Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

[4real]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggJaNmIeooqWaw3_gAIYwA7W_VkQD98RT3V81
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Insurance companies wont succeed.
I'm sure the commie in power will make sure of that.
Hey bitch ^, get of out of our lives and let us decide what we want and need.

Obama wants socialistic single payer (government controlled) health insurance.
He want to dictate physicians pay, as like some companies he now runs.

The marxist lying hypocrite president who most of you elected here, will ruin the health care system in this country.
:)
now have a good day


Think about how the US runs the VA. They lie about illnesses and deny or give poor care to the armed forces they are supposed to help.

Look at Canada and England, try getting an MRI or prostate check or surgery there if you are a citizen you need to wait months, or die.

[bailey]

Where"s the birth certificate!?!?!!

[Stosh]

Boy that ignore feature works great. Too bad it doesn't block inane posts from the blocked either.

[gibran]

think about the 2700 people that die each year without health care...think about the disparity in health related services for the poor, disabled and elderly...think about people making decisions about health care based on their economics,,,,

do you really understand the difficulties in health care from any sources other than the media?

Here's a good resource for you...Health Care Politics, and Services ..author Almgren

[ghettopalmetto]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggJaNmIeooqWaw3_gAIYwA7W_VkQD98RT3V81
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Insurance companies wont succeed.
I'm sure the commie in power will make sure of that.
Hey bitch ^, get of out of our lives and let us decide what we want and need.

Obama wants socialistic single payer (government controlled) health insurance.
He want to dictate physicians pay, as like some companies he now runs.

The marxist lying hypocrite president who most of you elected here, will ruin the health care system in this country.
:)
now have a good day


Think about how the US runs the VA. They lie about illnesses and deny or give poor care to the armed forces they are supposed to help.

Look at Canada and England, try getting an MRI or prostate check or surgery there if you are a citizen you need to wait months, or die.


It's obvious that our educational system is also a piece of shit.

[Islandman]

It's obvious that our educational system is also a piece of shit.

Second! Surreal is more like it.

[firstandten]

.
Obama wants socialistic single payer (government controlled) health insurance.
He want to dictate physicians pay, as like some companies he now runs.

The marxist lying hypocrite president who most of you elected here, will ruin the health care system in this country.
:)
now have a good day.

This is an indictment on our educational system. People don't read, don't listen, don't have one iota of critical thinking skills and on and on. This is so out in right field I think he's just yanking our chains. Its a sad day when the Rushes and the Becks of the world have become the primary source of information for certain people

[rb336]

[quote=4real;33013HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Insurance companies wont succeed.I'm sure the commie in power will make sure of that.
Hey bitch ^, get of out of our lives and let us decide what we want and need.

Obama wants socialistic single payer (government controlled) health insurance.
He want to dictate physicians pay, as like some companies he now runs.

The marxist lying hypocrite president who most of you elected here, will ruin the health care system in this country.
:)
now have a good day


Think about how the US runs the VA. They lie about illnesses and deny or give poor care to the armed forces they are supposed to help.

Look at Canada and England, try getting an MRI or prostate check or surgery there if you are a citizen you need to wait months, or die.[/quote]

Been there, done that -- literally. got in quick, got taken care of, and the health insurer didn't try to deny coverage

I would rather have someone under the eye of people I vote for make decisions than people under the eye of Dollar Bill since they are far more concerned with getting their bosses billion-dollar bonuses than whether I get proper treatment

[ccbatson]

The flaw of the logic is this...some people (8-10 million) don't have insurance to pay for health care (but can pay directly, or borrow, or whatever), so, here is the solution...Destroy the whole system so that everyone has insurance paid for by the countries producers, but, here is the rub, the care itself falls off a cliff progressiving declining to next to nothing FOR EVERYONE.

[ghettopalmetto]

The flaw of the logic is this...some people (8-10 million) don't have insurance to pay for health care (but can pay directly, or borrow, or whatever), so, here is the solution...Destroy the whole system so that everyone has insurance paid for by the countries producers, but, here is the rub, the care itself falls off a cliff progressiving declining to next to nothing FOR EVERYONE.

I don't know. Canadians seem to be pretty healthy, don't you think? I mean, they're certainly not lazy fat fucks like most of the people in our country are.

How about those other 40 million folks you let slip through the sewer grate? What are they supposed to do? Pray???

[Stosh]

The flaw of the logic is this...some people (8-10 million) don't have insurance to pay for health care (but can pay directly, or borrow, or whatever), so, here is the solution...Destroy the whole system so that everyone has insurance paid for by the countries producers, but, here is the rub, the care itself falls off a cliff progressiving declining to next to nothing FOR EVERYONE.

I'd prefer next to nothing than have to overpay doctors. :eek:

[jcole]

The flaw of the logic is this...some people (8-10 million) don't have insurance to pay for health care (but can pay directly, or borrow, or whatever), so, here is the solution...Destroy the whole system so that everyone has insurance paid for by the countries producers, but, here is the rub, the care itself falls off a cliff progressiving declining to next to nothing FOR EVERYONE.

In other words, only the elite of this country should be allowed to have medical care. It is better for them to be cared for in the manner to which they have become accustomed than for the lesser people to be cared for at all.
Typical attitude of the far right. Let them eat cake.

[ccbatson]

Health, and health care are not the same thing.

10 million, not the fallacious 40-50 used by the liberals.

[ghettopalmetto]

Health, and health care are not the same thing.

10 million, not the fallacious 40-50 used by the liberals.

What's your source? I guess your back-of-the-envelope bullshit number carries more weight than the U.S. Census Bureau, huh?

[ccbatson]

The same as yours, minus the 18 million illegals, and the 13 million elligible (via SCHIP and other non Medicaid/Care programs).

[rb336]

Health, and health care are not the same thing.

10 million, not the fallacious 40-50 used by the liberals.

I have never seen any figure -- not even from CATO -- as low as 10 million

[ccbatson]

It is a simple math problem...subtraction to be precise.

Guess what else, of those 10 million, many of them can afford insurance, but are young/healthy and choose not to to save the money.

[ghettopalmetto]

It is a simple math problem...subtraction to be precise.

Guess what else, of those 10 million, many of them can afford insurance, but are young/healthy and choose not to to save the money.

I don't remember "cashing in the policy to save money" as an option on my health insurance enrollment form.

[ccbatson]

One electing not to purchase a policy doesn't fill out an enrollment form, now do they?

[rb336]

and you still can't substantiate your total BS position

[ghettopalmetto]

One electing not to purchase a policy doesn't fill out an enrollment form, now do they?

One electing not to "purchase" a policy also doesn't get more money from his employer for declining health insurance.

[ccbatson]

Sometimes true, sometimes not. Often not affered employer based insurance, but can buy it on their own (ie self employed, or part time, young, low risk, low premium and affordable if chosen).

[Bobl]

4real:
I eliminated the name calling and slander from your contribution, but will give my 2 cents worth to answer these points that you raised:

'...Think about how the US runs the VA. They lie about illnesses and deny or give poor care to the armed forces they are supposed to help.

Look at Canada and England, try getting an MRI or prostate check or surgery there if you are a citizen you need to wait months, or die...."

I agree that the VA has been poorly administered. Perhaps all veterans should be offered the adequate care that is the goal of this administration, or the care currently enjoyed by members of the House and Senate.

Two summers ago, when I drove the Canadian renter of the cottage next to our rented one near Grand Bend, Ontario, to the hospital in Exeter, he was given an MRI that day.

[Pam]

Sign the petition for socialistic health care! Yay! :)

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/

[Omaha]

Nice thread idea 4real. But as a Colbert Conservative and a Social Darwinist I am conflicted about this topic.

Part of me wants to continue the present system of health insurance. Why? Because if trends continue, the rich and well born are most likely to be able to afford health insurance and they will survive in larger numbers than the poor and uninsured…Social Darwinism. To be brutally honest, the really rich and well-born can survive without health insurance...but don't tell anyone.

From a Social Darwinism point of view: what’s not to like about the present system? Employers who don’t provide health insurance for their employees have an economic advantage over those that do. The non-insurers will get more customers and market share, thus driving those “bleeding heart� businesses that provide affordable health insurance for their employees into bankruptcy.

If the double digit increase in costs continues within a decade or two governments will have to pay more to insure their fire and police than it costs to pay them wages! That will end coverage for public sector employees as well. Soon employer-based health insurance programs will end because of cost trends or business failures. Then only the rich and well-born will be able to afford health insurance which will lead to another example of Social Darwinism at work.

I mean that giant of an intellect, President George Bush, pointed out the obvious when he said back in 2007: “I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.� That rules out preventive care for the poor, and it let’s those rich and well-born be diagnosed and treated earlier for any life threatening illnesses. Again Social Darwinism.

The health insurance industry rocks. It’s job is NOT to make America healthier. It only makes money when we are ill and can afford coverage. I like to compare it to Xe (formerly Blackwater). The health insurance industry has about as much interest in seeing a healthier America as Xe has in preventing needless wars. You’ll never find the health insurance industry engaging in massive lobbying to regulate cigarettes, put calorie contents on fast food or much of anything else that liberals think the government should be sticking its nose in!

The industry’s job is to take in as much in premiums as possible and to pay out as little as possible. Anything not paid out goes to the stockholders. This is an industry makes a profit by denying coverage wherever possible.

But here’s where I get conflicted about this thread. The health care industry may be bureaucratic, as so many large industries (and governments) are, but the Colbert Conservative in me hopes it can adapt and find a way to buck the trend of the last 20 years. I want it to find a way to still stay affordable for some folks other than the rich and well born.

The industry was able to pull this off for a little while after the Clinton attempt at “reform� in the early 1990s. But the low hanging “cost savings� fruit was picked and the decrease in premiums didn’t last long. The industry even tried rationing health care so that doctors couldn’t do what their professional training told them was needed!

But even knowing that the increase in premiums would again bring it under scrutiny, the industry still wasn’t able to provide what the public wanted: affordable comprehensive quality health care.

Even with market competition it can’t keep the product affordable. The industry has already used many great tricks to keep premiums under control: denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; raising premiums for insuring older people but not for the young and healthy; increasing co-pays; decreasing maximum pay out; increasing stop loss; lack of portability; and letters to covered individuals threatening action if the “overuse� of insurance continues.

I mean let’s be honest, the market has failed this industry. About the only thing that can help at this point is to have the public sector put together a plan that might be attractive to those who can’t comfortably afford private insurance. It might be well received by the buying public and force the private sector to innovate in new and untried ways. But those new ways may lead private healthcare insurers to reduced return on equity. Lower profits would doom the industry. Lower CEO salaries would make it less able to attract the best and brightest who have served the industry so well for the last 20 years.

But I hope the government doesn’t get a shot at competing in the market place. I pray that all the rest of the conservatives on DY will point out all the bad things about the universal coverage plans in every other modern industrialized nation on earth. Then, if we all yell about these problems long enough and loud enough, no one will ever figure out that maybe, just maybe the government could learn from the mistakes that others have made, and benchmark only the positive aspects and combine them into an insurance policy that will compete with the private sector’s plans. Because if they do that, private enterprise and health care as business is dead!

Luckily, money buys power and when you combine the health insurance industry with private hospitals, health care systems as well as pharmaceutical and biotech companies you have some serious power to stop any plans for letting the government promote its own insurance plan.

[Detroitej72]

It is a simple math problem...subtraction to be precise.

Guess what else, of those 10 million, many of them can afford insurance, but are young/healthy and choose not to to save the money.

Bullshit, I want to see some concrete proof in those numbers, and not some right wing clown's figure. I want to see those numbers from a legitimate study.

On a side note, anyone want to lay bets on how long 4real lasts before he gets banned?:confused:

[Bigb23]

Damn, Omaha - I was about to say the exact same thing ! :D

[oldredfordette]

When 4real's head finally blows up, I hope every hospital turns him/her away for lack of insurance.

[Omaha]

Bigb23 -- It's good to know there's another clear thinking conservative out there. There are too many myopic delusional ones who exist in their own heads.

We need more Colbert Conservatives and Social Darwinists on DY. And remember, a Colbert Conservative NEVER breaks the fourth wall...except at DY gatherings on Belle Isle and the like. ;)

[Bigb23]

This story is a few years old, but it should be included in all healthy :eek: health care debates.



One of the country's highest-paid executives has stepped down from his position amidst allegations of stock options backdating. Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group announced on Sunday that Dr. William McGuire will no longer serve as chairman of the board and will retire from the company by Dec. 1.

"It seems as though it was completely determinate by him; he had complete and total control over the when and the amounts of these awards, which is very counter to how a company should work," Heupel says.

Dozens of companies have been scrutinized for their stock options granting practices in the wake of a Wall Street Journal article published last spring, which highlighted the issue. Since then, UnitedHealth has been in the media spotlight on the matter.

McGuire is one of the country's highest paid executives, having amassed nearly $1.8 billion in un-exercised stock options, according to estimates cited in the Wall Street Journal.

And McGuire is a celebrated steward of the company. In his 15-year tenure at UnitedHealth, the company says its revenues have grown from about $600 million annually to $70 billion. And UnitedHealth's stock performance has similarly exploded, though the share price has tumbled about 20 percent so far this year amidst allegations of options backdating.


http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/15/unh/

[Philbo]

Detroitj72: Why should 4real be banned? Enlighten us.

[ccbatson]

I don't recommend the current system either BTW. Privatization, bringing the decisions directly to the consumer (not a union, or an employer) and phasing out the entitlements is the recipe for success. Will it happen? No way...one way, or the other, fast or slow, because of a lack of political will, we will have to crash and burn and then be reborn to see this issue through.

[ccbatson]

No fault with Medicare? Other than it is so deep in the red that it can't be saved in anything close to its' current form?

[Lorax]

No fault with Medicare? Other than it is so deep in the red that it can't be saved in anything close to its' current form?

That is if it were 30 years from now. I'll take my chances that our great Socialist Democracy will be funding it in the near future, likely with old Iraq war funding.

[ghettopalmetto]

No fault with Medicare? Other than it is so deep in the red that it can't be saved in anything close to its' current form?

As if that's any different from the rest of the health care system....

[rb336]

No fault with Medicare? Other than it is so deep in the red that it can't be saved in anything close to its' current form?


considerring that it is in its current crisis because the bushies looted over $500 billion from the ssa/medicare trusts to decrease the appearance of their deficits...

[Omaha]

ghettopalmetto (boy that’s a cool nom de plume) -- As a Colbert Conservative I believe that you may be on to something. Thanks to being in the private sector and the free market, the health insurance industry just raises rates year after year after year. The good side is that’s all right because it’s the free market and we are tied to employer-provided health care so profits can still go to the rich and well born. ;)

The bad side is, without serious intervention, health care coverage will soon become too expensive and then only the rich and well born will be able to afford to seek medical care. Social Darwinism. :p

Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and other forms of health care delivery where our government is in place are not the free market and can’t just raise rates (our taxes) year after year. They also don’t help make a profit for the rich and well born nor are they used by the self-same group. As a result, they are economically strangled and go in the red.

I think it is consistent with the overall strategy that that great conservative Patriot Grover Norquist put so succinctly: “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.� :D

[Lorax]

ghettopalmetto (boy that’s a cool nom de plume) -- As a Colbert Conservative I believe that you may be on to something. Thanks to being in the private sector and the free market, the health insurance industry just raises rates year after year after year. The good side is that’s all right because it’s the free market and we are tied to employer-provided health care so profits can still go to the rich and well born. ;)

The bad side is, without serious intervention, health care coverage will soon become too expensive and then only the rich and well born will be able to afford to seek medical care. Social Darwinism. :p

Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and other forms of health care delivery where our government is in place are not the free market and can’t just raise rates (our taxes) year after year. They also don’t help make a profit for the rich and well born nor are they used by the self-same group. As a result, they are economically strangled and go in the red.

I think it is consistent with the overall strategy that that great conservative Patriot Grover Norquist put so succinctly: “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.� :D

Your party's personality cult around Grover Norquist is particularly amusing, since all he has advocated for has crumbled. :D

Your party presided over the greatest expansion of government in history. In fact, Tush/Cheney grew government more that all 42 previous presidents combined.

So much for the Rethugnican's "conservative" label.

[jcole]

Thanks to being in the private sector and the free market, the health insurance industry just raises rates year after year after year. The good side is that’s all right because it’s the free market and we are tied to employer-provided health care so profits can still go to the rich and well born.

For the unaware, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a non-profit, so I don't think that qualifies as free-market.

[rb336]

For the unaware, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a non-profit, so I don't think that qualifies as free-market.

sure it does, and beyond that, BC/BS is being stripped of non-profit status in many states, and may lose that status here as well

[MCP-001]

Where"s the birth certificate!?!?!!

Mr. "Openness" refuses to tell us who visits the WH, why Gerald Walpin was fired or how much his healthcare plan will really cost?

Hint: It's located here (page 1) (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf)

Do you really think that he'll whip out his Kenyan birth certificate?

[4real]

^or college info. and who paid for it, or his tax returns, or health records.

I honestly find it difficult to believe that people would surrender their freedom for government control over their health.
It's about government control, that's been his whole agenda all along.
Obama is being disingenuous when he says you still will have a choice. The government will crush companies or put them out of business with regulation.

[Detroitej72]

Do you really think that he'll whip out his Kenyan birth certificate?

I thought right wingers claim he was born in Indonesia. You guys need to stay consistent with your propaganda.

[Detroitej72]

Detroitj72: Why should 4real be banned? Enlighten us.

They tread the thin line between name calling at times. I never said they should be banned, just think its a possibility.

[ghettopalmetto]

Obama is being disingenuous when he says you still will have a choice. The government will crush companies or put them out of business with regulation.

Awww. Is the right-wing scared that the "inefficient and wasteful" government would beat the asses of the insurance companies if they had to compete?

[ccbatson]

Lots of leftys here name call on a regular basis as well, yet we don't start taking bets on when or if they will be banned...a double standard?

[gibran]

do you really think our justice system ..oh never mind... i was just feeding into the conspiracy theorists...

