Harry Reid--Why would we want to save one child with cancer?

Sometimes when you get angry you accidentally reveal the truth. You try to cover it up later with idiotic excuses but the statement is made and the truth is out.

Democratic Senatoe Majority Leader Harry Reid was answering questions of reporters and Dana Bash was getting under his skin. She asked about why the Senate (meaning Reid himself) would not vote on a bill that would fund the National Institute of Health. Seems that one of Obama's decisions to shut down the NIH was cutting off child from cancer drug trials. Why would you do that Senator Reid? "If you can help even one child with cancer, why wouldn't you do that?" Reid answered, "Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless.”


Unbelievable. This is your piece of shit CJ, your party Tex, your leadership person WTF, your standard bearer WE.


No kids pics, CC

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...vatives-pounce Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Besides the obvious solution, a clean CR, to this outcry by the largest number of blatant hypocrites to ever be assembled in one zip code, the past concern for the great work done by the NIH seems to be less well received by the GOP. The "concerned GOP help the children faction" has provided us with a clear picture of their interest in helping those most a risk.

"In 2010, Cantor himself proposed a $1.3 billion cut to NIH. The 2011 House Republican budget also sought to cut $1.6 billion from the agency. In House Republicans' 2013 budget proposal put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), cuts to the agency's budget approached 20 percent."
.

Besides the obvious solution, a clean CR, to this outcry by the largest number of blatant hypocrites to ever be assembled in one zip code, the past concern for the great work done by the NIH seems to be less well received by the GOP. The "concerned GOP help the children faction" has provided us with a clear picture of their interest in helping those most a risk.

"In 2010, Cantor himself proposed a $1.3 billion cut to NIH. The 2011 House Republican budget also sought to cut $1.6 billion from the agency. In House Republicans' 2013 budget proposal put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), cuts to the agency's budget approached 20 percent."
. Originally Posted by lostincypress

No thoughts of your own? Maybe you should paste the last paragraph and think about the research of sick shrimp and drunken pigs.

The NIH, based in Bethesda, last took a spending cut in 2006, when a Republican-controlled Congress trimmed its budget by about $34 million. Zeitzer and Collins said Republicans have otherwise been proponents of the agency. The agency's budget more than doubled, to $29 billion, from 1995, when Republicans took control of Congress, to 2007, when they lost it, NIH records show. --The Washington Post, 2009.

The GOP is not denying healthcare like Reid but is willing to fund the NIH but the GOP requires more sense and less waste. Think about those shrimp and your money.

No thoughts of your own? Maybe you should paste the last paragraph and think about the research of sick shrimp and drunken pigs.

The NIH, based in Bethesda, last took a spending cut in 2006, when a Republican-controlled Congress trimmed its budget by about $34 million. Zeitzer and Collins said Republicans have otherwise been proponents of the agency. The agency's budget more than doubled, to $29 billion, from 1995, when Republicans took control of Congress, to 2007, when they lost it, NIH records show. --The Washington Post, 2009.

The GOP is not denying healthcare like Reid but is willing to fund the NIH but the GOP requires more sense and less waste. Think about those shrimp and your money. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I thought the following were my thoughts: "Besides the obvious solution, a clean CR, to this outcry by the largest number of blatant hypocrites to ever be assembled in one zip code, the past concern for the great work done by the NIH seems to be less well received by the GOP. The "concerned GOP help the children faction" has provided us with a clear picture of their interest in helping those most a risk."

You have convinced me they are not. Here's a thought........the GOP is not willing to sign a clean CR to save a child's life. Simple enough.

You have convinced me they are not. Here's a thought........the GOP is not willing to sign a clean CR to save a child's life. Simple enough. Originally Posted by lostincypress

Not quite the case. The House sent over a clean CR, with the exception that Members of Congress and their staffs would not be eligible for subsidies unavailable to the average applicant. So really, Harry Reid is playing with the lives of children to preserve his own perks, and those of his staff.

That bill is still in the Senate. They can vote on it anytime. Sounds good to me.

Or, they could vote on the bill which extends the employee mandate for another year, like Obama did for big business without asking Congress.

The Senate has options. They just refuse to exercise them.

Btw, both of those bills fully fund Obamacare. Who is really playing?

Not quite the case. The House sent over a clean CR, with the exception that Members of Congress and their staffs would not be eligible for subsidies unavailable to the average applicant. So really, Harry Reid is playing with the lives of children to preserve his own perks, and those of his staff.

That bill is still in the Senate. They can vote on it anytime. Sounds good to me.

Or, they could vote on the bill which extends the employee mandate for another year, like Obama did for big business without asking Congress.

The Senate has options. They just refuse to exercise them.

