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

Talk about advancing healthcare....

There's change I could live with.

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

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

Quote:


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:


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

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

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.

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:


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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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


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