those Greek islands and start my own country. Then and only then will I know that my vote really matters and the current ruler gives a flying shit about me. Ameliopolis, it'll be great. And, I'll finally get my paintball gun!


message 26: by Jim (new)

Jim | 6485 comments My mother was on city council for awhile, and we talked about politicians, and I made the statement that all politicians are liars to some degree, and that includes you mom. She agreed, it comes with the territory I guess.


message 27: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments Speaking of lying - check out O'Donnell on lying.

It's bad.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09...


message 28: by Ken (new)

Ken (playjerist) | 721 comments Amelia wrote: ""Mainstream” Republicans (that designation is nearing extinction) have fed off the hysterical energy of their Know-Nothing and primitivist base for over a year...

I think I resent that. All Chr..."


If you are a Republican,and a Christian, and someone makes the claim, “all Christians are nuts and all Republicans are O’Donnells” anything short of rising up against them in righteous indignation would be remiss. However, such a response to my remarks is entirely irrelevant of course.

No sentient being believes that Newt, Boehner etc. endorse most of the fecal matter pumping out of their mouths of late. But watching as their cynical promotion of irresponsible people and irresponsible sentiments comes back to bite them in general elections where grown-ups vote is quite enjoyable.

And the assessment that all politicians are bad, and that all things political and philosophical are equivalent would be profound if how many times a thing is repeated were the basis for profundity. Turns out it isn’t.


message 29: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) I can't decide if Ken gets pie or not...


message 30: by Ken (new)

Ken (playjerist) | 721 comments Amelia wrote: "I can't decide if Ken gets pie or not..."

A cookie?


message 31: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) Maybe I am a disappointed idealist, Bun. I think of myself as an optimist, but they're beating me down. Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama...I have been disappointed every time. I get my hopes up, but it just make it worse when I think...ugh, really?

Pie for Ken.


message 32: by Ken (last edited Sep 15, 2010 10:58AM) (new)

Ken (playjerist) | 721 comments Amelia wrote: "Maybe I am a disappointed idealist, Bun. I think of myself as an optimist, but they're beating me down. Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama...I have been disappointed every time. I get my hopes up, bu..."

I have no idea whether pie is good or bad, but I’m not really that picky.

As for your comment about our various presidents, in this case I think it would be accurate were you to say to Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama, “It’s not you. It’s me.”

Leaving aside the very different approaches to government and America’s challenges of each of these figures, one genuinely wonders what specifically your expectations have been?


message 33: by Jim (new)

Jim | 6485 comments BunWat wrote: "Whenever I hear someone saying all politicians are crooks and liars etc, etc, and fill in the rest of that speech from your memory banks - I hear a disappointed idealist. Like listening to a romant..."

See Bun, I am not a disappointed Idealist, but a realist. That doesn't mean they aren't doing what is best for their constituency which is what they were elected for. All humans are liars, But most politicians IMHO will lie, or at least conceal the truth to a higher degree than the average individual.


message 34: by R.C. (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments Jim wrote: "It would be great if the moderate Republicans could break away from the Tea Party Republicans, and get some moderate Democrats to join them. But as it stands right now unless they could take fundi..."

If enough prominent and influential people would sign on, it could be done. The ridiculous amount of funds that Obama was able to raise from small donations would help balance any loss of corporate backing, assuming the new party could raise funds in the same mold that he did. Regardless it will never happen. Left or Right is too ingrained in American Politics.

As much as a flustercluck the new British Government may turn out to be, I envy the concept of a coalition government and the promise it can hold. Differing mindsets coming together to do what is right hasn't been seen in the USA in a long time.


message 35: by Jim (new)

Jim | 6485 comments That is what intrigued me about Obama is that I think he truly thought he would be able to get this to happen while in office. He has since gone on a year plus lesson politics.


message 36: by Sarah (last edited Sep 15, 2010 12:29PM) (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments The part where I get frustrated is that he has a Democratic majority in the house and senate. He wrote all that stuff at the start of his term about how he was doing this to make a better world for his daughters. If that's the case, why doesn't he make himself the best one term President he can be, push the changes, and keep the backing of his most ardent supporters, many of him are starting to feel marginalized? I don't think the compromises are winning him friends on either side.

That's my gut talking, not the practical, analytical history major.


message 37: by Jim (new)

Jim | 6485 comments Sarah Pi wrote: "The part where I get frustrated is that he has a Democratic majority in the house and senate. He wrote all that stuff at the start of his term about how he was doing this to make a better world for..."