Folks you have nothing to fear but fear itself and of course your own mind

[ccbatson]

Obama is well aware of this, it slipped out once when he was caught on tape discussing coal/clean coal...in this interview, he clearly explained how indirectly, the twisted political manipulations being pursued would diminish the strength of the industry. Apply this slip up to the broader picture when evaluating Obama's words and actions...now THAT is a scary thought.

[jams]

Obama is well aware of this, it slipped out once when he was caught on tape discussing coal/clean coal...in this interview, he clearly explained how indirectly, the twisted political manipulations being pursued would diminish the strength of the industry. Apply this slip up to the broader picture when evaluating Obama's words and actions...now THAT is a scary thought.
...but, of course, we just have to take your word for it, since you offer nothing more substantial in terms of proof.

[rb336]

^or college info. and who paid for it, or his tax returns, or health records.

I honestly find it difficult to believe that people would surrender their freedom for government control over their health.
It's about government control, that's been his whole agenda all along.
Obama is being disingenuous when he says you still will have a choice. The government will crush companies or put them out of business with regulation.

yet you are perfectly willing to have people surrender their freedom to bloated, overpaid insurance execs whopse goal isn't to improve your health but to make money. It cracks me up how many idiots are willing to buy that right-wing fear-and-smear campaign about losing your choice of doctor and having government come between you and your doctor's decisions when that is exactly what we have now, except instead of government that is ultimately answerable to its constituents we have Dollar Bill and his cronies, answerable to no one, whose only goal is to make money, which means denying you service, refusing to pay on claims, etc. etc. and ALL private health care limits you to doctors THEY want you to see

[Bigb23]

Warning, I do not condone the following message.


Dear XXXXX,
It seems that the mainstream media has finally decided to dispense with the pointless denials of favorable coverage of the Obama Administration. Now one network, ABC News, has actually turned its entire programming over to President Obama and his big-government agenda.
On June 24th, ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson will broadcast "World News" from inside the White House, and make Barack Obama's case for nationalized health care for him, without any opportunity for opposing views to be aired.
The liberal special interests have clearly learned from their missteps the last time they tried to force Americans into a socialized health care system -- the abysmal failure of the Clinton Administration's "HillaryCare."
That's why their friends at ABC News will be promoting Obamacare at virtually every opportunity, from "Good Morning America" to "Nightline," and reach from ABC News' websites all the way to the White House's East Room.
XXXXX, the Republican National Committee's request for an opportunity to add our views along side those of the Obama Democrats' -- to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are heard -- was flatly rejected by ABC News.
What are the Democrats and their media allies afraid of? The truth?
That is outrageous! And we will not take it!
Please help us raise the nearly $100,000 we need to buy air time to get the truth about the disastrous consequences of the Obama Democrats' government-run health care plans out to the American people. Make a special donation of $25, $50, $100, $500 or $1,000 to the Republican National Committee today, and your gift will support our fight to counter the ABC/Obama "special programming" with our plan for meaningful, genuine health care reform.
Please stand with us. Help us get on the air and get our message to the American people! President Obama and the Democrats are blurring the lines between government and the private sector to pass their big government agenda. Help us keep things clear. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. XXXXX, we must get the truth about the Obama Democrats' health care takeover to the American people. Help us counter the one-sided broadcast by the Democrats and their media allies. Please take this opportunity right now to support our cause by making a special, online contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or $1,000 to the RNC today. Thank you.


This crap keeps showing up in my Inbox, but I read them for my amusement. They don't seem to acknowledge the Fox network, the Rush Limbaugh/Hannity shows and all the other claptrap on the cable/airwaves.

What do you think ? :eek:

[rb336]

never mind the fact that the CBS, NBC and ABC sunday shows regularly have more right-wing guests than left-wing guests, and that the right wing guests are from the extreme right while the left is mostly represented by centrists (no? when was the last time a real liberal like Dennis or Nader was given air time?)

Never mind the fact that all the news networks couch the debates in terms dictated by the republican talking points...

[WolverinesA2]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggJaNmIeooqWaw3_gAIYwA7W_VkQD98RT3V81
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Insurance companies wont succeed.
I'm sure the commie in power will make sure of that.
Hey bitch ^, get of out of our lives and let us decide what we want and need.

Obama wants socialistic single payer (government controlled) health insurance.
He want to dictate physicians pay, as like some companies he now runs.

The marxist lying hypocrite president who most of you elected here, will ruin the health care system in this country.
:)
now have a good day


Think about how the US runs the VA. They lie about illnesses and deny or give poor care to the armed forces they are supposed to help.

Look at Canada and England, try getting an MRI or prostate check or surgery there if you are a citizen you need to wait months, or die.

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/unsuccessful_troll.jpg

[Linda from Detroit]

As far as government controlled health care, here's some news I just heard. One of the watchdog agencies has found that the VA facilities in 3 states (GA and TN are two of them) have been found to not have even been properly trained in endoscopic procedures that they have been performing. Nice, huh? Isn't that the kind of care we all need? Heck, my husband has had bladder cancer for over a year...and is STILL waiting for surgery at the VA. He is a totally disabled Marine. I am eligible for VA care because of his status and it's horrible. I tried it once and they missed a compressed spinal cord. By the time I found a regular doctor who did the testing I had permanent nerve and muscle damage, can't walk properly or use my right arm or hand completely. Please, folks...a little care isn't always better than none. I agree we need reform, but consider what the government has already done to patients who have to rely on them...it isn't going to get better. Now they want "deep cuts" in Medicare. That is what the families of totally disabled vets already are tied in with and you're lucky to even have a PA look at you and pooh pooh whatever you tell them. Please don't encourage Congress to rush through a mess just to get Obama off their backs...haste makes waste and this is one time they need to read things or many lives could be lost thanks to idiocy.

[rb336]

just think a little true/false info is needed

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php

[WolverinesA2]

As far as government controlled health care, here's some news I just heard. One of the watchdog agencies has found that the VA facilities in 3 states (GA and TN are two of them) have been found to not have even been properly trained in endoscopic procedures that they have been performing. Nice, huh? Isn't that the kind of care we all need? Heck, my husband has had bladder cancer for over a year...and is STILL waiting for surgery at the VA. He is a totally disabled Marine. I am eligible for VA care because of his status and it's horrible. I tried it once and they missed a compressed spinal cord. By the time I found a regular doctor who did the testing I had permanent nerve and muscle damage, can't walk properly or use my right arm or hand completely. Please, folks...a little care isn't always better than none. I agree we need reform, but consider what the government has already done to patients who have to rely on them...it isn't going to get better. Now they want "deep cuts" in Medicare. That is what the families of totally disabled vets already are tied in with and you're lucky to even have a PA look at you and pooh pooh whatever you tell them. Please don't encourage Congress to rush through a mess just to get Obama off their backs...haste makes waste and this is one time they need to read things or many lives could be lost thanks to idiocy.

I wouldn't paint all VAs with the same broad brush. The quality of any VA is going to depend on the quality of the medical and administrative staff who run the place, just like any other hospital. Have you ever been to the Ann Arbor VA? It's nice. Do you think you would receive substandard care there as opposed to any of the hospitals in Wayne County?

[firstandten]

just think a little true/false info is needed

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php

That was a good read. I hope folks don't let the facts get in the way of a RW talking point.

Obama has said OVER and OVER and OVER again

If you like your present health care plan you can keep it, health care reform won't affect you other than to make your premiums cheaper.

He wants a public option, he is not promoting single payer health care for all.

He is open as to what the public option entails, he expects that it will cover people who need it at an affordable rate. Other than that he is wide open as to what the public option will look like.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/more_health_care_scare.html

And for those that still want to equate Obama with Socialism, Marxism or any other ism that RW's want you to be scared about here is a short quote from his speech on June 17

"I've always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. It has been and will remain the engine of America's progress -- the source of prosperity that's unrivaled in history. I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs who are willing to take a risk on a good idea. I believe that our role is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle the market, but to strengthen its ability to unleash the creativity and innovation that still make this nation the envy of the world."

[rb336]

He wants a public option, he is not promoting single payer health care for all.


what the wingnuts are afraid of is that with a public option to keep them honest, they won't be able to pay the boss 1B/year anymore.

Why is it that the republicans couldn't include in their "option" (sham, more accurately) a requirement that neither the insurance co. or the govt. can over ride a health care decision made by the doctor and patient?

oh -- i just got this: the same guys who are trying to force women to carry a fetus to term regardless of health issues, rape, incest, etc, are the same now pushing the "govt can't get between the patient and doctor" bit. priceless

[firstandten]

Why is it that the republicans couldn't include in their "option" (sham, more accurately) a requirement that neither the insurance co. or the govt. can over ride a health care decision made by the doctor and patient?

The republicans are so politically bankrupt they jump up and down saying Obama's plan costs too much. We are going to present our own plan to counter the Democrats... They come up with a 3 page document with no figures ( I guess they forgot that little detail)

Republicans = the party of no !

[gibran]

How many here have actually had problems with health care related issues from a first hand persepctive other than talking points and AMA, AHA or Insurance perspectives?

has anyone ever had to see admission personal telling many families seeking services for a person with TBI that their insurance wouldn't cover the real treatment that they needed to recovery... so I got sick of Insurance Doctor's playing bean counters and bean counters playing Doctors; when I knew there were effectively designed TBI programs that worked with people...

has anyone ever had to wait a year to get treatment because of a pre-existing condition? Or denied treatment payment for a precancerous growth because of an insurance loophole ( guess they wanted it to become cancerous)....

has anyone had to take a person home from the hospital after a stroke in two weeks and then see their elderly partner ahve to take care of them?

NOW tell me we don't need reform.

[MCP-001]

I thought right wingers claim he was born in Indonesia. You guys need to stay consistent with your propaganda.

Actually, I'm an independent. Nice try.

Second. It's a well documented fact that as a child, Obama spent some time in Indonesia.

You ought to read his bio.

You'd be surprised at what does (and doesn't) turn up.

[Sstashmoo]

The term "insurance" should never be uttered in the practice of medicine. When it comes to mine or a loved one's well being, the thought of some company official involved with their bottom line, their first priority, is unacceptable. We pay them a fee to wager our well being, that's fine, but stay the hell out of the examination room. That's one thing that needs to be changed.

[oladub]

Obama has said OVER and OVER and OVER again

If you like your present health care plan you can keep it, health care reform won't affect you other than to make your premiums cheaper.

He wants a public option, he is not promoting single payer health care for all. .

The Congressional Budget Office, not exactly a RW outfit, adds that Obama's government-run health care system would cause 23 million Americans to lose private coverage, cost $1 trillion dollars (over 10 years) and still leave 30 million uninsured. This isn't exactly a single payer plans such as Ontario's.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330132594100938

At least there is some good news for union workers.

There has been discussion about how to fund the new Obama health care plan. One taxation target is employees who already had health care programs. Employer contributions to their plans was to be taxed. Now a new proposal has been introduced to not tax the benefits of already insured union employees. That means other insured workers will pay a little more to make up the difference.

http://laborpains.org/index.php/2009/06/15/unions-get-exemption-from-healthcare-tax/


"I've always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. It has been and will remain the engine of America's progress -- the source of prosperity that's unrivaled in history. I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs who are willing to take a risk on a good idea. I believe that our role is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle the market, but to strengthen its ability to unleash the creativity and innovation that still make this nation the envy of the world" -President Obama who took over GM, voted to give failing and corrupt Wall Street firms billion$, and contradicted himself after saying this with a straight face.

[Linda from Detroit]

No, I know that the AA VA isn't bad. I have a brother in law that goes there. That doesn't mean that there aren't long lines and procedures that are denied/delayed. My husband used to go to the Allen Park one. He has also gone to 2 different ones in Ohio, one in WV and 2 in Kentucky. One in Ohio refused to give him cholesterol medicine because of the cost...he had lost weight, exercised and it wouldn't come down on it's own. The result? He had a major heart attack at 39. Then, at another facility, it was found he had a hydroseal and possible rupture. They went in for rupture surgery (which he didn't need) and because he was opened up that way, drew the wrong testicle up through his abdomen and damaged it to the point it later had to be removed by an outside doctor...oh, yes, and they never fixed the hydroseal. The outside doc offered to support us in a law suit, but we decided not to proceed. Then, he had a problem with one of his eyes...went to the ER in Huntington, the doc gave him some eye medicine (no big deal, right?) and sent him home with a follow up appointment with the VA specialist in 8 days. Sounded like they were on the ball. Well, after a couple of days, the eye started burning, having vision disturbances. He thought maybe it was the one medication and stopped using it. Thank God. When he saw the specialist, the guy had a total fit. That med was only supposed to be used for the first day. It had started to destroy his retina and he lost part of his sight. I know, it sounds like hubbys name should be Lucky, doesn't it? The thing is these things are happening all the time in the VA system. It is the rare facility that does a consistently good job. And yes, there are plenty more things I could tell you about the VA system. I've been a volunteer there for about 18 years simply because some of us care and try to do what we can to at least provide a pleasant atmosphere for those who deserve our help and care. In any event, maybe your experiences have been good or acceptable. If so, I'm very happy for you. Just understand it isn't all that common when the government is involved. Oh, by the way...did you also know that many VAs don't have a lot of meds available? Not horribly expensive ones either. If you want to know more, please let me know and I'll be glad to give you more information. Have a great day.

[gibran]

one thing is true..we all will be recipients of the current health care system at one point or another; in one way or another...the question is how will it treat you and do you think it needs improvement? From many different vantage points...

[rb336]

The Congressional Budget Office, not exactly a RW outfit, adds that Obama's government-run health care system would cause 23 million Americans to lose private coverage, cost $1 trillion dollars (over 10 years) and still leave 30 million uninsured. This isn't exactly a single payer plans such as Ontario's.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330132594100938. (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330132594100938.)

I would never trust Investors Business Daily coverage of anything. If you can find the actual budget office report, i'd like to see it


There has been discussion about how to fund the new Obama health care plan. One taxation target is employees who already had health care programs.

that plan was from the republicans during the campaign

[oladub]

I would never trust Investors Business Daily coverage of anything. If you can find the actual budget office report, i'd like to see it.

Ok. Here is another messenger to shoot. Hope I don't have to eventually go to Mother Jones. Nothing is in stone yet, but-

"A health care reform bill proposed by Sen. Ted Kennedy’s committee would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years while still leaving millions of people uninsured, according to a preliminary estimate released Monday by the Congressional Budget Office."
"The CBO concluded that by 2017, for example, the ranks of the uninsured would drop by about one third, or 16 million people, relative to projections under the current law.

In that year, about 39 million would be covered by policies purchased through a government-organized marketplace known as an exchange. At the same time, however, 15 million would lose their employer provided insurance and another 8 million would move away from coverage they receive through government programs, the analysis concluded."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23784.html

[Bigb23]

Linda from Detroit - We all have gone through this at one time or another, and not just through the VA. To maximize profit, or savings, both the VA and private hospitals will go with the least expensive method to maximize dollars to the administrators of the plan itself. Be it the government or stockholders. Now is the time we have to trim down the mess that has evolved over the past 40 years. Nobody seems to investigate the plus or minuses of social programs used in Europe. Hey we can all throw out talking points, but why don't we look at other methods ?

[Mikeg]

Man goes to Buffalo for life-saving treatment (http://www.windsorstar.com/goes+Buffalo+life+saving+treatment/1702800/story.html)
By Sonja Puzic, The Windsor Star, June 17, 2009
....He sought treatment in Detroit and had a consultation with an oncologist there but didn’t get OHIP’s approval to proceed because of a simple mistake in the paperwork, Meghan said. Frustrated, the couple spent hours on the phone, calling doctors, the Ministry of Health and local politicians, hoping that someone could help them.
But while they were scrambling to secure Hunt’s treatment in Detroit, there was a change in OHIP rules.
OHIP will now only cover Hunt’s cancer treatment in Buffalo, NY, where the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is the ministry’s only “preferred provider� of IL-2 treatment for metastatic malignant melanoma.....
Say a prayer for Mark Hunt.

[Linda from Detroit]

I'm not against exploring alternatives, I just don't want things to get even worse. And, I do know some folks that haven't had these sorts of things happen. Thank God for that! When my dad was dying of lung cancer I had to get an ambulance and get him out in the middle of the night because of the way he was being treated at Oakwood. Hope it's gotten better since then.

[ccbatson]

I will be honest, neither road is a pleasant one...either way, the socialistic elements of our health care system are past the tipping point of viable recovery and a tiered system is on its' way. Expanding the scope of the entitlement and pumping more money into the sinking ship is just going to accelerate the process.

[Bigb23]

From the British National Health care System website -


Accessing healthcare in Denmark


General information

You will be treated on the same basis as a resident of Denmark. Remember, each country’s health system is different and might not include all the things you would expect to get free of charge from the NHS. This may mean that you have to make a patient contribution to the cost of your care. You may be able to seek reimbursement for this cost when you are back in the UK.
Treatment, coverage and costs

Doctors
Consultations with your doctor are covered. However, you should ask if the doctor is registered with the Danish public health service and show your EHIC as you may be charged for some medical care otherwise. You can claim back the full amount of the doctor’s consultation should you have been charged.

Dentists
Consultations with your dentist are covered. However, you should ask if the dentist is registered with the Danish public health service and show your EHIC as you may be charged for some medical care otherwise. If you have been charged the full price, you might be able to claim back part of certain dental costs. These charges are non-refundable in Denmark but you may be able to seek reimbursement when you are back in the UK.

Hospital treatment
Hospital medical treatment is free of charge. It will normally be arranged by a doctor. If you cannot see one, show your EHIC to the hospital authorities on admission and ask them to arrange free medical treatment for you.

Prescriptions
You will be charged for prescribed medicines. Refund rates for approved medicines may vary. There are no refunds of expenditure under DKK 445 for patients over 18. For children, however, you can apply for up to 50% expenditure refunds. This is non-refundable in Denmark but you may be able to seek reimbursement when you are back in the UK.

