View Full Version : Huge change in Dem strategy

01-21-2010, 11:40 AM
For the last year, all we heard from the Dems is we need to quickly pass this healthcare bill. First, it had to pass by the summer. Then it had to pass before the winter recess. Then it had to pass by the end of the year.

Now, all of a sudden, Nancy announces that there aren't enough votes in the house to pass the Senate version of the bill, and she announces that "We are in no rush".

If that were the case, why did the congress put all their efforts into healthcare this year, when the economy and jobs were of much more immediate concern?



01-21-2010, 01:58 PM
They were, of course, hopeful (with Hope and Change) to slid this by the American public before anyone could read it, still were trying last week.

As I said in my other post, now thta it is not a time sensitive issue, perhaps they can forge a bill in public, not ina locked room full of Hope and Change.

01-21-2010, 04:44 PM
Both the House and Senate plans have higher premium caps for a married couple than an unmarried pair making the same money.

By The Wall Street Journal
Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together if the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress is passed.

The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate versions of the health care bill has received scant attention. But for scores of low- and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say "I do."

The disparity could come about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from House Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That would have the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared with if the individuals were single.

People who got their health insurance through an employer wouldn't be affected, but people who bought subsidized insurance through new exchanges set up by the legislation would. About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

01-21-2010, 04:52 PM
Funny how little details like this receive so little public attention.

The MSM doesn't seem interested in presenting facts such as this.

I guess it's just for people who actually do some research.


01-22-2010, 09:28 AM
Yeah I read about this a little while ago. Sucks if you are married. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif