Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[UncleBob]

Are you arguing Medicare or Medicaid are good?


They suck. Which is funny, because the "public option" seems to follow in the footsteps of those two programs pretty closely.

Again, no one is saying our doctors suck it is the system that is the problem.
Our doctor's (and researchers, equipment and facilities) are a product of our "system". You can't take a major component of "the system" and pretend it operates in a vacuum.

[Ruined]

Where does the US rank in terms of bankruptcy due to medical bills?

Is quality more important than quantity there, too?

Are you arguing Medicare or Medicaid are good?

Are you arguing private insurance is affordable in an environment with 20% unemployment?

Are you arguing the shitty insurance for parttime workers or students is worth a damn?

Are you arguing that if every single person in the USA can't get premium healthcare, then everyone should be forced into shit healthcare? Because it seems you are leaning that way. The vast, vast majority of people have private insurance, medicaid, medicare, COBRA if between jobs, student insurance, etc, or simply elect not to pay for healthcare because they are healthy.

Our system is not perfect, and its not worth scrapping the highest quality healthcare system in the world for a slop trough public healthcare option simply because a small percentage (many of which aren't even legal citizens) can't get coverage under the existing system. Obamacare is healthcare for the healthy (grandma & chronic ill might as well be sent off on the ice float), intrusive gov't control of our everyday life masked as "preventative care," will be the largest step backwards our contry has taken in ages if passed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

[Msut77]

They suck.

For what they are, they are very effective.

Our doctor's (and researchers, equipment and facilities) are a product of our "system".

There is a distinction. You may not grasp it but it is there, it has even been talked about in this thread.

You can't take a major component of "the system" and pretend it operates in a vacuum.

That applies more to what Ruined says (if he has a methodology apart from ideological fealty mind you) then what I said.

Again the only thing we are #1 is in how much we pay and how many we exclude.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

They suck. Which is funny, because the "public option" seems to follow in the footsteps of those two programs pretty closely.


That is what worries me about socialized medicine.

If it sucks, you can't move on to something else.

However, I think Msut touched on this.

Medicaid and Medicare aren't meant to compete with the level of service our private insurance can provide people who can afford. Medicaid and Medicare skim around 7% of wages from workers and another 7% from employers (a backdoor tax on the employee). Currently, the median private health plan is $12,000 with a median income of $44,389.

[JolietJake]

I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?

[Msut77]

I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?

Bob wants them to die, Ruin probably does as well but wouldn't come right out and say it.

Anyhoo Bill Kristol on the Daily Show said Republicans have a plan to get companies to cover those with preexisting conditions (take that with a grain of salt) and no one said, Why now and not 5-10 years ago?

[Msut77]

That is what worries me about socialized medicine.

Maybe it is just because I am fairly young but that word (which is meaningless anyway) doesn't really have the negative connotations to people my age or younger it would have to someone raised on a steady diet of Evil Empire rhetoric and back to back Red Dawn viewings on Betamax.

If it sucks, you can't move on to something else.

Every single Republican just voted to keep Medicare.

Medicaid and Medicare aren't meant to compete with the level of service our private insurance can provide people who can afford. Medicaid and Medicare skim around 7% of wages from workers and another 7% from employers (a backdoor tax on the employee). Currently, the median private health plan is $12,000 with a median income of $44,389.

My Grandfather recently had a multiple bypass and a valve replaced that medicare covered and was done through one of the best hospitals around. He is alive and quite satisfied.

From what I have seen about half the people you see protesting Commiecare use Medicare or will be eligible soon.

It is not an uncommon phenomenon although it does rattle ones faith in humanity.

[mykevermin]

I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?

My ma's one of these folks - hyper-conservative and uninsured because she has a carrier gene for a disease that will never affect her (and she's not having any more children again, I assure you).

They gloss over this idea as well as the recission (sp?) tactics. They also gloss over the tens of thousands of dollars needed to schedule major surgeries if one is uninsured. They say things like "anyone can get any medical service they need in the US," which is simply untrue.

They have very few facts to discuss, unless you think that John Stossel and people funded by the insurance industry qualify as bastions of facts.

Luckily, I am the one sibling that didn't get the gene. Two siblings are carriers and one has the disease. Under the current system, I'm the only insurable one in my family.

[docvinh]

I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?

I guess this is why I don't think for profit health insurance is really a good idea. It wouldn't really make any business sense to take these people on, as the risk would be pretty high to insure them, they would more then likely lose money on these people. I guess you could force the insurance companies to insure them, but then I would guess that the insurance would probably be unaffordable then. Can anyone who is for private insurance think of any realistic solutions for this?

[mykevermin]

That's the issue. Insurance companies say that such a small portion of paying customers have their accounts rescinded - half a percent, they say.

But that's misleading, since those people are a huge portion of costs for the company. As opposed to me, who hasn't done a damn thing with his health insurance in years. Other than pay it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Are you arguing that if every single person in the USA can't get premium healthcare, then everyone should be forced into shit healthcare? Because it seems you are leaning that way. The vast, vast majority of people have private insurance, medicaid, medicare, COBRA if between jobs, student insurance, etc, or simply elect not to pay for healthcare because they are healthy.

If everybody is forced into the same coverage, you have a single block of people who can more easily force changes through sheer numbers.

In our current environment, at least 20% of people out there can't buy insurance even if the average American brain could prioritize food, roof, heat, THEN health care.

Private insurance ($12,000/year average) costs more than my house ($7500/year actual).

Medicare is underfunded and will become more so as our median age goes higher. Same mess with that Social Security Ponzi scheme.

COBRA costs more than unemployment pays out.

Student insurance isn't available to families even if it is good.

Going without health insurance because one is healthy is like driving without a seat belt because one isn't in an accident.

Our system is not perfect, and its not worth scrapping the highest quality healthcare system in the world for a slop trough public healthcare option simply because a small percentage (many of which aren't even legal citizens) can't get coverage under the existing system. Obamacare is healthcare for the healthy (grandma & chronic ill might as well be sent off on the ice float), intrusive gov't control of our everyday life masked as "preventative care," will be the largest step backwards our contry has taken in ages if passed.


