Good People of Clusterville,

Pay no attention to his campaign promise... the Marxist trained community organizer really wants Single Payer Universal Health Care…  and he wants to eliminate employer provided health care too… Watch videos of him telling his union faithful all about it….

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

And here's Representative Barney Frank, (D) MA, telling all of us last week the idiot liberal progressives in the politburo want Single Payer Health Care too...  and he thinks they’re going to get it if they can just get the public health care option signed into law…

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Read Public Health Care Option = Single Payer health care = Universal Government run Health Care and the destruction of all the private medical insurance companies with all their employees going unemployed…  So much for your present medical insurance that Obama says you can keep…  More hopey changey?

The universal health care legislation has been stalled for weeks and missed coming out of three committees until late last Friday thanks to a few blue dog democrats… and all princess Pelosi or prince Dirty Harry could do was demonize the health care industry by calling them inefficient and greedy...  (I might add that these talking points were in the Friday group speak tweets from John Podesta’s Center for American Progress that go to the social progressive party faithful as well as all the idiots in the politburo and the people’s Senate.)  BTW  Dirty Harry made it a point to thank Podesta and the Center for American Progress for all its help in drafting the porkulus bill that nobody read….

The liberal progressives in Congress don’t really care about people… they just want the vote so they can ram their agenda through in order to take away our liberty, freedoms, earnings, and control everything we do…  They think we’re too stupid to make important decisions on our own so they pass bills that give them the power to make them for us…

Lets review the bidding…  They taken control the banking industry, the financial industry, the auto industry, and they want control of the health care industry…  and, on the 31st July, the politburo passed H.R. 3269 the “Say-on-Pay Bill” that will take control of private corporations so the government can control the compensation…  If the people’s Senate passes this bill, the idiots will take control of nearly every part of our Nation’s economic engine…  See the following links:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

If you want to see how your Representative voted on Say-on-Pay see the following link:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

When these social progressive idiots try to take control of your health care, just look at how well they’ve run the VA, Medicare, the US Postal Service, AMTRAK, then remember how well they did in their latest attempt to give away taxpayer money in the Cash for Clunkers program… and still screwed the pooch with terrible estimates and bureaucratic confusion…

And if anyone thinks Cash for Clunkers is a shining example of a well run efficient Government program...  Think again...  The Senate may vote this week to bail out the cash for clunkers program with the reprogrammed $2 Billion dollars of additional taxpayer money passed Friday by the politburo that was already porkreated in the porkulus bill.  And catch this...  Citigroup...  another one of our taxpayer owned bailout corporations is handling the cash for clunkers paperwork...  go figure...

"If the program's biggest flaw was bringing too many people into dealerships, which overall have been hurting for sales since the slump in the economy last year, then they wouldn't have a problem at all. With a 138-page rule book, little training for the 10 to 13 pages of detailed paperwork, hours of wait time for a busy website, and no guarantee that the work will be accepted or saved, some dealers say the problems have been mounting almost as fast as sales."  

Hmmm...  That sounds just like what folks go through when they try to get reimbursed by the government for VA or Medicare claims.

National health care as it stands at this point in 5 separate pieces of draft legislation will be a disaster of Chernobyl proportions if even one of these versions survives the August recess and comes to a vote...  It came out of Waxman’s committee Friday night on a 31-28 vote after three of the blue dogs reverted to lap dogs, so the ball is rolling…

Some of you may have seen the video of what happened when Senator Arlen Specter the RINO Defector and the abortion queen, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius when they tried to sell Obamacare and explain how they approve legislation like this real fast to folks at a town hall meeting this weekend…

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

And surprise, surprise, surprise…  TurboTax Geithner and Larry Summers let the cat out of the bag Sunday with the talking liberal heads on state run media…  

A tax hike on the middle class is not off the table...  Hmmm...  Perhaps here comes a tax hike on the middle class?  Is this more of that hopey changey thing?

The White House is trying to down-spin Ceithner's and Summer's comments...

Take care, and if you don’t call, fax, or send an email to your congresspersons to tell them how you feel about the pending health care legislation, deficit spending, cap in trade, and new taxes…  BOHICA...

V/R, Batch

Quote:

he wants to eliminate employer provided health care too…

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I will say one thing Batch. You are consistant.

Fits right in with the birthers and the soylent green euthanasia crowd.
Seriously, I bet they have good health coverage on whatever planet that sends all this lunacy.  8-)

Charlie

Earth to Charlie...

If you would take a moment to educate yourself with the facts, Batch was referring to what Obama said in his own words about eliminating employer-provided coverage.  It's not a lunatic plot from outer space, he said it plain and simple.  Republican, Democrat, space alien, crazy birther, whatever, you can't simply dismiss the fact he said it, and he is doing exactly what he said he would do in the video.

Your replies are usually more well thought out, and you forgot to mention Bush.  You're slipping.

My idea of torture is to look at what are likely selected outtakes on Youtube. I have dialup. It takes me the better part of an hour to download this shit. Let me know if there is a text and I'll read it.

It is ridiculous though. No minds will be changed here.

Charlie

Sadly, Charlie, you are right.  This country is too smart to be swayed by facts.  Too smart to fall for video of Obama on video saying precisely what the 'scare mongers' who oppose this health care bill say he intends to do. Too smart to change the minds, for sure.

We have a government run mail service, and we have Fedex, UPS and a variety of other delivery and courier companies.  The idea that a public option will end all private insurance is not a truism.

The thing that a dubiously edited youtube clip won't tell you ... there is a difference between personally thinking a single payer system might be good, and fighting to get that.  If we get a bill to reform the health insurance system passed, it is going to be a compromise, not what Obama or anyone else might like if given a magic wand.  

Cooler heads to the north have a more accurate perspective than the wingnuts in this country:


Quote:

Canadians critical of this country’s public health care system delight in pointing out that U.S. President Barack Obama has not modelled his reform on our approach. This is by way of pointing out that even this “socialist” American president, whom Canadians adore more than any of their own political leaders, sees the fatal flaws in Canadian medicare and wants none of it.... It’s true that Obama’s approach differs crucially from the Canada’s publicly administered, single-payer system. Obama is promoting a parallel system that would extend basic medical coverage to virtually all Americans but leave the mult-billion-dollar private system intact. Still, lots of Americans do advocate a bolder reform that would more closely resemble Canadian medicare. Why won’t Obama go for that? As he recently explained, it’s because too much water has gone under the bridge....reform on a more radical scale simply isn’t politically feasible for him. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

...except the USPS is mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. It will operate at a loss ad infinitum, while FedEx and UPS can only operate at a loss for as long as they still have their investors' confidence.

Brew wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 1:08pm:

...except the USPS is mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. It will operate at a loss ad infinitum, while FedEx and UPS can only operate at a loss for as long as they still have their investors' confidence.

No, it isn't mandated. Congress is given power to establish post offices and postal roads, but isn't required to do so - although most people have seen this type of government action as a good thing.  Even though it competes with the private sector, it has co-existed with a variety of private ventures, including the Pony Express, Wells Fargo stage coach delivery, etc etc.  

And in any case, having a public option does not require that people that are happy with the private options have that choice taken away ...  given a choice, I think I would be very likely to stay with the current plan offered by my private sector employer, but would like to have a public option in place if visited by the ghost of Unemployment Future, or if I decide to open a business.


Quote:

The Biggest Damper on the Entrepreneurial Spirit I am a cheerleader for entrepreneurs. Nearly every week I meet new young entrepreneurs who think their idea can make a big impact on an industry. I want them to succeed and I know many of them will–the ones who dream and take the risks will often end up with amazing success stories. But it is interesting is to contrast the young do-it-or-die-trying entrepreneurs with talented, seasoned employees who have been in the workforce sometime but are unwilling to make the leap, even to pursue a great idea that they have. The older group have more experience, more knowledge, more connections, more savings, and more ability to be successful. But they are almost always more risk-averse. They may have a family, a lifestyle to protect, and above all, they feel sometimes an overpowering need to keep their existing health insurance policy in place. So this is the thing I have noticed, which someone needs to address–a primary reason for many people not to leave their current job and take an entrepreneurial risk (with the potential to create hundreds of jobs) is not salary, but it is health insurance. Whatever happend to "portable health insurance?" I search Google News and see no hits on this topic. Are there any states that are trying to make it possible for small business owners and new entrepreneurs to team up and get decent health care plans collectively? I suppose employee leasing companies may offer this kind of thing. Can anyone tell me what I should say to a middle-aged employee who really wants to leave a job and start out on his own, but he’s afraid to do it because of losing his health insurance? What are the best options? START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Rick West: What are their best options? They don’t have many that I can see. I think you’ve nailed it on the head–many people don’t worry about salary, position in a company, and a lot of other things … they worry about health insurance. I’m 28, non-smoker, non-drinker, not overweight, runs-marathons kind of guy and I can’t get private insurance, and don’t qualify for private insurance, believe it or not. I can’t find many options except to be full-time employed or going to college. I’m stuck with really no other options

That's the problem, Monty - After awhile, you won't have a choice because your employer will do whatever's cheapest for him.

Why is that a problem?  When talking about cars and mines, you said that "I never begrudge a business making a wise business move" ... why should we treat health care for employees any different from where GM buys its Pallidum?

First, it isn't clear that the public option will be open to the average worker - there may be limitations to prevent 'dumping' (not that that is a bad thing, according to the notion that businesses should do whatever it takes).  I think that companies that value their employees will continue to offer quality plans ... if anything, having a public option will create another indication of exactly how much a company does value its employees, and that can be taken into account when considering a work offer.

monty wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 1:56pm:

Why is that a problem?  When talking about cars and mines, you said that "I never begrudge a business making a wise business move" ... why should we treat health care for employees any different from where GM buys its Pallidum? I think that companies that value their employees will continue to offer quality plans ... if anything, having a public option will create another indication of exactly how much a company does value its employees, and that can be taken into account when considering a work offer.

Companies offer various levels of health care plans in order to attract and retain quality employees. I bet all of them would just as soon not have to bear that cost of doing business anymore. So we, the patients, are left with no choice at all. Uncle Sam's BIG Healthcare Machine - no matter where we work.

And if you think USBHM has you covered, just take a look at Kash for Klunkers. The level of service provided is and will always be in direct proportion to the votes it delivers. Period. End of discussion. If you truly believe that the government cares about you and your loved ones, we have nothing to discuss. At least my insurance company is obligated to care because we have a contract. A contract with the government is made between fools.

Quote:

If you truly believe that the government cares about you and your loved ones, we have nothing to discuss. At least my insurance company is obligated to care because we have a contract. A contract with the government is made between fools.

If you believe that the insurance company cares about you just because you signed a piece of paper, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to vote for.  Most insurance companies are happy to dump you as soon as you start costing them money - they might have to keep you as long as you are attached to a company (which represents a real customer with clout).  Cherry-picking is the name of the game, and people with serious health conditions are like spoiled fruit ... discard it.

Do you also feel that most people who sign up for the service are fools, making contracts with their government?  And that that the military could be abolished, because it can't really care about or meet the needs of the people?

Believe what you want to believe, Monty. Arguing with you makes my brain hurt.

I have to say, the 'ignore' button has much improved my enjoyment of this web site, but nothing really can convey how extracomical this particular thread looks when viewed (as I see it) with Flo (monty) on 'ignore'.

Sorry Flo, I am not trying to insult you. I'm simply less likely to engage you in useless debate when I can't see your incessant regurgitations of the Daily Kos and other daily talking points.  I have to admit, you keep current in that regard.  In any case, whatever took place above, I'm sure I'm glad I missed certain parts of it.  I'm sure if I were exposed to it, I'd be  reregistered as a 'Democrat' by now.

I give up.

Bring on the middle class tax increases. I've conceded that I will work harder and remit an ever increasing and significantly larger portion of my earnings to the Government for redistribution to those that choose a different path in life.