Btw, both of those bills fully fund Obamacare. Who is really playing? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The subsidies they would receive are the same as the subsidies they currently receive, not unlike a private sector employer who outsources healthcare and provides employees with the current employer contribution to the employer plan. Congress and their staffs are covered under the Federal Employee Plan. The employer contributes 70% and the members cover the remaining 30%. Nothing would change except the members would now purchase their insurance in the private market. The staffs of Congress were turned into a play toy by Senator Chuck Grassley. Republicans and Democrats have been searching / pleading with the Administration to find a way to provide the SAME level of compensation as they currently receive. They are NOT getting something EXTRA.

Agencies have leeway in the implementation of any Act or Law passed by Congress. This is covered under the Administrative Procedures Act 1946 and there does exist case law that addresses the rights of Agencies to proceed in the most effective manner possible. Heckler v Chaney 1985 is one such case.

Not quite the case. The House sent over a clean CR, with the exception that Members of Congress and their staffs would not be eligible for subsidies unavailable to the average applicant. So really, Harry Reid is playing with the lives of children to preserve his own perks, and those of his staff.

That bill is still in the Senate. They can vote on it anytime. Sounds good to me.

Or, they could vote on the bill which extends the employee mandate for another year, like Obama did for big business without asking Congress.

The Senate has options. They just refuse to exercise them.

Btw, both of those bills fully fund Obamacare. Who is really playing? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

not quite the case either .. the House resolution had an attachment to it that had nothing to do with funding the federal government, which is a mandatory law in the Constitution

Let the medical marijuana and death panels commence! Originally Posted by gnadfly

Liberals in the MM line, Tea Party head to your Death Panel line!

The subsidies they would receive are the same as the subsidies they currently receive, not unlike a private sector employer who outsources healthcare and provides employees with the current employer contribution to the employer plan. Congress and their staffs are covered under the Federal Employee Plan. The employer contributes 70% and the members cover the remaining 30%. Nothing would change except the members would now purchase their insurance in the private market. The staffs of Congress were turned into a play toy by Senator Chuck Grassley. Republicans and Democrats have been searching / pleading with the Administration to find a way to provide the SAME level of compensation as they currently receive. They are NOT getting something EXTRA.

. Originally Posted by lostincypress

Do not try and educate these fools with facts! I had this discussion with them months ago about the real reason for this. They are not educated/honest enough to admit their lie.

What does a "clean CR" have to do with Obamacare? Most of Obamacare is automatically funded (77%) and is going forward anyway. Have you ever seen a "clean CR" remain that way when it reaches the Senate. Seems to me to be very reasonable that Congress has to abide and participate by what they passed. Unlike Cypress I think that Congressmen are not demigods, or mini rulers over us. They are us and they should abide by the same laws, including Obamacare, that we do. I don't see what is wrong with the private citizen getting the same year off that business is. I also don't see what is wrong with all those exemptions being cancelled. We either ALL go in or none of us go in. Answer that question Cypress, why does the democratic party want to treat people unequally. Maybe you can say that the democratic party is not like that then you can answer the question is why Harry Reid and Barack Obama that way. You keep repeating the same mandra but exercise some thought and answer those questions.

Why don't you fu*king geniuses ask the Teawipes leaders, like, say, the KOCK Broz? They are the ones who shut the government down in the first place.

What does a "clean CR" have to do with Obamacare? Most of Obamacare is automatically funded (77%) and is going forward anyway. Have you ever seen a "clean CR" remain that way when it reaches the Senate. Seems to me to be very reasonable that Congress has to abide and participate by what they passed. Unlike Cypress I think that Congressmen are not demigods, or mini rulers over us. They are us and they should abide by the same laws, including Obamacare, that we do. I don't see what is wrong with the private citizen getting the same year off that business is. I also don't see what is wrong with all those exemptions being cancelled. We either ALL go in or none of us go in. Answer that question Cypress, why does the democratic party want to treat people unequally. Maybe you can say that the democratic party is not like that then you can answer the question is why Harry Reid and Barack Obama that way. You keep repeating the same mandra but exercise some thought and answer those questions. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Maybe I spent too many years in the private sector and the "compensation package" concept prevents me from seeing a subsidy when the total package was used to attract employees. Executives have contracts, professional athletes have contracts, union members have contracts....and they all specify what the "compensation package" provides. Employers provide "X" dollars to fund the total amount; vacations, education, salary, healthcare, etc..........As for "we should all be in it".....the firm I retired from is maintaining the same benefits for salaried and well as honoring the contractual obligations negotiated with employees. The ACA is a vehicle for those unable to obtain insurance to do so ....if you've ever known anyone who lost their employer insurance and had to go into the Texas High Risk pool you would have some idea of the intent of the ACT. Two people, man and wife, $2000 per month with $5000 deductible. The Texas Hospital Association recently published a study that showed the average private policy holder in Texas paid $150 additional per month in policy cost to cover the uninsured. The tax treatment of employer plans has NEVER been fair for all Americans but I haven't seen an outcry for fairness. The very existence of employer paid plans has driven up the cost for all. Life isn't fair. Will some employers who have no concern for turnover, quality of product, service levels, etc use the ACA to modify their plans. Yes, some. But, during my years in management I never went to a cost planning meeting where the central theme was not "cost reduction"....control of hours, extending the life of facilities, hiring restrictions, .....and this goes back to the 1970's....it's always been about cost....outsourcing, offshoring, subcontracting.....always....a nd healthcare was always a concern....The shift to part time workers is nothing new ...and companies such as Walmart have been limiting hours to prevent certain benefit levels from being achieved for decades. The real issue lies in the globalization of the labor market and the reversion to the mean of pay as it relates to global compensation. Most industrialized..."advanced" nations have some form of universal healthcare. When I say most, I meant to say all....except the US. ACA is not universal healthcare. It is not single payer. The 1200 waivers in most cases were granted to allow employers' an exemption for one year prior to the NO CAP element being implemented. The dropping of coverage by large corporations, with few exceptions, has been mischaracterized. IBM " The move, which will affect all IBM retirees once they become eligible for Medicare, will relieve the technology company of the responsibility of managing retirement health-care benefits. IBM said the growing cost of care makes its current plan unsustainable without big premium increases."