You keep arguing the "quality" of our health care is the highest. That very well might be true if a person's net worth has a positive sign, a nonzero number and six or seven trailing zeros and said person isn't old and has no medical conditions. Everybody to the left of 3 standard deviations right of the median? Not so much.

Obamacare is healthcare for the healthy? How is that different from the current system that tries to claim anything is a preexisting condition and denies legit claims for many customers multiple times before paying their obligation?

[depascal22]

It all comes down to this: Conservatives don't want to spend money on Americans without their express written approval. They want to take the check to the charity and then have a big party thrown in their honor. If the government takes the money to insure the uninsurable, it's not an ego boost. No one is there to stroke the rich's "cock" and therefore make the rich feel better about making the world a better place.

I still haven't seen a decent plan to insure the uninsurable in the current system. There are zero guarantees that the insurance companies will even attempt to stop their ways. I even heard that some companies would choose to pay the fines rather than insure people with pre-existing conditions. For them, it will still be a better business decision to pay the gov't rather than cover everyone.

[dmaul1114]

I don't know if this has came up in this long thread, but one thing that really needs to be done as part of reform is to make every possible effort to fight obesity in this country.

According to a blurb on page 12 in the latest newsweek, the CDC estimates that obesity costs an $147 BILLION to the health care system every year.

An obese persons requires on average an extra $1,429 in health care per year, 42% more than people of healthy weights. About 40% of that is increased prescription drug costs (drugs for diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure etc.) 30% is for more impatient care as the obese are more likely to be hospitalized, to have complications from procedures etc. And the other 30% is everything else--constant care needed for diabetes, more likely to need at home care, more doctor visits to get prescriptions etc.

So there's a lot of savings to be had in health care if obesity can be drastically reduced in coming decades. In short, a focus on prevention and promoting health is crucial to any type of health care reform, and obesity should be a big part of that effort.

That's all I'll add, as I don't have much interest in getting in this health care reform debate as it's one of those lost causes on forums where people don't much change their minds one way or the other.

[Ruined]

I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?

For most insurance companies pre-existing conditions generally will be covered right away if you get a proof of insurance from your previous insurer (this includes COBRA). If you have a pre-existing condition and haven't been insured in a while, the condition will still be covered after a period of time (usually 3mos-1yr). It is a plain misconception that pre-existing conditions are never covered.

Also, there are areas of healthcare that could use some work such as pre-existing conditions & COBRA. But a public plan would cause far more problems than it would solve. I am not for no healthcare reform, but the extreme healthcare changes being proposed such as a public plan paving the road to singler payer is a recipe for disaster.

Sure we can reform healthcare. But lets not nuke it with a public option.

[fullmetalfan720]

I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?
Do you really think government will/can afford to treat everyone in a timely manner? These are the same people who gave us the debacle that was Hurricane Katrina. These are the same people who gave us Operation Northwoods, and the Gulf of Tonkin. They don't care about you. Look at any country with universal health care. They have health care rationing, and put you one a waiting list for care. Some people can't even get care. They are just written off. It will be worse than the system we have now.

[fullmetalfan720]

It all comes down to this: Conservatives don't want to spend money on Americans without their express written approval.
I suppose I should be able to legally rob anyone I want, and use the money to do "good?"

[JolietJake]

For most insurance companies pre-existing conditions generally will be covered right away if you get a proof of insurance from your previous insurer (this includes COBRA). If you have a pre-existing condition and haven't been insured in a while, the condition will still be covered after a period of time (usually 3mos-1yr). It is a plain misconception that pre-existing conditions are never covered.

Also, there are areas of healthcare that could use some work such as pre-existing conditions & COBRA. But a public plan would cause far more problems than it would solve. I am not for no healthcare reform, but the extreme healthcare changes being proposed such as a public plan paving the road to singler payer is a recipe for disaster.

Sure we can reform healthcare. But lets not nuke it with a public option.You didn't even read my post completely, did you?

Let me spell it out for you, i don't have to worry about my condition being covered after a while because NO COMPANY WILL TAKE ME. Do you understand that, no company will except me as a customer, period. No waiting period for it to be covered, nothing.

Now again i ask, what am i and people like me supposed to do?

[JolietJake]

Do you really think government will/can afford to treat everyone in a timely manner? These are the same people who gave us the debacle that was Hurricane Katrina. These are the same people who gave us Operation Northwoods, and the Gulf of Tonkin. They don't care about you. Look at any country with universal health care. They have health care rationing, and put you one a waiting list for care. Some people can't even get care. They are just written off. It will be worse than the system we have now.Having to wait for care is a hell of a lot better than never getting it at all. It's been a few years since i even had health insurance.

[depascal22]

For most insurance companies pre-existing conditions generally will be covered right away if you get a proof of insurance from your previous insurer (this includes COBRA). If you have a pre-existing condition and haven't been insured in a while, the condition will still be covered after a period of time (usually 3mos-1yr). It is a plain misconception that pre-existing conditions are never covered.

That is utter and complete bullshit. That might be in the fine print but the actual application of any of those rules has never been the norm. You neglect to mention that those conditions might be covered after a while but only until termination which is usually the same day as the conditions become covered.

My eyes were covered by the federal government but were considered a pre-existing condition when I got insurance through my employer less than three months after I got out of the military. I could get eyeglasses once a year and that's it. If I ever needed surgery or medical intervention, it would've come out of my pocket.

My uncle will have to pay for his eventual knee replacements because he can't get them covered because they were a pre-existing condition. Never mind that he hurt them in a jump accident serving our country. They aren't covered even though his injury happened in the mid-70s.

[dmaul1114]

The government doesn't have to "treat" anyone.

They just need to fund a system to insure those who can't get/afford private insurance, and do what they can to reign in health care costs and get premiums down for everyone.

But as I said above, a lot needs to be done in the areas of prevention and promoting health to save costs. As well as making health care more efficient and not having lots of money wasted on unnecessary treatments pushed by doctors who want the big pay day of something like a joint replacement vs. referring to physical therapy etc.

It's just a bad system. Insurance, health care and pharmaceuticals have all become all about maximizing profits and not about helping people. Doctors should get paid well as we want talented people to pursue those careers, but people should be getting in it to help people first, and get rich second.

