MaryanneAZ's Comments (5135)

“This is the same Snowe who is TOTALLY responsible for the Bill being passed in the Senate at all. If she had not passed the Bill out of the Finance Committee, then we would not be discussing the constitutionality of any of its provisions. Olympia Snowe is single-handedly responsible for the Bill passing the Senate. The mandate to purchase insurance was in the Bill that Snowe voted FOR and moved out of Committee. Hypocrite? Poor memory? Party first? I am thrilled that Snowe was the vote that brought us to this day where we can argue over its provisions on the eve of Final passage.”

“DWS said herself that she is not a stock broker and cannot explain what might be going on with insurer stock. It is my opinion that the insurers manipulated their own stock to create the impression that they were happy with the Bill. They have spent millions on ads and lobbyists fighting the Bill. We still supported it despite their ads. They then strategically understood that perhaps the best way for the Left and others to come out AGAINST the Bill was for the insurers to be viewed as in favor of it. They then began moving their own stock and suddenly we all believe that our own Bill is bad for us. Obviously, their strategy worked. It is very easy to manipulate individual stocks. Corporations do it all the time. 30 million new customers is misunderstood. Most of them will be enrolled in Medicaid or other government programs due to income limits being changed by the Bill. Many of us will simply be able to purchase insurance because we cannot be turned away due to our pre-existing conditions. Many of us cannot even BUY insurance today due to pre-existing conditions. Many of their new customers will be the young invincibles who pass on their employer coverage with their low premium share due to their belief that they do not need insurance. There is much that is good in the Bill.”

“IMO, you do not speak for all Liberals. DWS is in the House and should not have been invited to defend the SENATE Bill in the first place. DWS is also a very good person to interview in general due to her knowledge of the issues and her ability to speak well and simply on the issues.”

“I'm not a stock expert, but I agree with your point. It is my opinion that the insurers manipulated their own stock to create the impression that they were happy with the Bill. They have spent millions on ads and lobbyists fighting the Bill. We still supported it despite their ads. They then strategically understood that perhaps the best way for the Left and others to come out AGAINST the Bill was for the insurers to be viewed as in favor of it. They then began moving their own stock and suddenly we all believe that our own Bill is bad for us. Obviously, their strategy worked. It is very easy to manipulate individual stocks. Corporations do it all the time. 30 million new customers is misunderstood. Most of them will be enrolled in Medicaid or other government programs due to income limits being changed by the Bill. Many of us will simply be able to purchase insurance because we cannot be turned away due to our pre-existing conditions (this is my case). Many of us cannot even BUY insurance today due to pre-existing conditions. Many of their new customers will be the young invincibles who pass on their employer coverage with their low premium share due to their belief that they do not need insurance. There is much that is good in the Bill.”

“It is my opinion that the insurers manipulated their own stock to create the impression that they were happy with the Bill. They have spent millions on ads and lobbyists fighting the Bill. We still supported it despite their ads. They then strategically understood that perhaps the best way for the Left and others to come out AGAINST the Bill was for the insurers to be viewed as in favor of it. They then began moving their own stock and suddenly we all believe that our own Bill is bad for us. Obviously, their strategy worked. It is very easy to manipulate individual stocks. Corporations do it all the time. 30 million new customers is misunderstood. Most of them will be enrolled in Medicaid or other government programs due to income limits being changed by the Bill. Many of us will simply be able to purchase insurance because we cannot be turned away due to our pre-existing conditions (this is my case). Many of us cannot even BUY insurance today due to pre-existing conditions. Many of their new customers will be the young invincibles who pass on their employer coverage with their low premium share due to their belief that they do not need insurance. Insurers cannot charge whatever they want since there is an 8% limit on the amount a person can pay for insurance, and they have to spend 85 cents of every $1 on health care. There is much that is good in the Bill.”

“IMO, people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that the insurers will get richer due to the Bill may be purchasing insurer stock in order to get a share of the anticipated profits. The big problem is that you, and others who share your strategy, are also shaping the views that citizens have about the Bill's support or non-support simply by purchasing the stock. If the Bill is viewed as bad simply because stock prices are up, then the insurers have every reason to manipulate their own stock. Insurers have fought the Bill with ads and lobbyists for months without success. They then boost their stock prices and create a false impression of happiness with the Bill and manage to sour support for the Bill overnight. It's a great strategy, and we have fallen for it. The reality of those 31 million new customers is that they will largely be enrolled in existing government programs or be previously denied customers with hugely expensive pre-existing conditions. The only good new customers will be the young invincibles who turn down employer insurance, but are generally healthy. I hope you are not putting in more money than you can afford to lose.”