Oh, I agree he is not going to end up accomplishing anything by compromising everything away.


message 38: by R.C. (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments Ken wrote: "Amelia wrote: "Leaving aside the very different approaches to government and America’s challenges of each of these figures, one genuinely wonders what specifically your expectations have been?"

I don't know about anyone else, but I was too young to remember much of anything Bush Sr said and too young to care what Clinton said. During Clinton's years in office, the US experienced a good deal of prosperity though. He is still a popular President, and would be even more so if it wasn't for Monica-gate.

Bush Jr can never really be judged, as what his presidency should have been and what it could have been were shredded apart by Sept 11th. He ended up trusting Cheney more than he should have, and the result was two wars that have harmed our prosperity and global standing. His decision to let Lehman Brothers fail has impacted the economy more than any main stream pundit will admit.

Obama is not even two years in, but it has been disappointing to me. He was the first candidate I actually had an interest in, and I've been able to vote since 2001. Bailing out the banks had to be done, and the stimulous was needed too. What saddens me is instead of grand projects that would create visable hope and excitement (high speed rail, new ports, etc) we got swimming pools and slippy-seal. His desire to be bipartisan has also been completely undermined by his inability to control Nancy Pelosi and harry Reid; he may be the President of the USA, but it doesn't seem that Obama is in the top 5 when it comes to making policy in the Dem party. The only real good has been his working with allies in Europe, pushing towards peace in Palestine by taking a hawkish approach to Israel, and sending massive funds to the Department of Energy.

On a personal note, I'm disappointed with Obama due to his selections to run the governmental departments. He spent a lot of time talking about getting my generation involved, how it was our time make a difference. He even had a ton of young talent run his campaign. Then he gets elected and surrounds himself with old hats. Clinton was a wise choice on many levels, but most everyone else is from the old guard with old ideas gained from old visions. What we need is the exact opposite.


message 39: by R.C. (last edited Sep 15, 2010 01:16PM) (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments Sarah Pi wrote: "The part where I get frustrated is that he has a Democratic majority in the house and senate. He wrote all that stuff at the start of his term about how he was doing this to make a better world for..."

Even though he has had a majority, he refused to put his foot down and make his mark. Instead he turns to congress and asks then to craft this, draw up that. Pelosi and others were like a kid in a candy shop; grabbing fist fulls of pork and pet projects and adding them to the cart that Obama pushed around the store.

He tried to seek a middle ground because he knew the bills his party were trying to peddle. He showed a lack of testicular fortitude by not vetoing the bloated health care bill and not providing enough vision with the stimulus. His lack of resolve, lack of a desire to define his Presidency and control his party's direction, will ultimately make the next two years very stagnant and leaves the GOP with a chance, provided they go for a Scott Brown instead of a Palin, to take back the White House.

Of course, it's entirely within reason that he was just lying to get elected and has no idea what he is doing. That could also explain his constant deferment to the "wisdom" of congress.


message 40: by Jim (new)

Jim | 6485 comments I will never say that I am with out some responsibility. I have even sent emails to my US Senators expressing my concerns on their representation of their constituency. The one senator sent me back a great email saying that he knows that they have failed, but are trying to put things forward to work on their short comings. They other sent me back a note that said that you can do your part by voting. I think he may be on to something, even considering I haven't missed an election in well over 20 years.


message 41: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments I've seen great things happen on a small level. I think the more constituents they have to please on a given issue - a whole state instead of a district, say - the less they are able to do.
I've spent time on Capitol Hill and there's hardly room to sit in most offices between all of the lobbyists.
But I've had senators' aides work on cases for me, and things genuinely do get done. Sometimes.


message 42: by Meels (last edited Sep 15, 2010 01:15PM) (new)

Meels (amelia) Bush was a bit of a sleeper from what I recall, I wasn't old enough to vote then, or maybe I lived in England and they wouldn't let me vote absentee. I don't remember. Clinton would have been okay, if he wasn't a dirt bag. I know you all think that it's stupid that I care. But, I do care. I think it says something about a person's character for one thing. And, I think it says a lot if they can't keep it in their pants for four short years, seeing as they have better things to do! It hampered him, whatever you might think. He'll always be a liar and a joke. Even folks that like him have to see him as that little bit of a joke. Bush II, well, come on, where do I start? I lived in TX when he was governor and I quite liked him. I was excited to vote for him. In my naivete, I did...twice. My husband still thinks he's great, but I can't. He wasn't as big of an idiot as he made himself out to be, you couldn't be and manage to tie your shoes, but he sure made himself look like a blithering idiot. "No, Mr. President it's not 'nucular', it's 'nuclear!" You know they had to say that a thousand times. It's not pa-sketti, it's not alltimers, it's not NUCULAR! Don't tell me you don't think it hampered him that he was thought by most of the world as the biggest moran (that was for you Bellsy) ever!