[fullmetalfan720]

Having to wait for care is a hell of a lot better than never getting it at all. It's been a few years since i even had health insurance.
Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.

[Ruined]

That is utter and complete bullshit. That might be in the fine print but the actual application of any of those rules has never been the norm. You neglect to mention that those conditions might be covered after a while but only until termination which is usually the same day as the conditions become covered.

My eyes were covered by the federal government but were considered a pre-existing condition when I got insurance through my employer less than three months after I got out of the military. I could get eyeglasses once a year and that's it. If I ever needed surgery or medical intervention, it would've come out of my pocket.

My uncle will have to pay for his eventual knee replacements because he can't get them covered because they were a pre-existing condition. Never mind that he hurt them in a jump accident serving our country. They aren't covered even though his injury happened in the mid-70s.

Maybe it varies by insurance company and specific diagnosis, but I have a chronic health & pain issue ongoing for the past 7 years and every time I've switched insurance companies simply giving the new insurance company a certificate of insurance from my previous insurer has given me coverage for it immediately. In these cases, however, the insurance company requires that I had recent coverage via another company, and since I've elected COBRA when changing jobs in the past that has not been an issue. I could see it being an issue in the future if I elected not to take COBRA or if for some reason some company I haven't used yet gives me a hard time, but I have not experienced anything like that yet with the 4-5 insurance companies I've had over that period of time.

I agree that this is an issue that needs some work, as does the costs of COBRA. Nuking the system with a public option is not a good solution to the problem, and if you look at Obama's specific wording of his care preventative care continues to be highlighted. i.e. "we'll pay for the healthcare by people not getting sick in the first place." But what if you do get sick or are sick? While pre-existing problems might be covered, there is no word what the other qualifications may be - i.e. age, general health, or approved procedures. I don't see why people think a public option which is going to *require* involving a cheaper, lower quality of care in order to stay financially afloat for all the people it will servce for free is going to buy them expensive procedures that premium insurance cannot afford to cover. That really doesn't make any sense logically if you think about it. Not to mention that if a true public option is offered, eventually it will be the only option and you won't even have the opportunity to try other insurance companies that may have covered a type of procedure or treatment that the public option does not. And if they are not covered, those treatments may not even make it to US shores.

So again, while I think the system could use work (pre-existing conditions & COBRA especially), I think a public option is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[homeland]

Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.


I've never heard my wife's mother and brothers in France ever say that has happened to them. I'm pretty envious of how well they have it actually and glad nothing serious has happened to my wife and I this past year while we had no health insurance. Health care along with other aspects of the way of life which we see as being better over there are pushing my wife and I closer to moving back to France.

[JolietJake]

Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.
In other words, i have nothing to lose.;)

[HowStern]

Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.

This doesn't make sense I'll tell you why.

France, as Homeland pointed out, has government run health care. And they are rated #1 in the world vs Americas rating of #31 at providing care.

So, this argument is no good. France is proof government run health systems don't equal bad health systems.

[JolietJake]

Sometimes i wonder how much of this resistance stems from American hate for European ideas. After all, why did we bother declaring independence if we're just going to imitate the British?;)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'll throw this out there because nobody else thinks about it.

How about free education for anybody going into the medical field?

[fullmetalfan720]

This doesn't make sense I'll tell you why.

France, as Homeland pointed out, has government run health care. And they are rated #1 in the world vs Americas rating of #31 at providing care.

So, this argument is no good. France is proof government run health systems don't equal bad health systems.
Yet, in Britain and Canada, their health insurance system is deeply flawed. Why is that?
In France they have a nice health care system, but it costs a lot
Compulsory health insurance covers the whole population. Premiums are charged as a percentage of income and the total cost is nearly 20% of payroll, including the employer's and employee's contribution. In the last few years the regime has reduced the emphasis on payroll contributions. Until recently, employers paid 12.8 percent of salary and employees 6.8 percent; but complaints by employers that they were meeting too much of the burden led to reform. Employers still pay 12.8% of an employee's salary, but the contribution rate for employees has been lowered from 5.5% at the end 1997 to 0.75%, in 2001. Simultaneously, an earmarked social security tax of 7.5% (Contribution Sociale Generalisée - CSG) was imposed on employment and investment income. Most, but not all, of this general social contribution goes toward health insurance.
I saw this article on google news, and it explains how I feel about health care reform very well:
BUFFALO, N.Y. - Imagine how much automobile insurance would cost if it paid for all expenses associated with owning an automobile – oil changes, engine failures, worn-out tires, brakes, rust, and so on. The number of people who couldn't afford car insurance would rise dramatically, and we would have a car insurance crisis in America.
That is the situation with healthcare. As health plans increasingly pay for almost every service or procedure, ameliorate our every discomfort, and succumb to every cultural whim and fad, the price of insurance continues to rise.
Health plans are paying for every imaginable benefit – while automobile insurers are not – because of both consumer demand and state mandates.
The demand for additional healthcare benefits is greater than for additional automobile insurance benefits because many people feel entitled to have access to every possible healthcare service. The costs of additional benefits are not always clear to consumers; thus, many people perceive the benefits to be "free." In response to consumer demand, health plans sometimes expand coverage on their own. In other cases, they are forced by politicians running for reelection to cover additional services or procedures.
To make health insurance more affordable, state governments should stop mandating additional benefits and rescind all of their previous mandates. In addition, both private and public insurers (such as Medicare) should agree to pay for only costly and essential medical services and procedures (similar to the way they banded together to pledge to reduce $2 trillion in healthcare expenses a few months ago).
Under the system I am proposing, health insurance would pay for emergencies and urgent care, diagnostic tests and X-rays, medically necessary surgery, hospitalization, therapy, and any other critical services that few people could afford to pay out of their own pockets. Individuals would pay for routine, discretionary, and elective services – such as doctor visits, acupuncture, marriage counseling – on their own.
This type of system – which has not yet been tried – would lower healthcare costs and make insurance more affordable for everyone, especially the uninsured, by reducing the number of healthcare services that are used. When the use of services goes up, health insurers must raise premiums to pay for the increase in expenses. This makes it more expensive for insured people to keep their health coverage, while also making it more expensive for uninsured people to purchase coverage.
Insurance is intended to be a pooling of people's money to pay for large, unexpected expenses – not for every expense that is incurred. In other words, it is supposed to be a safety net for catastrophic events.
Yet many Americans go to the doctor for all kinds of trivial ailments, because their insurance pays for it. True, many people want this type of coverage, but that is because they do not understand the long-term cost implications. If Americans want to keep the current healthcare system sustainable (and it appears they do), then they need to take on more financial responsibility for their healthcare. People who choose to visit the doctor for the sniffles should pay for it themselves rather than making everyone else pay for it. If they did, the use of services – and thus the cost of healthcare – would go down.
If we can budget for our phone, electric, cable, and gas bills, as well as for unexpected household and automobile expenses, then we can budget for routine healthcare services. This would require some families to forgo the purchase of a plasma TV, but it would make health insurance more affordable.
In addition, most health plans even cover lifestyle choices that have been sold as medical conditions by lobbyists, pharmaceutical and medical companies, politicians, the media, and pop culture. Some of these covered services – such as cosmetic procedures, birth-control pills, and abortion – do not even address a diagnosis. (Contrary to popular belief, pregnancy is not a malady.) If there is no medical condition, then health insurance should not be paying for it.
By shouldering a greater burden of their healthcare costs, Americans would probably eat more healthily, exercise more, quit smoking, and lead healthier and happier lives. A healthier population would use fewer medical services, which would lower healthcare costs and premiums.
When it comes to healthcare, we should not confuse luxury with necessity. By transforming health insurance into a system that simply pays for essential medical services and procedures, more Americans would be able to afford insurance – and there would be far fewer uninsured Americans.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0805/p09s02-coop.html

