Leahy, Sanders vote a noa on repeal o...

Leahy, Sanders vote a noa on repeal of health law

There are 19 comments on the Bennington Banner story from Feb 2, 2011, titled Leahy, Sanders vote a noa on repeal of health law. In it, Bennington Banner reports that:

President Barack Obama's landmark health care reform law survived a repeal vote in the Senate Wednesday with the help of Vermont's two senators.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bennington Banner.

peggycox

United States

#1 Feb 2, 2011


Under new Bill, Health insurance is a must, but now you can easily find health insurance for your family under $40 "Wise Health Insurance" is giving you more control over your family’s health care by expanding your options for health insurance and making them more affordable.
Observer

Morrisville, VT

#2 Feb 3, 2011
peggycox wrote:
Under new Bill, Health insurance is a must, but now you can easily find health insurance for your family under $40 "Wise Health Insurance" is giving you more control over your family’s health care by expanding your options for health insurance and making them more affordable.
Is that $40 a day, a week, etc.-- Lets be honest,$40 a week does not get you a family plan, and it still adds up to $2,000 a year with big limits on what you get. In fact, no one paying that little, gets a health insurance that is worth much if you really need insurance.
locknload

White River Junction, VT

#4 Feb 3, 2011
We should contact Leahy and Sanders and let them know how we feel. As a wise man once said, "govt isn't the solution, govt is the problem". While this can be taken to an extreme it would seem our current civil servants have overstretched the constitutional limits intended by our forefathers when they outlined the boundaries of the respective branches. There are many things we can all justify, but if we can't afford them we don't buy them. Massive expansion of our federal bureaucracy in light of the current government deficit, is not only unwise, it's downright foolish.
Wag the dog

Canaan, CT

#5 Feb 3, 2011
locknload wrote:
We should contact Leahy and Sanders and let them know how we feel. As a wise man once said, "govt isn't the solution, govt is the problem". While this can be taken to an extreme it would seem our current civil servants have overstretched the constitutional limits intended by our forefathers when they outlined the boundaries of the respective branches. There are many things we can all justify, but if we can't afford them we don't buy them. Massive expansion of our federal bureaucracy in light of the current government deficit, is not only unwise, it's downright foolish.
Get rid of those War On Terror and War On Drugs money pits and we could easily afford health care, better education, better infrastructure, job building, better food inspection, development of clean & self-sufficient energy, etc.
Wag the dog

Canaan, CT

#6 Feb 3, 2011
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that $40 a day, a week, etc.-- Lets be honest,$40 a week does not get you a family plan, and it still adds up to $2,000 a year with big limits on what you get. In fact, no one paying that little, gets a health insurance that is worth much if you really need insurance.
peggycox is just some spammer's pseudonym, "Wise Health Insurance" has been touted in numerous comment threads for months.
Maggie

Saint George, UT

#7 Feb 3, 2011
peggycox wrote:
Under new Bill, Health insurance is a must, but now you can easily find health insurance for your family under $40 "Wise Health Insurance" is giving you more control over your family’s health care by expanding your options for health insurance and making them more affordable.
I am thinking Topix should bill you for this advertisement.
nana says

Grand Isle, VT

#8 Feb 3, 2011
I want to know if Sanders and Leahy read all 2000 pages of the health plan bill? Not asst but them? Single payer health care is not in that plan. Even Shulmin is saying we need it. So why are Sanders and Leahy voting for something our Govenor doesn't like and the people of VT voted for Shulmin? Obviously - these 2 jokers don't care about VT. Hopefully Leahy will Retire because everyone keeps voting for this jerk even though he does nothing for our state and Sanders is just well what has he done?
nana says

Salem, NH

#10 Feb 3, 2011
Remember when Shulmin went to Washington to meet with Obama with other Governors? He said is prioity was to pull Obama aside and talk about getting "single payer healthcare". Sanders and Leahy must not have heard that. The vote was to not reject the whole plan - but it was a vote to fix these types of issues with the plan that no one read. A "no" vote to repeal in order to fix something is not showing the Republicans you have solidarity amongst yourselves - it is a vote that shows Americans and us Vermonters how out of touch you are with our everyday lifes.
squid52

Portsmouth, VA

#11 Feb 3, 2011
Probably an unconstitutional law, coupled with the voters' negative voice in November, make it a cinch that the VT delegation will try to continue the idiocy of this bill! I wonder if they had it porked out, with Leahy sprinkling chump change around the northern part of the state? Hmmmm, that habit of his smacks of de facto vote buying. Yes, I think that Vermonters are bought....and real cheap!
jgadsden

Windsor, VT

#12 Feb 3, 2011
its a valid point..

why would these guys first seek a waiver for VT from this bill then support it for everyone else in the face of their clear objection?
jeff bombard

Bennington, VT

#13 Feb 3, 2011
i am 68 years old and barely can pay for my prescriptions, that is with medicare and an add on from an aarp insurance company. i will probably have to drop some drugs to keep the ones that keep me alive maybe. already paying $250.00 a month for insurance. quality of life is rapidly disappearing as you start losing control over the cost of drugs. if a single payer plan would be better then i am for it.
jgadsden

Windsor, VT

#15 Feb 3, 2011
jeff bombard wrote:
i am 68 years old and barely can pay for my prescriptions, that is with medicare and an add on from an aarp insurance company. i will probably have to drop some drugs to keep the ones that keep me alive maybe. already paying $250.00 a month for insurance. quality of life is rapidly disappearing as you start losing control over the cost of drugs. if a single payer plan would be better then i am for it.
ho much do you think your care costs an insurer each month?
My guess would be way more than $250...