You will be given a special card to register your prescription purchases when you visit a pharmacy. If not, keep all your prescriptions and original receipts and apply for a refund at the local municipality (Kommune).

Ambulance
The use of an ambulance or a 'Special Sick Vehicle', in emergencies, is free of charge.

Air ambulance
There are no special rules for transport by air ambulance.


What a god awful socialist system. They might have to pay out of pocket for medical care.

And did you see this word ? - (Kommune). That reeks of Stalin to me.:eek:

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/healthcaredenmark/Pages/Healthcaredenmark.aspx

[turkeycall]

Many of the VA Hospitals are located in large urban areas, but not all veterans who are eligible for care live anywhere near a facility. In order to receive care or treatment, the veteran must travel many miles, often relying on the generosity of a friend or relative for transportation. It happens, quite often, that an appointment is made, personal transportation is lined up, the veteran arrives at the VA facility on time, but the appointment is cancelled with no prior warning.

How about this?:
1. Shut down all the VA Hospitals. A considerable savings will be realized. No electricity to pay for, no heating bills, no building maintenance. No operating expense for infrastructure. No salaries for medical, maintenance, and administration staff.

2. Issue to every eligible veteran an identification card which contains the codes for whatever benefits he or she is entitled to. The card can be used to receive care at any hospital.

3. The hospital invoices the VA. The VA pays the invoice.

This way, a veteran living in, let's say, Muskegon doesn't need to line up transportation to go to Battle Creek - or wherever the VA Hospital is - thereby killing a whole day on the road, in waiting rooms, and receiving what might be second or third-rate care. The veteran can go to Mercy General in Muskegon and receive first-rate care.

Seems doable to me.

Those opposed to a National Health Care System want to equate it with the VA system. A real National Health Care Sytem of the single payer type will allow the use of local doctors and hospital facilities. The quality of care will not be compromised. The wait times for diagnostic procedures such as MRIs, CTs, and the like won't be affected.

The difference will be that instead of the hospitals billing an insurance company, the bills go to the regional Universal Health Care administrative office for payment.

[rb336]

if you bothered to read the report, instead of relying on right-wing stooges for your news, you would have seen that the bulk of the $1 trillion would come as subsidies to insurance purchased through an "insurance exchange" -- in other words, paid to PRIVATE insurance companies. there is no mention of what the cost would be to create a medicare-type system that companies and individuals could buy into. THAT is why I am against what is currently being proposed.

[turkeycall]

rb,
In your last post, to whom are you replying?

[Omaha]

To all the critics of Obamacare, all I can say is right on Dudes and Dudettes! We gotta unite with 4real and other critical thinkers to stop this nation’s drift toward letting government enter the market and compete with the private sector health insurers. :eek:

As I said in post #25 on this thread, we need to keep brining up what’s WRONG in all the other stupid nations that provide universal health care coverage. And we have to YELL VERY LOUD. That’s about our only hope of having employer-based, insurance company controlled and insurance company rationed health care remain the dominant model of health care delivery. Keep yelling that all alternatives to the private sector only model STINKS WON’T WORK.

I read http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/februa...bout_canad.php that rb336 posted in #55, and I wanted to VOMIT! Let me save you the trip. Sure it purports to rebut all the ugly stereotypes of the Canadian health system, but IT’S ALL LIES. 'NUFF SAID.

DO NOT let on that insurance companies make money by denying coverage and raising rates. DO NOT dwell on the idea that they oversee the delivery and non-delivery of medical care and drive providers crazy right now. DO NOT ever let on that the government could ever do a critical analysis of health care delivery in other countries and learn from their mistakes.

DO keep harping on Kommunes (BTW, I like the use of K) , Stalin, Big Brother, Socialized medicine, etc.; that way the government will NEVER be allowed to have a program that will compete with private sector insurers. :p

Although allowing me to keep what I have as a carrier or switch to a government alternative is kind of a free market thing to do. If I am supposed to take responsibility for my family’s well being, and I look and find that the alternative plan delivers more for less, should I choose it?

OF COURSE NOT! I was just testing you. Opting for a government alternative that is a “better buy� would be like buying a car from Government Motors. Even if GM gets it together and starts delivering quality products that compete well in the market… BOYCOTT THEM. If you don’t, you will be enabling socialism and communism to develop in this great nation that was built on the blood and sweat of its workers and lets the riches continue to flow to the rich and well born. Which, is the way it is supposed to work…Social Darwinism! ;)

So know that I will join you in keeping up the posting of rational, critical thinking and together with others we can insure (pun intended) that America doesn’t take a left turn to a regulated economy (that’s LIB-speak for Communism).

So all you conservative posters on DY follow the lead of this Colbert Conservative and post often and loudly. Together if we unite into a union peaceful assembly of posters we can make a difference. :D

[Stosh]

To all the critics of Obamacare, all I can say is right on Dudes and Dudettes! We gotta unite with 4real and other critical thinkers to stop this nation’s drift toward letting government enter the market and compete with the private sector health insurers. :eek:

As I said in post #25 on this thread, we need to keep brining up what’s WRONG in all the other stupid nations that provide universal health care coverage. And we have to YELL VERY LOUD. That’s about our only hope of having employer-based, insurance company controlled and insurance company rationed health care remain the dominant model of health care delivery. Keep yelling that all alternatives to the private sector only model STINKS WON’T WORK.

I read http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/februa...bout_canad.php that rb336 posted in #55, and I wanted to VOMIT! Let me save you the trip. Sure it purports to rebut all the ugly stereotypes of the Canadian health system, but IT’S ALL LIES. 'NUFF SAID.

DO NOT let on that insurance companies make money by denying coverage and raising rates. DO NOT dwell on the idea that they oversee the delivery and non-delivery of medical care and drive providers crazy right now. DO NOT ever let on that the government could ever do a critical analysis of health care delivery in other countries and learn from their mistakes.

DO keep harping on Kommunes (BTW, I like the use of K) , Stalin, Big Brother, Socialized medicine, etc.; that way the government will NEVER be allowed to have a program that will compete with private sector insurers. :p

Although allowing me to keep what I have as a carrier or switch to a government alternative is kind of a free market thing to do. If I am supposed to take responsibility for my family’s well being, and I look and find that the alternative plan delivers more for less, should I choose it?

OF COURSE NOT! I was just testing you. Opting for a government alternative that is a “better buy� would be like buying a car from Government Motors. Even if GM gets it together and starts delivering quality products that compete well in the market… BOYCOTT THEM. If you don’t, you will be enabling socialism and communism to develop in this great nation that was built on the blood and sweat of its workers and lets the riches continue to flow to the rich and well born. Which, is the way it is supposed to work…Social Darwinism! ;)

So know that I will join you in keeping up the posting of rational, critical thinking and together with others we can insure (pun intended) that America doesn’t take a left turn to a regulated economy (that’s LIB-speak for Communism).

So all you conservative posters on DY follow the lead of this Colbert Conservative and post often and loudly. Together if we unite into a union peaceful assembly of posters we can make a difference. :D

Said the obvious employee of Blue Cross or Mutual of Omaha...

[oladub]

There is no need to increase health care spending by $1T over ten years. If a state run single payer system were created, like those of Canadian provinces, experience has shown that health care could be delivered at half of what US citizens are now paying. In fact, comparing the total of all US governments' expenditures with those of Canadian governments shows that we already are paying more tax money for health care per capita than Canadians. I think that a lot of fiscal conservatives would get on board if they saw that state run single payer systems could deliver health care that resulted in lowering taxes - besides hugely reducing their personal expenditure for health insurance.

It seems that most of those advocating affordable heath care do advocate a single payer system but then, in whatever delusional or confused state, support Kennedy/Obama government health care instead. The latter being a status quo expansion of our present corporate insurance company system that keeps foddering armies of attorneys, insurance company personel, and administrators and is dependent on the good will of Chinese lenders and/or the the Fed's printing press. I do understand the plight of the 38-46M uninsured Americans, 22% of whom are illegal aliens, who have been priced our of our current system. If I were one of them, I would vote to raise my neighbors's taxes too. However, there are existing free market and government single player options available that would reduce or eliminate the number of uninsured while reducing taxes and health insurance premiums.

[Omaha]

Oladub -- Pay attention. The LIBS don't think they can get the whole thing in one gulp. So they are trying to get part of it. You know the "camel's nose under the tent wall" thing. We gotta stop it.

PETA knows the concept. They know if they can let the POTUS kill a fly, it is just the starting bid in a war to kill whales, wolfs, and other wildlife. That is why they don't let people think of fish when they bait their hooks...but rather of "sea kittens."

PETA like the NRA really know how to frame things so that the Libs can't get the
"camel's nose under the tent wall." We've got to keep up the scream about socialized medicine, even though in Canada the docs are still be in private practice and not employed by the government. It is why we must never think of the concept of Obamacare as socialized insurance where everybody pays and everybody is covered, thereby spreading the risk among everyone.

Real conservatives, even fiscally conservative ones, understand that the unregulated free market must never be sullied with government interference that dosen't help promote the flow of profits to the rich and well-born. So we must stop the single government insurance plan entering the market to compete because it may lead to greater and greater interference of government into other parts of our lives.

I don't mean to sound churlish, but if the uninsured have problems, let them go to emergency rooms. If the trend toward higher health care premiums will push more and more employers away from offering affordable coverage, let the workers choose their parents better.

Owners of the world (and their allies) unite, if we don't there are dark days ahead.

[oladub]

I agree that there seem to be dark days, at least for working people and middle class taxpayers, ahead but not for the insurance companies if Obama has his way. Now is the time for prosperous 'conservatives' to invest in insurance companies and other corporate entities favored by the Obama administration. Those who can see clearly understand the subtle shifts underway towards a more glorious corporatism under its new champion will profit. The foolish sheeple will think that that all the proposed new and hidden middle class taxes will bring down the elite without understanding that those who know how to play the game will offset their new taxes with correct investments. I am surprised that no Wall Street firm has yet publicly marketed an Obama major campaign contributor portfolio ETF.

[rb336]

There is no need to increase health care spending by $1T over ten years. If a state run single payer system were created, like those of Canadian provinces, experience has shown that health care could be delivered at half of what US citizens are now paying. In fact, comparing the total of all US governments' expenditures with those of Canadian governments shows that we already are paying more tax money for health care per capita than Canadians.

we are in agreement



I think that a lot of fiscal conservatives would get on board if they saw that state run single payer systems could deliver health care that resulted in lowering taxes - besides hugely reducing their personal expenditure for health insurance.

some, no doubt, would. others, those who seem to believe the only purpose people have is to be preyed upon, sucked dry, etc. in the name of "freedom" and "property rights" wouldn't care. They like the fact that a guy like Dollar Bill can steal $1.8 billion dollars by having his minions sign death warrants for his "clients"


It seems that most of those advocating affordable heath care do advocate a single payer system but then, in whatever delusional or confused state, support Kennedy/Obama government health care instead. The latter being a status quo expansion of our present corporate insurance company system that keeps foddering armies of attorneys, insurance company personel, and administrators and is dependent on the good will of Chinese lenders and/or the the Fed's printing press.

true


I do understand the plight of the 38-46M uninsured Americans, 22% of whom are illegal aliens, who have been priced our of our current system. If I were one of them, I would vote to raise my neighbors's taxes too. However, there are existing free market and government single player options available that would reduce or eliminate the number of uninsured while reducing taxes and health insurance premiums.

Where do you get that 22% figure? what free market option is there?

[ccbatson]

Canadian socialized healthcare is not costly? The poster child for declining quality with escalating costs?

[rb336]

please provide a link to the study data that supports your allegation

oh, that's right -- there isn't any because it ain't the truth

[oladub]

rb asks, "Where do you get that 22% figure? what free market option is there?"

I couldn't find the 22% quote but came up with this instead. Undocumented immigrants are driving up the number of people without health insurance. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 59% of the nation's illegal immigrants are uninsured, compared with 25% of legal immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens. Illegal immigrants represent about 15% of the nation's 47 million uninsured people — and about 30% of the increase since 1980. If there are 20M illegal aliens in the US and 50% are uninsurred as the Pew study claims, that would mean that 11.8M of our 38-46M (26-31%) nation's uninsured are illegal aliens. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm

Eighty percent (80%) of U.S. voters oppose providing government health care coverage for illegal immigrants as part of the health care reform package that is working its way through Congress.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% disagree and think coverage for illegals is a good idea. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/americans_support_universal_health_coverage_but_no t_if_it_covers_illegal_immigrants

I've suggested some ideas for cutting costs on other posts and don't have time to go through all those ideas again at this moment. Some of them are not allowed by government while other unnecessary costs are required by government not to mention that huge lobby groups want to keep their place at the trough and encourage such help from government officials.

[Pam]

Socialistic health care supporter with a guitar and a song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq8v5Kj0rxU

[Omaha]

Oh Pam, you are such a card...a joker. Thinking that using art to persuade will somehow make a difference. Music never works to influence public opinion. It didn't work for Woody or Bob or Arlo for that matter. Although I can't shake "two all beef patties, special sauce..." and find myself buying too many hamburgers. :eek:

But I'll give you one thing, most artists are Libs and they do their best to use their fame to influence public opinion. Look at Hollywood and that Oliver Stone fellow. Or look at all those liberal Left Coast actors. Thank goodness we have that guy from Easy Rider or Midnight Cowboy or whatever to come and speak to us Conservatives. That Voight guy really knows about the value of family and being the kind of strict parent that raises kids who respect their betters. Yes sir, that Voight guy is a role model for all of us who believe in the nuclear family and the unregulated free market.

And Pam, you may think that my posts are filled with cheap irony, shoddy sarcasm, and that I believe other than what I write...or you may call me gullible for believing that my hero Stephen Colbert is one of the most sincere people on the face of the earth...or maybe you believe that I am so old and feeble that I can't keep my TV shows straight but just like Sky King, I say what I mean, and mean what I say. :rolleyes:

[Bigb23]

How do I get the Dyes/ Omaha t-shirt ? The writer impresses me with his on line prose. An ex, (by cable insurrection), Colbert convert (2006), may satire be with you. Now how can Stephen Colbert download via the plumbing ?

[Mikeg]

Public opinion and the Democrat's plans for "health care reform" constitute a case of "Deja Vu all over again":
Repeat the Question - Why health care reform could fail again. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=55e79b52-4029-4af5-b08c-acb599d600b7)
by Stanley B. Greenberg
The New Republic

Nothing brings on a headache quite like health care reform. My head has throbbed lately, as Congress has begun to consider a serious overhaul--a debate that forces me to recall the painful last time we embarked on a similar effort some 16 years ago. At the time, I was conducting polls for Bill Clinton and, on the eve of his address to a joint session of Congress in 1993--the prologue to the White House's big push on the issue--I went into the field to gauge the national mood. I returned filled with a great sense of hope about the prospects for reform.

Our failure to enact health care reform was tragic for the country, and it played no small part in my exodus from the Clinton White House. But the coming debate over reform is an opportunity that can't be squandered, and it has prodded me to reconsider this chapter. I've been immersing myself in my old surveys and focus groups and memos to the president. It's even led me to return to the field, posing the same questions to the public, to determine how the mood has shifted and how the forces that oppose reform can best be countered.

Perhaps I should know better than to have sensed any profound changes in the country. And, when I got the results for the new survey, I looked at each question warily, remembering how it all went badly wrong. As I reached the last of the questions, I exclaimed: "Oh no. It can't be. Nothing's changed."

Then and now, the country proclaimed its readiness for bold reform. In both instances, one-quarter say that the health care system "has so many problems that we need to completely rebuild it"; half the country sees "good things" in the current system but believes "some major changes are needed." Then and now, about 60 percent of the public feel dissatisfied with the current health insurance system. Yet three-quarters are satisfied with their own health insurance—once again eerily parallel numbers. The same holds when the public is asked to focus on reform. Yes, we're no longer living in the shadow of Ronald Reagan. But the country has maintained the same anxieties about government's ability to improve the system. The country divides evenly on whether the greater risk is an unchanged status quo or government reforms that "create new problems." And, finally, Obama might want to pay attention to how closely his situation echoes Clinton's. Then and now, more people favor the president's health care plan than oppose it, but the supporters make up less than a majority.

If anything, I found on most of these questions that the desire for change and support for reform was slightly stronger 16 years ago. . .

[Linda from Detroit]

I agree with you completely. The bladder removal that hubby needs and is being postponed once again will be done over 150 miles away from home. I'm not able to drive that far and pay for a hotel every night for 10 nights while he is hospitalized...so, he goes alone. I worked out an agreement with a local hospital (5 miles from my home, and 10 miles from the Huntington VAMC) where I would pay $60.00 a month and we would BOTH be covered for any and all hospital provided services for one year...and that would include his surgery. All the VA had to do was pay a surgeon. That would be way cheaper for them...closer for us...a win/win situation. What did they do? Totally rejected it - even though they admitted that it would be LESS costly for them than doing it their way! I guess you can tell I'm beyond disgusting with all of this mess. In the meantime, the cancer grows...at this point he only has a 60% 5 year survival rate. I don't want to see other families going through this. In fact, I got so upset last night that I wrote to the President. Can't hurt to try.

[Mikeg]

Maybe this is part of the reason that health care consumers remain wary of "health care reforms" that give the government a greater role while limiting individual choice:

More choice for consumers is always healthy (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2009_06_15_More_choice_for_consumers_is_always_hea lthy/)
By Greg Scandlen
Boston Herald, Monday, June 15, 2009

It is remarkable in the debate over health care reform how policymakers are ignoring the one thing that has been proven to work: consumer-driven health care.

President Barack Obama keeps repeating that we must lower health care costs, and budget director Peter Orszag argues we can save $700 billion a year by cutting out unnecessary care.

But the methods suggested in Washington are at best unproven. They include:
- Paying doctors only for outcomes over which they have little or no control. How is my doctor going to force me to eat better?
- Moving the entire health care system into new accountable care organizations, which sound like the HMOs many have already rejected.
- Wiring everybody up with personal health records and information technology, which are as likely to increase costs and medical errors as to reduce them.