[mykevermin]

That is an op-ed, not an article.

Use proper English.

[HowStern]

Yet, in Britain and Canada, their health insurance system is deeply flawed. Why is that?
In France they have a nice health care system, but it costs a lot



A nice health health care system? They have the number 1 healthcare system in the world. And, no, it doesn't cost a lot. They spend only a 3rd of what we do per person.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html

Americans widely believe that while the our health system is expensive it is nevertheless the best in the world. However, a new report (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf) from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests otherwise.

According to the OECD, the U.S. spends 5% of GDP more on health than France, the nation with the second highest level of health spending among the 30 wealthy countries in the organization. The average for all OECD countries is 8.9% of GDP.
We spend $7,290 per person on average versus $2,964 among all OECD countries. Norway, the nation with the second most expensive health system on a per capita basis, spends $4,763. (Currency conversions based on purchasing power parity.)




Explain that. And tell me why we shouldn't follow Frances lead? Both saving money and improving health care?

[fullmetalfan720]

That is an op-ed, not an article.

Use proper English.

Whatever:roll:

[fullmetalfan720]

A nice health health care system? They have the number 1 healthcare system in the world. And, no, it doesn't cost a lot. They spend only a 3rd of what we do per person.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html






Explain that. And tell me why we shouldn't follow Frances lead? Both saving money and improving health care?
1. They pay around 20% of their payroll for health care.
2. France's government is not run by idiots who only work for special intrests.
The plan that I pointed to would also save money and improve care. What's wrong with that one?

[docvinh]

1. They pay around 20% of their payroll for health care.
2. France's government is not run by idiots who only work for special intrests.
The plan that I pointed to would also save money and improve care. What's wrong with that one?

Well, basically if you have some kind of recurring medical problem, you would more then likely die at some point since you couldn't afford to keep getting insurance since it keeps going up. It would more then likely lead to people waiting until the absolute last moment to go to a doctor when they need to go sooner.

[fullmetalfan720]

Well, basically if you have some kind of recurring medical problem,

Such as? Cancer would be covered, as would similar diseases. Your premium wouldn't go up much if at all, if you had cancer, as that would be covered by the pool.

[KingBroly]

A nice health health care system? They have the number 1 healthcare system in the world. And, no, it doesn't cost a lot. They spend only a 3rd of what we do per person.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html

Explain that. And tell me why we shouldn't follow Frances lead? Both saving money and improving health care?

The simplest answer I can think of: They're France

[fullmetalfan720]

The simplest answer I can think of: They're France

Agreed, and for every France there is around 30 countries with terrible government run health care, like England and Canada.

[UncleBob]

How come nothing is ever said about the countries that have government-ran health care that ranked lower than the US on the WHO's report?

"See, it can be done! Look at France!"

See, it can be screwed up too...

[docvinh]

Such as? Cancer would be covered, as would similar diseases. Your premium wouldn't go up much if at all, if you had cancer, as that would be covered by the pool.

Whoops, sorry, read it incorrectly.:) So basically would cover major issues, but not routine things, such as checkups and such, right? So there would be no money allotted for preventative services, wouldn't that end up increasing it overall since people would wait until there was a major problem before they went to a doctor? Besides that, it doesn't sound awful, although I'm still not sure how it would affect people with preexisting conditions, would they still be able to turn people down?

[homeland]

How come nothing is ever said about the countries that have government-ran health care that ranked lower than the US on the WHO's report?

"See, it can be done! Look at France!"

See, it can be screwed up too...


So thats the true american spirit? I guess thats what the "god bless America" bumper stickers are for, we need his/her/it's grace cause we screw everything up.

[HowStern]

How come nothing is ever said about the countries that have government-ran health care that ranked lower than the US on the WHO's report?

"See, it can be done! Look at France!"

See, it can be screwed up too...


Because there are none. UK was rated 16th. And I'm looking for canadas ranking now. Canada was ranked 30th. And I was wrong about the U.S. it wasn't 32nd it was 37th.

UK, Canada, France all ranked higher than the U.S.

Also, what kind of backwards logic...Why would we be searching for failures in a quest to improve?? We are looking at France because they do it right.

[Msut77]

I still haven't seen a decent plan to insure the uninsurable in the current system. There are zero guarantees that the insurance companies will even attempt to stop their ways. I even heard that some companies would choose to pay the fines rather than insure people with pre-existing conditions. For them, it will still be a better business decision to pay the gov't rather than cover everyone.