I would guess that if you totaled 250 a month for your whole life that you would exceed that much in care in a 5 years period.

I am not trying to insult or pick a fight, but why do you think someone else should pay for your care?
Concerned

Manchester Center, VT

#16 Feb 3, 2011
Payment under Singel payer is thus "Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. In most cases, government would serve as administrator, not employer.

I, note that last sentance "government would serve as ADMINISTRATOR" there is the crux-to date "government has not done such a great job in "administrating" SS Trust fund-yet people are willing to let government "administer" health care! Huh! this is worrisome.

As noted in prior post. There are approx. 40 million that need help/assistance in obtaining health care cost. Mandating/forcing the other 237+Million to buy a product (insurance) is wrong. Help those that need help and leave the rest of us alone.
rod56

Shelton, CT

#17 Feb 3, 2011
i'd like to know where all my comments went to..just found out the deathbill is dead and they can't do nothing about it now..THE JUDGE KILLED IT WHEN HE SAID IT WAS ALL UNFIT TO BE A LAW..FORCE THESE DUMBOS WHO WANTS ITS KEEP IT FOR THEMSELVES, Leahy and Sanders...they think they know everything and what good for the vERMONTERS,,NOT..
xrayman

Bennington, VT

#18 Feb 3, 2011
rod he did not kill it, to kill it he would had to have an injunction against it.as for these 2 idiots, is it a surprise they support the bill, they are as socialist as Castro is.
rod56

Shelton, CT

#19 Feb 3, 2011
xrayman wrote:
rod he did not kill it, to kill it he would had to have an injunction against it.as for these 2 idiots, is it a surprise they support the bill, they are as socialist as Castro is.
i agree but as i read they had killed it and the rebup..has to go back and get a stay...they have to move fast...
dumbest

Bennington, VT

#20 Feb 3, 2011
jgadsden wrote:
<quoted text>
**** much do you think your care costs an insurer each month?
My guess would be way more than $250...
I would guess that if you totaled 250 a month for your whole life that you would exceed that much in care in a 5 years period.
I am not trying to insult or pick a fight, but why do you think someone else should pay for your care?
Because that's how insurance works, you moron. You pay for it and pray you never have to benefit from it. If you only got back what you paid in, THERE'D BE NO REASON TO HAVE IT!

Really, were the Tea Partiers born literally yesterday? Simple concepts seem to be beyond them, yet they're allowed to vote for some reason.
Wag the dog

Canaan, CT

#21 Feb 4, 2011
rod56 wrote:
i'd like to know where all my comments went to..just found out the deathbill is dead and they can't do nothing about it now..THE JUDGE KILLED IT WHEN HE SAID IT WAS ALL UNFIT TO BE A LAW..FORCE THESE DUMBOS WHO WANTS ITS KEEP IT FOR THEMSELVES, Leahy and Sanders...they think they know everything and what good for the vERMONTERS,,NOT..
LOL..."deathbill"... and you're calling them "dumbos"?...riiiight .
jgadsden

Windsor, VT

#22 Feb 4, 2011
dumbest wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that's how insurance works, you moron. You pay for it and pray you never have to benefit from it. If you only got back what you paid in, THERE'D BE NO REASON TO HAVE IT!
Really, were the Tea Partiers born literally yesterday? Simple concepts seem to be beyond them, yet they're allowed to vote for some reason.
actually, you are very wrong.

by pooling the risk, insurance is merely a device that allows you to stabilize your own lifetime costs to a manageable amount per year. So that in your healthy years you pay so that you dont get hit with a huge bill in the unhealthy years...
so that your annual payments stay the same and you cover your lifetime cots PLUS an amount to cover the administration of the plan.
so, you are supposed to pay for yourself in full by the end or how would that even work?
funded in full by the mystical people who pay tons in and never need care?

The fact you made this statement (littered with insults about me)means you really need to read more than you write...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Patrick Leahy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kevin Bacon loves Baconfest invite, is sorry he... Sep 14 PFfff 1
News Vermont town hopes Kevin Bacon will attend its ... Sep 12 YourEx 2
News Kevin Bacon loves Baconfest invite, is sorry he... Sep 12 YouDidntBuildThat 1
News Lawmakers urge US crackdown on Afghan child sex... Sep 3 Stephany McDowell 10
News Top StoryObama signs bill requiring labeling of... Aug '16 southern at heart 12
News Kerry downplays rift with Egypt on human rights Apr '16 John McCharlie 1
News News Minute: Here is the latest Maine, New Hamp... Apr '16 Lucy Anna Jane 1
More from around the web