Meanwhile there is an approach that has proven to work after six years of testing by millions of people nationwide. Consumer-driven health (CDH) plans empower individuals by taking money away from third-party payers and putting it in the hands of consumers to spend as they wish.

Now that one out of five Americans under age 65 is paying some of his or her own bills through health savings accounts (HSA), high deductible plans and similar consumer-driven plans, policymakers are beginning to see a profound effect on the service side of the ledger. Consumer-driven health (CDH) plans cost 25 percent to 40 percent less than preferred provider organizations (PPO) and health maintenance organizations (HMO), and their rate of annual cost increases is one-third of that of the two other plans......

[firstandten]

There's good reason why we've gone thru 40-50 years and several presidents and very little has been done regarding health care reform.

First of all can we agree that there is a need for reform ?

last year 62% of all personal bankruptcies were directly due to health care issues.

The POTUS stated that a major reason for the huge deficit is the rising cost of health care and the country will go the way of GM if something isn't done quickly.

There are so many interlocking issues that Obama has to work thru. For example the insurance lobby is a powerful force and folks both Dems and the Party of NO are tied to it financially. We really need to get campaign contribution reform in order to get a clearer picture on Health care reform. Some of these congresspeople are blinded by the money and they forgot about the people who put them in office. To also get a grip on the budget we not only have to deal with the financial companies but get health reform going.

While all the time the RW is throwing crap on the wall 24/7 seeing what will stick.

There contention that single payer = socialized medicine doesn't hold up.

Single payer is simply Medicare for all, its not telling folks where to go or whom to see.

Obama will not sign a health care bill unless it is deficit neutral, or will not add to the budget deficit. Now we can argue whether all the savings the administration says health care reform will make will offset the price tag of the reform and thats fair. However I wouldn't put 100% weight to the CBO figures, they tend to be conservative and based on past incomplete proposals that might not be representative today.

Fortunately we have a president who unlike Clinton is focused and disciplined and will stay on task and won't let" the party of no" side track him.

However he is a political realist and he knows he has to manage the Senate since he doesn't have the 60 votes yet. Because of the firefight he knows that coming the progressives might have to wait a while to get some of the other issues they hold near and dear to their heart addressed since there is only so much political capital to go around.

[Bigb23]

Yet three-quarters are satisfied with their own health insurance—

This statement stands alone. Sure, people who HAVE health insurance would be happy with it. This debate is for people who don't have any access to, or can't afford health insurance.

[Mikeg]

Fortunately we have a president who.... is a political realist and he knows he has to manage the Senate since he doesn't have the 60 votes yetThe President has to not only "manage the Senate", he also needs to make the case to the general public since according to Stanley Greenberg, "more people favor the president's health care plan than oppose it, but the supporters make up less than a majority."


This debate is for people who don't have any access to, or can't afford health insurance. So you're saying that those who do have access to health insurance have no right to participate in the "debate"? Exactly how does that kind of a position help build a consensus and obtain the support of a majority of the public?


the Party of NOThis kind of childish name-calling and labeling of those who you don't agree with certainly doesn't help to engender any reasonable debate, much less get that majority support.

[mjs]

Obama will not sign a health care bill unless it is deficit neutral, or will not add to the budget deficit. Now we can argue whether all the savings the administration says health care reform will make will offset the price tag of the reform and thats fair. However I wouldn't put 100% weight to the CBO figures, they tend to be conservative and based on past incomplete proposals that might not be representative today.

What makes you say that first statement? I support the guy in general, but deficit spending is all he knows. I have accepted it on most things as future taxes and the only option we have. Politicians just call it deficit spending because many American adults can be convinced that two plus two is three. I wish we banned adults from voting and let ten to twelve year olds be the ruling class because they aren't afraid to admit when it seems the emperor is wearing no clothes and they aren't vested in massaging the truth so its harder to get them to accept double speak. If you don't understand a political postion, its because it doesn't make sense. Meet politicians in person and you'll learn you're smarter than most.

What savings are you referring to? My understanding is that the proposals say that instead of some guy paying $500 out of his pocket, the Feds will pay $400 out of ours. I'm understanding the $500 savings to that guy and the $100 difference between $400 and $500, but I'm missing the savings for the rest of us. It sounds like an additional $400 in future taxes.

As to the CBO, you have to use somebody's numbers and the CBO has the best history of being party neutral. They always use conservative numbers because its what ends up being most realistic. They are a thousand times better with numbers than the politicians they report to. If they're using the old proposals as their basis, have the legislation clarify the new proposals. They crunch the numbers for the proposals as presented to them. As they should. Who's numbers do you want to use?

[ccbatson]

Obama's proposal is a complete failure...why? It doesn't accomplish the self described primary objective for one thing.

[firstandten]

This kind of childish name-calling and labeling of those who you don't agree with certainly doesn't help to engender any reasonable debate, much less get that majority support.

I'm just calling it as I see it. The problem is not that I disagree, but they don't add anything to the debate. For example they counter a 600 something page health care plan from the Dems with a 3 page plan with no dollar amounts or any detail of how they would pay for there version. They do this issue after issue. I wish there was a majority in the senate so this obstructionist party can go to there home districts, stay there and preach family values while doing the opposite.

[firstandten]

What makes you say that first statement? I support the guy in general, but deficit spending is all he knows. I have accepted it on most things as future taxes and the only option we have. Politicians just call it deficit spending because many American adults can be convinced that two plus two is three. I wish we banned adults from voting and let ten to twelve year olds be the ruling class because they aren't afraid to admit when it seems the emperor is wearing no clothes and they aren't vested in massaging the truth so its harder to get them to accept double speak. If you don't understand a political postion, its because it doesn't make sense. Meet politicians in person and you'll learn you're smarter than most.

What savings are you referring to? My understanding is that the proposals say that instead of some guy paying $500 out of his pocket, the Feds will pay $400 out of ours. I'm understanding the $500 savings to that guy and the $100 difference between $400 and $500, but I'm missing the savings for the rest of us. It sounds like an additional $400 in future taxes.

As to the CBO, you have to use somebody's numbers and the CBO has the best history of being party neutral. They always use conservative numbers because its what ends up being most realistic. They are a thousand times better with numbers than the politicians they report to. If they're using the old proposals as their basis, have the legislation clarify the new proposals. They crunch the numbers for the proposals as presented to them. As they should. Who's numbers do you want to use?

Let me just go by what the POTUS said. You are going to get numbers from all over the place, however I am holding Obama responsible for the statements he is making and if it turns out to be wrong I'm sure he and the Democrats will pay a heavy price at the polls as a result.

These are some snippets from his speech to the AMA where he outlines the need and how health care reform will be paid for. I don't want to bore the RW's on here since they tend to deal with talking points only. if you are interested here is the link to the speech

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-Annual-Conference-of-the-American-Medical-Association/


"Now, even if we accept all of the economic and moral reasons for providing affordable coverage to all Americans, there is no denying that expanding coverage will come at a cost, at least in the short run. But it is a cost that will not -- I repeat -- will not add to our deficits. I've set down a rule for my staff, for my team -- and I've said this to Congress -- health care reform must be, and will be, deficit-neutral in the next decade."

That said, let me explain how we will cover the price tag. First, as part of the budget that was passed a few months ago, we put aside $635 billion over 10 years in what we're calling a Health Reserve Fund. Over half of that amount -- more than $300 billion -- will come from raising revenue by doing things like modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level that it was at the end of the Reagan years

First, we should end overpayments to Medicare Advantage

Second, we need to use Medicare reimbursements to reduce preventable hospital readmissions

Third, we need to introduce generic biologic drugs into the marketplace

I've also proposed saving another $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending in several other ways.
We can also save about $75 billion through more efficient purchasing of prescription drugs. And we can save about $1 billion more by rooting out waste, abuse, fraud throughout our health care system so that no one is charging more for a service than it's worth or charging a dime for a service that they don't provide.

Now, for those of you who took out your pencil and paper -- (laughter) -- altogether, these savings mean that we've put about $950 billion on the table -- and that doesn't count some of the long-term savings that we think will come about from reform -- from medical IT, for example, or increased investment in prevention. So that stuff in congressional jargon is not scorable; the Congressional Budget Office won't count that as savings, so we're setting that aside. We think that's going to come, but even separate and far from that, we've put $950 billion on the table, taking us almost all the way to covering the full cost of health care reform

Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of $1 trillion.

That to me is the meat of the debate, are the savings the president proposes realistic and doable?

[ccbatson]

He (Obama) will never be able to cryptically talk his way out of demanding a "budget neutral" trillion dollar undertaking.

[firstandten]

He (Obama) will never be able to cryptically talk his way out of demanding a "budget neutral" trillion dollar undertaking.

Cryptically ?

I thought he was quite clear.

[Lorax]

Obama is being disingenuous when he says you still will have a choice. The government will crush companies or put them out of business with regulation.

And this is a bad thing, how?

Personally, it's a good thing to have competition, if private enterprise can't compete with a government run plan, then all you social darwinists out there should be thrilled.

The right has to decide whether any government run plan will trip and fall out of the gate, or is really a threat, since it will probably be run so well, that everyone will switch to the government plan.

Which one is it, folks?

[turkeycall]

Obama's proposal is a complete failure...why? It doesn't accomplish the self described primary objective for one thing.

A proposal cannot be a complete failure until it has been acted upon, passed, and signed into existence.

[oladub]

Firstandten, Thanks for the presidential quotes.

"I've set down a rule for my staff, for my team -- and I've said this to Congress -- health care reform must be, and will be, deficit-neutral in the next decade."

Then the President goes about describing how it will become deficit-neutral by having voted to spend another $635B over the next decade. The President wants to tax people as they were taxed whan Reagan left office. If the President doesn't apply the CPI to his application he will be lying and raising middle class taxes because the official CPI has increased 73% since Reagan left office. I don't see any mention of taking account of government created inflation in the President's proposal. Maybe it's there. I just haven't seen it.

What is meant by introducing generic biologic drugs into the marketplace.? What are 'biologic drugs" as opposed to drugs? If he just meant drugs, the President should have given Walmart a call. Walmart has already made hundreds of drugs available for $10/90 day supply. Walmart did more to make medicine more affordable in one swoop than the federal government. Why is that? http://www.walmart.com/4prescriptions

No one can argue with saving $1B by reducing fraud. Since this is a trillion dollar plan, $1B/$1T= .001%. Any government program that only has .001% fraud is to be commended.

Deficit-neutral means spending an extra $1T over 10 years. That is if the administration's statistics aren't too rosy as were those of the Medicare program. Whatever happened to Senator Obama's campaign promise that his proposed health care program was going to save the average American family $2,400 per year? If there are 80M US families x $2,400/year x 10 years = $1.93T.

Senator Obama promised to cut medical expenses about $1.93T and now President Obama is talking about spending $1T. That is $2.93T different from his campaign promise. Am I seeing a trend here?

[firstandten]

Firstandten, Thanks for the presidential quotes.

"I've set down a rule for my staff, for my team -- and I've said this to Congress -- health care reform must be, and will be, deficit-neutral in the next decade."

Then the President goes about describing how it will become deficit-neutral by having voted to spend another $635B over the next decade. The President wants to tax people as they were taxed whan Reagan left office. If the President doesn't apply the CPI to his application he will be lying and raising middle class taxes because the official CPI has increased 73% since Reagan left office. I don't see any mention of taking account of government created inflation in the President's proposal. Maybe it's there. I just haven't seen it.

As usual Oladub you make excellent points. Let me go back to the presidents words on this

" we put aside $635 billion over 10 years in what we're calling a Health Reserve Fund. Over half of that amount -- more than $300 billion -- will come from raising revenue by doing things like modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level that it was at the end of the Reagan years -- same level that it was under Ronald Reagan."

I don't think the middle class need worry

The rest will come from spending cuts and increased efficiencies


What is meant by introducing generic biologic drugs into the marketplace.? What are 'biologic drugs" as opposed to drugs? If he just meant drugs, the President should have given Walmart a call. Walmart has already made hundreds of drugs available for $10/90 day supply. Walmart did more to make medicine more affordable in one swoop than the federal government. Why is that? http://www.walmart.com/4prescriptions .

I also wasn't sure about biologic drugs but here is what I found

"The budget, which will be released today, will remove barriers to creating generic biologics, said an administration official. The money the federal government would save from biogenerics would help pay for a major overhaul of the nation's healthcare system the president has promised to enact this year.
The Food and Drug Administration currently has no process for approving biogenerics, also called "follow-on biologics" and "biosimilars." Such drugs are made from living organisms, not chemicals, and are extremely difficult to duplicate precisely. Congress in the last few years has haggled over how to create regulations to approve generic versions of biologics" Boston Globe

The problem is that the biotech companies especially in the Northeast wants to be able to make a return on its investment and generics would cut into their profits


Deficit-neutral means spending an extra $1T over 10 years. That is if the administration's statistics aren't too rosy as were those of the Medicare program. Whatever happened to Senator Obama's campaign promise that his proposed health care program was going to save the average American family $2,400 per year? If there are 80M US families x $2,400/year x 10 years = $1.93T.

Senator Obama promised to cut medical expenses about $1.93T and now President Obama is talking about spending $1T. That is $2.93T different from his campaign promise. Am I seeing a trend here?

Remember even though Obama is spending he feels there are enough offsets in savings and efficiencies as well as increased taxes to cover the cost . Granted these offsets are hard to quantify it depends on if you believe the numbers. However as the President said to do nothing will eventually bust the budget.

[mjs]

Lets talk at a ten year old level which is a much more intelligent and ethical level than a politician level. Its their job to find ways for government programs to cost less. If you're about to lose your house and you tell you wife you'll spend $50 a week less at the bar if she lets you buy $50 more in Starbucks each week, she'll kick your ass. If you're company is going bankrupt and you tell you're boss you'll spend $100 less a month on golf if he'll approve $100 more on dinners, he'll also kick your ass.

Only a politician would say that fucking you only as hard as he did yesterday is an example of a budget neutral proposal. That savings is our savings! How are people expectations of their employees so damned low? We are entitled to an efficient government. The bastard owes that savings to us regardless of whether or not he gets what he wants. If Obama says I'll continue to waste money unless we pay for other people's health care, I'm going to go down there myself and kick his ass. I'm not giving him a bonus for doing his job! Our health insurance is twice that of other nations. They're not doing they're job! Implement the damned savings and add nothing. Just like Bush, he can't comprhend that as long as we're in debt, I don't want to hear about tax cuts or ways to not overspend at an even higher rate, I want a plan to live within our means. That means spend less or develop a plan to bring in more.

Welcome to the Real World DC. Where people quit being nice and start being real.

[mjs]

Remember even though Obama is spending he feels there are enough offsets in savings and efficiencies as well as increased taxes to cover the cost . Granted these offsets are hard to quantify it depends on if you believe the numbers. However as the President said to do nothing will eventually bust the budget.

We are spending well beyond our means and going bankrupt. Tell him his job is to implement the savings and efficiencies and until he learns what a ROCE is, he should shut the fuck up about initiatives that require additional spending.

[firstandten]

Lets talk at a ten year old level which is a much more intelligent and ethical level than a politician level. Its their job to find ways for government programs to cost less. If you're about to lose your house and you tell you wife you'll spend $50 a week less at the bar if she lets you buy $50 more in Starbucks each week, she'll kick your ass. If you're company is going bankrupt and you tell you're boss you'll spend $100 less a month on golf if he'll approve $100 more on dinners, he'll also kick your ass.

Only a politician would say that fucking you only as hard as he did yesterday is an example of a budget neutral proposal. That savings is our savings! How are people expectations of their employees so damned low? We are entitled to an efficient government. The bastard owes that savings to us regardless of whether or not he gets what he wants. If Obama says I'll continue to waste money unless we pay for other people's health care, I'm going to go down there myself and kick his ass. I'm not giving him a bonus for doing his job! Our health insurance is twice that of other nations. They're not doing they're job! Implement the damned savings and add nothing. Just like Bush, he can't comprhend that as long as we're in debt, I don't want to hear about tax cuts or ways to not overspend at an even higher rate, I want a plan to live within our means. That means spend less or develop a plan to bring in more.

Welcome to the Real World DC. Where people quit being nice and start being real.

Don't forget , we are for the most part dealing with free market employer based health care. The various players in the health care industry have no motivation to cut costs or make it efficient. To carve out a universal public option where there has been none before will take up front money. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for a universal public plan ? How can Obama make free market companies implement savings without the leverage of a competitive public plan.

You can put a public plan out there thats cheap and half-assed but what would that accomplish ? Its best to do it right even if it takes more money up front.

[ccbatson]

Step back for a moment to analyse this. Obama is not stupid, therefore he is not doing what appears to be a very stupid (suicidal actually) thing without a reason. So, what is the reason? He must intend all of this spending to grow government (radical liberal) power and influence. Once accomplished in the extreme, to whom does it matter that the economy is bankrupt? It will be miserable for the populace to be sure, but what will the impact be in the short and long run for the socialists in power? Likely, they will lose their elected positions in the short run, however, a large portion of what they accomplish in furthering socialism will be difficult, or impossible to reverse and take a long time to do so. So, in the long run, socialism takes a hold of our society and individual liberty is suppressed.

I believe, as an optimist, that we will, in fact, reverse socialism vigorously following Obama, but this is not in any way a guarantee, and, if history is a lesson, reversing entitlements has been very difficult, possibly unprecedented. What Obama may onbe counting on is that these entitlements, in a sense will reverse themselves if/when they completely melt down giving way to a new free market system to address the services formerly supplied by the entitlements (ie black market tiered health care, private retirements in place of social security, etc). All well and good, right?? Not so fast, what about the funding of these programs (even when utterly bankrupt)...this comes from taxes, good luck in getting rid of those.

[oladub]

Are you willing to pay more in taxes for a universal public plan ? How can Obama make free market companies implement savings without the leverage of a competitive public plan.



Nope, If I had to choose a government health care plan, I would opt for one like Ontario's which costs less per capita than what governments are already paying per capita here. Like mjs, I sure don't want a health care system more expensive than the one we already have. "How"? By adopting Ontario's plan lock, stock, and barrel. Some politicians will just have to do without their medical instusry campaign contributions. The will have to learn to compete with candidates who don't receive pharmaceutical company kickbacks.

[ccbatson]

Or...go total free market, disconnect from intermediaries as purchasers (ie employers, or government) and point out the virtues and savings of HSA style plans.

[firstandten]

We are spending well beyond our means and going bankrupt. Tell him his job is to implement the savings and efficiencies and until he learns what a ROCE is, he should shut the fuck up about initiatives that require additional spending.

In the long run isn't this statement the bottom line in which we should hold him to and if he doesn't do it then go after him


" President Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.
Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from President Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2% of the overall economy now vs. 3% in four years."

[firstandten]

Or...go total free market, disconnect from intermediaries as purchasers (ie employers, or government) and point out the virtues and savings of HSA style plans.

Thats assuming people have a job or enough of a job to pay for HSA and savings plans

[ccbatson]

"Wants to cut the deficit" does he? Like he doesn't want to own car companies (he has 2 now), or socialize medicine, or, take your pick regarding the innumerable obfuscation's, misdirection's, and deceptions he spews every day.

[firstandten]

Nope, If I had to choose a government health care plan, I would opt for one like Ontario's which costs less per capita than what governments are already paying per capita here. Like mjs, I sure don't want a health care system more expensive than the one we already have. "How"? By adopting Ontario's plan lock, stock, and barrel. Some politicians will just have to do without their medical instusry campaign contributions. The will have to learn to compete with candidates who don't receive pharmaceutical company kickbacks.

Agreed, but for some reason the American public has problems with Canada as it relates to its universal health care plan. I would rather not see him re-invent the wheel. It seems he has to come up with a unique American plan just because his opponents will throw that dreaded " S" word in his face.

[mjs]

Don't forget, we are for the most part dealing with free market employer based health care. The various players in the health care industry have no motivation to cut costs or make it efficient.

You are an excuse maker and your President is an excuse maker and your party is a bunch of excuse makers. Don't tell me why it can't be done, just do it. I know it can be done because every other indutrialized nation is providing more coverage for a lower percent of the GDP. The motivation is to gain market share by becoming the low cost provider. Your attitude will get you fired where I'm from.


To carve out a universal public option where there has been none before will take up front money. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for a universal public plan?

Budget neutral and up front money are completely different things. I can respect a decision to pay more taxes for more service, but Obama promises more service for the same cost. Two plus two is four regardless of what the government in "1984" or 2009 says it is. At least I know he's pissing on my back when it smells like piss. Why do you believe him over you owns senses when he tells you its simply raining?

Its highly improbable chance that those manipulators in DC will acknowledge spending more money requires a tax increase. Government involvement is not necessary when what is best for my wallet is best for a hobo's wallet. Be upfront and say that insuring the hobo is the right thing to do despite raising my costs, but please don't tell me insuring the hobo will save me money over not insuring him.


How can Obama make free market companies implement savings without the leverage of a competitive public plan?

Do you hear what you're saying? Competitive government plan? Its is an oxymoron. How can I win the Kentucky Derby without a flying unicorn? How can I travel through time without a flux capacitor?

He can do it the way every other leader in the industrialized world does. Where I work, if you don't provide a a detailed problem description, there's zero chance they'll approve your solution. Good for me because I'm an expert problem solver and data analyst. I suck at alot of things, but mining data to solve "unsolvable" problems is my thing. I'm telling you that as long as the government doesn't analyze the data, they'll never ever understand the problem so they'll never ever solve it.

[firstandten]

You are an excuse maker and your President is an excuse maker and your party is a bunch of excuse makers. Don't tell me why it can't be done, just do it. I know it can be done because every other indutrialized nation is providing more coverage for a lower percent of the GDP. The motivation is to gain market share by becoming the low cost provider. Your attitude will get you fired where I'm from..

You may say its an excuse, but you don't factor in the political realities involved. Why do you think health care reform has been stalled for 50 years and presidents from both parties has failed to get reform.? Its because politicans on both sides are in the pocketbook of the major players that health reform would affect. If we lived in a society in which people weren't uninformed and didn't vote against there best interest we would have health care like you are talking about. This fear against gov run health care that our society has is the problem.




Budget neutral and up front money are completely different things. I can respect a decision to pay more taxes for more service, but Obama promises more service for the same cost. Two plus two is four regardless of what the government in "1984" or 2009 says it is. At least I know he's pissing on my back when it smells like piss. Why do you believe him over you owns senses when he tells you its simply raining?..

Doesn't have to be. You can spend upfront money and offset that with savings and efficiencies and be deficit neutral. I'm sure your company does that all the time with capital expenditures.




Its highly improbable chance that those manipulators in DC will acknowledge spending more money requires a tax increase. Government involvement is not necessary when what is best for my wallet is best for a hobo's wallet. Be upfront and say that insuring the hobo is the right thing to do despite raising my costs, but please don't tell me insuring the hobo will save me money over not insuring him

Somebody going to pay when that hobo and millions others like him walk into ER for treatment. You just think it won't affect you directly. Or if you want people like that to die in the streets then you won't need to worry about your costs.




Do you hear what you're saying? Competitive government plan? Its is an oxymoron. How can I win the Kentucky Derby without a flying unicorn? How can I travel through time without a flux capacitor?.

Then why is the TPON ( the party of no) jumping up and down saying the for profit businesses will be driven from the marketplace and crying unfair competition with a gov run option.

Were not dealing in absolutes here. Its more like pick your poison.
You can either have insurance companies deny you coverages based on "pre-existing conditions and other cherry picking reasons, raise your premiums etc.
Or deal with the inefficiencies a gov run option is sure to bring.

[Lorax]

A good dose of nationalization would be the right medicine for healthcare.

If Chavez can do it with oil companies, we should too. Any industry which is critical to the nation functioning properly should be nationalized.

Any and all oil and natural gas taken from public lands in America should belong to us.

How would you like to pay 35 cents a gallon for gas.

I though so.

Same is true for healthcare. If all other industrialized nations can do it, and do it well, contrary to what the rethugnicans will tell you, we can do it too.

A single payer system, such as Medicare is the model we need to go by, and get after it. Corporate America should be thrilled to not have to pay for health care, so it's a win/win for them as well.

We're debating whether or not to even have a public option right now, which is the least of what we should be doing, and is barely acceptable as an alternative to what we have now.

We prop up failing banks, which are doomed to fail anyway, but continue to support fascist run health care corporations which only seek to deny coverage, even after you've faithfully paid them.

[oladub]

Lorax, I would love to buy gasoline for 35 cents. I didn't know that if government drilled, lifted, refined, transported, and distributed petroleum products that we would have 35 cent gasoline. Gee, just the taxes on gasoline are higher than that now. Governments, at all levels, must have been holding back in New Orleans. That aside, 35 cent gas offers new hope that some Obama /Kennedy plan will resolve healthcare affordability. Corporate greed, and those same corporations reciprical relationships with certain politicians, unfortunately have been holding back both private and public initiatives that would reduce the cost of health care. My suggestion is for advocates of both private and public health care affordability initiatives to first focus on initiatives they both agree on and get that dead wood out of the way. Then we can argue about whether e.g. $50 cash only medical clinics and $4 Walmart prescriptions vs. one payer Ontario like government plans are the way to go. Either would be more affordable than the corporatist health care system we now have or its expansion under an Obama/Kennedy plan.

[firstandten]

Krugman hits the nail on the head. The people need to shake up their senators. If there not on board then they need to get voted out. Then they can go work for the special interest groups that are lining there pockets now.

By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 22, 2009
America’s political scene has changed immensely since the last time a Democratic president tried to reform health care. So has the health care picture: with costs soaring and insurance dwindling, nobody can now say with a straight face that the U.S. health care system is O.K. And if surveys like the New York Times/CBS News poll (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html) released last weekend are any indication, voters are ready for major change.
The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993.

And yes, I mean Democratic senators. The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans — Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! — hoping that someone still cares.
The polls suggest that hardly anyone does. Voters, it seems, strongly favor a universal guarantee of coverage, and they mostly accept the idea that higher taxes may be needed to achieve that guarantee. What’s more, they overwhelmingly favor precisely the feature of Democratic plans that Republicans denounce most fiercely as “socialized medicine� — the creation of a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers.
Or to put it another way, in effect voters support the health care plan jointly released by three House committees last week, which relies on a combination of subsidies and regulation to achieve universal coverage, and introduces a public plan to compete with insurers and hold down costs.
Yet it remains all too possible that health care reform will fail, as it has so many times before.
I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, Democratic leaders know that they have to pass a health care bill for the sake of their own survival. One way or another, the numbers will be brought in line.
The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by “centrist� Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around “centrist,� by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.
What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless. For the record, neither regional health cooperatives nor state-level public plans, both of which have been proposed as alternatives, would have the financial stability and bargaining power needed to bring down health care costs.
Whatever may be motivating these Democrats, they don’t seem able to explain their reasons in public.
Thus Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska initially declared that the public option — which, remember, has overwhelming popular support — was a “deal-breaker.� Why? Because he didn’t think private insurers could compete: “At the end of the day, the public plan wins the day.� Um, isn’t the purpose of health care reform to protect American citizens, not insurance companies?
Mr. Nelson softened his stand after reform advocates began a public campaign targeting him for his position on the public option.
And Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota offers a perfectly circular argument: we can’t have the public option, because if we do, health care reform won’t get the votes of senators like him. “In a 60-vote environment,� he says (implicitly rejecting the idea, embraced by President Obama, of bypassing the filibuster if necessary), “you’ve got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together, and that, I don’t believe, is possible with a pure public option.�
Honestly, I don’t know what these Democrats are trying to achieve. Yes, some of the balking senators receive large campaign contributions from the medical-industrial complex — but who in politics doesn’t? If I had to guess, I’d say that what’s really going on is that relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America.
But this fantasy can’t be allowed to stand in the way of giving America the health care reform it needs. This time, the alleged center must not hold

[ccbatson]

Costs soaring and quality/availability dwindling....where have we seen this before?? That's right, with every socialistic program in the known history of mankind.

[Lorax]

Costs soaring and quality/availability dwindling....where have we seen this before?? That's right, with every socialistic program in the known history of mankind.

More appropriately, with every right wing fascist private health insurer out there. :(

[mjs]

You may say its an excuse, but you don't factor in the political realities involved. . . politicans on both sides are in the pocketbook of the major players that health reform would affect. If we lived in a society in which people weren't uninformed and didn't vote against there best interest we would have health care like you are talking about.

I'm with you 100%. The solution is that people become informed and learn to read the bills. If I read the bill and saw what my Senator voted, a trillion dollars in campaign money can't convince me he stands for the opposite of how he voted. In a democracy, the government is always going to be as good as the voters. My bill tracking and background means I can generally avoid the jacked end of most legislation. I have great insurance. I worry about others.


Doesn't have to be. (a situation without savings opportunities). You can spend upfront money and offset that with savings and efficiencies and be deficit neutral. I'm sure your company does that all the time with capital expenditures.

Not only do they do it. I'm one of the people telling them when and how to do it. Like I've said, my advice is derived at least in part, often in full, by breaking down the data. I haven't seen them do this. I know it can be done and if they have a bill that does it, I can vote for it. My question was whether this bill does that and you seem too smart to be satisfied with the answer you passed on.

[firstandten]

Not only do they do it. I'm one of the people telling them when and how to do it. Like I've said, my advice is derived at least in part, often in full, by breaking down the data. I haven't seen them do this. I know it can be done and if they have a bill that does it, I can vote for it. My question was whether this bill does that and you seem too smart to be satisfied with the answer you passed on.

I guess my position is I'll accept the POTUS word on this. He's telling us essentially he has 950B of a 1T program covered. He's saying that those numbers the CBO will account for. He then says he has other long term savings in efficiencies that he feels is real but the CBO won't account for or in their jargon not scoreable.

So essentially he will not increase the debt with the gov't option, and his budget should reflect reducing the debt by half by the end of his first term.

I then read Paul Krugman's op-ed and was surprised he made this statement;
I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, Democratic leaders know that they have to pass a health care bill for the sake of their own survival. One way or another, the numbers will be brought in line.

I realized then that campaign finance reform is needed as much as health care reform. The issue to me is getting the lobblyist out of our elected officials pocket so they can start to do the will of the people. This seems to be more of a problem in the senate than in the house, and this seems to be the real problem in getting universal health care passed.

[oladub]

Paul Krugman wrote "One way or another, the numbers will be brought in line."

Uh-huh. But which POTUS words do you choose to believe. In campaign mode, Senator Obama promised a health care plan that would reduce the health care costs of the average American family by $2,400/year. This was before he passed a bill including $650B of new health spending over the next ten years as a 'down-payment' on his new health care program. Now he is scrambling around trying to line up new taxes to pay for it and explaining that the CBO simply can't fathom his savings. I suppose that if taxes are raised enough, the budget will start to balance. That is unless some unforeseen thing like rising borrowing rates devastate rosy budget predictions

Not every financial writer is as sanguine as free-trade and globalization advocate Paul Krugman. From Wikipedia- Krugman argued that the large deficits generated by the Bush administration—generated by decreasing taxes, increasing public spending, and fighting a war in Iraq — were in the long run unsustainable, and would eventually generate a major economic crisis. I agree. Too bad President Obama is throwing more fuel on the fire.

"Who’s the biggest borrower today? The United States of America. At 12% of GDP, its deficit is more than twice as large as that of France. It already owes Japan and China as much as Germany owed its former enemies in reparations – adjusted to today’s money. But America’s debts are far grander than those of Germany in 1923 – even relative to the size of the US economy. Where Germany owed a little over $1 trillion; America – if you include private debt, official government debt, off-budget obligations and internal commitments – owes 100 times as much. And the United States keeps borrowing more. In a single year – 2009 – it will borrow $1.3 trillion, again, just shy of the debt that sank the Weimar Republic."
DéjÃ. Vu All Over Again. Once More. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner390.html) by Bill Bonner (dr@dailyreckoning.com)

"Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: "the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying 'You see, without me you couldn't walk.'" That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed this week by the Obama Administration.
In seeking to undo the damage inflicted over the past decade by misguided government policies, the new regulatory regime would ensure that the problems underlying our financial system will only get worse."
Back in the U.S.S.A. (http://www.safehaven.com/article-13678.htm) by Peter Schiff

"I mean, it just sounds so stupid that you wonder what these people are drinking, smoking, inhaling or eating, because whatever it is, I desperately want some, too! It apparently puts the user into some kind of pleasant mental fantasy-land where the problems caused by an excess of pleasure-seeking are solved with much more pleasure-seeking and the problems of too much debt and too much government are solved by much more debt and much more government, but they somehow retain the ability to act straight and sober so they can say this kind of insane crap with a straight face! Wow!"
The Euphoric High of Government Spending (http://www.safehaven.com/article-13672.htm) by The Mogambo Guru

[Omaha]

There is another thing to look at as we piece through health care reform.

The whole idea of insurance is communistic! It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The very nature of insurance is that if you get a large enough pool of people you can share risks and benefits across that diverse pool. This is the kind of “working toward the common good;� “we’re stronger when we’re together;� “we can do more together than we can apart� kind of stuff that you find in unions, the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, the Womens' Movement of the 70s and 80s and in Socialist and Communist countries. :p

The only thing good about insurance companies is that they are “for profit� entities. They make money by denying coverage to their policy holders. Unfortunately the government is not talking about the reform of health insurance policies (that are commodities which can be bought and sold for a profit) but health care reform.

I want to be very cautious of calling this “health care reform.� Health care reform (which emphasizes having something that works for everyone and removes barriers to quality affordable care) is very different than health care insurance (which emphasizes the individual and ability to pay).

I can hear those liberals crying that "we are better off/stronger as a nation if everyone has access to the health care they need." Weeping about insurance reform is not enough. It leaves too many people vulnerable. It will lead to people suffering from bad health, bankruptcy, and early death. It will limit future opportunities for children to grow up and be “all they can be� and to participate fully in society. The libs might even twist this argument by throwing in disadvantages accruing to some because they are low income, or people of color or women.

Hell if Obama can become POTUS, there is no need for reform of anything. All the barriers that limit anybody's access to the oppotunities required to become all you can be are already gone.

SO LIBS, GET OVER IT. We ration health care as it should be rationed…by ability to pay. :eek: That is what every Social Darwinist believes, and that is what is best for the rich and well-born.

This “we all do better, when we all do better� kind of pie in the sky worldview of the libs is just that...pie in the sky. Get a grip on reality and just buy insurance coverage...if you are able. :D

[firstandten]

Omaha after reading thru your brilliant post, I realize you just solved one of most pressing problems of this or any decade. Instead of treating health care as part of the commons like police, fire, schools etc. Lets make health care dependent on ability to pay. Hey, that way people will die off leaving scarce resources to those strong people who deserve it. Overpopulation will be a thing of the past , nobody should starve because those folks who would take up our precious food supply will be gone When I ride down the interstate seeing acres and acres of farm land I know that if we follow your principals we won't ever have to worry about too many people bumping up against me and taking whats rightfully mine.We might need to build a few more hospice centers...... no lets not do that, just let them die on the sidewalk, or better yet drop them off at the doorstep of the funeral home it will save on the budget. We can make oil and other fossil fuels last a few more generations with a reduced population.

Just think the people who are left can be even more wealthy since there's less people to share in that pie of wealth.

Wow, you really hit on something, I think this Colbert Conservative thing could grow into a third party. Where do I sign up?

[mjs]

Firstandten, I believe we are in agreement on most everything, but I can't just trust Obama on his word alone. I like Obama, but there's very few people outside my family I'll trust on word alone. I'll trust the CBO over even my very favorite politicians, but even terrible politicians can overcome this benefit of the doubt I give the CBO if they present reliable data to back it up.

Paul Krugman's honesty is alot more convincing way to garner my support than Obama's hopeful optimism that exceeds reality. I'm willing to pay more for more people being covered. There's alot of worth while government programs that personally have no advantage to me. But, as the guy said in "The Legend of Josey Wales", "Senator, don't piss down my back and tell me its raining" and if someone's lying to you about it raining, I'll tell you like it is.

[firstandten]

Firstandten, I believe we are in agreement on most everything, but I can't just trust Obama on his word alone. I like Obama, but there's very few people outside my family I'll trust on word alone. I'll trust the CBO over even my very favorite politicians, but even terrible politicians can overcome this benefit of the doubt I give the CBO if they present reliable data to back it up.

Paul Krugman's honesty is alot more convincing way to garner my support than Obama's hopeful optimism that exceeds reality. I'm willing to pay more for more people being covered. There's alot of worth while government programs that personally have no advantage to me. But, as the guy said in "The Legend of Josey Wales", "Senator, don't piss down my back and tell me its raining" and if someone's lying to you about it raining, I'll tell you like it is.

mjs I had a chance to read both of Obama's books as well as other material on him and I do feel he is going to try and do whats right, that being said he is also a politician and the name of the game is to win elections and keep your party in power. What he is doing with health care reform will be on his report card and he will be held accountable by me, you and others. Given that , I going to give him the benefit of doubt knowing that If he disapoints he can very easily be a one term POTUS.

[mjs]

If I read only one book, by or on Obama, what should it be?

[oladub]

I'll trust the CBO over even my very favorite politicians, but even terrible politicians can overcome this benefit of the doubt I give the CBO if they present reliable data to back it up.

I'm willing to pay more for more people being covered.

Sigh. Instead of paying more for people not being covered, consider supporting programs like Ontario's that cover everyone and cost half as much or at least change that would allow health care to be more affordable within our present system. Don't go taking any blue pills now. The problem is that they will run out some day as this CBO chart shows prior to Bush's Bailout, porkulus, and new health care spending.
http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges31-640.png (http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges31.png)

[firstandten]

If I read only one book, by or on Obama, what should it be?

I would say Dreams from My Father, his first book because it was done before he knew he was going to run for president and I think gives a truer look at the man.

Audacity of Hope while also good you could say that it is a book that someone who is eventually thinking of running for president would write.

[ccbatson]

I wouldn't say that I "trust" the CBO (if the word congress is in the title, they are already suspect), however, when they come up with an analysis that refutes their own political affiliation, it makes you sit up and take notice. It is like a used car salesman bad mouthing a car on his lot....If you see or hear this, you must conclude that the car in question is 10000% worse than what the salesman is telling you.

[mjs]

Saying we should cover everyone because nations that do pay less is like saying you should maintain your yard better because your neighbors that do make more money than you. The more likely scenario is that they are more likely to hire a professional crew because they are better at making more money.

We're missing something that our cost per covered individual is so high. It can't be that all the savings is coming from having more people covered; its that their so much more cost effective or so much more healthy that they can cover more people for less. The first question that needs to be answered is why are we so cost ineffecient?

One theory is that if it cost a million to save someone elsewhere, they die. They accept death and realize that in life, people die. Here, the sky is the limit on how much we'll spend to save you. It sounds more humane, but if it leads to more uninsured and more unisured lead to more dead, its really more inhumane. But, thats just what I heard and "I heard" shouldn't carry a whole lot weight without supporting facts. However, I'm hearing very little fact based answers on why our administration is so shockingly piss poor.

[mjs]

Looks like last week's ABC News/Washington Post Poll covered every health care question one can come up with. Some very interesting results including that 84% say they have coverage and 83% say they're Satisfied with the quality of care they receive and 81% are concerned that the reform efforts will diminish their quality and raise their costs. 89% believe it will limit choice and 84% believe it will sharply increase the deficit, but 65% believe coverage for all is more important than keeping costs down.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

[mjs]

Good news for you batson: 73% of Americans trust you on health care while only 58% trust Obama and 42% trust Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120890/Healthcare-Americans-Trust-Physicians-Politicians.aspx?version=print

[firstandten]

Good news for you batson: 73% of Americans trust you on health care while only 58% trust Obama and 42% trust Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120890/Healthcare-Americans-Trust-Physicians-Politicians.aspx?version=print

We've been conditioned to trust physicians on issues such as health care as we should. Health care professors, researchers and hospitals also score higher. Obama scores the highest as a NON-Health care person. Obama scores higher than health care insurance companies and TPON.

Good news for you Cc , just make sure you keep your malpractice premiums paid because Obama isn't going to limit malpractice judgements. We will see what that 73% trust factor will get you in a malpractice suit.

[rb336]

65% believe coverage for all is more important than keeping costs down.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

damn empathetic fools

funny part -- fewer people trust repubs than the insurance cos

[mjs]

Regarding dropping the malpractice, its just not yet. This poll result ought to make Oladub happy. 57% said they support limits on malpractice amounts others can get and 53% said they support limits on how much they can get. That 4% difference kills me.

However, 49% support mandated health coverage and that would make malpractice suits as rare as no-fault litigation. If you mandate it and change the requirement to win malpractice to reckless or intentional with no punitives in exchange for a negative verdict creating a presumption with the AMA to revoke the Doc's license, most Doctors and Hospitals could drop their malpractice insurance and request less unnecessary testing. Batson, is that a fair assessment?

[mjs]

funny part -- fewer people trust repubs than the insurance cos

I missed that. It is funny. Now that you made me look closer at the data, I can see the solution. Have the AMA write and campaign for the legislation and Obama agree to it. That gets them the 80% of Republicans and 71% of Independants that trust the Doctors and the 85% of Democrats that trust Obama. Bipartisan support. Hell, give the Doctors enough say and they might even find a way to let American Doctors rest before making life and death decisions. This line of thought is making me so giddy I'd even consider recommending voters act like they own America and hire only decision makers with degrees or backgrounds in medicine, business, engineering, or science.

[ccbatson]

I am not going to give polls enough respect to let it have any impact on what I do. Nor should any other individual, it is a distraction. A poll says that 65% of people are in favor of being imprisoned says a NYT/CNN poll...of you go then, right?

[mjs]

The question I meant for you to answer was whether many Doctors would order less tests or drop their malpractice insurance if there were a law that made malpractice cases harder as a condition of universal health coverage. Post 137.

[ccbatson]

Not highly relevant when the decision AND LIABILITY will be taken out of the Doctor's hands and put in the hands of the government rationing body.

Failure to diagnose? Not my fault says Doctor X, Obama would not let you get that MRI...go after him (and good luck with that).

[mjs]

Not highly relevant when the decision AND LIABILITY will be taken out of the Doctor's hands and put in the hands of the government rationing body.

Failure to diagnose? Not my fault says Doctor X, Obama would not let you get that MRI...go after him (and good luck with that).

Well, of course thats part of any politician-attorney's thought into how government can give you coverage for less. You can sue Blue Cross, but you'll never sue Uncle Sam. Part of the logic is the carry over that the King could never be wrong, but part of it is that if the public sues a public entity, the public pays so they're suing themselves and wasting resources. However, law school never really taught how people paying the bills for Blue Cross can sue Blue Cross without raising their premiums. Well, actually my teacher did teach that its useless to try to punish all insurance companies because they're pass through entities, but he gave more deference to logic than emotion so some would consider him heartless and insane.

[ccbatson]

But this is an implicit component of socialized medicine...heck, socialized anything. Welcome to the USSA under Comrade Obama.

[mjs]

You started to have me listening when you were describing universal health care as a socialist program, but lost me again when you went to the hyperbole of inferring that Obama is a communist.

[ccbatson]

Socialism is on a continuum with communism...Obama has described himself as very interested in Marxist Professors when he was in college...and, of course, he has pals high up in the Communist party (Chavez, Castro, Ayers, Dorn).

[mjs]

Indigo is on the continuum with blue, it doesn't mean a blue car is indigo just as "interested in" doesn't mean "supportive of" and President For us or against us has been replaced with President Don't reduce those with differing views to caricature.

[Lorax]

Without a public option, at the very least, Obama will veto it.

Democrats need to grow a pair and realize they don't need Rethugnicans to get health care reform passed. They will OWN the issue however, going foward, which is fine, since it will work if handled properly.

There are simply too many Democrats who are having their doubts, and the fascist Chuck Grassley today the public option is off the table.

Rethugnicans don't have a say in this, they lost the election. They have told Obama they will not support anything the Democrats come up with. Gallup says 72% of Americans are behind either single payer, or a public option. There is no risk to Democrats or Obama for going full steam ahead.

Rethugnicans have no right to draw a line in the sand, they don't have the support of the American people in more ways than one.

[mjs]

Republicans have no say or support? Based on what? Obama won an election; he wasn't crowned King. Really, read the polls again.

[Lorax]

Republicans have no say or support? Based on what? Obama won an election; he wasn't crowned King. Really, read the polls again.

You don't have to capitalize "king", since it's not part of any American's proper title.

No, they don't have a say, since the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority. :D

Do you really think anyone is listening to Upchuck Grassley and his foot stomping against a public option?

I have read the polls, more that you care to know, and 72% want a public option at the least. 52% of Republicans polled favor a public option. Afterall, it's not just Democrats getting screwed by private so-called health care. :eek:

And if the tables were turned, do you really think Rethugnicans would give Democrats a chance? Payback's a bitch!

[mjs]

Yes, I do. I think votes can be more effectively explained by examing big money versus other big money than Democrats versus Republicans or even liberals verse conservatives. There's more funding similarities between those you hate and those you love than there are differences. Thanks to voters that refuse to read a paper, a vote, or a bill, the people that follow their passions have no more power than to write about those that follow the money. Party politics is a diversion they use to pick your pocket and it will stay that way until what bills were before Congress today and how your man voted gets more news time than what happened on Desperate Houswives. Its why I love the fringe element pain in the asses like Ventura, Nader, and Kucinich.

[rb336]

Yes, I do. I think votes can be more effectively explained by examing big money versus other big money than Democrats versus Republicans or even liberals verse conservatives... Its why I love the fringe element pain in the asses like Ventura, Nader, and Kucinich.

I think we are in total agreement on this. most legislators (and the prez) are some form of corporatist. the differences? how much they hide it under a badge of populism or progressivism and how much lip service they give to fringe religious or market fundies

[ccbatson]

Or Ron Paul? How about Alan Keyes?

[rb336]

Alan Keyes is a total corporatist, a blatant liar and a main practioner of the fear and smear.

Ron Paul is either clueless about his own affairs, and therefore incompetent, or a total racist judging by the content of his own newsletters

[Lorax]

I think we are in total agreement on this. most legislators (and the prez) are some form of corporatist. the differences? how much they hide it under a badge of populism or progressivism and how much lip service they give to fringe religious or market fundies

Succinct, clear, and correct.

Alan Keys is a danger to national security, and to himself- a freak of nature.

Ron Paul is just sadly misguided, and, I'm sorry, I'm not against people of a certain age still wanting to contribute to society, but we don't need ill and infirm people in their 70's, 80's and 90's in the position of making policy decisions for those of us who stand to live more than 5 years from now.

John McCain and Arlen Specter especially. Robert Bird. Ted Kennedy. We the people need to start electing younger officials with younger ideas, and the ability to show up for a vote.

[ccbatson]

Whatever you mean by corporatist...it isn't a bad thing to be in favor of free enterprise ("corporate" or otherwise). Calling Keyes a liar without backing it up is almost as ignorant and weak as saying that he is a practitioner of "fear and smear" (meaning??).

Paul's weakness is the same as the Libertarian weakness meaning economic isolationism, and myopic views on defense.

[oladub]

rb, "Ron Paul is either clueless about his own affairs, and therefore incompetent, or a total racist judging by the content of his own newsletters. "

Lorax, "Ron Paul is just sadly misguided, and, I'm sorry, I'm not against people of a certain age still wanting to contribute to society, but we don't need ill and infirm people in their 70's, 80's and 90's in the position of making policy decisions for those of us who stand to live more than 5 years from now."


Lorax, I don't think that Ron Paul is running in 2012. Ron Paul predicted everything that was going to happen to our economy in the 80's and 90's. Only one thing he predicted hasn't come true: the collapes of the dollar. His mind is nimble and open as illustrated in this recent 5" interview as he blows the interviewers away. Ron Paul on MSNBC - 6/18/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6-ukpAwjkg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fvideosear ch%3Fq%3Dron%2520paul%26hl%3Den%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUT F%2D8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwv&feature=player_embedded) (address corrected)

Since the election, Ron Paul has led the fight against the Federal Reserve and now has over 242 co-sponsors on his bill HR 1207 demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve. Talk about taking on the powers that be. If you had Paul making those policy decisions, we wouldn't be in Mid-east wars, federal spending would be cut in half, our debt reduced, the IRS eliminated, Obama wouldn't be in the process of blowing $4T (13,000 per American) on his schemes, and we wouldn't have a plethora of civil rights killing Patriot Acts and wiretapping sort of things. But you choose instead to advance age discrimination and the opposite of the above policies.

rb, The head of the Austin NAACP who has personally known Ron Paul for many years said Paul "didn't have a racist bone in his body" and that pretty much put the lid on the simultanious Daily Kos/neocon magazine attack the day before NH primary about his ghostwriten newsletter. Paul apoligized for not overseeing the newsletter, with his name on it, after he left Washington and resumed his duties as an OB in Texas. I think you would have a better shot at establishing that Obama is not a natural born citizen than establishing that Paul discriminates. His campaign chairman, for instance, was gay. Or you could direct your allegations to Ron Paul delegate who ran against Representative Kieth Ellison, Barb Davis White (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKBz77NOmw&NR=1)

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I'm not against people of a certain age still wanting to contribute to society,"

I'll tell you what I'm glad about, you aren't in charge of making any decisions regarding society. Sheesh...

[mjs]

Ron Paul predicted everything that was going to happen to our economy in the 80's and 90's. Only one thing he predicted hasn't come true: the collapes of the dollar.

The White House is working on it, but so far, no matter how much we borrow, China just won't stop lending us money. And now, with the cap and trade legislation, if they don't grant us a loan to keep that going, we might get crazy enough to compensate for the market disadvantage with tariffs and thats not in their best interests. About the only thing I didn't see in the 1500 page cap and trade were tariffs that were directly tied to how much the trading partner was polluting.

[turkeycall]

Quote: "John McCain and Arlen Specter especially. Robert Bird. Ted Kennedy. We the people need to start electing younger officials with younger ideas, and the ability to show up for a vote. "

What's this "we" stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket? How about we in Michigan choose the people we want to represent us, then just step aside and let the voters of Arizona, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Massachusets decide who they want their Senators to be?

[Lorax]

I never said people weren't free to choose whom ever they want to represent them, that doesn't make it necessarily a good or even smart choice.

Ron Paul is smart, nimble, as you suggest, and did predict much of what has come to pass.

So did I, and a million others as well.

All I'm saying is we need younger leadership that will be around a while, can answer for their mistakes, rather than some old dudes who may have a few good ideas- have them in advisory positions, not creating legislation that is binding us to a future that will not include them.

People need to get smart about whom they put in office. Re-electing Robert Byrd decade after decade isn't really working well for W. Virginia, when he misses more votes than he casts. Same with John McCain and many others.

[ccbatson]

Sadly for us all, Obama is about to make Ron Paul's last unproven prediction come true

[mjs]

"I'll work harder" said the work horse to the pigs.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "All I'm saying is we need younger leadership that will be around a while, can answer for their mistakes, rather than some old dudes who may have a few good ideas- have them in advisory positions, not creating legislation that is binding us to a future that will not include them."

So, in your opinion, "old dude" politicians have a propensity for sabotaging future generations, because they won't be around? Kamikaze policy? That's pretty whacked. I'll take experience over lack thereof. Aptitude over attitude and all that. I was young and thought old people were stupid too, then I turned 17 or so and realized they hold a lot of wisdom. Most of them don't say much, because they don't just babble on to hear their brain rattle.

[Lorax]

Quote: "All I'm saying is we need younger leadership that will be around a while, can answer for their mistakes, rather than some old dudes who may have a few good ideas- have them in advisory positions, not creating legislation that is binding us to a future that will not include them."

So, in your opinion, "old dude" politicians have a propensity for sabotaging future generations, because they won't be around? Kamikaze policy? That's pretty whacked. I'll take experience over lack thereof. Aptitude over attitude and all that. I was young and thought old people were stupid too, then I turned 17 or so and realized they hold a lot of wisdom. Most of them don't say much, because they don't just babble on to hear their brain rattle.

You may trust your future domestic policy to teenagers, I don't.

When I refer to "old dudes" I specifically mentioned those over 70. Guess you didin't read that part.

A legislator in his 30's, 40's, 50's & 60's would be more in tune with society as it is changing, and are less apt to be bought and paid for as well.

Interesting how at 17 you had more on the ball than you have now.:eek:

[ccbatson]

I don't care if they are 90...if they are thinking rational people, and the younger progressives are not (and they are not), then give me the rational person every time.

[Lorax]

I don't care if they are 90...if they are thinking rational people, and the younger progressives are not (and they are not), then give me the rational person every time.

You still miss the point.

Let them contribute to their heart's content in an advisory role within government, it's just not a great idea to let decades long serving senators who have been bought and paid for many times over to impose legislation on the rest of us, that will impact our futures negatively, when they themselves don't really have any skin in the game.

Their skins will be long dead and buried.

Do you get it now?

[rb336]

I don't care if they are 90...if they are thinking rational people, and the younger progressives are not (and they are not), then give me the rational person every time.

ha ha ha

your sticking to a proven falsehood because of your simple-minded randian philosophy gives us a great example of what rational thinking is not, which makes it particularly humerous when you make comments like that

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Do you get it now?"

I get it, you don't or can't. Not sure if you realize this, but we humans learn over time, the more time present, the more we learn. You're trying to say ALL younger people are more intelligent and bring more experience to the table, you couldn't be more wrong.

[ccbatson]

You misunderstood me 180 degrees Sstash...try again.

[Detroitej72]

Who gives a shit about age, as long as the individual is competent and doing the job their constituents want, let them serve until they are carried out by the undertaker.

[Lorax]

Quote: "Do you get it now?"

I get it, you don't or can't. Not sure if you realize this, but we humans learn over time, the more time present, the more we learn. You're trying to say ALL younger people are more intelligent and bring more experience to the table, you couldn't be more wrong.

Quit trying to bait me. You really don't read the previous posts, do you?

I don't TRY to say anything, I say it, and if it's not clear, then pick your ears.

Where did I say ALL younger people are more intelligent? Intelligence was not the metric I was using.

I won't repeat my previous posts, you obviously have a learning disability.

[Lorax]

Who gives a shit about age, as long as the individual is competent and doing the job their constituents want, let them serve until they are carried out by the undertaker.

If they are physically ill, and cannot be present to vote, then they don't vote. This happens constantly due to age and infirmity, not to mention the many addled members who stand up to speak and don't say anything meaningful.

Like I said in three previous posts, just because the people re-elect these dudes over and over, doesn't mean it 's smart, or in their best interests. Voters need to wise up as well. Guess you're pleased with the Detroit city clowncil.

[mjs]

Great example. Yes, the problem with Monica, Kwame, and Christine was that they were too old to know what they were doing and not that they were too conceited to care what they were doing. Yes, I've seen lots of old people with dementia act like Monica. Thank you for making it so clear.

[Lorax]

Great example. Yes, the problem with Monica, Kwame, and Christine was that they were too old to know what they were doing and not that they were too conceited to care what they were doing. Yes, I've seen lots of old people with dementia act like Monica. Thank you for making it so clear.


The point was, Nostradamus, that the people need to get smart and elect officials smarter than they are if there's going to be change, age has nothing to do with it.

People get the government they deserve. The frothing trolls on the right were successful in stealing two elections for the knuckle dragging George Tush, so we have a national model to refer to as well.

My point on age was well explained in above posts, and unrelated to my comments on the Detroit city clowncil.

But that would involve you actually reading the posts. More than I can expect of you, apparently.

[Detroitej72]

Like I said in three previous posts, just because the people re-elect these dudes over and over, doesn't mean it 's smart, or in their best interests. Voters need to wise up as well. Guess you're pleased with the Detroit city clowncil.

Who said I thought the voters were smart? I just said someone's age shouldn't be the determining factor in wheather they should seek re-election.

[Lorax]

Sorry you feel that way.

Next time you want a little drool with your vote, you'll be in good shape! :eek:

[Detroitej72]

Oh no, I'm quarreling with another of DY's lefty's on this matter, guess that will destroy Bat's rhetoric that all liberals think the same!

[Sstashmoo]

You know what I do when I'm wrong? I admit it.

Lorax, just admit you said something stupid, then denied saying it and tried to cover it up with name-calling and lame quips, and be done with it.

[cheddar bob]

You know what I do when I'm wrong? I admit it.

Hahahahahaahahahah...that's the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh.

[Sstashmoo]

You turtle when you're wrong. You know that's true Bobby..

[cheddar bob]

How is that?

[ccbatson]

Once in a blue moon liberals take a rational position...very rare, not enough to concern me.

[Lorax]

You know what I do when I'm wrong? I admit it.

Lorax, just admit you said something stupid, then denied saying it and tried to cover it up with name-calling and lame quips, and be done with it.

Real knee-slapper, here.

You're such a man, I can't stand it! Living up to your mistakes- you found your way to continue posting here, so what's your excuse now?

[Lorax]

You know what I do when I'm wrong? I admit it.

Lorax, just admit you said something stupid, then denied saying it and tried to cover it up with name-calling and lame quips, and be done with it.


I NEVER denied saying anything, don't put words in my post. You just refuse to read the plodding explaination I had to go through to make you understand- I see it failed.

[cheddar bob]

You turtle when you're wrong. You know that's true Bobby..

Yesterday 04:11 AMcheddar bobHow is that?
What did you mean by that statement, sstashmoo? I'm sure you must have missed this thread, because I'm sure you wouldn't avoid the question. Or is that what you mean by "turtle"?

[gibran]

NPR had a special today and the topic was not enough Primary Care Doctors..50 % say the best part of their job is the relationship with the Patients...the area that is hurting the professional is the Insurance regulations and costs associated with their practices..what I heard was the canary choking in the mine...the Medical profession is not saying it but a over haul is needed...when the PC's are leaving or going into specialities to repay their loans ( because of high debt and relative lower pay) because the "CURRENT health care climate is changing their practices and outsiders dictate their practices...my experience with my friends who are caring Doc's try to stick it out , but their lives are difficult and they are forced to see more patients in shortertime frames..thus a decrease in the very activity the enjoy the most. Patient care...they wouldliek to see a "medical home" environment...if this doesn't reforce why we need change ...maybe the people dying for lack of care might .

[oladub]

gibran, I was listening to the same NPR program. Correct me if I am wrong but think the program said that insurance companies, employers and medicare were all restricting fees forcing a more rapid production turnover. Some doctors have patients with language and cultural barriers to communincation. As far as I know, these doctors don't get any credit for dealing with these impediments.

If primary care doctors were allowed to spend more time with their employees, there would probably be longer waits to see a doctor.

[gibran]

Since the satisfaction of PC 's MDs are in patient contact that pesky little number of patients per hour thing is a barrier ;)...especially if you have to find a translator.:o

I keep thinking Soylent Green would be a solution to health care related issues..maybe then some of our brothers on this forum/cc would then find common ground...or even a yearly Death Race 2000...or have only the neocons fight wars..that would reduce protracted health care cost...or at least decrease utilization of proctologists....:D

[Lorax]

Since the satisfaction of PC 's MDs are in patient contact that pesky little number of patients per hour thing is a barrier ;)...especially if you have to find a translator.:o

I keep thinking Soylent Green would be a solution to health care related issues..maybe then some of our brothers on this forum/cc would then find common ground...or even a yearly Death Race 2000...or have only the neocons fight wars..that would reduce protracted health care cost...or at least decrease utilization of proctologists....:D

I once knew a Rethugnican who wanted to be a proctologist, but the prospects rectum!:eek:

[ccbatson]

Insurance companies follow the lead of Medicare when it comes to cuts....ALWAYS. Therefore, we see the root of the problem...the coercive government monopoly in the form of Medicare.

[gibran]

BCBS was conceived long before modern medicare...it was originally conceived as a non profit to insure Doc's ability to get paid with something besides chickens..it then started to transition into a for profit and used insurance doctors justify actuaries decisions for medical issues...then the Doc's felt the pinch and decided to organize their practices as precurser to managed care...

so you really have to ask yourself who do you trust with your medical needs: some Insurance Doc whose bonus depends on incentives; or an actual practice doctor who enjoys spending time with their patients...

[oladub]

Since the satisfaction of PC 's MDs are in patient contact that pesky little number of patients per hour thing is a barrier ;)...especially if you have to find a translator.:o

Gibran, I hear stories about working with poor immigrants. Examples- Korean lady comes in with a sore stomach and needs a translator. Translation more than doubles the doctor/patient dialogue time. Turns out the patient has been eating things that the doctor has never heard of. 45" to wade through all this. Next. Somali man comes in. Real emergency otherwise he would not let a woman doctor violate him with her touch. He is told he needs an operation soon. Man tells doctor he will travel back to Somalia to see his own doctor to get a second opinion. Next patient a Somali woman who does not show up for her appointment because she feels better that day. Next patient, ghetto kid who empties his pockets and has crack on the counter. Recieved treatment before police are called. Message that Hmong lady with history of 30 minute labors is on way to hospital. She is known to not be taking her medicine.

Whatever system, present or future, pays doctors for doing piecework will be a failure unless it allows for different circumstances. Otherwise doctors will avoid working with such patients. Most doctors will want to work in the burbs where they can make more money for the same time spent with patients. To pay doctors on the basis of outcomes would chase a lot of doctors away from problematic time consuming patients for sure.

[Lorax]

What did you mean by that statement, sstashmoo? I'm sure you must have missed this thread, because I'm sure you wouldn't avoid the question. Or is that what you mean by "turtle"?

I think "turtle" is some old lady way of politely saying "taking a dump."

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "think "turtle" is some old lady way of politely saying "taking a dump.""

No, It was in reference to Cheddar's propensity to tuck tail and flee when he's proven wrong. I have sent him reeling with my exceptional debating skills and keen insight on more than one occasion.

[Lorax]

Quote: "think "turtle" is some old lady way of politely saying "taking a dump.""

No, It was in reference to Cheddar's propensity to tuck tail and flee when he's proven wrong. I have sent him reeling with my exceptional debating skills and keen insight on more than one occasion.

Exceptional debating skills!!! LOL!!!! :eek:

I thought you had misspelled "Turdle" as in the link below:

http://toiletturdle.com/

Nothing like putting your "debating" skills into perspective. :eek:

[gibran]

In my field we now have cultural awareness classes on disability education to help us in the counseling of people with disabilities from other cultures...It is a interesting class...but raises the same issues that you have ( I was trying to be funny, failed though)..

Medical school really doesn't have extra classes in disability and cultural awareness...let alone translator issues..

When I ran a program in San Antonio years back we were always questioning the lack of Hispanic patients and the follow-up to treatment plans... It finally dawned on me that we were losing a lot in translation....so I purposely put together a bi-cultural treatment team...PT, OT, SLP, Cognitive Therapist, VR counselor and nueropsychologist...we had a higher degree of success afterwards...the sad part is that this was in the 1990's and in San Antonio...the real question was why didn't anyone recognize the need before a gringo from the motor city developed a treatment team in the Alamo City? we need to be sensitive and aware of patient needs to be better professionals..and a Spanish high school language class don't cut it.

[4real]

^Who is surrendering what to insurance companies? what the hell are you talking about?
When was the last time an insurance exec said give me your money or I will sick the IRS on you?

It amazes me how many left wing socialist ideologues think that some lazy bureaucrat in DC will have your best interests in heart when the cost of insurance will skyrocket and you will not have the care you thought you might.


Osama wants to tax you if you don't enroll in a plan, what a fascist pig he is.

The government taking control of the health care system will ruin hospitals in Michigan and across the US.
Most all Doctors don't want to be told how musch they can earn and what should be administered to a patient. The problem is that too many ambulance chasing maggot lawyers are driving up health care costs for everyone and Obama and the Dems, being paid off by trial lawyers, don't want to cap awards.

This is also being pushed by the Union maggots who will benefit at the thought of having unionized social servants giving them more union dues.

The schools in the US will be decimated by the socialized takeover of the health care system by out newly elected dictator.

What company will want to invent or invest billions or tens of millions when the socialists in power will limit what you can make and how drugs will be rationed?

Answer, Obama is lying to you as he does every day, about his intentions and plans, and you eat it up because you are either to dumb to understand the issues or are in the bag for government control over peoples lives.

[maxx]

These facts can't be repeated too often. http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2
Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.2


[And our health system is 37th in the world although we pay more than anyone else in the world.]

[Omaha]

4real, you are "for real" man.

Right on, let’s keep health care as a commodity that is bought and sold in the market for a profit. That’s the only way the rich and well born can really make a profit off of others misery. :D

I knew the writing was on the wall back in 1985 when the AMA changed its ethical guidelines to say that medicine was no longer just a profession but rather both a profession and a business. I started to invest heavy back then and have made a “killing ever since.� :rolleyes:

Why not use as much marketing, advertizing and promotion to create needs for products and services as you can? It’s all about maximizing the bottom dollar. We already allocate/ration health care by cost, why change a good thing? :confused:


I want to take the nearly 17% of last year’s GDP dedicated to health care and double it! It’s already twice per capita what every other industrialized nation spends; let’s push for triple.

4real keep up your posts, they are as good as gold.

[ejames01]

Have you ever heard of "Usual and Customary Charges"?



Most all Doctors don't want to be told how musch they can earn and what should be administered to a patient.

[ccbatson]

A free market system eliminates this debate. Examples do exist in medicine today....in the form of elective procedures like LASIK/corrective eye surgery, cosmetic procedures. Check out how relatively inexpensive these items are now that the market has worked it's magic.

[Lorax]

A free market system eliminates this debate. Examples do exist in medicine today....in the form of elective procedures like LASIK/corrective eye surgery, cosmetic procedures. Check out how relatively inexpensive these items are now that the market has worked it's magic.

And dangerous, unregulated, etc.

And it's much cheaper and more successful in foreign countries.

[cheddar bob]

Quote: "think "turtle" is some old lady way of politely saying "taking a dump.""

No, It was in reference to Cheddar's propensity to tuck tail and flee when he's proven wrong. I have sent him reeling with my exceptional debating skills and keen insight on more than one occasion.
Care to show us where that happened? I'll be absolutely shocked if you can provide an example.

While we're waiting, here's some examples of times where someone has directed a question to sstashmoo and he hasn't responded. Or, "turtle" as he has accused me of...



Lorax Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 845





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
Quote: "Science has opened our eyes"

It has? How do you explain the drought of the 30's that turned the west into a dustbowl? How does that fit in with Global Warming? It's called weather patterns, the earth is an ever-changing environment, as anybody that has lived in it for over 20 years can tell you.

"How do you explain the drought of the 30's that turned the west into a dustbowl?"

Here's how: It's called global warming and climate change.

What makes you think it's just some new fad that everyone's jumped on the wagon for?

It's been happening ever since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Then again, that would involve reading, and a modicum of historical knowledge for you to retain, so, it probably wasn't on your radar.




June 30th, 2009, 10:59 PM
Lorax
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 845





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
Sounds like somebody is a "man-hater" hmmm wonder why? I have a few theories.


Do share. This should be good.

Careful, I have every trap set.





June 30th, 2009, 09:00 PM
cheddar bob
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 204





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
Sounds like somebody is a "man-hater" hmmm wonder why? I have a few theories.


Who's he talking to? Lorax? Pam? Ccbatson? Hard tell. If only there were something like a quote function or a way to quote someone and have that graphically displayed to eliminate confusion.





June 30th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Lorax
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 845





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
Any person that would turn to such a disgusting and repulsive way of life just to maintain their lifestyle, should have been prostituting all along anyway. These girls couldn't move home to their parents, or in with another relative? Or (gasp) find a good man to provide an income for them? They are going to have their independence even if it means selling themselves like a piece of meat. Not any definition of success that I know of.

They must have pretty low opinions of themselves.

Now, here we go, shape-shifting again- which one is it?

Is sex dirty and disgusting to you, or is it just prostitution?

What's this "good man" BS anyway?

Sounds like someone has issues with more than politics.






June 30th, 2009, 03:37 PM
Pam
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 225





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
Any person that would turn to such a disgusting and repulsive way of life just to maintain their lifestyle, should have been prostituting all along anyway. These girls couldn't move home to their parents, or in with another relative? Or (gasp) find a good man to provide an income for them? They are going to have their independence even if it means selling themselves like a piece of meat. Not any definition of success that I know of.

They must have pretty low opinions of themselves.

As the great John Candy once said in a movie and I'd like to think it was his opinion: "If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it"

Don't you think all women are gold digging hoes anyway? You've said so before.


(Oh, wait...you admitted to misogynistic comments, but offered the excuse that perhaps you were intoxicated, as if that somehow makes it okay.)



June 24th, 2009, 03:39 AM
Gistok (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/member.php?u=140) http://www.detroityes.com/mb/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 339





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sstashmoo
Quote: "Separation of church and state is indemic in our Constitution, written about at length by Jefferson and Madison,"

Oh really? Where? Could you please post a credible source for this "at length" address on the subject. It's my understanding the "separation" was mentioned (one sentence) in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. No other place, other than to say Government would not meddle with the churches. It does not matter really, it changes nothing.

Thomas Jefferson, although a brilliant statesman regarding the organization of government , unfortunately was a proponent of slavery, and essentially a whackjob. The guy wrote his own Bible. My guess he suffered OCD or some other psychosis. Possibly due to his father dying at a young age. The Bible wasn't good enough for him, he had to write his own. His compulsion to do this clearly points to a deranged individual. No one could write the Bible as good as he?

Incidentally, he was in Paris when the Constitution was penned. Also, he wasn't elected until the third presidency, the people did not want him because of his views on religion, He ran to a tie and most of his votes came from the south (ironically). House of representatives had to vote 29 times before he was granted the Presidency.

Geeze Sstashmoo... you really have some F'ed up ways of looking at things... so he was only the 3rd president... BFD? Washington was the most popular man in the nation at the time... so being 1st was never a possibility for Jefferson.

Also, last I checked Virginia still considers itself a southern state... it was even part of the confederacy.

And so he wrote his own bible? So what? He's not the first nor the last to do so.

He was also an architect and an inventor.... he designed his own house, Monticello as well as the University of Virginia (Charlottesville), which he founded.

He also had the foresight to buy the Louisiana Purchase, and got the Lewis & Clark expedition started.

So he had slaves... name me one 18th century southern millionaire that didn't?

Was he perfect, hell no! He even fathered children from one of his slaves. (But his wife died long before that, and he never remarried.)

But if anyone alive today contributed even 5% of what Jefferson did for his country... they would be considered a national icon today.... all political correctness aside...

And using your logic... Madison the primary author of the Constitution must have been worse than Jefferson... since he was only our 4th president.



All of these are examples of someone asking sstashmoo a question or commenting to him about his bullshit and sstashmoo refusing to respond. Doing the very same thing that he accuses me of but won't provide any proof of me doing it. And these examples are only from the last week.

[Lorax]

Bravo, Bob! That took some effort, but when lined up that way, really puts the rubber to the road, so to speak!

Sstashmoo really needs to retire. Perhaps do some reading in his old age.

I really do love the "turtle" reference, though, I thought he had misspelled "turdle" as in "toiletturdle", which would have made more sense, since his posts are full of crap. http://toiletturdle.com/:eek:

[mjs]

"Uninsured would face fines under Senate health bill"
http://www.freep.com/article/20090702/NEWS15/90702064/Uninsured-would-face-fines-under-Senate-health-bill

Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled today by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years.

The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for . . . a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.