Bring on single payer coverage. I've conceded that the Government can deliver a more timely, cost efficient and far superior medical care than I currently have.

Furthermore, I really don't mind if the Social Security system fails to deliver on the promise they made to me.  I don't even miss my lifelong contribution to the General Fund. I mean they needed to spend that money on other Government outlays. Keep the IOU's. I concede.

And don't be concerned about what we citizens may think or feel when you lie to us. We know in our hearts that your campaign promises were a means to an end. We realize that you are far smarter than us and genuinely care about our lives. And we really don't mind that you don't live by the rules and laws you impose upon us.

And pay no attention to the ever increasing attendance of the plebes at the Townhall meetings. Just ignore them. They do not represent the people who will eventually vote to keep you in office. They are the ever smaller growing group of working rabble that are footing the bill. Remember, the majority rules.

I am now realizing that my Government is good and has only just begun to bestow upon me and my family all the blessing they feel I require.

Monty and Charlie...I don't know what took me so long. I've conceded and am now at peace.

I'm suddenly starting to have an irresistible craving for cheese.

Steve G

I'm about ready to give in too Steve. This is getting like the staged town hall protests......not much fun nor useful..... :-/

Anyway, there is no hope of changing minds here. Basically, as was once heard at a political convention...no I don't remember who...amounts to:"I'm right and you're wrong and that's all there is too it. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I need a break.

Charlie

If we've been told in this forum that what he says has been very deceptive, and now suddenly to believe him in a patch-work video, who is weaving this fairy tale and why didn't Wall Street dump healthcare stocks based on the precedent video?

when you don't have any coverage some coverage would be nice. at least obama is getting the ball rolling. the only thing gw has to show for health care is it fuckin sky rocketed under his administration.

i see alot of bitching and whining on this thread but not too many alternative suggestions. ::)

The depth of ignorance in that argument simply stuns me.  Seriously.

Charlie wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 11:19pm:

...... This is getting like the staged town hall protests......not much fun nor useful..... :-/ Charlie

Amazing. People aren't accustomed to Conservatives actually making any noise. When they do, the Liberals assume that it is staged, because that's the way they do it.

I've become very vocal, along with virtually every Conservative that I know personally. We've had enough of the lies and B.S.

My attendance at these kinds of things is new - not something I've ever felt compelled to do before. In the last few months, spoken in person with our Governor and one Senator. I've delivered handwritten letters to the folks I couldn't meet in person.

I assure you that no one is responsible for staging me, or hundreds of my neighbors. That's a myth generated to discredit any opposition. Don't forget that roughly 57 million of us saw this coming and didn't vote for Obama.

The idiots in both parties will continue to feel that they know what is best. But, they will be in for a surprise come the 2010 elections.

Marc

Quote:

When they do, the Liberals assume that it is staged, because that's the way they do it.

Psychologists have a term for it: Projection.

From Dictionary.com:

Psychology.
the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.
b. Psychoanalysis. such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.

The seeds of revolution are sprouting and taking...

Root

hug a root wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 1:38pm:

The seeds of revolution are sprouting and taking... Root

Wishful thinking. Too many are too happy with their hamburgers, big-screen tv's, and internet porn. All the while gobbling down record volumes of anti-depressants.

Shawn wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 7:46pm:

I have to say, the 'ignore' button has much improved my enjoyment of this web site, but nothing really can convey how extracomical this particular thread looks when viewed (as I see it) with Flo (monty) on 'ignore'. Sorry Flo, I am not trying to insult you. I'm simply less likely to engage you in useless debate when I can't see your incessant regurgitations of the Daily Kos and other daily talking points.  I have to admit, you keep current in that regard.  In any case, whatever took place above, I'm sure I'm glad I missed certain parts of it.  I'm sure if I were exposed to it, I'd be reregistered as a 'Democrat' by now.

Of course you are trying to insult me - your post is dripping with sarcasm, and your signature is a blanket insult to liberals.

Not really Flo, it's just that insulting you comes effortlessly. I am not, as I said, trying.

And, if my signature insults liberals in general, GOOD.  I have had enough of this touchy-feely reaching across the aisle BS.  Liberalism is nothing but a version of soft tyranny.  It threatens our American way of life, and even threatens ignorant people who can't be bothered with facts.

You, sir, sound like you've studied the Obama bible "Rules for Radicals", so I actually do consider you to be an enemy of freedom.

Was that insulting enough?  No sarcasm in sight... Back on ignore...

BTW, you should be a good brown shirt now and report me to the White House as you have been ordered to do.  The address is flag@whitehouse.gov.  Be sure to spell my name right.  It is Shawn Nunley.

Freedom.  Get it now while you can.

Marc,

Well said...  You’re spot on target!

Not only has the White House propaganda machine cranked up the rhetoric against anyone that openly questions their path towards socialism or the real truth about Obama's single payer universal health care plan, they're also demonizing the medical insurance companies.  Now they've even set up their own private domestic spy program to track any folks that oppose these programs:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

White House Call For Informants: If You Oppose Obamacare, Even in ‘Casual Conversation,’ the White House Wants to Know About It...

See:  START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Hmmm...  I wonder what the White House is going to do with the good folks that say “fishy things” when the snitches report them?  I remember studying things like this that happened in the late 1930s and early 1940s in my history classes.  That was in the late 50s before the social progressive revisionists and pinko hippie dopers started going about revising and changing history with their new liberal texts promoted by the professorial socialists who wrote them.

Looks like the politburo's $5.7 Billion for the Obama Youth Corps destined for ACORN in order organize these upstanding youths so they can track down all these dissidents that question Obamacare and the drive to destroy our Constitution in favor of socialism will go to good use...

The DNC has also exposed themselves for what they are by publishing radio and TV ads calling folks that openly question the unsustainable generational debt run up by a rogue Congress and Obama's universal health care an angry mob in Brooks Brothers suits and right wing extremists...

The idiot social progressive representative to the politburo from my district doesn't even have the balls to hold a real town hall meeting in our county...  Instead, he holds telephone conferences with select calls to the party faithful, then sends out an email saying...  "Here is what I heard...  and starts spouting the social progressive mantra carefully parsed to avoid the word "Obama", "Single Payer", and universal health care."

I spent the entire 24 years of my Naval career in the cold war, staying prepared to fight to keep the United States of America free, preserve our Government and defend our Constitution against all enemies...

That preparation required a careful study and analysis of enemy capabilities, strategies, tactics, and the political mechanisms they used.  Knowing your enemy's weakness and strengths is essential...  As the social progressives in Congress during the late 60s voted for failure in Vietnam, I began to study the radicals that helped foster this failure including Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.

You can find them at START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Rule 12 should sound familiar when you see the radio and TV propaganda coming out of the White House, DNC, and the party faithful group speak tweet source, John Podesta’s Center for American Progress...

Saul Alinsky's Rule 12 of "his Rules for Radicals; says... "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Take care…  and if you’ve not faxed, called, emailed, or met with your local Congresspersons like Marc and I have to tell them what you think…  BOHICA!!!

V/R, Batch

You know, it's kind of funny thinking of myself as some kind of political activist. That's not me.

Like millions of Americans, I'm frustrated that our legislators don't listen to us because they are too wrapped up in the Washington political machine - that applies across party lines

I've discovered that well phrased, SHORT letters to your legislators DO get read and can actually result in a face-to-face meeting.

For the record, I've been unemployed since January - never been unemployed in my life until now. As of 60 days ago, I'm trying to start up a little sales company, but I've been doing all kinds of low level "grunt job" work just to buy food.

My health insurance payment is 50% more than my mortgage and my savings are gone, so I hope I don't get sick.

I'm certainly not some "Rich Republican Fat Cat" that folks are fond of talking about - but I AM really, really pissed off.

Respectfully,

Marc

Quote:

Amazing. People aren't accustomed to Conservatives actually making any noise. When they do, the Liberals assume that it is staged, because that's the way they do it.

It is stunning that...RNC memos that basically tell people to go to these meetings and shout down Democrats are now figments of the imagination when called out about it. When it becomes common knowledge that people at these things come even from out of state in some cases, embarrasses them into saying that it's all part of a grand scheme by what they like to call "liberal fascists."

It's to be expected though by lunatics looking everywhere but the right places to try to prove that the President is from Neptune or even worse: Kenya or Australia. This kind of idiocy is why I got out of the party during the second Reagan administration. It became embarrassing to be a Republican when they decided that the most extreme nutjobs should speak for them. In fairness to Reagan, he wasn't all that happy with it.

Republicans now parade for us what they call their base.....really? They are noisy but considerably diminshed in number. They would barley exist if the "liberal media" didn't waste time on them....something that is one of my peeves about them, by the way.

The Republican Party has had a great history at keeping us level headed but no longer. Now they bring out their lunatic fringe as spokesmen. It's surprising that the GOP admits encouraging them, although I guess that's about the only group they can be sure of.

Charlie.  

One of your fundamental errors, Charlie, is that you equate Republicans with grassroots conservatives.

Republicans, in my mind, have mostly become Democrat-lites. If a politician proposes a slightly lesser spending increase, he calls himself a Republican.

I'm a card-carrying member of no party, but I don't walk around so proud (like millions of Americans) touting that I'm an "Independent." For the most part, they are the ones that go whichever way the wind blows. And they're proud of it.

I'm just to the right of Ghengis Khan.

Quote:

One of your fundamental errors, Charlie, is that you equate Republicans with grassroots conservatives.

The thing is, what is a grassrooter Republican or conservative? The GOP was the party of level-headed fiscal conseratives and strong on the military. This is what was known as being a grassroot Republican. In the last 35 years or so they stopped being conservatives.

What most conservatives and what used to be Republicans, had found was a way to win by putting what they call "religious conservatives" out front during elections. It worked for awhile. Mostly it's hypocritical as they don't go much out of their way for religious conservatives once in office. Religious conservatives are anything but conservative, anyway.

Grassroot conservatives and conservative Republicans, are by a large margin are from the south. That's fine with me as demographics have changed. Younger voters aren't interested in them or a throwback Republican party. I would like to see a renewed Progressive Party but sad for us, that is very unlikely.

Charlie

Charlie,

I have never received or even seen an email/mail or phone call from the RNC, or any other Conservative group. I actually think for myself, despite your insinuations otherwise.  Do some real research and you will find that you are being lied to.

Blaming events on some force of evil is an old tactic and used to be called paranoia. Now it seems to be standard procedure for the White House crowd.

Again, do some real research and you may be amazed at what's actually going in the real world out there.

I'm a classic example: I have become highly motivated by the situation - NOT someone suggesting what I should do.

How many people saw this coming and voted against Obama? 57,000,000 people were not hired to disrupt, by the forces of evil.

Marc

Quote:

Blaming events on some force of evil is an old tactic and used to be called paranoia. Now it seems to be standard procedure for the White House crowd.

IMO, the prime source of paranoia in this debate are the groups opposed to insurance reform.

In this forum (and possibly no where else in the world), Batch has found 'proof' that Medicare will soon stop providing oxygen for people with COPD/emphysema, and millions will die as a result.  Never mind that the changes in Medicare oxygen (which will not deny and kill millions) is the result of a bill passed a few years ago by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president.

And when a provision in one of the current bills supports doctors talking to their patients about living wills (something that has been around for decades, and which was put into the bill by a suggestion from a Republican member of Congress) ... that is presented as an evil socialist conspiracy that is designed to kill grandma to save money. "The government is going to send ACORN to your house and ask you to fill out a form asking you how you want to be killed!"  

Your absolutely right that many people have concerns, and others are opposed to any changes.  But there is a concerted effort to dishonestly create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to kill the reform.  The people that go to meetings to disrupt them by screaming and chanting and stomping their feet to drown out others don't want an honest discussion.  

And there is now written evidence that those disruptors are plants from the left.

This whole single payer health insurance "reform" movement is going to hurt the left badly. You can argue its merits until you're blue in the face - people do not want options taken away and change dictated to them.