“Stock purchases can be manipulated by the companies themselves, and they routinely do it. If the insurers believe that an uptick in their stock prices would cause the Left and others to believe that the insurers are happy with the Bill, then by all means it makes sense to beef up your stock prices (by any means available). Also, people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that the insurers will get richer due to the Bill may purchase their stock in order to get a share of the anticipated profits. What better means to cause the supporters of the Bill to come out against it than to paint the insurers as happy with the Bill? It's great strategy, and IMO it has clearly worked. Why would insurers spend millions on ads and lobbyists to defeat the Bill when they are happy with it? The loss of the public option is not the answer. Insurers understand, where we do not, that the uninsured will mostly be enrolled in the existing government programs due to the change in the income limits. They also understand that their new customers are going to be people with pre-existing conditions. Expensive customers. They may gain several million customers, but those customers are going to be hugely expensive (people they turned away previously). IMO, the price of insurer stock is up because we are being su.ck.ered.”

“It is my opinion that the insurers manipulated their own stock to create the impression that they were happy with the Bill. They have spent millions on ads and lobbyists fighting the Bill. We still supported it despite their ads. They then strategically understood that perhaps the best way for the Left and others to come out AGAINST the Bill was for the insurers to be viewed as in favor of it. They then began moving their own stock and suddenly we all believe that our own Bill is bad for us. Obviously, their strategy worked. It is very easy to manipulate individual stocks. Corporations do it all the time. 30 million new customers is misunderstood. Most of them will be enrolled in Medicaid or other government programs due to income limits being changed by the Bill. Many of us will simply be able to purchase insurance because we cannot be turned away due to our pre-existing conditions (this is my case). Many of us cannot even BUY insurance today due to pre-existing conditions. Many of their new customers will be the young invincibles who pass on their employer coverage with their low premium share due to their belief that they do not need insurance. Insurers cannot charge whatever they want since there is an 8% limit on the amount a person can pay for insurance, and they have to spend 85 cents of every $1 on health care. There is much that is good in the Bill.”

“I share DWS's view that the Bill is consumer friendly. As one of the uninsured, I am doing handstands that a high-risk pool will be immediately available to those of us who either still do not qualify for Medicaid or another government program. I am thrilled that my pre-existing condition will not keep me from buying private insurance from any insurer who offers policies. I can shop and buy just like the healthy uninsured do today. Most of the Nation's insured (85%) will see no difference at all in their health care coverage because they are either covered by their employer's plan or an existing government program. It is the 31 million uninsured who will have coverage again or for the first time. There is much to celebrate in this Bill. The American people are being sold out by their willingness to support an all or nothing stand. The American people are being sold out by believing GOP spin about what is in the Bill. No one deserves rude treatment by the host of a TV opinion show.”

“For the first thing, Debbie is not in the Senate. Dylan asking a congresswoman to defend the Senate's different Bill was a tad absurd. She did answer his question: I am not a stock broker. She did not know why their stock went up. IMO, their stock went up because the insurers manipulated their own stock up in order to paint a picture of insurer happiness with the Bill. It is entirely inconsistent to believe that the insurers were simultaneously happy with the Senate Bill while they lavished millions in ads and lobbyist efforts against it. Debbie is one of the best people in our elected government at articulating the provisions of legislation. She was attempting to inform people about what was IN the Bill and its impact on the Nation. We have heard all kinds of lies and spin about what non-elected people BELIEVE is IN the Bill. We need someone to set the record straight (or we can read the whole Bill ourselves). Why invite someone to your show if you believe they only recite talking points? It makes sense to invite someone you believe will give you the information you seek. Dylan was both rude and unprofessional.”

“These kinds of corrections are irrelevant to the discussion. As long as a person communicates his overall message well, his spelling and grammar are not that important. Let's not eat our own. Peace.”

“Everyone who is a regular viewer understands that Keith is spending time with his old and ill father who is a recent widower. His father had a major health failure and was moved to assisted living in the last few months. I highly respect Keith for spending time with his father while time is still available to spend with him. Many of us are in the position to lament that we failed to spend the time with our loved ones when their time was short. Under the FMLA, Keith can legally take up to 12 weeks off to care for or support his own health or that of a family member without losing his job. No one misses Keith more than his most ardent supporters (me included), but we have caring hearts and know and understand that the time he is taking with his remaining parent who is old and ill is important and irreplaceable. BTW, Keith is MSNBC's top draw to the network with Rachel fast closing in.”

“Thanks. Blessings on you and yours as well.”

“Their Majority confusion has to come from their math skills and their obvious misunderstanding of election votes and the electoral map. It is the same mentality that allows Paylin to believe she could win a nomination or election. Paylin and her fans cite her 1 million fans on Facebook as evidence of her popularity. They also cite her book sales. What they fail to understand is that our elections record the votes of approximately 140 million people. Even with 50 million fans or 50 million book sales, that is NOT ENOUGH votes to win an election or nomination let alone carry the electoral map. We saw this same confusion when they counted their tea party numbers as well.”

