BuffettNews.com

That is what he says, but when you read what other bloggers say, that isn't necessarily what the plan is. Until we have more than the word of the Commander of the American Legion, it's hard to know. As someone once said, just because someone says something, it doesn't mean it's the truth.

Here are a couple related articles.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/a ... rcID=45117

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... alth-care/

CNSNews and FoxNews??? ....sorry, still not credible sources

Both these "news sources" use Joe the Plumber as an ongoing blogger/correspondent...
so you have a moron speaking to morons.

Fox News is still way more credible then CNN or MSNBC will ever be.

diverg wrote:Fox News is still way more credible then CNN or MSNBC will ever be.

No, but seriously...

If true, I guess this would exactly show how Obama supports the troops, but not the war.

wow

something that should be unthinkable makes you really wonder what other unthinkable's are out there.

Well, he did promise us change. Didn't he?

I saw an interview with McCain last night and he said this bill will never pass in congress and that no one should worry about it. I think what everyone needs to worry about is where garbage like this is coming from. This is going to be a very long four years.

diverg wrote:Fox News is still way more credible then the
Communist
News
Network
or PMS-NBC will ever be.

YEP!

LIPH wrote:Well, he did promise us change. Didn't he?

Spew!!

You know, I think I found a new game for some of you to play at the next tailgate:

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:You know, I think I found a new game for some of you to play at the next tailgate:

Not jumping to any conclusions here. Clearly there was discussion on the subject at the executive level. Part of the deal the government made with servicemen and -women was that they would have health care for life, not "health care just for service-connected health issues" but health care, period. Even discussing reneging on that promise is reprehensible........

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

Coconuts wrote:From what I've gathered, they're considering charging the soldiers' private insurance carrier for medical bills, not the soldiers themselves.

I think it's a challenge to the insurance industry to force more cooperation/concessions on health care reform.

And personally- I am all for anything that sticks it to an insurance company!

And if the charge the insurance carrier, who pays the co-pays? The vet. And it would UNDOUBTEDLY drive up the premiums.

IT'S NOT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WOUNDED AND INJURED DEFENDING THIS COUNTRY. IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. WE OWE OUR WAY OF LIFE TO EVERY VETERAN WHO EVER SERVED THIS COUNTRY.Yes, I feel just a bit passionate about this.

AMEN!!!!!

we are pretty passionate about that in our house too!
Tom was a mess last night when he heard this.... pacing all over the house cussing!

I agree with you Jen.
It is the responsibility of the people of the United States. Period, end of sentence...

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:You know, I think I found a new game for some of you to play at the next tailgate:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote: Not jumping to any conclusions here. Clearly there was discussion on the subject at the executive level. Part of the deal the government made with servicemen and -women was that they would have health care for life, not "health care just for service-connected health issues" but health care, period. Even discussing reneging on that promise is reprehensible........

That all sounds wonderful, but I think you are most likely jumping to conclusions on a lot of this without first bothering to get the facts. Basing all this fervor on one article fits my picture rather accurately.

Sanjuro's tequila wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote: Not jumping to any conclusions here. Clearly there was discussion on the subject at the executive level. Part of the deal the government made with servicemen and -women was that they would have health care for life, not "health care just for service-connected health issues" but health care, period. Even discussing reneging on that promise is reprehensible........

That all sounds wonderful, but I think you are most likely jumping to conclusions on a lot of this without first bothering to get the facts. Basing all this fervor on one article fits my picture rather accurately.

The fact is, there were discussions on the issue. There's nothing to discuss from where I sit; this country OWES the people who keep it free and to even discuss changing their health care benefits is wrong.

flyboy and sanjaro are you saying that this has not been discussed at all? That this article is total fiction?

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
The fact is, there were discussions on the issue. There's nothing to discuss from where I sit; this country OWES the people who keep it free and to even discuss changing their health care benefits is wrong.

Again, noble and agreeable words. And again, you might want to get the facts on what really was discussed before shaking fists at the sky. That's all I'll say on the matter.

I understand that this is a passion-arousing subject, I truly do.

Everybody take a deep breath, then exhale slowly.