Most I heard from cons about ensuring coverage for all was that offhand comment by Kristol, if I had to guess the plan? Amazingly high deductible and co-pays even though they would be "covered".

They have nothing.

[JolietJake]

I wouldn't be surprised really, companies will often do whatever is cheapest for the sake of cost effectiveness. There is an easy way to solve that though, make the fines so high that it's cheaper to just insure the people.

[Msut77]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/240728/august-04-2009/the-word---hippie-replacement

And one for good measure.

http://consumerist.com/5330848/giving-birth-and-covered-by-health-insurance-22000-please

[elprincipe]

If we want a plan that actually will stand a good chance of working, rather than what House Democrats are proposing, this should be strongly considered:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080402523.html

[UncleBob]

Because there are none. UK was rated 16th. And I'm looking for canadas ranking now. Canada was ranked 30th. And I was wrong about the U.S. it wasn't 32nd it was 37th.

UK, Canada, France all ranked higher than the U.S.

Also, what kind of backwards logic...Why would we be searching for failures in a quest to improve?? We are looking at France because they do it right.

So, the UK, Canada and France are the only countries to have socialized health care?

[Msut77]

So, the UK, Canada and France are the only countries to have socialized health care?

Everyone knows the saying "There is no such thing as a stupid question".

I never believed that.

If this is an actual question Bob other wealthy nations have Universal Healthcare such as Japan, Germany, Belgium and Switzerland.

I am positive all save Switzerland and Belgium have been mentioned in this thread.

If this isn't an actual question Bob then just come out and say whatever you wish to say.

[fullmetalfan720]

Whoops, sorry, read it incorrectly.:) So basically would cover major issues, but not routine things, such as checkups and such, right?
Yes. Checkups would be payed for out of pocket.
So there would be no money allotted for preventative services, wouldn't that end up increasing it overall since people would wait until there was a major problem before they went to a doctor?
No. They could go in for a check up if they wanted, and it would cost about the price of a co-pay today. If they needed medical care, it would be covered.
Besides that, it doesn't sound awful, although I'm still not sure how it would affect people with preexisting conditions, would they still be able to turn people down?
If you had a preexisting condition, you could still be covered, as there would be a large pool of people, with few having preexisting conditions, so it would be absorbed by the pool.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=7850499&referralPlaylistId=undefined
Interviewer: Do you think there is a legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?
Pelosi: I think they are Astroturf.... you be the judge.
They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.

Wow, seriously Pelosi? This is worse than that bullshit Bush tried to pull, with "you're either with us or against us" on the War on Terror.

[mykevermin]

Here's the thing: the opposition to these town halls is trying to halt discussion and debate.

They're trying to prevent the spread of information instead of combat it.

If you had a younger brother who would tease you as a child by making noises every time you tried to talk, you'd be at the approximate level of intellectual discourse of these folks.

The White House said Tuesday that some of the anger that Democratic lawmakers have encountered at town hall meetings over the past several days is "manufactured."

"In fact, I think you've had groups today, Conservatives for Patients Rights, that have bragged about organizing and manufacturing that anger," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

The debate over President Obama's top domestic priority is escalating as Congress takes a month-long recess. Several lawmakers have been booed, jeered, and occasionally cheered by protesters on their home turfs at town hall meetings on health care reform.

Gibbs singled out Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients' Rights, as the ringleader.

"I think you've got somebody who's very involved, a leader of that group that's very involved in the status quo, a CEO that used to run a health care company that was fined by the federal government $1.7 billion for fraud. I think that's a lot of what you need to know about the motives of that group."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/04/angry-protesters-confront-democratic-lawmakers-health-care-town-halls/

Yeah, I just quoted Fox.

[thrustbucket]

Didn't we just go through the same thing not too long ago with liberal groups being accused of organizing heckles for conservative rally's?

You pretty much can't dissent at a town hall meeting without being called a shill for a lobby.

[mykevermin]

Don't recall that one. Certainly none as organized and thorough at these are.

Maybe Code Pink - but comparing them to the "let's not talk about health care at all" protesters is giving them unwarranted credit.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/04/angry-protesters-confront-democratic-lawmakers-health-care-town-halls/

Yeah, I just quoted Fox.
Wow, now you've got your own little conspiracy theories going. All of the protests we're staged, eh? I highly doubt that there is some vast rightwing lobbyist conspiracy organizing these events. Here's proof there isn't:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/a-first-hand-view-of-a-raucous-town-hall-meeting.html
There were no lobbyist-funded buses in the parking lot of Mardela Middle and High School on Tuesday evening, and the hundreds of Eastern Maryland residents who packed the school’s auditorium loudly refuted the notion that their anger over the Democrats’ health care reform plans is “manufactured.”
“I went to school in this school,” a man named Bob told me. “I don't see anyone in this room that isn't from Mardela Springs right now.”
“We’ve been quiet too long,” said a woman named Joan.
People are pissed off at their government right now. They're sick and tired of these bullshit proposals. Health care bills that supposedly help the poor get care, but take away 11-12% of the poor's income. Cap & Trade bills that do nothing to stop the global warmings, but destroy the economy.
Also, see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0

[mykevermin]

I did not say all of them were manufactured. You're debating a point of contention I did not make.

But well organized by the right, with loud and clear messages being dispersed through the internet on how to handle these town halls? You bet.

[fullmetalfan720]

I did not say all of them were manufactured. You're debating a point of contention I did not make.

But well organized by the right, with loud and clear messages being dispersed through the internet on how to handle these town halls? You bet.
Again, you really think these were organized? People are pissed off at the government. Look at Congress and Obama's approval ratings. They're terrible!

[perdition(troy]

@ myke

I'm not gonna lie, you must have better google then me. Because I've been trying to find a site explaining what to do at these town halls and I haven't seen it yet. Hook a brother up.

Again, you really think these were organized? People are pissed off at the government. Look at Congress and Obama's approval ratings. They're terrible!

Obama's ratings aren't horrible, just dropping pretty fast.

[Snake2715]

The more I think about this the more I think we need a basic system down..