The two senators said the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the proposal at $611.4 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago. However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.
$1000 fine gets us closer to mandated insurance which gets us closer to removing all but the worst cases of malpractice. The $750 fine gets us closer to making Walmart get off the dole by insuring their workers rather than having tax payers foot the bill. The $1 trillion price tag finally gets us to talking real prices rather than the prices in the land of lollipops and unicorns.

So, now the real planning can begin. What revenue stream do we wish to increase to cover this? Create a new payroll tax analogous to Social Security?



Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are 2.7 trillion(+7.1%).

$1.21 trillion - Individual income tax (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
$949.4 billion - Social Security (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)) and other payroll taxes
$339.2 billion - Corporate income tax (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Corporate_income_tax)
$68.9 billion - Excise taxes (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States)
$29.1 billion - Customs duties (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Customs_duties)
$26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Gift_tax)
$47.9 billion - Other

[cheddar bob]

"Uninsured would face fines under Senate health bill"
http://www.freep.com/article/20090702/NEWS15/90702064/Uninsured-would-face-fines-under-Senate-health-bill

Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled today by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years.

The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for . . . a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.

The two senators said the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the proposal at $611.4 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago. However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.
$1000 fine gets us closer to mandated insurance which gets us closer to removing all but the worst cases of malpractice. The $750 fine gets us closer to making Walmart get off the dole by insuring their workers rather than having tax payers foot the bill. The $1 trillion price tag finally gets us to talking real prices rather than the prices in the land of lollipops and unicorns.

So, now the real planning can begin. What revenue stream do we wish to increase to cover this? Create a new payroll tax analogous to Social Security?




Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are 2.7 trillion(+7.1%).

$1.21 trillion - Individual income tax (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
$949.4 billion - Social Security (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)) and other payroll taxes
$339.2 billion - Corporate income tax (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Corporate_income_tax)
$68.9 billion - Excise taxes (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States)
$29.1 billion - Customs duties (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Customs_duties)
$26.3 billion - Estate and gift taxes (http://www.detroityes.com/wiki/Gift_tax)
$47.9 billion - Other

Stop trying to put this thread back on track.

[Sstashmoo]

Cheddar, looks like you have a new friend in Lorax. Bwahahahahah

[oladub]

mjs, I was surprised that only $1.2 is derived from federal income taxes. I wonder if the $1,000 fine was per individual or per family. It's a regressive tax. The Amish are in big trouble of it is per person. I haven't heard of any Amish complaining about health care costs even though they don't have insurance.

I came across some libertarians ideas regarding lowering the price of health care. Instead of complaining about spiraling health care costs, and demanding that government bury the costs in taxes or debt, libertarians look at reducing government incurred costs.

"Now the politicians want to redesign the entire American health care system from the top down, in one giant step, to supposedly fix a problem they created in the first place. "

"About 80% of the cost of new pharmaceuticals is due to these regulations"
http://www.votemary2008.com/index.php?page=health-care

"The high cost of health services regulation is
responsible for more than seven million
Americans lacking health insurance, or one in six
of the average daily uninsured. Moreover, 4,000
more Americans die every year from costs associ-
ated with health services regulation (22,000) than
from lack of health insurance (18,000). The annu-
al net cost of health services regulation dwarfs
other costs imposed by government intervention
in the health care sector. "
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf

[Pam]

Weird- in Ched-Bob's list above, it looks like I quoted John Candy in my post. I didn't. I think that was part of Moo's original post.

[Lorax]

Cheddar, looks like you have a new friend in Lorax. Bwahahahahah


Looks like someone's jealous:p

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Weird- in Ched-Bob's list above, it looks like I quoted John Candy in my post. I didn't. I think that was part of Moo's original post."

Cheddar will manipulate quotes by other posters in a way to feebly make his point, because he generally doesn't have one otherwise. See, you noticed it too Pam, nice catch.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Looks like someone's jealous"

No, I just noticed the similarities between you and Cheddar, the anger, the lashing out. Windmill punching at everyone.

[Lorax]

Quote: "Looks like someone's jealous"

No, I just noticed the similarities between you and Cheddar, the anger, the lashing out. Windmill punching at everyone.

You're a windmill?

Actually, that makes sense, spinning around endlessly, and creating alot of wind. :eek:

[mjs]

I'm rubber and you're glue. Wait, that was a different intellectual debate.

[Lorax]

LOL!!!

Everytime Sstashmoo starts a post with one of my quotes, I envision a 5 year old girl in pigtails with a high-pitched, irritating voice, exaggerating air quotes, and mocking everything I say. :eek:

I can't help it, it just appears when he/she does it.

[Sstashmoo]

We all have our own visions:

http://www.tvacres.com/images/bobeck_mimi2.jpg

[Lorax]

We all have our own visions:

http://www.tvacres.com/images/bobeck_mimi2.jpg

Your link is "forbidden" which also makes sense!! LOL!!!:eek:

It's probably so hideous that the internet won't even allow it through!! LOL!!

[ccbatson]

What are these liberals thinking? Fine people that refuse to buy health insurance? Why do you suppose they aren't buying? The cost is more than they choose to pay and they take the risk. If the cost is too high, what are the odds that fines will be collectable? How much will be spent on the bureaucracy of monitoring and enforcing these laws balanced against the revenue from the fines?

[cheddar bob]

Weird- in Ched-Bob's list above, it looks like I quoted John Candy in my post. I didn't. I think that was part of Moo's original post.
Sorry Pam. I put the quote end tag in the wrong place. A simple mistake, but at least I can figure out the quote function, unlike some people.

Notice how sstashmoo didn't bother responding to getting called out as a hypocrite. He just kind of "turtled" there, didn't he?

[vetalalumni]

Indigo is on the continuum with blue, it doesn't mean a blue car is indigo just as "interested in" doesn't mean "supportive of" and President For us or against us has been replaced with President Don't reduce those with differing views to caricature.
Ain't it the truth. I'm interested in crime in the sense that I want to understand it better (cause and effect etc...) so as to avoid and minimize the effect of it. Irrational to simply ignore or wish it away. Ignorance, or running away, does not make for understanding and best dealing with issues.

[ccbatson]

Obama is always cryptic (and quite good at it). Meaning that what he says needs to be scrutinized and matched to what he does. Thus far, while cryptic, he sincerely intends to do great evil.

[Lorax]

Obama is always cryptic (and quite good at it). Meaning that what he says needs to be scrutinized and matched to what he does. Thus far, while cryptic, he sincerely intends to do great evil.

LOL!!

Thanks for that one, Nostradamus.

Now hop back in your time maching and return to the 15th century where your political views will find a larger audience. :eek:

[oldredfordette]

From a flyer I received yesterday,

Southeast Michigan Jobs with Justice will be holding a mass meeting on Aug. 28 where Americans can talk to Canadians about all the myths and lies told here about a universal, government-financed health care system and talk to other Americans about how to win Health Care for All in our country.
Friday, August 28
IBEW Hall
1358 Abbott St (east of Trumbull
Detroit, MI
7 to 9pm

[mjs]

I just might go to that, but I'm leaving if Jobs with Justice expects me to shout a group response to "workers of the world unite!"

"Workers who attempt to organize face vicious employer opposition"
"When enough of us stand together, we all start winning."
http://www.jwj.org/campaigns.html

[Lorax]

Jobs with Justice is doing a great service.

Wish I was there to attend. Finally someone is laying waste to the myths of the "horrors" of foreign health care.

As I have said in previous posts, I have availed myself of healthcare services in three European nations, and found it excellent, caring, and FREE. Even for a foreigner like me.

[oladub]

The JWJ workshop with Canadians sounds like a good way of spreading information. As the stated goals of the JSW are to make health care affordable and universal, it is appropriate to expose Americans to the Canadian provincial system as an alternative to the unaffordable Obama/Kennedy expansion of our present system. I hope that this will amount to more than preaching to the choir. Perhaps some members of the press could be involved.

As a follow up, the JSW should bring in some libertarians to explain ways of drastically reducing the costs of our present system to make our present system more affordable and more universal as I touched on in post #208.

Thanks orf for getting this thread back to a health related talking point.

[Lorax]

I agree the current plan of Obama/Kennedy is weak at it's inception, and a single payer is really the only way to compete within a global economy.

We need to update this archaic private health care system we have now. Unless we adpot the universal plans offered by competing nations, our playing field will never be level.

If anything, the current plan will on it's face, bring us closer to a single payer system. That is the hope amongst many.

What is particularly maddening, is that we already have socialized medicine, and a single payer system in place for folks over 60, and for those under the poverty line- called Medicare and Medicaid.

By folding these into a new health administration, we could have a single payer system without having to create a new bureaucracy. It's already in place, and with proper expansion, can cover the entire pouplation.

In my view, we should do the same for our education system. This should be a right and privilege afforded all Americans as a birthright. Then we would be unstoppable in the global economy.

Republicans need to know the value of sacrificing their tenacious hold on private medicine and private education, and by doing so, we'll create new generations of Americans both healthy, and better educated, ready for commerce and global competition. These are not partisan ideals, but collective ones, and one we can well afford if packaged properly, and can ill afford if not.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "global economy."

I always laugh a bit when I read that phrase. What it really means and the folks that spout it trying to sound smart don't understand. It is codespeak for a condition (or plan) to destroy the middle class leaving an handful of mega-wealthy and legions of mega-poor. I've been saying it for years, we can not go toe-to-toe with the Asian countries and maintain our standard of living, or the one we had anyway.

It's a perfect plan for the capitalists in power. Cheap wages, no labor unions. The people at their finger tips.

[Lorax]

Quote: "global economy."

I always laugh a bit when I read that phrase. What it really means and the folks that spout it trying to sound smart don't understand. It is codespeak for a condition (or plan) to destroy the middle class leaving an handful of mega-wealthy and legions of mega-poor. I've been saying it for years, we can not go toe-to-toe with the Asian countries and maintain our standard of living, or the one we had anyway.

It's a perfect plan for the capitalists in power. Cheap wages, no labor unions. The people at their finger tips.

I agree 100%. You won't get an argument from me, except when it comes to "spouting", which my fountain does a better job of than I do.

I detest the "global economy" as well, though I mention it in the breath that this genie is out of the bottle, and there is no beating it at this point, so joining it on equal footing is the one door left open.

This is achieved by raising our standard of living through the only means we have left, which is federal law. Corporations have dictated the course of law through massive payouts to lobbying efforts over the years, and it paid off in spades, thanks to years of Rethuglican controlled legislatures, and a complicit white house for the last 8.

We raise our standard of living by providing a single payer health care system, and a K-college level free public education, as most of the industrialized world does.

Our backward leadership has allowed an era of free reign for the American, and many foreign corporations to run roughshod over our politics, our laws, and most importantly our people.

Through our government, we can demand the changes that will retain our vanishing middle class, which, arguably, is something we as Americans invented. We proved to the world that such a system is possible, and on such a large scale. And it can be successful. It's when we allow political factions such as the Neocon Fascists to control our politic, that we find ourselves in the position we are now.

After all the work, successes of the last 70 years, we can't see the all-consuming greed of a small group of elitists? We allowed a slow, chipping away of our manufacturing base, to where we have relinquished entire industries to foreign manufacturers. This was a plan, loosely known as a "New World Order" brought to us by the Bush Crime Family and their minions.

I ask all of you to watch the Supreme Court's review of campaing finance reform legislation coming up September 9th, after the August break.

The activist Rethuglican SC justices are going to AGAIN review the case: Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 case which upheld the idea that corporations should be disallowed to contribute freely, without limit to the campaigns of politicians.

This would be disasterous for our political system should this be overturned. What doing so would do, is open the gates for corporations to buy politicians without limits. This is how the out-of-power Rethuglicans are planning to manipulate the system, with as little fanfare as possible. Imagine the banks that received bailout money, how they would support those in power currently who padded their nests. Or how Walmart could dictate US trade law to their benefit.

It would be the death knell for our Democracy- what is left of it.

[ccbatson]

When was it not a global economy?

[jams]

When was it not a global economy?
1491, but no-one knew it.

[Lorax]

When was it not a global economy?

From our point of view, it became one with Reagan. Under Carter we still had a manufacturing base, and tariffs to keep the playing field level for all.

The pressure had been on for years up to that point by greedy corporations to bring our standard of living down while bringing up the standard for the rest of the undeveloped world.

The design has worked very well for them, bringing us to economic collapse as planned.

Defective corporate models have ruled the world since, and like the parable of the scorpion being carried across the river by the frog, when stung, both will drown.

Why, when the scorpion knows he'll die too, does he sting he frog?

Because it's in his nature.

[rb336]

Quote: "global economy."

I always laugh a bit when I read that phrase. What it really means and the folks that spout it trying to sound smart don't understand. It is codespeak for a condition (or plan) to destroy the middle class leaving an handful of mega-wealthy and legions of mega-poor. I've been saying it for years, we can not go toe-to-toe with the Asian countries and maintain our standard of living, or the one we had anyway.

It's a perfect plan for the capitalists in power. Cheap wages, no labor unions. The people at their finger tips.

100% right. the thing is, one of Reagan's economic advisors came right out and said the goal was the "Brazilification" of the US and NOT ONE journalist followed up on it. so much for a "liberal bias" in corporatist media

[Lorax]

I know, that famous "liberal media bias" that I've been searching for, can't be found anywhere, seemingly.:(

What we do have, is an intellectually lazy media, afraid to disrupt the status quo. The few who do push the envelope in asking tough questions, are muzzled as to not disrupt the corporatist leanings of the masters in the boardroom.

Our fourth estate, which our founding fathers hoped would provide the check and balance to overreaching powers, whether governmental or corporate, would be sorely disappointed in what we have that passes for "investigative journalism" today.

[mjs]

Well, then come with me and watch BBC and CBC and Frontline and so on. A little less glitter, but alot more information.

[oladub]

Well, then come with me and watch BBC and CBC and Frontline and so on. A little less glitter, but alot more information.

Then I would miss all the news about Michael Jackson. All the while the House was working on Cap and Trade, CNN was covering Michael Jackson. It turned out to be a wise decision because the House members did not have time, or probably the inclination, to read the Cap and Trade bill anyway. Sorry to cut this short. Must get back to the funeral coverage.

[Lorax]

Well, then come with me and watch BBC and CBC and Frontline and so on. A little less glitter, but alot more information.

Certainly the BBC, Frontline, MSNBC, NPR, even CANAL+ are better situated to deliver what the fourth estate was designed to do.

[Detroitej72]

Well, then come with me and watch BBC and CBC and Frontline and so on. A little less glitter, but alot more information.

Agreed. I would also add NPR to that list.

The supposed main-steam media is more interested in covering pop culture than reporting on real news and issues, but that seems to be what a majority of American's want to see. Proponents of the free market should be overjoyed by this, as it is a case of supply and demand.

Guess that destroys once and for all the "liberal media" myth that ditto heads like to parrot.

[ccbatson]

Like how the liberal media is not noticing the stock market's activity over the last week (sharply down) and why that might be going on.

[Lorax]

Since there is no "liberal media", what's your point?

If the stock market is fluctuating, it's probably the last death throes of the Rethuglican caused depression.

[mjs]

I'm seeing the Dow down 1800 YTD, 600 in the last 30 days, and 180 in the last 5 days of trading, but still up 21% from the year's lows. Whats the big story? It goes up and it goes down. We're in a recession after a period of irrational exuberance so people are reigning in their debt which means less goods sold.

Are you refering to the ripple effect that was expected as GM dumped its debts on its suppliers or the obvious statement that would come out that the administration misread the economy? Any investor doing any research knew that this wouldn't be over before 2010 or 2011, but right through the election Bush, McCain, Obama, Biden, all made it sound like we'd be back to good times in a few months. You know there's no reason for Biden's comments to have any effect on the market and its not.

Watch; stocks will surge the first month that consumer debt reverses its downward trend as all the pent up demand rolls out like an avalanche. Three to four months later, they'll start hiring again. Until then, all we can do is wait it out.

[Lorax]

Batts is trying to draw a corollary between Obama's popularity and the stock market, which of course we all know doesn't exist.

He's desperate to blame something on him, and nothing is going to stick. Afterall, those of us who were conscious last fall know that the Rethuglican Great Depression II is the result of 8 years of deregulation by the Bush Crime Family.

Good luck pinning that one on Democrats. LOL!!!

[Detroitej72]

What are these liberals thinking? Fine people that refuse to buy health insurance? Why do you suppose they aren't buying? The cost is more than they choose to pay and they take the risk. If the cost is too high, what are the odds that fines will be collectable?

By that argument you are agreeing that the current status quo isn't working, thus the need for health care reform. Welcome to the side of common sense, I knew you had it in you! :D

I thought you believed all the uninsured either didn't want or were too lazy to buy a health care policy.

[Detroitej72]

Obama is always cryptic (and quite good at it). Meaning that what he says needs to be scrutinized and matched to what he does. Thus far, while cryptic, he sincerely intends to do great evil.

Pretty deceitful and dangerous allegations, any proof, or are you just tossing around the usual right wing lies?

[jiminnm]

This is the government that many of you want to control our health care? I don't think so.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_go_ot/us_cyber_attack

[rb336]

gee, and hackers haven't compromised private health insurance companies? that is a particularly lame argument

[ccbatson]

Proven many times...one example "if you make less than 250K, you will not see one dime of tax increases". Either a lie, or cryptic (it will not be a dime, it will be many thousands of them).

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Batts is trying to draw a corollary between Obama's popularity and the stock market,"

It's not his popularity, it's his inability, reluctance or both to address the real issues. You know, the issues he droned on about behind the podium during his campaign, Trade, outsourcing etc. It was all bullshit. He isn't going to do anything, and these investors aren't stupid. They know the future under this guys leadership is dismal. They ain't buyin'

[ccbatson]

I was not drawing a corollary to his popularity...who cares about that? The corollary is to his market unfriendly and economy destroying policies.

[mjs]

Are you saying the largest influence on the stock market is the sitting President? I think its one of the biggest American fallacies out there, but I want to see if you're dumb enough to open yourself to saying that its a major corollary of yours.