Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

[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.

[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/He...?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/He...?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.

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.

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.