I am going to go opposite of Fullmetalfan720.
Why cover just major things? We already do that, if you have a heart attach guess what, regardless if you have medical insurance you are taken care of at a local hospital. cant pay the bill oh well.

We need to provide a basic office visit, preventative, and RX plan. Maybe limit the RX, or put a deductible on it, Then put a flat copay for standard doctors, and then another one for a specialist. Preventative needs to be covered up to a certain limit, say $500 per person, per year, for just a copay.

This way people can get in and get the standard prevention, and some visits to monitor their diabetes, etc. Some RX coverage so they are keeping things in check... not letting them get to emergency room status.

From that point they can buy up, similar to how Medicare supplement (medigap) policies work. Offer a selection of policies from the private carriers. Mandate that the base Private insurer policy has X for minimums and go from there.

The tax fines or incentives can all be worked into this. As if the individual or business that does not pick up or provide these plans, gets fines, fees, or tax credits, or breaks. Should you decide to forgo the public base option there needs to be some sort of verification process in place.. think license plate renewals, as an option off the top of my head.

Maybe even activate a 1 per year checkup as a minimum... this may appease the doctors as they will see many more patients, and therefore will not have a large drop in income, if the government mandates lower allowable physician charges per visit.

This once a year checkup really needs to be a full workup of cholesterol, A1C levels, etc. So peolple are aware of what is going on, maybe a similar checkup that is done by the life insurance carrier when they qualify a person for coverage. Its pretty comprehensive.


The other thing that needs to be addressed is the state variations in coverage. Some mandate pregnancy, some mandate Mental nervous, others do not. There plans are all variations of each other and that takes a lot of time and money to understand.

You have insurance companies coming up with 52 options if they are large enough to provide coverage in each state, they then have 10+ options per each state. Then you have the situation of family members not understanding why they get certain things but another family member does not in another state, Let alone the agents that need to get licensed in each state before they can sell..

If you had a federal ruling on minimums etc, then it would be streamlined, cut costs, and allow for many professionals for all states to emerge.

They are going to treat this a lot like Workers Compensation insurance in regards to the employer relation to that, and mandated (in most states, unless you are a sole proprietor). Large fees if you do not provide this.

Thats just my take on this after thinking on it for a while.

[UncleBob]

Speaking of manufactured "astroturf" campaigns...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House deputy communications director, said: “We intend to use a lot of the grassroots viral Internet techniques from the campaign to beat back the campaign of misstatements and outright falsehoods about the president’s efforts to reform health insurance.”

Are they saying that Obama's campaign was all astroturfed? And they're going to use this same method to get health care socialized?

[mykevermin]

@ myke

I'm not gonna lie, you must have better google then me. Because I've been trying to find a site explaining what to do at these town halls and I haven't seen it yet. Hook a brother up.

http://www.cprights.org/2009/07/town-hall-alert.php

http://www.cprights.org/townhalls.php

http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/august-recess-town-hall-meetings

http://www.freedomworks.org/files/aug%20action%20kit.pdf

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf (this is a key one)

Yep. Must have a better google. That must be it.

[perdition(troy]

Thanks (honestly, thank you).

[mykevermin]

The first four are pretty common grassroots organizing stuff. Nothing the Dems haven't done before.

The last one is the...erm...money shot, if that should be applied to political discussion. And it perhaps should be.

[RAMSTORIA]

cprights.org? youre sick myke, sick.

[mykevermin]

?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Didn't we just go through the same thing not too long ago with liberal groups being accused of organizing heckles for conservative rally's?

You pretty much can't dissent at a town hall meeting without being called a shill for a lobby.

Is a town hall meeting really a forum for debate?

Standing up and shouting down a speaker isn't civil.

Standing up after the speaker has finished and announcing behind a podium or whatever prop there is that the representative hasn't read the bill is civil.

[Msut77]

Again, you really think these were organized?

All of them organized/paid for? No.

A lot of them organized/paid for? Yes.

That is the reality. Deal with it.

People are pissed off at the government. Look at Congress and Obama's approval ratings. They're terrible!

Obama is still above 50% which is historically fairly high, Bush couldn't break 30% for years.

Newsflash healthcare reform is still wildly popular even with people being fed lies about plans to euthanize grandma.

[perdition(troy]

42 percent now say that the president’s plan is a bad idea, which is a 10-point increase since last month. Thirty-six percent say it’s a good idea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32206998/ns/politics-white_house/

Wildly popular, and that was two weeks ago.

Obama is still above 50% which is historically fairly high, Bush couldn't break 30% for years.

It's no where near historically high, or even fairly high. If anything it's average at best. Bush didn't drop under 50% until 3 1/2 years into his first term.

[Msut77]

Wildly popular, and that was two weeks ago.

I am not saying conservative disinformation has been a total failure yet still somewhere around 70% of Americans still support reform.

It's no where near historically high, or even fairly high.

There is basically always a drop around this time and considering the economic climate right now the numbers are pretty damn good.

Bush didn't drop under 50% until 3 1/2 years into his first term.

Not really, he had more than a few at 45% some odd percent in his first six months.

Without 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq war his numbers were pretty dismal, at best barely equaling Clinton's average rating or even during the Lewinsky scandal.

There is really no downplaying years of sub-35% approval ratings.

[perdition(troy]

I'm not downplaying any numbers. And for the record, bush's numbers were higher then clinton's when he took office, before and after 9/11.

[Msut77]

I'm not downplaying any numbers.

Horse Manure.

And for the record, bush's numbers were higher then clinton's when he took office, before and after 9/11.

Clinton earned his high approval rating just like Bush earned his low ones.

[perdition(troy]

I never said he didn't earn his approval ratings? Stop arguing with strictly emotions, it's annoying.

[Msut77]

I never said he didn't earn his approval ratings?

Ok...

Stop arguing with strictly emotions, it's annoying.

No idea what you are talking about.

[perdition(troy]

The fact that I'm sitting here making specific arguments based on facts on numbers and then you go "ya but" and spew your nonsense.

I don't have a problem reading posts by someone who actually backs up statements with facts/numbers that relate and support their stance (ie myke), but trying to have any sort of conversation with you is pointless.

[Msut77]

The fact that I'm sitting here making specific arguments based on facts...