Obama...it's been pretty bad since the start, Acorn, half his czars being radicals and extremists, can't get that health care bill through that no one I know even wants...well, just go back door with it, never mind the constitution since you think it's "fundamentally flawed" anyway. Immigration is a joke and that "stimulus package" you talked about, according to every economist I've heard on NPR and every talking head on Wall Street didn't stimulate a damn thing. In my state the unemployment rate is still over 10%. That deficit is getting ever larger, but who cares, just print more money, Mr. President. And, bailing out GM was a joke. Too big to fail is a joke. Tell that to folks who had their entire retirement in Enron. I bet they're pissed they didn't get bailed out! How can you pick and choose like that? GM goes under and Ford takes over, it's the free market system!

I know I'm not as smart as y'all, and maybe I'm totally unreasonable. Whatever. For me, the whole Republicans vs. Democrats is a waste of my time. I don't really think one is any better than the other. I dislike plenty about both and like some about both.


message 43: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) Basically, I hate politics. Why am I even on this thread?


message 44: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24099 comments Mod
To those who think "moderates" are not in control: they are. Everything Obama and Congress has passed thus far has been overwhelmingly influenced by "moderates." Much that Obama would like to get done, but has not been able to, has been because of the influence of "moderates." (I'm putting moderates in quotes here because I certainly believe the things I am for, which are progressive, are also moderate in the sense of sensible and good.) Let's use the term moderate to describe, for example, Senator Ben Nelson (D) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I) and Senator Olympia Snowe (R). The press always refers to these folks as moderates.

Why was the public option taken off the table immediately? Because moderates wanted it gone. Why were such restrictive abortion measures stuck into the healthcare law? Because moderates like Rep. Bart Stupak (D) (not to mention the Catholic bishops) insisted it be there. Pelosi could not get the bill out of the House to a vote without Stupak's language written into the bill.

Why is every progressive piece of legislation watered down to the point that it's no longer progressive, but utterly corporatist? Pro-business moderates.

It's always people like Nelson and Lieberman who hold everyone else hostage until they get their way.


message 45: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24099 comments Mod
R. C. wrote: "Even though he has had a majority, he refused to put his foot down and make his mark. Instead he turns to congress and asks then to craft this, draw up that. Pelosi and others were like a kid in a candy shop; grabbing fist fulls of pork and pet projects and adding them to the cart that Obama pushed around the store.

He tried to seek a middle ground because he knew the bills his party were trying to peddle. He showed a lack of testicular fortitude by not vetoing the bloated health care bill"


Not sure why you would expect him to veto legislation he'd been pushing for for years.

The decision to allow Congress to write the healthcare bill was a conscious one. Obama very much wanted to avoid what happened with Clinton, where Hillary and Ira Magaziner and their staffs wrote the bill and sent it up to Congress tied up with a bow, and Congress wasn't happy they didn't have a lot of input. That's partly why it tanked.


message 46: by R.C. (last edited Sep 15, 2010 02:04PM) (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments Amelia wrote: "Obama...it's been pretty bad since the start, Acorn...And, bailing out GM was a joke. Too big to fail is a joke. Tell that to folks who had their entire retirement in Enron. I bet they're pissed they didn't get bailed out! How can you pick and choose like that? GM goes under and Ford takes over, it's the free market system!"

ACORN was an independent non-profit company completely separate from Obama and the Democratic party. Since it focused on the poor, naturally it sided with the Dems. Blaming Obama for the actions of ACORN employees would be like blaming the CEO of McDonald's for racist remarks made by an employee at a chicken farm that provides McDonalds with meat.

