<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AZ SHOOTING PROMPTS DEM TO DEMAND THAT GOP CHANGE NAME OF OCARE REPEAL BILL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/01/10/az-shooting-prompts-dem-to-demand-that-gop-change-name-of-ocare-repeal-bill/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/01/10/az-shooting-prompts-dem-to-demand-that-gop-change-name-of-ocare-repeal-bill/</link>
	<description>Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 21:39:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/01/10/az-shooting-prompts-dem-to-demand-that-gop-change-name-of-ocare-repeal-bill/#comment-463221</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/01/10/az-shooting-prompts-dem-to-demand-that-gop-change-name-of-ocare-repeal-bill/#comment-463221</guid>
		<description>Miriam-Webster has one definition for the word &quot;protection:&quot;

&lt;i&gt;money extorted by racketeers posing as a protective association &lt;/i&gt;

It&#039;s use in legislation should also be prohibited. I updated Rep. Pingree&#039;s note to reflect the relevant prohibition on language:

     &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;A good place to start a more civil dialog would be for &lt;strike&gt;my Republican colleagues&lt;/strike&gt; our Democratic representatives in the House to change the name of the &lt;strike&gt;bill&lt;/strike&gt; law they have &lt;strike&gt;introduced&lt;/strike&gt; passed to &lt;strike&gt;repeal&lt;/strike&gt; enact &lt;strike&gt;health care reform&lt;/strike&gt;. The bill, titled the &lt;strike&gt;Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act&lt;/strike&gt; &quot;Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,&quot; &lt;strike&gt;was set to come up for a vote this week&lt;/strike&gt; has already been passed , but in the wake of Gabby&#039;s shooting, &lt;strike&gt;it has been postponed at least until next week&lt;/strike&gt; it’s name should be reconsidered.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

     
       

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;Don&#039;t get me wrong---I&#039;m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend---but is it really necessary to put the word &lt;strike&gt;killing&lt;/strike&gt; &quot;protection&quot; in the title of a major piece of legislation? I don&#039;t think that word is in there by accident---my &lt;strike&gt;Republican&lt;/strike&gt; Democratic friends know as well as anyone the power of words to send a message. But in this environment and at this moment in our nation&#039;s history, it&#039;s not the message we should be sending.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;


Doubleplusgood.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Miriam-Webster has one definition for the word &#8220;protection:&#8221;</p>
<p><i>money extorted by racketeers posing as a protective association </i></p>
<p>It&#8217;s use in legislation should also be prohibited. I updated Rep. Pingree&#8217;s note to reflect the relevant prohibition on language:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>A good place to start a more civil dialog would be for <strike>my Republican colleagues</strike> our Democratic representatives in the House to change the name of the <strike>bill</strike> law they have <strike>introduced</strike> passed to <strike>repeal</strike> enact <strike>health care reform</strike>. The bill, titled the <strike>Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act</strike> &#8220;Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,&#8221; <strike>was set to come up for a vote this week</strike> has already been passed , but in the wake of Gabby&#8217;s shooting, <strike>it has been postponed at least until next week</strike> it’s name should be reconsidered.</em></p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><em>Don&#8217;t get me wrong&#8212;I&#8217;m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend&#8212;but is it really necessary to put the word <strike>killing</strike> &#8220;protection&#8221; in the title of a major piece of legislation? I don&#8217;t think that word is in there by accident&#8212;my <strike>Republican</strike> Democratic friends know as well as anyone the power of words to send a message. But in this environment and at this moment in our nation&#8217;s history, it&#8217;s not the message we should be sending.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>Doubleplusgood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