Monty,

Very, very few people are opposed to fixing our current health insurance system - it's broken, we all know it. There are many great ideas out there for better controls and oversight which could be implemented quickly and efficiently.

You are missing the key point: THIS particular model is being opposed - not any type of reform.

Marc

Brew wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 11:22am:

And there is now written evidence that those disruptors are plants from the left.

Really?  I suppose that evidence doesn't need to be given, simply alluded to?  


Quote:

In an August 3 blog post, FreedomWorks campaign coordinator Nan Swift linked to video of protesters interrupting Specter's town hall, stating it was "a must emulate at town halls across the country over the next month." START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Freedomworks is a group chaired by Dick Armey (Republican House Majority Leader 1995-2003), and Matt Kibbe is their President ... Matt Kibbe is the political trickster who promoted Ralph Nader's campaign in 2004 not because he supported Nader, but because he thought that it would split the vote.  

Here's a memo from Robert MacGuffie at RightPrinciples.com that says that it is necessary to 'rock the boat' early in the meeting - he recommends that an organized group fan out through the meeting hall, and engage in short, intermittent shouting episodes.  

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

And the idea that these protests are organized by the Dems is at variance with Marc and all the other people that claim they are genuine.


Quote:

Following the August 2 disruption of a town hall event hosted by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Fox News personalities -- including Hannity, Peter Johnson, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, and Neil Cavuto -- have lauded such protesters or urged viewers to take similar action.

Quote:

This whole single payer health insurance "reform" movement is going to hurt the left badly. You can argue its merits until you're blue in the face - people do not want options taken away and change dictated to them.

The current proposals don't take choice away from people who are satisfied with their current insurance.

If we do nothing, change will still be dictated to us.  Health care costs will continue to rise (perhaps doubling in the next decade), and fewer people will have insurance.  

Obama said, "The time for talking is over".  So, I don't know why we even need to debate anything.

Isn't it interesting how Obamacare is the only answer to this problem, and how the only discussion that we are allowed to have is how happy we'll all be when we reach the utopia of universal free health care for all living things?  Don't worry about the cost, we will make it up with 'savings'!  

Oh, and don't you dare talk bad about it, or you're going to be on a list.  Not a good list.

Here, let me Google that for you, monty:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Shawn wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 12:10pm:

Obama said, "The time for talking is over".  So, I don't know why we even need to debate anything. Isn't it interesting how Obamacare is the only answer to this problem, and how the only discussion that we are allowed to have is how happy we'll all be when we reach the utopia of universal free health care for all living things?  Don't worry about the cost, we will make it up with 'savings'!   Oh, and don't you dare talk bad about it, or you're going to be on a list.  Not a good list.

You're an enemy of the state, Shawn.

I'd turn you in, but there's nothing in it for me.

Yet.

Quote:

The current proposals don't take choice away from people who are satisfied with their current insurance.

How naive does one have to be to believe this?

Marc wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 11:44am:

You are missing the key point: THIS particular model is being opposed - not any type of reform. Marc

For some people, that is true.  You have been sane and reasonable, even if you have a different approach to the problems than I do.  But overall, I have not seen any credible alternatives put forward.



Quote:

There are many great ideas out there for better controls and oversight which could be implemented quickly and efficiently.

So what do you think can be done quickly that will improve access, cover more people, and control costs?

[quote author=66564153240 link=1249332470/36#36 date=1249575199]Here, let me Google that for you, monty:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Ok - there is a memo from Obama that encourages people to go out and show their support for healthcare reform.

It does not suggest disrupting the meetings. It does not suggest pretending to be conservatives and then disrupting the meetings to discredit them.  That is very different from what you claimed - that the disruptive elements are plants from the left.

That 'analysis' is dishonest grasping at straws, Brew.  It involves 'connecting the dots' where there are no connections.  Dozens of conservative groups have issued emails or memos calling for such disruptions.  To blame it on the other side as you have done requires a special kind of mental flexibility, one that most people would consider a character flaw.

Again, just keep those rose colored glasses planted firmly on the bridge of your nose, monty. They really help filter out the color of the pile of crap you're looking at.

I'm surprised you haven't smelled it yet. Increasing numbers of Americans are...

From the Wall Street Journal, May 20 2009

The GOP's Health-Care Alternative
We can cover more people by making the current insurance tax subsidy more fair.

By GRACE-MARIE TURNER and JOSEPH R. ANTOS

Republican congressional leaders are finally offering a clear alternative to the health-reform plans being developed by the White House and Democrats in Congress. The goals and the rhetoric of both sides are remarkably similar: cover the uninsured, allow people to keep the coverage they have, provide more choices of affordable health insurance, and rein in health costs. But their policy prescriptions are remarkably different.

Democrats are uniting around proposals to vastly expand federal regulation of health insurance, require everyone to have coverage, and compel employers to provide federally prescribed insurance or pay a new tax. A new Medicare-like insurance plan is still being debated, but even if it doesn't make the cut, Congress could regulate its way to a government-dominated market.

Four Republicans in Congress -- Sens. Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) and Richard Burr (North Carolina) and Reps. Paul Ryan (Wisconsin) and Devin Nunes (California) -- will today introduce a bill that moves away from federal centralization. Aptly called the Patients' Choice Act, it provides a path to universal coverage by redirecting current subsidies for health insurance to individuals. It also provides a new safety net that guarantees access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.

The nexus of their plan is redirecting the $300 billion annual tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance to individuals in the form of refundable, advanceable tax credits. Families would get $5,700 a year and individuals $2,300 to buy insurance and invest in Health Savings Accounts.

Low-income Americans would get a supplemental debit card of up to $5,000 to help them purchase insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs. They would have an incentive to spend wisely since up to one-fourth of any unspent money in the accounts could be rolled over to the next year. The combination of the refundable tax credit and debit card gives lower-income Americans a way out of the Medicaid ghetto so they can have the dignity of private insurance.

The great majority of Americans with job-based health insurance would see little more than a bookkeeping change with the Patients' Choice plan. But implicit in the policy is the acknowledgment that our system of tying health insurance to the workplace is not working for upwards of 45 million uninsured Americans.

That's a pivotal point in the fight over reform: Will the next health-reform bill lock in a system of job-based health insurance or allow more individual choice and portability to fit a 21st century work force?

Democrats are fretting over how to pay for their plans, which early estimates peg at $1.5 trillion or more over 10 years. Economists at a recent Senate Finance Committee roundtable unanimously supported limiting the virtually invisible $300 billion tax subsidy that workers receive when they get health insurance through their employers. Even Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said he feels like Willie Sutton: Congress must look at redirecting at least some of this huge subsidy because "that's where the money is."

This is the same proposal John McCain was criticized for during the 2008 presidential campaign. Television ads by the Obama campaign pounded him for "taxing your health insurance."

Employers worry that their contributions toward their workers' health insurance premiums no longer would be recognized as legitimate business expenses. The Republican alternative doesn't touch that. Whether companies offer their workers compensation in the form of health insurance or cash wages, they still can deduct the full cost.

While many Americans are fed up with private insurance, opinion polls consistently show a majority think government-controlled health care would be worse. There are problems in the private insurance market, and the Republican plan takes steps that can help.

States could provide one-stop insurance shopping through new Health Care Exchanges rather than giving the federal government control, as most Democratic plans would do. And it frees up Medicaid money and provides added resources to the states to target additional help to those with disabilities and low incomes. It also calls for auto-enrollment to expand insurance coverage: People will have many options and opportunities to select insurance, but if they don't make an active choice they can be automatically enrolled in private policies financed by the tax credit.

Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate. The Republican proposal makes the choice clear.

Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute. Mr. Antos is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

FYI, That piece from the Wall Street Journal is from the opinion page if that wasn't obvious.

The argument that the GOP isn't offering *any* alternatives is simply ignorant or possibly deceptive.

I think most intelligent people can understand that they are being railroaded into a stupid, stupid plan.  The false sense of urgency, not giving people time to even read the bill (let alone debate it) and the demonizing of anybody who might oppose it all point to a desperate attempt to pass it before the people catch on to what a pile of crap it is.

Obama may have a lot of people completely hypnotized, but more and more are waking up every day, and that's why this has become so 'urgent'.  Whether you want single-payer or not, passing these sweeping reforms that fundamentally change our way of life in such a frenzied way is a sure plan for disaster.

I would rather see serious tort reform and some serious discussion on what to do about illegal aliens that are crushing the system.  That would be my proposal.

Many alternatives have been proposed, but the media does not report them.  It's far better to focus on the only option they want us to see.  One way out baby, the Obama way.

And then HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius wrote in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on Tuesday, "President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring."

Yeah, that's it. Trust us on the details.

Even though support for this magic trick is quickly slipping away, it's mind-boggling to me that there are so many that still put their faith in this administration's ability to do anything right, and the congresscritters that help them make it so.

Worst. President. Ever.

And in record time.

Shawn wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 10:43am:

The depth of ignorance in that argument simply stuns me.  Seriously.

ok shawn maybe your right and i missed something obvious. what did gw do to improve health care in this country?

also if obamas plan is so bad, what would be your suggestion?

you can educate me. i'm not a liberal

Please tell me how George Bush is relevant in any way.  Oh wait, I forgot, when all logic fails, make sure to bring up Bush.  Seriously.

And I said what I would do in the previous posts.  Tort reform, immigration reform, etc. I would address waste and fraud not by creating huge new government bureaucracies, but by addressing a system that is broken *primarily* because the government mandates waste and encourages fraud. I don't give a shit who is responsible for getting us where we are, I just want it fixed.  Having it run by the government is a sure way to increase waste and fraud, increasing costs while at the same time adding millions (they say) of previously uninsured people to the system and somehow availability of health care is going to go up?  Really?  Are there doctors sitting idle in their offices now or on golf carts because they have a lack of patients?  Where do they address the capacity of the system to handle millions of new customers?  They don't.  They just want you to believe impossible math.

I guess as long as the media plays along, people will believe anything.

ok so what about the people who have to chose between insulin or groceries? what about people that have paid for insurance for years and all the sudden get dropped  because of some loop hole created by the insurer? it would seem that in this day and age only healthy people are eligible.

you've addressed illegal aliens which i can go along with but what about our natives that have retired and get sick and have to work until they ae dead? you still haven't come up with a solution shawn

I don't have 1000 pages to put a plan here, but it's not my job either.  My point is there are proposals that will address those concerns in a completely different way and the folks in control will not discuss them.  Obamacare is the only way.  I get it.

Off the top of my head though, if you could eliminate the drag on the system of illegal aliens, you'd have a lot more people who could afford the true cost of healthcare.  We who pay are already forced to pay higher prices to cover them and they use far more expensive services than a covered person would use.

Tort reform would also go a long way towards reducing costs overall, again making it possible for many more people to afford it.

You know, I resent the implication that any conservative plan is less compassionate than Obamacare.  The fact is Obamacare will reduce the availability and quality of coverage for all people.  That is the opposite of compassion in my opinion.  It is, in fact, an evil plan.

While I'm at it, let's talk about Obama's plan.  Does your media tell you that he has no frikkin idea what is in the bill?  He said so himself.  The plan has not even been released yet, and Obama did not write it (let alone read it).  He is very vocal about what the plan isn't, but he is being vocal about something he is ignorant about.  Let me repeat, Obama said he has no idea what is in the bill.  But he can surely tell you that you won't lose private coverage.  Yet that is exactly the opposite of what is in the house bill.  Obama covers these discrepancies by saying he doesn't know the details and hasn't seen it yet.  And yet, continues to assure you what isn't in it.  UN FRIKKING REAL.

Brew wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 12:39pm:

Again, just keep those rose colored glasses planted firmly on the bridge of your nose, monty. They really help filter out the color of the pile of crap you're looking at. I'm surprised you haven't smelled it yet. Increasing numbers of Americans are...