I believe the word you are looking for is factoid.

and then you go "ya but" and spew your nonsense.

Cry more.

P.s. If anyone has a right to bitch about facts getting ignored and nonsense spewed in this thread, it is me.

[perdition(troy]

Cry more.

:lol::lol:

[Msut77]

Look!

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/08/how_to_think_constructively_ab.html

A link (note I don't agree with all of it) that doesn't erroneously compare people to cars and health insurance to auto insurance.

What are the odds?

[perdition(troy]

Uh, good job!

[fullmetalfan720]

All of them organized/paid for? No.

A lot of them organized/paid for? Yes.

That is the reality. Deal with it.
Great, now the Democrats have their own conspiracy theory that people are being paid to go to town halls and say they are against Obamacare. Do you have any evidence to back this up? I like how this theory is somehow credible, but when you talk about Obama's science czar writing a textbook that talks about putting sterilants in the water, and forcably sterilizing people, with proof, its a conspiracy theory.

Obama is still above 50% which is historically fairly high, Bush couldn't break 30% for years.

Newsflash healthcare reform is still wildly popular even with people being fed lies about plans to euthanize grandma.
Obama is dropping faster than any president ever, and also has the lowest approval rating at this time in any president's term, since this polling was started.
People for Healthcare reform ≠ People for Obamacare

[Msut77]

Great, now the Democrats have their own conspiracy theory that people are being paid to go to town halls and say they are against Obamacare.

I like how you whine about people not taking you seriously and then you use terms like Obamacare in all seriousness.

It got old back when cons were fighting "Hillarycare" and it is all the same playbook going back to the fight against medicare.


Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Yes.

I am certain it has been posted in this thread already how the groups being talked about are funded by drug and insurance companies, it really isn't hidden.

It is just another case of you having literally zero idea of what you are talking about.

Again I am not saying all, but certainly a lot of them and apparently the ones who are being the most disruptive.

[HowStern]

I'd like to see what percentage of people who disapprove of Obama's actions are well-informed vs. uninformed.


http://cdnll-1.liveleak.com/s/13/media13/2007/Jul/3/LiveLeak-dot-com-67788-image2.jpg?h=009602b85ae6cbffd98594dccd56c470&e=1250200591&rs=150

[thrustbucket]

Do you know how many more people watch an entire channel (fox news) vs one show (Daily show)?

That left side of the picture is horribly misleading. A better comparison would be viewers of foxnews vs viewers of comedy central.

[HowStern]

The 89 vs 07 chart is of signifigance too though.

It shows that, no matter what source of news, a good chunk of people just don't have a clue. But, and this makes me worry, they retain the right to vote.

[Revenantae]

It shows that, no matter what source of news, a good chunk of people just don't have a clue. But, and this makes me worry, they retain the right to vote.
Amen.

[fullmetalfan720]

I like how you whine about people not taking you seriously and then you use terms like Obamacare in all seriousness.
What else should I call it?
Yes.

I am certain it has been posted in this thread already how the groups being talked about are funded by drug and insurance companies, it really isn't hidden.

It is just another case of you having literally zero idea of what you are talking about.

Again I am not saying all, but certainly a lot of them and apparently the ones who are being the most disruptive.
Could you please link proof that the people were payed off? Can you link to proof that the people at these rallies employed by drug companies, and insurance companies? You've got about as much proof right now as the Birthers.
"He hasn't released his long form birth certificate yet! He's not born here!"
"They're protesting Obamacare! They must be paid by drug and insurance companies!"
The 89 vs 07 chart is of signifigance too though.

It shows that, no matter what source of news, a good chunk of people just don't have a clue. But, and this makes me worry, they retain the right to vote.
Seriously? You think some people shouldn't have the right to vote? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

[Msut77]

What else should I call it?

Nice to know Bob hasn't cornered the market on stupid questions.

Could you please link proof that the people were payed off?

I am pretty sure I have already.

Can you link to proof that the people at these rallies employed by drug companies, and insurance companies?

Here is another link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/

here is just a pretty damn good link:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/cnn-anchor-rips-into-health-care-ceo-whos-funding-anti-reform-effort.php?ref=fpblg


You have the whole "don't debate anything intelligently" part down pat. How much they paying you?

You've got about as much proof right now as the Birthers.

Usually Birthers and Baggers are one and the same.

Aren't you a Ron Paul supporter?

Maybe you guys would have done better if you realized volume and obnoxiousness isn't a substitute for having most of the electorate behind you.

[fullmetalfan720]

Nice to know Bob hasn't cornered the market on stupid questions.



I am pretty sure I have already.



Here is another link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/

You have the whole "don't debate anything intelligently" part down pat. How much they paying you?
I don't see any proof that the health care industry is secretly paying people to go to town halls to boo politicians. All I see is "leaked" memos, that detail how to "disrupt" town halls. No evidence people are being paid off.
Also, in case you still think its a left-right issue, it isn't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i92zmYCd81s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJQVNXfKujc
People are fed up with their government. And here you are spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories about a vast health care industry conspiracy.

[Msut77]

I don't see any proof that the health care industry is secretly paying people to go to town halls to boo politicians.

Did you happen to see the part where these organizations are backed by the companies I mentioned?

That a lot of these people are bused around i.e. not even constituents.

All I see is "leaked" memos, that detail how to "disrupt" town halls.

Unnecessary quote marks are unnecessary.

Also, in case you still think its a left-right issue, it isn't:

There isn't any doubt it is overwhelmingly a pathetic attempt at right wing populism.

People are fed up with their government.

I don't really value the opinion of a Ron Paul supporter as to what the pulse of the American electorate is.

And here you are spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories about a vast health care industry conspiracy.

It isn't as if they don't have a motive, heck as I pointed it isn't really even hidden.

That is the reality, learn to deal with it.

[fullmetalfan720]

Did you happen to see the part where these organizations are backed by the companies I mentioned?
No, I did not happen to see the part where it said people were being paid off by drug and insurance companies to go around the country and protest at town halls. Could you please quote that part?