“Bravo!!! Extremely well said and on point. The fact that EVERYTHING is seen as either Left or Right tells us a lot about how divided we are. There is a total lack of civility. It is unbecoming from all sides. I too cringed at some of the more outrageous things that were said about Bush43, but most of them were not aimed at him personally to the point of questioning his own representations about himself (his faith, his family, his history, his birthplace). When did it become okay to basically call our elected people liars about their own biographical facts? If the Obamas were to walk into any mainstream christian church as unknowns (2 educated, well-employed black parents of 2 well-behaved and well-nurtured girls), they would be welcomed with open arms and hearts and no one would question their testimony of faith for one nanosecond. I hope that we can somehow restore our national sense of right and wrong, moral and immoral. That's my Christmas wish.”

“I too loved Carlos Watson. The lineup could use a little flavor in this age of diversity.”

“Andrea's apparent stuttering is actually that she cannot attend to directions from her earpiece while simultaneously filtering her interviewee and attempting to recall facts to refute spin. Watch her show while factoring in the obvious lost moments when she is "listening" to her earpiece. It is very obvious. The show's forum is not the best one to showcase her talents. She is wonderful as part of a round table (extensive knowledge, experience and well-spoken). IMO, Schultz is over the top and refuses to modify his stand even when presented with facts that are irrefutable (i.e., actual wording fo the health care Bill not right or left-wing spin or assumptions).”

“Andrea is definitely the last of a dying breed -- knowledgeable, connected and experienced in politics over many years. Her only problem is that she does not multi-task well when she is conducting an interview. The interviewee gets away with misinformation and spin because she seems to have difficulty attending to her earpiece for show directions while filtering the interviewee and recalling the facts necessary to refute the interviewee. It may be a function of age or just a bad show format for her. When Andrea is part of a round table, then her skills really shine.”

“IMO, neither Dr. Nancy nor Ratigan were winners for MSNBC. They have entirely too many blow hard opinator shows. Keith is their money man in that role, and they should stick with him. Andrea is amazingly knowledgeable and connected, but is having difficulty multi-tasking (age?) as is evidenced by her lost moments when she attends to her earpiece for breaks and loses her momentum in her interviews. One Matthews show is one too many on most days -- it is basically a monologue that the guests watch along with us. Ed can get too wound up and refuses to listen to corrections of misinformation. Rachel is the real gem at MSNBC. She is smart and fair. She can get a bit overdone with her favorite LBGT topics and "fun" stuff though. Her interviews are top notch and not matched by anyone else who has a show. If only they could de-throne old Mourning Joe, then I'd be in heaven for the early morning hours. I cannot stand either Joe or Mika and the way they handle topics. I watch the network all day while doing other tasks and switch the channel only to avoid Mourning Joe and Dr. Nancy. The networks lack of weekend programming and their weird lock up series really stymies me.”

“Those who study Government understand, as Grijalva does, that the House is not the controlling body on major legislation. The House can afford to dream or be more lavish in its provisions on a Bill. In fact, the House's over-the-top wish list helps ensure that the bottom line essentials make it through the Senate bill. The Senate controls the legislation process over the House. The Senate is more conservative, deliberative and has more rules and restrictions. The bicameral setup of the Legislative branch was intended to balance the fervor and enthusiasm of the House with the wisdom and prudence of the Senate in passing legislation. As such, Grijalva knows very well that the House will have to submit to the Senate's more reality-based Bill in the final analysis. Grijalva's conscience is just fine considering he is an ARIZONA Dem and marches to a different beat than the majority of Arizonans (sadly).”

“The low income and poor will either be eligible for expanded Medicaid or subsidies (both public options). There are price controls in the form of insurers being required to spend 85 cents of every dollar on health care and not on administration/profits. BTW, the entire premise behind this Bill was to INSURE everyone (universally) because millions have been unable to get or pay for insurance under the status quo. This Bill makes insurance accessible and affordable. It will pass.”

“Simply expanding Medicaid is a public option. Funding insurance for the lowest income earners is a public option. When the taxpayers pay for the coverage, then the option is a public option. It's a great beginning by any measure.”

“Wa, wa, wa .... Wrong. The low income and poor will either be eligible for expanded Medicaid or subsidies. There are price controls in the form of insurers being required to spend 85 cents of every dollar on health care and not on administration/profits. BTW, the entire premise behind this Bill was to INSURE everyone (universally) because millions have been unable to get or pay for insurance under the status quo. This Bill makes insurance accessible and affordable. It will pass.”

“I meant: completeLY controlled by Congress. Whoopsy.”

“Your "cure," however, is completed controlled by Congress. THEY make the rules, and they are not going to make rules that WE think make sense for many reasons (all selfish). WE just do not have any direct power over the Senate or the House. Voting out the old and voting in the new is also not so easily done. Who do you propose to run and how will you fund the candidates? The Democrat Party is going to fund Dems not far left Liberals. How are you planning to have enough Liberal candidates elected in order to become the Majority? The election cycles do not have enough seats up for grabs to attain a Majority even if EVERY Dem seat was won by a Liberal. An incremental plan would be YEARS in the making and you would have to defend your Liberals over time in order to gain an eventual Majority. I just do not see how a dream Liberal Senate is possible by any scenario. I'm curious as to how you would accomplish your goal. Thanks.”