George Vreeland Hill Speaks About Health Care Reform!

12/25/2009 9:02:39 PM	George Vreeland Hill Speaks About Health Care Reform!
george_vreeland Beverly Hills, CA 60, joined Mar. 2009	Last November, America voted for change. Health care reform and a public option is not only a part of that change, but is essential in guaranteeing affordable health care for all people. America's insurance companies and the Republican Party do not want you to have a public option because their business is self interest and profit. A public option saves you money and gives you a choice in the kind of health care coverage you and your family needs. We must fight those who want to keep things the way they were or we will not have the real changes we voted for. George Vreeland Hill Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
12/26/2009 10:07:28 AM	George Vreeland Hill Speaks About Health Care Reform!
lefty247 Swartz Creek, MI 70, joined Apr. 2009	Fight if you want, but that won't get the bill passed. Not with Joe Liberman (Connecticut I)holding up the bill if you add PO. The Repubs can all piss off for all I care--who needs them? But we need all 60 Dems & Indies, to get this passed. 7 Presidents have tried & failed to get anywhere near where we are today. Compromise is the key George.
12/28/2009 12:02:44 AM	George Vreeland Hill Speaks About Health Care Reform!
danguitarman Redding, CA 63, joined Aug. 2007	You are both right and I agree with both of you. Here is the way that I believe is the best way to proceed. First: A Constitutional Amendment shoud be introduced in the House that will change the representation in the U.S. Senate to be based on population rather than equal number of senators for each state. The obvious unfairness of having two senators from Montana and two from California has to be focused on. This is the underlying flaw in our democracy that makes corruption of the political process so easy for the banks and the insurance companies and other vested interests of the status quo. I think that the House might even pass this bill. I'm not foolish enough to think that the Senate would pass it. But that is the best place to start to PUT THE FOCUS ON THE CORRUPTION IN THE U.S. SENATE that is blocking real helth insurance reform. SECOND: MEDICARE IS THE PUBLIC OPTION!!! Seniors, who were manipulated by Republican lies into opposing reform, are NOT afraid of Medicare in any form. They love Medicare and will support Medicare expansion. Medicare works! We don't need a new beaurocracy or a new model. MEDICARE FOR EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO BUY IT!!! That is the slogan that will sell and it can't be twisted or misunderstood. "Public Option" was not clear enough. "EXPANDING MEDICARE AVAILABILITY" is clear and simple an unambiguous. Medicare is not mandatory and its not free. But you can't get it today unless you are 65 years old or disabled. It has a deductible and a copay and is widely accepted. Expanding Medicare availability to EVERYONE is the way to go. Right now Medicare only covers the WORST RISKS. Expanding Medicare would also make it more fiscally secure. In fact, if Medicare were avaiable to everyone, the federal government would make a profit on it while healthcare improved at the same time and everyone's costs dereased. The private insureres could stay in business by competing with Medicare (unlikely) or buy continuing to sell their Medicare supplements, which are very profitable for them.
12/30/2009 10:02:52 PM	George Vreeland Hill Speaks About Health Care Reform!
idlehour Montgomery, AL 61, joined May. 2009	I dont think a constitutional amendment would be necessary. Just changing Senate rules to allow for a majority vote on everything would be a quantum leap forward. How and why the American people have allowed and tolerated this a** backward senate rule system is beyond me. The senate rules is not in the constitution, and should have been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court when it was arbitrarily implements by status quo forces in the senate.
12/31/2009 7:51:40 AM	George Vreeland Hill Speaks About Health Care Reform!
danguitarman Redding, CA 63, joined Aug. 2007	We have made many improvements to our democratic process since since the Constitution was written. All of these improvements tend toward fairness and political equality of all of our people. Instead of only white male property owners being able to vote, the right to vote has been expanded to include women and minorities. The members of the U.S. Senate were not chosen by the voters for the first 150 years or so, but appointed by state legislatures. It was a reform to the democratic process that the Constitution was changed to provide for direct election of U.S. Senators. (I think this was done by Constitutional Amendment, I'm not sure.) The next reform our democratic process needs is that the U.S. Senate should be apportioned by population, much like the Hous of Representatives is, or with some compromise between the present absurdity and the makeup of the House. The House represents the will of the people. What does the Senate represent? The will of the banks, insurance companies, oil companies, credit card companies, multi-national corporations os all stripes? Two Senators each from California and New York. And an equal two Senators each from Montana, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Alaska, etc. What kind of democracy is this? All of the Senators from California and New York with together have about 50 million people, supported the public option and Medicare expansion. But Senators from small states representing a very small number of real people were able to take the public option and Medicare expansion out. Not a lot of people in Conneticutt is there? But home of Aetna and Lieberman. Nebraska's Senator stood in the way. Home of Mutual of Omaha, now Mutual of America. The small states have too much power in the U.S. Senate because its not representative of the population. For a representative democracy, this is WRONG.
1/6/2010 8:58:21 PM	George Vreeland Hill Speaks About Health Care Reform!
idlehour Montgomery, AL 61, joined May. 2009	Quote from danguitarman: We have made many improvements to our democratic process since since the Constitution was written. All of these improvements tend toward fairness and political equality of all of our people. Instead of only white male property owners being able to vote, the right to vote has been expanded to include women and minorities. The members of the U.S. Senate were not chosen by the voters for the first 150 years or so, but appointed by state legislatures. It was a reform to the democratic process that the Constitution was changed to provide for direct election of U.S. Senators. (I think this was done by Constitutional Amendment, I'm not sure.) The next reform our democratic process needs is that the U.S. Senate should be apportioned by population, much like the Hous of Representatives is, or with some compromise between the present absurdity and the makeup of the House. The House represents the will of the people. What does the Senate represent? The will of the banks, insurance companies, oil companies, credit card companies, multi-national corporations os all stripes? Two Senators each from California and New York. And an equal two Senators each from Montana, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Alaska, etc. What kind of democracy is this? All of the Senators from California and New York with together have about 50 million people, supported the public option and Medicare expansion. But Senators from small states representing a very small number of real people were able to take the public option and Medicare expansion out. Not a lot of people in Conneticutt is there? But home of Aetna and Lieberman. Nebraska's Senator stood in the way. Home of Mutual of Omaha, now Mutual of America. The small states have too much power in the U.S. Senate because its not representative of the population. For a representative democracy, this is WRONG. I agree that it would be an improvement..... [Edited 1/6/2010 9:00:52 PM ]

skipthegames sex

real hookup