I'm not sure that I am for the current proposal ...  but I know I am against distorting what is in the proposal as several people in this forum have done, or distorting the actions of the people who are in favor or opposed to the proposal.  And you have ducked the issue that you raised: you claimed that the disruptors were liberal plants, and your 'evidence' shows no such thing ... so you move on to metaphors about colored glasses and excrement.  Nice dodge.  



Shawn,

I'll take a closer look at that later today ... here's a fresh story on what might be a real bipartisan compromise.  I don't think that blaming Jose will really make a change - most illegals wait until a problem is bad, go to the emergency room ... they get emergency stabilization, and then they are discharged.  For an infection, that is somewhat costlier than getting it treated early ... but they don't get a heart bypass surgery or hundreds of thousands of dollars of chemotherapy for cancer.  And the bills under consideration would not extend full coverage to illegals as I understand them.  

Malpractice does not explain the cost rises over the past decades ... malpractice awards have not really risen, while the cost of coverage goes up 10% or so a year on average.


Quote:

Senate negotiators are inching toward bipartisan agreement on a health-care plan that seeks middle ground on some of the thorniest issues facing Congress, offering the fragile outlines of a legislative consensus even as the political battle over reform intensifies outside Washington. The emerging Finance Committee bill would shave about $100 billion off the projected trillion-dollar cost of the legislation over the next decade and eventually provide coverage to 94 percent of Americans, according to participants in the talks. It would expand Medicaid, crack down on insurers, abandon the government insurance option that President Obama is seeking and, for the first time, tax health-care benefits under the most generous plans. Backers say the bill would also offer the only concrete plan before Congress for reining in the skyrocketing cost of federal health programs over the long term. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

-johnny- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 2:07pm:

ok so what about the people who have to chose between insulin or groceries? what about people that have paid for insurance for years and all the sudden get dropped  because of some loop hole created by the insurer? it would seem that in this day and age only healthy people are eligible. you've addressed illegal aliens which i can go along with but what about our natives that have retired and get sick and have to work until they ae dead? you still haven't come up with a solution shawn

One more thing, this is a common attack that is getting quite old.  The world is imperfect.  There will always be people who, for some reason, end up on the skids.  I have been there, I may be heading there again.  It happens.  We are a country based on individual freedom and responsibility.  You have control of your destiny, and if you are smart and work hard, hopefully you do well.  In cases where you are 'screwed by the man' hopefully you have legal recourse.  We have charitable organizations.  Americans are the most giving people in the world.  The fact that somebody has to choose between eating and insulin is sad, but it doesn't justify destroying basic freedoms.

If there is no debate allowed until the bad guys (conservatives) propose something that fixes the nature of human greed, we are screwed.

The time to be most alarmed is when debate is not allowed.

Warner Todd Huston wrote:

Quote:

Didn’t Barack Obama claim that community organizing was the most important part of his early political life? Wasn’t his work for ACORN presented as one of the chief qualifications for his becoming president? So, now that he’s won, how can this administration rail against Americans coming together in community organizations to oppose his healthcare policies? Isn’t organizing good? This is the same man that during the late campaign for president told his voters to “argue” with your neighbors and “get in their faces.” Now, all of a sudden, this is a president that is urging people to turn in their neighbors for having the temerity of “getting in the faces” of Congressmen that support a government take over of our healthcare system?

Kind of hypocrtical, no?

how bout this. pharmaceutical companies haven't cured anything since polio.  if there was a cure for diabetes insulin would become obsolete and humulin wouldn't have the money they make from diabetics buying insulin to pay for lobbyist to lobby the legislature to make laws to keep a cure out of reach and to keep diabetics buying their insulin. the same could be said about any number of conditions. this is the core of the problem. drug companies are standing in the way of progress and sick people are suffering  in the name of profitability.

i'm sure oboma knows this but he is not going to address it. why? because these are the people that pay the bills at cnn, fox, cbs, or any other source of  information. pharmaceutical should be banned from lobbying and banned from advertising. either the government controls them or they control the government. there is no middle ground. besides that i don't think i should have to explain what "erectile disinfection" is or what "what that certain part of the male anatomy" is or herpes or whatever. i saw an advertisement for Oxycontin the other day. Oxycontin is a killer.    

democrats and republicans alike are bought and sold. i don't think republicans are evil nor do i think democrats are stupid i just think both parties need to look outside the box for somekind of solution other than calling each other stupid or evil.  

Maybe somebody can explain this one to me:


Quote:

From Craig’s List: Stop Complaining. Start Organizing! $400-600 Per Week (Minneapolis) Date: 2009-08-03, 11:59AM CDT Reply to: see below President Obama’s top priority for Congress is health care reform. Insurance companies are spending over a million dollars a day lobbying against the reform, while feeding myths and fears to America. It will take the same grassroots energy that got Obama elected to see the change we voted for. Our work isn’t over. Build support for health care reform with U.S. PIRG. Mobilize activists to cut the cost of health care, expand coverage, and stop sick from getting dropped by insurance companies. Go out in your community and make change happen. Make friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 per week. To apply for a job, call Chris at 612-331-1434. The Fund for the Public Interest has been working for over 25 years with organizations such as Sierra Club, Environment America, Human Rights Campaign, Progressive Future and U.S. PIRG to win concrete victories for the public interest. We are the nation’s premier nonprofit for raising money, building membership and winning grassroots campaigns. * Location: Minneapolis * Compensation: $400-$600 Per Week * This is at a non-profit organization. * Principals only. Recruiters, please don’t contact this job poster. * Phone calls about this job are ok. * Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests. PostingID: 1303502752 tickleddragon on August 6, 2009 at 9:23 PM

These August townhall meetings are going to get bloody - real soon. Mark my words.

Seems to me GW called for tort reform in his State of the Union addresses for a number of years.  

Congress never introduced anything!

Quote:

We have charitable organizations.  Americans are the most giving people in the world.  The fact that somebody has to choose between eating and insulin is sad, but it doesn't justify destroying basic freedoms.

Nice. It's also untrue.

There is little use in trying to debate this with people that read only what they agree with. Whatever causes people to scream about health care as a socialist plot by people they consider evil, does not compute.

These are people that for some reason buy into the idea that: By God, I'll be happy to shoot myself in the foot to preserve some kind of what might only be understood as a type of masochistic bootstrap "alturism." They want things as they are and they'll be happy to take a beating every day from people that love America but hate Americans. They seem perfectly happy to be "represented" by the worst that they have to offer at town hall meetings, and the Shawn Hannitys and far right wing radio screechers that should embarrass conservatives and Republicans. They don't seem to care so long as Wall Street health care investors keep the money rolling in. They will go to any lengths for them.

I'm all for what this country stands for. It does not however stand for stupidity by people that wish to inflict it on the whole country. Keep it to themselves. Maybe it's a form of natural selection. Profits and the market are what keeps our country successful....so long as common sense and some degree of concern for the country as a whole, prevail, not just comfort for those that don't need some help with staying well and not dying from lack of even basic care. By in large, not as represented by the right, they are the under-insured, not those on welfare. They have paid their way and deserve just a little help from those of us that have made a bundle on the system.

These greedy insurers, are always willing to discard anybody that doesn't benefit their bottom lines. It's okay to provide health insurance to people who aren't sick enough use it. It makes perfect sense when health care is of no consequence to them.

One has to consider the people that are so frightened by a government option or even better, a single-payer system. They are incredibly "healthy" insurance companies, and the most greedy corporate entity: drug companies. They do not want their gold plated boat rocked and are employing every professional lobbyist and public relations firm they can find and are willing pay anything they ask to keep them happy.

Part of it of course is to use the politics of fear which is what the right has used so successfully for the last 60 years in killng health care reform when comes up. Part of it is to try to have the country believe that their columnists and only thier bloggers have the "real" dope on the matter and that it takes self-flagellation to make it go away.

Insurance companies will be delighted if Washington mandates health insurance for eveyone.....especially with no government option. It will increase their incomes...incredibly and they can charge the goverment anything they wish. Drug companies will like it too. The "help" they offer is even better. The only drugs they will be happy supply are those that they produce and the most expensive.....generics will not be allowed. How sweet it might be.

What is stunning is that even people of seemingly good intelligence and compassion are willing to overlook this and make things harder for the country. It is the country that suffers in the long run. Like Medicare though, it wouldn't surprise me that it too will wind up being one helluva cash cow for them. They are good at it. Maybe we'll be lucky but it will take some real lifting so long as the money streams keeps flowing. It's sad.

The right could use a little "elitism" for a change for the good of the country.

Charlie

Brew wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 10:29pm:

These August townhall meetings are going to get bloody - real soon. Mark my words.

Yeh, the anti-reform hooligans have taken to issuing death threats to Congressmen, and a fight broke out at one rally in Miami.

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck makes jokes about poisoning Nancy Pelosi. A real class act.  When faced with electoral defeat, the right resorts to violence and threats of violence.



Quote:

Greensboro, NC -- North Carolina Representative Brad Miller says he's one of hundreds of lawmakers who have received death threats over the proposed health plan. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

These scuffles are really rather pathetic - elderly people on Medicare are wound up about the threat of socialized medicine.  Maybe we should just end medicare and let them fend for themselves??


Quote:

By all accounts, many if not most of the rioters were elderly. So we have the spectacle of Medicare recipients rioting against government intervention in health care.

Paid thugs supporting the President's health care reform plan.

Speaks volumes. The rest is merely media complicity.

Again, believe what you want, monty.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
Tobacco Smoke Enemas (1750s – 1810s)
The tobacco enema was used to infuse tobacco smoke into a patient’s rectum for various medical purposes, primarily the resuscitation of drowning victims.  A rectal tube inserted into the anus was connected to a fumigator and bellows that forced the smoke towards the rectum.  The warmth of the smoke was thought to promote respiration, but doubts about the credibility of tobacco enemas led to the popular phrase “blow smoke up one’s ass.”

ROTFLMAO!!! ;D

uh huh

-johnny- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 2:07pm:

ok so what about the people who have to chose between insulin or groceries? what about people that have paid for insurance for years and all the sudden get dropped  because of some loop hole created by the insurer? it would seem that in this day and age only healthy people are eligible.

What about the crack wh0re who picked up HIV from a used needle?

What about the in-debt-out-his-ass douchebag fighting to keep his Porsche, vacation house and Yankees season tickets, but let his health insurance lapse?

Finding the worthy people in need of health care is easy.  My problem is that for every one valid case there are a dozen undeserving people who plain and simply do not deserve health care.

Now someone will say 'who are you to play god, picking and choosing who is deserving'.  I am the one paying for it.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
Tobacco Smoke Enemas (1750s – 1810s)
The tobacco enema was used to infuse tobacco smoke into a patient’s rectum for various medical purposes, primarily the resuscitation of drowning victims.  A rectal tube inserted into the anus was connected to a fumigator and bellows that forced the smoke towards the rectum.  The warmth of the smoke was thought to promote respiration, but doubts about the credibility of tobacco enemas led to the popular phrase “blow smoke up one’s ass.”



[smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif]

Quote:

Now someone will say 'who are you to play god, picking and choosing who is deserving'.  I am the one paying for it.

What if that crack wh0re turned out to be a relative of your extended family, would you cast her aside or would you be willing to pay and give her a chance at life.

Unfortunately many of these people come from dysfunctional families and were never offered the same opportunities that were afforded to us. As a Christian, (And I ain't the best at it)I was brought up to work as an advocate for the vulnerable in our society and offer help at every available opportunity. If that in turn means me coughing up an extra few quid, then so be it.

I believe rich or poor, we all deserve the same opportunities as regards to health care, but hey, that's just my two cents worth.



Lefty...!

-johnny- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 3:30pm:

how bout this. pharmaceutical companies haven't cured anything since polio.

  Please don't make sweaping statements like that Johny. How about the vaccine for Ovarine (sic) Cancer? Or Mennigites? Just to name two off the top of my head. Where would we be without the advancements in Medical Imaging etc. if it weren't for the profit margin in our system? Its not perfect. No system is. Thats why the French President comes here for heart surgery, as well as the King of Saudi Arabia. We have the best health care there is. Canadian health care is free as the air. But you have to wait six months for an MRI. and in some towns they hold a lottery to see who gets on the Doctors patient list. According to the G.A.O. if the current Senate Bill passes, in 2020 17 million will be without health care and there will be no private health insurance available. If the House Bill passes, by the year 2020 36 million will have no health care. That is in their current form according to the GAO. Everything is still in committee ofcourse. If they really wanted to take care of the citizens without health insurance, they could take around $30 Billion and give them the same health care plan the Safeway employees have. But then they would have to think of a way to to waste the rest of that Trillion dollars that they were planning on saddling us with. Oh yeah there is those two Gulf Stream executive jets they just ordered. I suppose thats a start. After all they had to make up for the ones that they made the auto execs give up. I just love these guys. You could call them hypocrites, but a hypocrite knows when they are doing something wrong. I really don't think these guys in Congress even realize what they are doing. Do you think for a minute that they will be subject to the health care plan they are proposing? Not a chance. They are more than willing to take your health care plan away from you, whether you want to keep it or not, and force you onto the governments. And don't even feel that they are lying to you. Even though its right there on page 18. Because it is only right and for your own good. and they are looking out for your best interests, and you just don't know any better. And it is in your best interests that they do this. They aren't really lying, you just wouldn't understand is all.
  I gotta stop rambling on about those individuals. Big Pharma, the lobbyists and all the other pond scum in DC would have absolutely nothing at all to do if it wasn't for the waste of space that we keep electing to public office. No man's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is safe as long as those guys are in session. Trust yer Uncle Kirk on this one. At a town meeting someone once asked my Congressman what the price of a gallon of Milk and a gallon of Gas was. He didn't know. Damn I'm starting to sound like Charlie and Batch.
[smiley=smokin.gif]

The opportunities ARE there.  

The choices that are made are what makes the difference in this whole argument.  IMO

Lobster wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 10:53am:

-johnny- wrote on Aug 6th, 2009 at 2:07pm: ok so what about the people who have to chose between insulin or groceries? what about people that have paid for insurance for years and all the sudden get dropped  because of some loop hole created by the insurer? it would seem that in this day and age only healthy people are eligible. What about the crack wh0re who picked up HIV from a used needle? What about the in-debt-out-his-ass douchebag fighting to keep his Porsche, vacation house and Yankees season tickets, but let his health insurance lapse? Finding the worthy people in need of health care is easy.  My problem is that for every one valid case there are a dozen undeserving people who plain and simply do not deserve health care. Now someone will say 'who are you to play god, picking and choosing who is deserving'.  I am the one paying for it.

like i said earlier we need to CURE some of these ailments and the drug companies are standing in the way of progress in the name of profits. if my wife's diabetes was cured the cost of her treatment would be $0. in other words the drug companies are the ones currently playing god.

Lefty wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

Quote: Now someone will say 'who are you to play god, picking and choosing who is deserving'.  I am the one paying for it. What if that crack wh0re turned out to be a relative of your extended family, would you cast her aside or would you be willing to pay and give her a chance at life. Unfortunately many of these people come from dysfunctional families and were never offered the same opportunities that were afforded to us. As a Christian, (And I ain't the best at it)I was brought up to work as an advocate for the vulnerable in our society and offer help at every available opportunity. If that in turn means me coughing up an extra few quid, then so be it. I believe rich or poor, we all deserve the same opportunities as regards to health care, but hey, that's just my two cents worth. Lefty...!

Then help that person through your church. It's called charity, and there ain't none of it in this health care legislation. Besides, imagine the quandry the left might find themselves in were there to be any mention of Christian charity as a basis for this behemoth.

This is, pure and simple, about a power grab by the Feds. When they control your health, they control you.

Brew wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

Paid thugs supporting the President's health care reform plan. Speaks volumes. The rest is merely media complicity. Again, believe what you want, monty.

There you go again, seeing things that aren't there.

The information from Craigslist you provided does support the idea that there are people who are paid - I have seen ads like that before, and it usually involves knocking on doors or phoning people to deliver a message and then ask for money.  Both sides employ those types of workers, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.  I don't typically support such groups, as (like many 'charities') they seem more interested in raising money to pay themselves than effectively spending it on a problem.  

If people want to organize a campaign to save the snail or promote a new containerized freight port in their town, good on them.  I may agree or disagree, but there is nothing inherently wrong with such activity.

But you apparently have someone have magic insight that lets you convert that advertisement into evidence of paid thuggery.  Paid?  Yes, sure. Thuggery?  No.  Not to a reasonable person. You are projecting your belief system in the absence of facts regarding what those people will really be paid to do - any honest critical thinker would say it is rather delusional.

Everyone has a right to health care.

Having a right doesn't mean that the Government has to provide it though.

We have a right to bear arms but the Gov. doesn't have to buy them for us.  We have a right to assemble but the Gov. doesn't provide us busses to get there on.

Last I checked, ACORN and *all* of the community organizing groups are the exact opposite of conservative, and they are taxpayer supported.

Wh has paid thugs?

monty wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 12:16pm:

Brew wrote on Aug 7th, 2009 at 10:33am: Paid thugs supporting the President's health care reform plan. Speaks volumes. The rest is merely media complicity. Again, believe what you want, monty. There you go again, seeing things that aren't there. The information from Craigslist you provided does support the idea that there are people who are paid - I have seen ads like that before, and it usually involves knocking on doors or phoning people to deliver a message and then ask for money.  Both sides employ those types of workers, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.  I don't typically support such groups, as (like many 'charities') they seem more interested in raising money to pay themselves than effectively spending it on a problem.   If people want to organize a campaign to save the snail or promote a new containerized freight port in their town, good on them.  I may agree or disagree, but there is nothing inherently wrong with such activity. But you apparently have someone have magic insight that lets you convert that advertisement into evidence of paid thuggery.  Paid?  Yes, sure. Thuggery?  No.  Not to a reasonable person. You are projecting your belief system in the absence of facts regarding what those people will really be paid to do - any honest critical thinker would say it is rather delusional.

I'm now officially done with your delusions. I just hope you don't have an influence on too many people.

Ignore button ON. Have a nice day.

For everyone's consideration, an e-mail sent to a friend of mine from moveon.org. You can make up your own mind.


Quote:

Dear MoveOn member, It's getting ugly out there. All across the country, right-wing extremists are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama's plans for health care and clean energy. Last night in Tampa, Florida, a town hall meeting erupted into violence, with the police being called to break up fist fights and shoving matches.1 A Texas Democrat was shouted down by right-wing hecklers, many of whom admitted they didn't even live in his district.2 One North Carolina representative announced he wouldn't be holding any town-hall meetings after his office began receiving death threats.3 And in Maryland, protesters hung a Democratic congressman in effigy to oppose health-care reform.4 We've got a plan to fight back against these radical right-wingers. We've hired skilled grassroots organizers who are working with thousands of local volunteers to show Congress that ordinary Americans continue to support President Obama's agenda for change. And we're building new online tools to track events across the country and make sure MoveOn members turn out at each one. But we need to scale up our efforts quickly to make sure this plan works. To really swing into action during this month's congressional recess, we need to raise at least $250,000 immediately. Can you chip in $35 to support our work? START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE If the shouts of the right-wing mobs are the only voices our senators and representatives hear over the recess, we'll have a hard time passing health care and clean energy legislation. That's why we're launching our Heat Up Congress campaign so quickly to fight back, using new technology to implement rapid response town hall turnout, organizing personal phone calls from small business leaders and donors to their representatives, running new ads, and activating an energized network of on-the-ground organizers and volunteers. This month could decide the future of health care and clean energy in America—and we're already one week in. If you've been sitting on the sidelines, now's the time to get involved. Talk to your neighbors, go to a town hall meeting—and today, please chip in $35 to support our work: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Thanks for all you do. –Justin, Matt, Nita, Kat and the rest of the team Sources: 1. "Tampa Town Hall On Health Care Reform Disrupted By Violence," The Huffington Post, August 6, 2009 START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE 2. "Local Fox Reporter Attends Town Hall And Finds 'Some Attendees Admit They Don't Live In The District,'" Think Progress, August 4, 2009 START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE 3. "Dem Congressman's Office: His Life Has Been Threatened Over Health Care Bill," Talking Points Memo, August 5, 2009 START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE 4. "The Danger Over the Right's Anger," Politico, August 3, 2009. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

Shawn wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 1:15pm:

Last I checked, ACORN and *all* of the community organizing groups are the exact opposite of conservative, and they are taxpayer supported. Wh has paid thugs?

I haven't said that anyone has paid thugs. I challenged Brew's statements that the disruptors were 'liberal plants' and that an ad on Craigslist was part of a sinister conspiracy. And I provided evidence that some conservatives activists were encouraging the disruption.

ACORN is not taxpayer supported.  Some tea-baggers are concerned that one vague provision in a funding bill might be used to secretly funnel billions and billions of dollars to the group, but that is based on (yet another) misinterpretation ... there was a provision in one of the bailout bills that talked about putting 20% of one of the funds into 'community renewal' ... but that was specifically for a program run by the government (HUD's Housing Trust Fund), and it would have been lent to existing homeowners to prevent foreclosures, and to new homeowners to occupy homes that were already foreclosed on.  So, yeah, the word 'community' did appear in that bill, but no, the word 'community' doesn't always mean what you tea-baggers think it does.


Quote:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now does not apply for nor does it receive any federal grants. ACORN has had contracts with other nonprofit organizations to perform work on projects which received federal grant support. For example, ACORN has received contracts to:    * Identify families eligible to receive food stamps and assist them to apply.    * Identify homeowners facing foreclosure and deliver them for housing counseling and loss mitigation services.    * Provide lead paint remediation services to households with children living in older neighborhoods. The contracts that ACORN receives on these projects are for delivering specific activities, all of which are tax-exempt qualified in accordance with federal grant guidelines. No payments are received until work product has been delivered. None of ACORN's contracts to perform work on projects receiving federal grant money has provided funding for voter registration.

That's very nice, Brew - but it doesn't show any attempt to disrupt the meetings or incite violence - various right wing memos have overtly mapped out a program to be disruptive. The death threats are not coming from the people that support health care reform and want to go to the meetings to support that end.

Some have suggested that although the 'tea-bag' parties of a few months ago got so little coverage, the people that went to them have figured out that if they have one of the parties in a space where a Congressman is trying to talk about health care, then they will get the attention they sought:


Quote:

At a town hall meeting in Georgetown [Delaware], a woman demanded to know why [Rep. Mike] Castle and his colleagues were 'ignoring' questions about Obama's birth certificate -- questions that have been put to rest repeatedly by state officials in Hawaii, where the birth certificate and all other credible evidence show that Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. When Castle countered that Obama is, in fact, 'a citizen of the United States,' the crowd erupted in boos, the woman seized control of the gathering and led a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance." [Politico; 7/27/09]

Reminds me of John Cusack in the Runaway Jury ... no sir, no manipulation going on here.

-johnny- wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 11:52am:

like i said earlier we need to CURE some of these ailments and the drug companies are standing in the way of progress in the name of profits. if my wife's diabetes was cured the cost of her treatment would be $0. in other words the drug companies are the ones currently playing god.

I would 100% support a bill where we are giving hundreds of billions to research treatment for a dozen or so common afflictions.  Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal injury, etc.

Lobster wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 3:18pm:

I would 100% support a bill where we are giving hundreds of billions to research treatment for a dozen or so common afflictions.  Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal injury, etc.

Talk about advancing healthcare....

There's change I could live with.

Brew wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

Lobster wrote on Aug 7th, 2009 at 3:18pm: I would 100% support a bill where we are giving hundreds of billions to research treatment for a dozen or so common afflictions.  Diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal injury, etc. Talk about advancing healthcare.... There's change I could live with.

what about stem cell research?

-johnny- wrote on Aug 7^th, 2009 at 6:55pm:

Talk about advancing healthcare.... There's change I could live with.what about stem cell research?

As long as they don't have to kill babies to do it.

Change = revolt...revolt = change.

This is a cathartic moment in the history of the United States.

When Clinton was elected the folks on the right bashed him incessantly.

When Bush was elected the folks on the left bashed him incessantly.

It is only going to get worse because the lies are being piled upon more lies and more conspiracies and a total disregard for the truth. It's all bullshit. Each side in one way or another, full of total stinking crap, crap, crap and more crap. F_ck them! God sakes..this is more than one can take!

It's stunning to watch this go down. Vote out the incumbents no matter which way you lean. They are all crooks. They suck beyond description. Think of our Country...not your Party affiliation.

May you live in interesting times.

We are.

F_ck them all! We are f_cking sheep. Grow up! God sakes. The Government lies! Get a clue!

Steve G

Quote:

My problem is that for every one valid case there are a dozen undeserving people who plain and simply do not deserve health care.

The reverse is true. Far more people deserve health care that those who are perhaps undeserving. No matter. Sick poor people are much more expensive to our society than our finally kicking in for some health care like the rest of the western world.


Quote:

Then help that person through your church. It's called charity, and there ain't none of it in this health care legislation. Besides, imagine the quandry the left might find themselves in were there to be any mention of Christian charity as a basis for this behemoth.

Why? I'm not much of a church-goer but I know most of them would like to do more than is possible today. It's wishful thinking though and the kind of Christian charity of the 1930s is a thing of the past. The only churches today that could afford the enormous amout of charity needed are the tv "churches" and the money goes only one way for them. The Catholics do better but they have had to close so many churches that it's not something to rely on.

On the town hall riots: Of course it's the right that started all this stuff. Republican speakers have not a fraction of the BS spread by lunatics trying to get on the news.... and that's the big goal.....Divert attention away from the actual discussion. If Obama were to walk on water, this bunch would say that he couldn't swim. It's useless to provide them a platform. Cable news is guilty of making this crap worthwhile.

That aside, I'm certain that what we see on the news is exaggerated. There's no incentive to report a peaceful discussion.... Cable news is a hell of a profitable business that will do anything to keep us glued to the next drug horror story, shark attack, or blimp crash, and now loudmouths that know only that they are supposed to be a nuisance.

Read a newspaper....not blogs....it's better for your health. You have Dear Abbey and the crossword puzzle to look at to unwind.

Charlie

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Go figure!  The Dems in bed with the drug manufacturers.

I tried to read the whole thing but naturally the site has some video that gets in the way. It takes me way too long to download the thing. I hate not having the choice of on these things. Chances are that the video is a waste of time anyway....they usually are. Rats.

From what I read though, these are the same drug companies that have the warm and fuzzy ads now that say how much we need coverage. They also say less politics...that means passing the bill sans a goverment option. They would like nothing more than for the feds to mandate health care for us all so they can sell us their most expensive drugs all made by them. They won't play along though if generics are involved.

I'm just a tad uncomfortable leaving myself to the tender mercies of drug companies.

Fixed News.

Charlie

Bob P wrote on Aug 8^th, 2009 at 8:11am:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Go figure!  The Dems in bed with the drug manufacturers.

well if fox news reports it..... ::)

Looks like an AP wire story to me.

I assume that Obama ask the drug companies NOT to get involved, because that special interest money that he has described as being a big problem in politics.

Not only will he decline getting any indirect benefit from the money, he will publicly "shame" them. At least that's what he promised over and over. In particular, he named the drug companies.

I know that he is man of his word, so just watch him in action.

Marc

hmmmm. It looks like this thing may be true although it now has some serious opposition from some Democrats in Congress. From what I read tonight, it looks like there is some second guessing of the drug deal as a result but I'm not optomistic. Here's hoping Obama will flip on it.

This really pisses me off as drug companies are as I say: evil.

Charlie

Charlie, the drug company money isn't being resisted by high profile Dems like Waxman, Reid and Pelosi. I haven't seen any Democrats speaking against it.

Who is offering serious opposition? Which Democrats are publicly denouncing this flood of special interest money? Which news networks are exposing it for what it is?

The drug consortium is going to embark on a media blitz around Labor Day. There has been a big jump in money donated to Democrats.  We all know that in the past, their money typically went to Republicans.

The President has the choice of how to play this one, but it is clearly up to him to decide whether to keep his pledge. Will he denounce it publicly or will he quietly let it happen and pretend that he hasn't heard about it?

This is a public test of the man's character. He badly wants this bill to pass.

From the Fox link, it seems help was sought from drug-makers and they may see an expanded customer base could reduce costs.  Detail of the "concessions" is not given, but in many businesses, larger sales volume can lead to reduced costs.



Quote:

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said the partnership with the deep-pocketed drug industry is one of mutual self-interest, even though the two groups disagree on numerous issues. "We want to achieve coverage for everyone. For PhRMA, this would improve volume for prescription sales because everyone" would have better access to medicine, he said. Any health care bill that makes it to Obama's desk is expected to extend health insurance to the nearly 50 million who now lack it. That would mean a huge new pool of potential customers for drug companies and other health care providers. That, in turn, has created an incentive to offer concessions to the White House and lawmakers in hopes of shaping the bill, rather than simply opposing it. Drugmakers were the first group to reach agreement with the White House and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announcing several weeks ago that they would absorb $80 billion in costs over a decade. Even before the announcement, according to several individuals, the White House sought help from PhRMA in passing legislation.

Recent prepared remarks so far simply say:


Quote:

Drug companies have agreed to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

Recent statements made contradict the original post of this thread.


Quote:

The Prez & Politburo Want Single Payer Health Care

Interesting that you left out an important part of the AP article. The story wasn't generated by Fox - it's an Associated Press piece. But I haven't seen it covered much:


Quote:

At the same time, the drugmakers are counting on the White House to block efforts by House Democrats to extract more than $80 billion from their industry in the legislation.

Why would they think this, unless they have had some conversations with the White House?

It would appear the drug companies have been lead to believe that if they continue to pour their "special interest" money into the campaign, the President will protect their profits.

Who's next to get in bed with the White House? The oil companies? Sell more petroleum products for a lower price. Economy of scale - you bet.

I have faith that our President will not let this happen because he has consistently railed against special interest money.

This was always a big issue, so I'm sure that he will follow his solemn promises.

Marc

Marc wrote on Aug 9^th, 2009 at 3:31pm:

You left out an important part of the AP article: Quote: At the same time, the drugmakers are counting on the White House to block efforts by House Democrats to extract more than $80 billion from their industry in the legislation.

Agree, that will be an important stand to watch for because it also seems to disagree with this statement:



Quote:

Drugmakers were the first group to reach agreement with the White House and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announcing several weeks ago that they would absorb $80 billion in costs over a decade.

 

Sure, that was statement released by a politician looking to gain acceptance against the tide.  Seems like one or two politicians have stretched the truth before. We'll have to wait and see.

$8 billion a year over 10 years. I wonder what that represents as a percentage of their total profits over 10 years?

Doesn't seem logical for the drug companies in invest $150+ million now to campaign for Obama and his bill, just so that they can make billions of dollars less profit in the future.

The Democrats are saying that this is a mutually beneficial relationship.

I wonder if Exxon Mobil is up next if "special interest" money is OK now? They could offer a discount for gasoline and start supporting campaigns. Neat concept.

Marc wrote on Aug 9^th, 2009 at 3:54pm:

Sure, that was statement released by a politician looking to gain acceptance against the tide.

That statement has no quote marks, it seems it was simply reported.



Quote:

Seems like one or two politicians have stretched the truth before. We'll have to wait and see.

Certainly, Marc.  In management, I've learned to pay much less attention to what people say and more attention to what they do.


Quote:

$8 billion over 10 years. I wonder what that represents as a percentage of their total profits over 10 years?

I waited for an edit here, but $80 billion over 10 years, just averaging, is $8 bil a year.   I wouldn't know any %'s

Sorry, Kevin. I was fixing my missing "per year" while you were responding.

Also added a couple thoughts.

ETA: Hard to determine what is/is not credible, but the total drug company profits seem to be in the $40-$50 billion per year range. But, only part of that is prescription drug profit.

Dial-up is very slow for getting back around here.

That statement about the agreement has no source it seems.



Quote:

Doesn't seem logical for the drug companies in invest $150+ million now to campaign for Obama and his bill, just so that they can make billions of dollars less profit in the future. The Democrats are saying that this is a mutually beneficial relationship. I wonder if Exxon Mobil is up next if "special interest" money is OK now? They could offer a discount for gasoline and start supporting campaigns. Neat concept.

Those "concession" details aren't in the article.  It could simply be like shopping for a shirt and finding last year's style on sale and it says "originally $49.95, now $32.95!"  Well, that could be construed as a "concession", I don't know.   The profits could be made up in volume perhaps, whereas they'll do ok.

Reaching agreements with suppliers is basically normal business.  If drugmakers are spending advertising $ to solicit higher volume, that is basic business, too.

"mutually beneficial", and also "mutual self-interest", which is common in business.   As it seems, this might attempt to show lowering of costs are being negotiated, always good pr.  

I wouldn't have an inside as to how business is done in DC, but if the gov is setting up shop to compete oil down, they would have talks with oil I'd imagine.

Oh, I don't doubt that the drug companies will make out better than "OK."

With some "transparency" we would have better answers to why it's OK to accept "special interest" money.

Perhaps it's a simply a form of stimulus to help the ailing drug companies achieve a higher profit?

Marc wrote on Aug 9^th, 2009 at 5:48pm:

Oh, I don't doubt that the drug companies will make out better than "OK."

Yes, I had doubted this, too.


Quote:

Doesn't seem logical for the drug companies in invest $150+ million now to campaign for Obama and his bill, just so that they can make billions of dollars less profit in the future.

Quote:

With some "transparency" we would have better answers to why it's OK to accept "special interest" money.

It does seem a challenging tide that has made Loudon and Fairfax in VA the richest in America, with surrounding others in the top ten.   Lobbyists ya know, not easily relinquished.

The newly appointed justice may be presiding her first case, which might involve campaign contributions.   Could be something of interest there.



Quote:

Perhaps it's a simply a form of stimulus to help the ailing drug companies achieve a higher profit?

Their position within healthcare has been vigorous.    I don't know if it's possible to get around them.

And if the pharm companies do make more bottom line in the future, that money has to come from somewhere - taxpayers.

Marc:

I get my serious stuff from the Times on line when I feel like goning nuts, and The Buffalo News every morning. My info on the drug companies is from the Times yesterday. They wrote that the Prez may be playing ball with them. There was talk of some back-peddling on this though. It seems kinda murky....what else is new? As for Pelosi, I know she was offered money but I don't know the whole story. They all get something.

Put it this way: Anything you hear from drug companies especially, benefits only them. No matter what they say about. They are evil.
I need more info before I believe anything.....not blog shit from anyone.

Time to catch up here.

Charlie

Here's some blog 'shit' for you Charlie.

Some Forty-Year-Old Medicine
Dr. Charlie Self
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


The Democractic leadership is displaying a palpatable arrogance unparalled in U.S. history. Marginalizing anyone who disagrees with them as "Nazis" and suggesting that the grassroots protests are no more than "astroturf" are tactics designed to hide their grasp for totalitarian power.

Let the record show that it is Democrat operative Axelrod who created the "astroturf" genre of public manipulation.

There are real debates on how to improve health care that are not taking place because the ideologues are in power rather than competent public and private leaders working together to improve American life.

We DO need government regulation of the ethics and standards of medical care.

We DON'T need government administration of health care - it will only become a greater nightmare than it already is (for some).

Health care is not a right - it is a service best provided for by local and state agencies. We do not need a national debate - we need concerned people working hard to create care without another federal agency.

President Obama had the arrogance to take credit for the recent (small) improvements in the economy and he is using the mistakes of a few to aggrandize power for his chosen few. We do not need "a new foundation" for economics - we need to root out dishonesty and corral the corrupt politicians and business leaders.(Are you listening Barney Frank?)

The Democratic leadership screams, "Foul!" when a town hall is disrupted by protestors. I do believe in civil discourse, but I also think that the Dems are guilty of sour grapes!

When leftists are disruptive, it is "free speech" - even when condoms are thrown in churches and conservative speakers booed off college platforms.

When conservatives get feisty, they are called "Nazis" even though Hitler's minions hated business, loved socialism and created the largest welfare state in Europe.

When ACORN intimidates, it is called "grassroots agitation."

When conservatives protest, they are either ignored or marginalized - the arguments are never refuted!

Obama and his court - yes, his attitude is closer to Fidel than JFK - have forgotten that America is more than an urban elite or masses to be manipulated. America is a diverse land of individuals who want effective government to protect them from tyranny, not impose it.

We must remember that

* Obama is the most liberal politician ever elected.

* Obama continues to suppress information about much of his past and gloss over the outright lies in both his narcissistic autobiographies.

* Obama is pro-death - his own votes and recent appointments affirm that he has never met an unborn or newborn that cannot be killed.

* Obama's vision of what America should be is so out of touch with our history that our Founders would shudder at his interpretations of their work.

* Obama has never renounced his radical roots or friendships or displayed any willingness to compromise on any legislation.

* Obama maintains distance from all legislation, making vague promises while boasting that he has not read all of the bills. I guess he took a lesson from Senator Conyers who caustically stated that the bills would take "two lawyers and two days" to read and understand. Gee whiz, Mister Senator, you find the time to travel around the nation screaming at conservatives. Why don't you just read the bills - and maybe make them clearer? By the way, dictators throughout history have allowed agencies to fight while they stayed above it all.

* I hope I am on the new White House "enemies list" that Obama is creating as he calls on people to inform the Administration of anyone making "strange arguments" against his policies. The spin is that they want to refute the arguments - the reality is that they will try to destroy anyone who is a serous opponent.

* Obama is determined to remake the economy and force Americans into collectivist and globalist molds, ignoring our liberty and deliberately risking our financial future by increasing deficits so much that is places us at the mercy of the powers who control him.

* Obama does not have any personal experience with anything resembling real work, so he cannot understand what small business folks experience.

* Obama and his fellow-elitists refuse to solve the immigration problem because they do not believe in national sovereignty and they see endless power through an endless stream of poor workers in the system.

To all thoughtful Americans, Democrat, Republican and any other affiliation (or none): There are real issues that deserve serious debate. We can avoid real estate bubbles again - if both business and government leaders decide to live ethically. We can provide health care for all through public-private partnership. Obama loves to speak about the selfishness of doctors and medical providers and how they either run too many tests or turn down claims. Yet he offers no solid solutions and current legislation would reduce the quality of care for most people who have (and pay for) health insurance!

To my fellow thoughful-folks: let's stop calling names, overgeneralizing and putting blame on our favorite demons, whether they are left or right. What we must do is renew our commitment to the Constitution. Primary power is with the people and the states. The role of the federal government is protection of rights, not the bestowal of largesse.

Dr. Charlie Self

You would have a hard time finding anyone more intolerant of critical thinking than this guy. Self is one of those.....thankfully shrinking because demographics....religious conservatives with yet another radio show.

There is little to be gained debating anything he says. His view can be summed up as throwback 19th century thinking.

He's all yours.

Charlie

Yeah, this guy sounds completely insane...

"To my fellow thoughful-folks: let's stop calling names, overgeneralizing and putting blame on our favorite demons, whether they are left or right. What we must do is renew our commitment to the Constitution. Primary power is with the people and the states. The role of the federal government is protection of rights, not the bestowal of largesse."

Consistently impervious to reason, as usual.

Quote:

let's stop calling names, overgeneralizing and putting blame on our favorite demons,

I think that word posted the other day was, projection.



"out-goof Rush",  still got it, Charlie.     ;D


I found another guy named Charlie, got some golden oldies, too.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE








Always hitting one into the crotch of contention, huh Bob.

Shut up, Bob.       ;)

Shawn wrote on Aug 10^th, 2009 at 3:27pm:

Yeah, this guy sounds completely insane... "To my fellow thoughful-folks: let's stop calling names, overgeneralizing and putting blame on our favorite demons, whether they are left or right. What we must do is renew our commitment to the Constitution. Primary power is with the people and the states. The role of the federal government is protection of rights, not the bestowal of largesse." Consistently impervious to reason, as usual.

What is insane is that the 'call to civility' comes at the end of a rant that was laden with insults and distortions.  

LOL, quoting me won't make me un-ignore you Monty.   :D

Whatever you said, I'm sure it was great stuff though.

-Shawn

Shawn wrote on Aug 10^th, 2009 at 5:22pm:

LOL, quoting me won't make me un-ignore you Monty.   :D Whatever you said, I'm sure it was great stuff though. -Shawn

Thanks for responding.  :D

Reminds me a bit of the old comedy bit where the family is sitting down for a meal, and the father turns to one of the kids, and says "Tell your mother that the soup needs salt."  After the kid tells that to the mother, the mother says "Tell your father that the soup is fine the way it is, and that too much salt is bad for him."  

I don't care if you have me on ignore...  I reserve the option of responding to any post I choose - you can't protect your posts from disagreement by telling me that you aren't going to read what I write ... other people will.  I know that ostriches  don't really bury their head in the sand, but for some reason, I keep having visions of an ostrich.

August 10, 2009

A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform

By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON — With the debate over the future of health care now shifted from Capitol Hill to town halls, supporters and critics of the Democrats’ legislative proposals are polishing their sound bites and sharpening their attack lines.

Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.

President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have made the health care overhaul their top priority, putting their political futures on the line. Democrats had hoped to spend the month whipping up support for the legislation, but instead find themselves on the defensive, responding to what Mr. Obama describes as “outlandish rumors” spread by critics.

Many Republicans view fighting the president as a smart political strategy, turning a potentially wonkish debate over Medicare reimbursement rates and subsidies for the uninsured into an ideological battle over the government’s role in health care.

Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.

KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?

Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.

The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.

The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.”

The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies.

Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE

Or Uniquely American?

Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements.

For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations.

Whether a public plan would crowd out private insurers depends on details yet to be decided, including its premiums and its payment rates for health care providers.

The public plan is not even a certainty. To win bipartisan support for the overhaul, some Democrats have proposed private nonprofit health care cooperatives, instead of a public plan, to compete with private insurers.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, under the House bill, the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance would climb to 162 million in 2016, which is 3 million more than expected under current law. Further, it said, enrollment in the proposed public plan might total 11 million, far lower than estimates cited by Republicans.

An additional 10 million people, most of them now uninsured, would enroll in Medicaid, the budget office said.

At any rate, the federal government already holds sway over the health care system through Medicare, Medicaid and various insurance programs for children, veterans, military personnel and other federal employees. The federal government will account for 35 percent of the expected $2.5 trillion in health spending this year, and that does not include subsidies built into the tax code.

BLAMING INSURERS

Or Ensuring Blame?

Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.

Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.

The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.

Most Americans do not know the full cost of their employer-sponsored insurance. And it is easier for Democrats to paint insurers as greedy than to explain the complex math that shows current health care spending is unsustainable.

DEFICIT-NEUTRAL

Or Budget-Buster?

Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes.

The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up.

Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules. At this point, it is difficult to know who is right.

Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law.

House Democrats say the higher doctor payments should not count in the cost because they fix a problem that predates the Obama administration and Democratic control of Congress.

EUTHANASIA

And Abortion

Conservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die.

These concerns appear to be unfounded. AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.”

The House bill would provide Medicare coverage for optional consultations with doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care.

The legislation instructs Medicare officials to propose ways to measure the quality of end-of-life care. Doctors would have financial incentives to report data on such care to the government.

On abortion, the situation is more complex. Opponents of abortion, like the National Right to Life Committee, say the legislation would use tax dollars to subsidize insurance that could cover abortion.

Under a bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, health plans, including the new government insurance plan, could choose to cover abortion. But they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries.

Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, “Under either the Senate bill or the House bill, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.”

Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion, but “would not expand the prohibitions, as many Republicans want to do.”

CUTTING MEDICARE

Or Preserving It?

To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.

The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Democrats would make “massive cuts to Medicare to pay for more government-run health care.”

Mr. Obama told AARP last month, “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.” All the savings, he said, would come from measures to “eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare.” As an example, he cited duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient.

But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.

(I can make long posts too Batch and not from blogs in which you approve)

Just something to ponder kids.

(I promise not to do it again folks)

Charlie

Charlie,

Read the bill and tell me what you find. It ain't that hard.

I'm close to half way through it and I see a decided "slant in interpretation" in the piece you quoted.

Marc:

Of course there is a "slant" but at least it comes from people living in our universe. Are you trying to say with a straight face that the blather you read isn't slanted? Dick Armey approved slants are the only ones allowed I guess. This is something not dependent on blogs from people trying to kill the bill and just as importantly, to them: Make it "Obama's Waterloo."

I'm sorry that it isn't as much fun as reading blogs calling people communists, socialists, fascists, nazis legislating from the Reich Chancellory, or people out to delete our grandparents through euthanasia. It's not like reading bloggers and the like that know that the way to keep their audience is to be as immature as possible and appeal to worst of our behavior. Their audiences are very susceptible to it.

Have your fun now. I have no plans to defend something that isn't a wacko polemic and therefore it needs no defending. You see, the difference between right and left wing reporting is that the left at least admits that there are others with different views without saying that they are the anti-Christ, or even worse: socialists out to destroy the American way of life.

Stop the have you read the bill BS. That Obama doesn't know what's in the thing is untrue and something that the noisy right uses to try to change the debate by trying to force the left to defend itself. It works a lot of the time too but not forever.

Charlie

I simply recommended reading the bill to form our own opinions on its content.

From where I sit, it would appear that there are many, many half-truths floating around. From my perspective, half-truths are the same as lies.

So it seems like common sense to read it for myself. Do you disagree with that idea?

Quote:

From where I sit, it would appear that there are many, many half-truths floating around.

Trurer words were never spoken.

Charlie

Here's an opinion from an Obama supporter... from a decidely left-leaning site, Salon.com

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I'm impressed

Shawn wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 2:56am:

Here's an opinion from an Obama supporter... from a decidely left-leaning site, Salon.com START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE I'm impressed

She makes a lot of sense in her arguments.

Amazing!!!!!

I just read this thread (minus the links) and am astounded at the levels of disinformation given and accepted by many otherwise intelligent sounding people as gospel.

Bottom line is we need health care in America. People, perhaps your own brothers and sisters are dying because they cant afford private insurance.
Do just a few only really deserve health care?
How many of you against it have private insurance? How many not posting here have no insurance at all? How many are allready accepting insurance covered by taxpayers, ie; military, medicare, medicaid, UAW, etc... What makes you so special and able to bitch about others getting the same care. After all I am paying your way. Perhaps we should cancel your benefits.

Why not just put everyone who cant afford insurance to sleep? F... em we dont need them anyways, we can do our own work, build our own houses, mow our own lawns, repair our own vehicles, put new tires on ourselves. If our children cant afford it after college go ahead and shoot them they cant get jobs anyways.
Thats what I am getting out of some of the input on the streets and here.

How in the world does this equate to political views? The choice seems to be help your bretheren live or not. Hitler just killed the unworthy off.

I have been fortunate to be able to afford limited insurance and additional care for my family, but many others cannot. As I stated once before my annual family health care costs exceed 30K. So what if we all have to pay 10k a year, I quarantee your employers or tax paying brethren are probably exceeding that cost for each and everyone of you that have been hospitalized at any time. or been to the doctors more than 4 times a yaer. The hourly cost to employers averages around 7.50 cents for basic health benefits and they quite often do not cover the deductibles that can reach into the thousands.