GM was bailed out by Bush in the fall of 2008. Yes, I'm sure Obama signed off on it, and yes, Obama forced GM into a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy. However, had Bush and Obama not "bailed" them out, it would have screwed over the entire industry. Many part suppliers would have been forced under as well, causing huge issues for Ford, Toyota, Honda, et cetera. Despite Ford being the new media darling, they barely were able to survive w/o bailout loans. Ford would have gone down too, and Chrysler would not have been bought(some then, more soon) by Fiat, causing the whole US auto companies to go down. The auto industry is a very dependent and delicate ecosystem; break one chain and the whole industry unravels. Seriously.

Enron was sad, but that happened because a few people completely fabricated earnings and worth. Investing is a very risky proposition and there are no guarantees. One of the biggest mistakes people make is investing only in their employer. I'm not a huge believer in diversifying, as it can limit home run potential, but it can help mitigate losses too. Having a handful of companies you believe in or have researched and are confident in is better than being invested solely in any one company. Bailing out individual investors or employees would have been a great gesture but then every person who ever lost money would come calling.

Bailing out the banks was also necessary. Saving Bear Stearns but then watching Lehman Brothers die was the stupidest thing Bush did during his Presidency, and that is saying something. It caused a massive panic to ripple through every fiber of the market, and it has still yet to recover from it. Massive amounts of money was pulled from the market, banks stopped lending to each other and credit stopped. There were also global ramifications that had to be considered, and many EU banks were given funds by the EU. Unless you want the Federal Reserve to become the Royal Bank of America (and i know you don't), we need big banks; mom and pop thrift banks can't fund the economic muscle that is our corporations.

I know there is a lot of hate towards wallstreet, but you don't cut your star QB because he throws a pick that costs you a superbowl; you help him get better and rebuild. Also, please note that the bailout funds are loans, not grants, and must be repaid. The US should make a pretty penny from them over the next decade or so.

You are spot on about the stimulus though. It was a waste and Obama is mostly to blame. The stimulus should have had more vision and more rigid, focusing on specific projects and goals. Instead it was like putting out a treasure chest and telling a bunch of peasants to have at it.

It is expensive, but I urge you to invest in an issue of The Economist every now and again: entertaining, great news, balanced, with a global perspective and an admitted bias towards being Fiscally conservative and socially progressive. They also have a few articles posted on their website from current issues. It can be refreshing to have perspective that doesn't include the US media sometimes.


message 47: by R.C. (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments Lobstergirl wrote: "R. C. wrote: "Even though he has had a majority, he refused to put his foot down and make his mark. Instead he turns to congress and asks then to craft this, draw up that. Pelosi and others were li..."

You are probably right. But it just felt like he had no influence on it.

While I lean left for social causes, I am glad the public option was dropped. It is great in theory but the having the Government be in charge of it would have been a train wreck. If there was a public option, I would have liked to see it balanced out the the Conservative proposition of allowing interstate insurance offerings and more competition.

But in the fashion of true politics, a compromised was reached, no one is happy, and the bill is mostly a waste of ink and paper.


message 48: by R.C. (new)

R.C. (rc_kinkaid) | 56 comments BunWat wrote: "I read The Economist from time to time."

I stopped subscribing a while back but I still get the audio edition. It is incredible how having a British narrator can make even the most mundane seem interesting...


message 49: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24099 comments Mod
There are things about the bill that are hugely disappointing to me, but it does some very good things: mandates that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions, expands Medicaid, and allows children to stay on their parents' insurance to age 26.

The public option was the thing that would have done the most to control costs, which was a big reason so many people supported it.


message 50: by Meels (new)

Meels (amelia) Okay, I shouldn't be here, but I have to ask you Bun, cause I know you'll over look that I'm not as smart about these things as you. The health care bill. Here's the thing, why can't they just regulate the damn insurance companies, like how they regulate our industry to death. I mean, if they controlled premiums and denials folks would be able to afford insurance. Some people bemoan that the insurance companies wouldn't be able to make money, but they would, just not as much, at the expense of the rest of us. It's ridiculous. I read something about how income went down, premiums went up and insurance companies made like 400% more money during 2009. That's robbery, that is!

I have to pay $750.00 per month for insurance, because I have a pre-existing condition that requires no ongoing treatment. I have a letter from my Dr. telling Blue Cross Blue Shield exactly that...they don't care.

Rather than Health Care reform, I think that Medical Insurance Reform would do this country a whole lot more good.

Bun?


« previous 1
back to top