Why wouldn't a company have over 65's on Medicare? I'm over 65, on a Medicare Advantage Plan, and still receive a subsidy from my former employer for out of pocket costs. Yet, the IBM decision, which does not dump their over 65s in the exchange has been highlighted as an employer decision to DUMP their retirees? Enough.

If anyone wants a year off pay the $95. The only way it can be collected is through a reduction in your tax refund and if someone can't figure out how to not have a refund....google I don't want to get a tax refund.

The subsidies they would receive are the same as the subsidies they currently receive, not unlike a private sector employer who outsources healthcare and provides employees with the current employer contribution to the employer plan. Congress and their staffs are covered under the Federal Employee Plan. The employer contributes 70% and the members cover the remaining 30%. Nothing would change except the members would now purchase their insurance in the private market. The staffs of Congress were turned into a play toy by Senator Chuck Grassley. Republicans and Democrats have been searching / pleading with the Administration to find a way to provide the SAME level of compensation as they currently receive. They are NOT getting something EXTRA.

Agencies have leeway in the implementation of any Act or Law passed by Congress. This is covered under the Administrative Procedures Act 1946 and there does exist case law that addresses the rights of Agencies to proceed in the most effective manner possible. Heckler v Chaney 1985 is one such case. Originally Posted by lostincypress

Since one of the selling points by the dems to get support for Obamacare is that they will also be under Obamacare like everyone else they should have to live with that decision.

Since one of the selling points by the dems to get support for Obamacare is that they will also be under Obamacare like everyone else they should have to live with that decision. Originally Posted by Laz

They are free to purchase insurance in the private market. There is no Obamacare. How did they get to this point. Senator Chuck Grassley was just trying to screw up the ACA. They may use the exchange if they so choose or not if they so choose. And what does "everyone else" actually mean as over 70% of Americans are covered by either employer plans, Medicare, or Medicaid. Grassley's net worth is in excess of 3 million and the Senate average is 2.6 million in 2011. The market gains more than likely have moved these numbers in a positive direction.

Note: The article on the provision excluding Congress and Staff from receiving what they are receiving beginning Jan 1, 2014 was published prior to the OPM determining Congress could continue to receive the 72% currently provided by their employer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...res-exchanges/

The subsidies they would receive are the same as the subsidies they currently receive, not unlike a private sector employer who outsources healthcare and provides employees with the current employer contribution to the employer plan. Congress and their staffs are covered under the Federal Employee Plan. The employer contributes 70% and the members cover the remaining 30%. Nothing would change except the members would now purchase their insurance in the private market. The staffs of Congress were turned into a play toy by Senator Chuck Grassley. Republicans and Democrats have been searching / pleading with the Administration to find a way to provide the SAME level of compensation as they currently receive. They are NOT getting something EXTRA. Originally Posted by lostincypress

The problem with this statement is that it is false to fact.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as passed by the Democrat-controlled House and Democrat-controlled Senate, and signed by the Current Occupant of the White House, specifically outlawed any such subsidies.

Obama personally intervened, and broke the law to provide those subsidies.

The House bill merely reaffirms the existing law, saying in effect "... and we REALLY MEAN *NO* *SUBSIDIES* FOR CONGRESS AND STAFF!"

So what's Harry's problem with following his own law?

not quite the case either .. the House resolution had an attachment to it that had nothing to do with funding the federal government, which is a mandatory law in the Constitution Originally Posted by CJ7

What part of the Constitution? And do you agree the Senate has at least two viable options for funding the government INCLUDING Obamacare? They can either give the people the same one year extension like they gave their corporate overlords, or reduce the perks they give themselves. Harry Reid is completely petty and reprehensible for protecting his perks or treating people the same as Big Business at the expense of treating children with cancer.