If you can afford it go ahead and buy extra insurance, whats the big deal. But dont deny the folks who are struggling to get by working 50/60 hours a week.


This whole debacle stinks of people like Karl Rove driving an agenda of fear.
The you cant be christian et.al:.. mentality of those that didnt vote for Bush.

Watching the ignorance on the news shows is amazing. People lining up to protest with signs about killing the elderly, euthanasia, disrupting potentially informative meetings with the behaviour of 2 year olds, whatever. I cant believe it.

Give our citizens that cannot afford an extra thousand a month averaged out across families and individuals some basic insurance against catastrophic illness, take care of the children as needed and allow the elderly a little better care. The rest of the advanced worlds countries can provide why shouldnt we?
Illegals can go home for care.
Sure some of that will be wasted money but no worse and probably less than the multiples of billions it costs you now through the costs we employers pass onto you in product pricing. Anyone noticed the price of foods lately. It isnt the production costs but largely the insurance costs built in.

We as a people after all provide k-12 education, roads to drive on, social security to survive on in later years. Why not just do away with those programs as well?

Thats my opinion.

I have to say that her stuff is worth a looksee in any case. It has some thought and history behind it.

Does anyone besides me remember her tv interviews over the years? They hit home as she's the only political junkie that talks as fast as I do.  

Motormouth Charlie  :o

MJ- I don't think it's not wanting people to be covered by some sort of insurance, it's more along the lines of HOW to get there.

JMO

MJ wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 10:24am:

Bottom line is we need health care in America.

Nobody is disputing that.


Quote:

Do just a few only really deserve health care?

Even if you believe the blatant lie that 47 million people are not covered, that means about 250 million people are covered.  How is that a few?



Quote:

How in the world does this equate to political views? The choice seems to be help your bretheren live or not. Hitler just killed the unworthy off.

Once again proving that any political discussion will devolve to the point where someone will bring up Hitler or Nazis...



Quote:

If you can afford it go ahead and buy extra insurance, whats the big deal. But dont deny the folks who are struggling to get by working 50/60 hours a week.

To rephrase, "You are a heartless bastard if you won't pay for all the people who can't afford it".  Have you been reading Saul Alinsky?  This is an intellectually deceptive and manipulative argument.



Quote:

This whole debacle stinks of people like Karl Rove driving an agenda of fear. The you cant be christian et.al:.. mentality of those that didnt vote for Bush.

Mandatory Bush reference.  Required in any response to any resistance to Hope and Change.


Quote:

Give our citizens that cannot afford an extra thousand a month averaged out across families and individuals some basic insurance against catastrophic illness, take care of the children as needed and allow the elderly a little better care. The rest of the advanced worlds countries can provide why shouldnt we?

And there it is...  so, let's look at what your proposing.  If you take the supposed 47 million people and give them all $1000 a month for insurance, you are talking about $47 Billion per month out of the pockets of 'everybody else', which really means out of the pockets of the people who pay taxes. Since we know that only 5% of taxpayers foot 60% of the bill for the rest of the country, this equates to:

($47 billion * 12 months) = $564 Billion per year

There were about 139 million individual tax returns in 2007
5% of that number is almost 7 million taxpayers, who paid over 60% of all federal income tax in America in 2007.

60% of that $564 billion = $338 billion. Spread that across the 7 million people who actually pay it, and you're proposing that these disgusting rich people pay an average $48,285 extra per year in taxes to provide health care universally.

Yeah, nothing wrong with that!

Can you not see why this is a political issue?


Quote:

Illegals can go home for care.

Except, they don't and won't.  Why would they?



-Shawn

Shawn wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 1:18pm:

Even if you believe the blatant lie that 47 million people are not covered, that means about 250 million people are covered.  How is that a few?

The Census Bureau seems to believe the figure is very close to 47 million people ... do you think that President Bush ordered them to inflate the number?  Did Obama go back in time to hire ACORN to collect and process the data? Or maybe it isn't a blatant lie, as you charge??


Quote:

Income Climbs, Poverty Stabilizes, Uninsured Rate Increases     Real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, reaching $46,326, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent. The percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people). START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

And that doesn't count the number of people that think they are insured ... they are making payments each month, and won't find out that the treatment they need isn't covered until they actually need it.

I said, even IF you believe the number.

The fact is, that 47 million number includes all of the illegal aliens, and millions of people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it.  The number also includes millions of people who are only without insurance for 3-4 months.

The number is a lie, and you can look at the real number from the census bureau to prove it.  It is a blatant lie that exaggerates the scope of the problem.

Are there millions of people who cannot afford insurance? OF COURSE THERE IS.  But destroying our health care system is not going to help anybody, anywhere.

Actually, it is not clear if that number contains all the illegal aliens.  Many Census Bureau products don't count illegals, or severely undercount them.  Looking through the CB docs,  the closest thing I found was this:


Quote:

Of all people, 87.8 percent were natives, 4.7 percent were foreign born naturalized citizens, and 7.4 percent were foreign-born non citizens

The foreign-born non citizen group includes tens of millions of people that are in the country legally ... over a million 'green cards' are issued each year.

You are right that the number includes millions of people that choose not to buy insurance (for whatever reason) ... most of these people will eventually end up using expensive services and walk away from the bills - leaving others to pick up the tab.  That is a problem that is probably going to remain unsolved.

Where does jon019 go under this classification?  How do we count people who 'have' insurance but get jerked around by the insurance company when they need something more than an annual physical exam?



Quote:

Doctors have historically been the watchdogs of the U.S. medical system, with the American Medical Association scaring New Dealers into dropping national health coverage from the Social Security Act and then the AMA shredding Harry Truman's reform efforts in the late 1940s. But a new poll and other significant indicators suggest that doctors are turning against the health-insurance firms that increasingly dominate American health care. The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers.

It doesn't matter if the number is 50 million or 20 million.  The point is the same.  You know the 47 million number is a lie, you said as much in your post. That just proves the disingenuousness of your position.

Shawn wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:

It doesn't matter if the number is 50 million or 20 million.  The point is the same.  You know the 47 million number is a lie, you said as much in your post. That just proves the disingenuousness of your position.

No, I didn't say that, and no, it doesn't prove that. Not at all.  

The figure of 47 million is from a credible agency and it does make a starting point for discussion.   It is good to try to figure out exactly how it was arrived at, and what it means (and I have tried to be reasonable in doing that, conceding one point to your interpretation, not ceding another point where there is no information to support that view).

I don't think it is a blatant lie at all - I think it is an honest estimate ...  I would compare it to the unemployment rate ... do I think the official rate is 100% accurate, would I calculate things the same way if I was making my own index? No.  But the official statistic is calculated in a consistent way, and it does provide a basis for understanding the situation, even if that basis is not perfect.

Quote:

The number is a lie, and you can look at the real number from the census bureau to prove it.  It is a blatant lie that exaggerates the scope of the problem.

No it isn't. It's close and it's not something new. Records on the uninsured have been watched closely for decades. It goes up all the time as it's more and more unaffordable. The number those people that "choose not to buy," is more likely an inflated number because it's just not something even on the horizon for them. Teenagers think they are immortal and a lot of them never consider it.

The thing is that it's as much for our relatives and friends that either knowingly or not are underinsured and get stuck paying hundreds of thousands for two days in a heart facility or for cancer treatment. Prostate surgery can cost a fortune too depending on the procedure. These people shouldn't have to lose everything just to stay alive. At least some kind of help should be available to them like the rest of the world.

Everything is a lie that doesn't help topple Obama.....which is the real objectve. Health care is just the most convenient thing to use at the moment. More to come.

Charlie

Shawn wrote on Aug 12^th, 2009 at 1:18pm:

Once again proving that any political discussion will devolve to the point where someone will bring up Hitler or Nazis...

You led with the Nazi comparison on the first page of this thread, Mr. Nunley, where you said:


Shawn wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 4:55pm:

BTW, you should be a good brown shirt now and report me to the White House as you have been ordered to do.  The address is flag@whitehouse.gov.  Be sure to spell my name right.  It is Shawn Nunley.

If we're lucky, Monty, there will be a backlash against the GOP for the Nazi references. Dick Armey's little group and all the other public relations professionals that have been hired to kill the bill may have overdone the photoshopped Hitler references directly aimed at Obama. This may be their "Waterloo" if they keep it up.

While it certainly works for assembling the torch and pitchfork bearing town-brawlers, we are dealing with health care, not abortion or the 2nd Amendment. Health care is a different animal and has the support of lots of people on the right side of the aisle as well as a majority of the country.

Obama voters are solid and already steamed about this. They will want revenge. These kind of attacks may result in bucking the trend of off-year election gains by the minority.  

It may be the fine line that moderate GOP legislators have to walk on this issue that has kept them quiet. What is left doesn't look good on TV newscasts even though they do help advertise all the drugs that uninsured voters can't afford

Charlie

Obama voters are solid? Look again.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Not necessarily a problem, Brew.  Reagan's approval rating was -21% at one time in 1983, and he got re-elected in 1984. These things reflect 'sentiment' - when the recession ended and the angst started to clear, his support increased to +30%.  

Lot's of other interesting patterns in the approval ratings:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The National Health Service has become the butt of increasingly outlandish political attacks in the US as Republicans and conservative campaigners rail against Britain's "socialist" system as part of a tussle to defeat Barack Obama's proposals for broader government involvement in healthcare.

Top-ranking Republicans have joined bloggers and well-funded free market organisations in scorning the NHS for its waiting lists and for "rationing" the availability of expensive treatments.

As myths and half-truths circulate, British diplomats in the US are treading a delicate line in correcting falsehoods while trying to stay out of a vicious domestic dogfight over the future of American health policy.... The Guardian

Yup, it's in all the papers over here...!

All I can say is that the NHS has saved my mother's life. It is currently providing the best care possible to my little girl, who unfortunately suffers from severe allergies and asthma. I receive all my oxygen, imitrex injections and other meds for a minimal fee and from January absolutely free. So to you of a particular ideology, lay of the NHS, it has a momentous role in UK society and free for all.


Lefty...!

Charlie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 10:15am:

If we're lucky, Monty, there will be a backlash against the GOP for the Nazi references.

Oh, I think you'll see blacklash, plenty.  Maybe you'll open up your eyes.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Not the only example, either.

I'm sure it's totally untrue since it is a blog, afterall.

Charlie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2009 at 10:15am:

.   Health care is a different animal and has the support of lots of people on the right side of the aisle as well as a majority of the country. Charlie

If this board is even a small cross-section of what the country looks like, it looks pretty even to me.  I don't recall anyone saying that they don't want to see reform and adjustments made to the current system.  Hell, I, myself, have argued vehemently that something needs to be done.  My daughter is a prime example what lack of health care/insurance can do to you.

Why is it that if *I* do not like and am steadfastly against the current programs touted by Obama, am I labeled anything but what I am, an individual who is concerned about the complexity and convolutedness of a bill that is over 1000 pages long?

Quote:

All I can say is that the NHS has saved my mother's life.

Steven Hawking said it saved his life too. This was a blow to some people that thought he was a strong critic and would say otherwise.


Quote:

If this board is even a small cross-section of what the country looks like, it looks pretty even to me.  I don't recall anyone saying that they don't want to see reform and adjustments made to the current system.  Hell, I, myself, have argued vehemently that something needs to be done.  My daughter is a prime example what lack of health care/insurance can do to you.

Reform is just fine so long as it isn't reform that benefits Wall Street more than the people that need it. The one insurers and drug companies are all for the Wall Street "reforms."

Obama is doing just fine and no one on the right or left for that matter, comes close.  

Charlie

Quote:

LOL, quoting me won't make me un-ignore you Monty. Whatever you said, I'm sure it was great stuff though. -Shawn

The last one, even better.  Kinda funny, too.