Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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/washing...althcare_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/publ...gal_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.

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.

[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.
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
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 yet

The 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 NO

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.

[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_...l-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?