There isn't any doubt it is overwhelmingly a pathetic attempt at right wing populism.Because the Democratic party never lies, and is full of sunshine and happy things? And there aren't any people out there who are pissed off at what's going on right now? I suppose all the liberals I know must really be drug company lobbyists? Along with most of America?


It isn't as if they don't have a motive, heck as I pointed it isn't really even hidden.

That is the reality, learn to deal with it.And Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961, and his parents worked with major Democratic leaders to pretend he was born in America, so he could one day become president. OMG MOTIVE! ITS ALL TRUE!
ITS REALITY LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT!

[Msut77]

No, I did not happen to see the part...

Is it because you are intentionally ignoring the fact that these "grassroot" groups are nothing of the sort? Because it does matter.

And there aren't any people out there who are pissed off at what's going on right now?

Are you referring to those against healthcare reform? As if there wouldn't be millions more who were pissed off because nothing was done.

I suppose all the liberals I know must really be drug company lobbyists? Along with most of America?

Yes "most" of America is just waiting to associate with the likes of you and join the Ron Paul Revolution and the Librarian Party.

Maybe if you were able to argue a case you might peel off a few.

No chance of that happening though.

[fullmetalfan720]

Is it because you are intentionally ignoring the fact that these "grassroot" groups are nothing of the sort? Because it does matter.
Where is your evidence? If I yell "go buy Grand Theft Auto 4!" in Downtown Minneapolis, the day before it comes out, does that mean that I organized a shadowy conspiracy to pay people to buy GTA 4?


Are you referring to those against healthcare reform? As if there wouldn't be millions more who were pissed off because nothing was done.People for healthcare reform does not equal people for Obamacare. I am referring to the amount of people who are simply fed up with this bullshit two headed one party system.
BTW, you want to hurl anymore insults at me? You sound exactly like the Bush, that your Beloved, and holy, and great, Democratic party that attacked him for these tactics. Now what do they do when they are in power? The same fucking thing.
Yes "most" of America is just waiting to associate with the likes of you and join the Ron Paul Revolution and the Librarian Party.

Maybe if you were able to argue a case you might peel off a few.

No chance of that happening though.
I suppose Jesse Ventura's election was a sham?

[Msut77]

Where is your evidence?

In the links I posted.

Feel free to choose to believe whatever you wish since that is what the outcome would be either way.

People for healthcare reform does not equal people for Obamacare.

People in this country are overwhelmingly for healthcare reform, some get a little wary when they start to hear an unending amount of lies against reform but then here we are.

I am referring to the amount of people who are simply fed up with this bullshit two headed one party system.

I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely feel that way (not that you know I actually care) but there are many who merely hide behind that particular form of rhetoric when convenient.

BTW, you want to hurl anymore insults at me?

"Want" isn't the word I would use.

Besides it isn't really an insult to point that you are incapable of articulating a point.

That would be that pesky reality again.

You sound exactly like the Bush

I am so burned.

[AdultLink]

People in this country are overwhelming for healthcare reform
That would be that pesky reality again.



I am so burned.


The reality you avoid?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121997/Americans-Healthcare-Reform-Top-Takeaways.aspx

The healthcare reform people want isn't as clear cut as you try to pass it off.

[Msut77]

The reality you avoid?

Oh?

What would you consider "clear cut" 80% favoring reform? 90%?

P.s. Did you even read all of what was in the link you posted? It does have a lot of good information especially on how medicare warps the debate in what one would consider a completely irrational way.

[AdultLink]

Oh?

What would you consider "clear cut" 80% favoring reform? 90%?

P.s. Did you even read all of what was in the link you posted? It does have a lot of good information especially on how medicare warps the debate in what one would consider a completely irrational way.

Did YOU read the part where, while the majority of people want healthcare reform, most would not want it NOW or think it's going to hurt them?

[AdultLink]

And btw, Msut77... you seem born yesterday, so I will remind you of all the hatred people had of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter.....

It's grown all the time. It isn't hatred of republicans, it's politicians.

People voted in the democrats to fix the issue Bush caused, and people are losing jobs, and Obama really can't keep blaming Bush.

These politicians should be assuring people, not blaming the other party.

Maybe you should stop kissing the democrats asses long enough to realize, maybe people are simply tired of these political games?

[Msut77]

Did YOU read the part where, while the majority of people want healthcare reform, most would not want it NOW

So you are resting your sorry cap locks abusing argument on the fact that some supporters people are willing to wait a bit?

You didn't answer my question btw, what do you consider clear cut? 98%?

or think it's going to hurt them?

That really isn't what the link says, the "no change" group a fair amount of whom are probably covered by medicare already skew the numbers a bit.

Perhaps you should read it a bit more carefully.

[AdultLink]

So you are resting your sorry cap locks abusing argument on the fact that some supporters people are willing to wait a bit?

You didn't answer my question btw, what do you consider clear cut? 98%?



That really isn't what the link says, the "no change" group a fair amount of whom are probably covered by medicare already skew the numbers a bit.

Perhaps you should read it a bit more carefully.

Sorry caps lock abusing argument? Your 'facts' are based on people PROBABLY using medicare, and conspiracies over health care.

Probably isn't a factual argument, and neither are your conspiracies.

[AdultLink]

The simple fact is, you want to make this into a conspiracy of the health care/republicans.

The real facts are, people voted Obama WITH PRIDE, only to have:

A 700 billion bailout that gave rich people a new yacht while millions suffer and lose jobs
A president who calls police actions 'stupid' for arresting a black man
Constant arrests of republican and democrat politicians

People are tired of both sides running our country. We were promised stuff, all we got is more bickering.

[Msut77]

Your 'facts' are based on people PROBABLY using medicare

That and the idiocy of you pretending people are willing to wait a bit for reform means something.

Anyhoo...

Probably isn't a factual argument

Neither is your abuse of polling data.

Millions of Americans (30% of insured Americans) are covered by one government plan or another including the vast majority of elderly.

Saying that having many of those people filed under "no change" (or the ones that think reform will hurt medicare also discussed in the link) skews things significantly is more probable than probably.

[AdultLink]

That and the idiocy of you pretending people are willing to wait a bit for reform means something.

Anyhoo...



Neither is your abuse of polling data.

Millions of Americans (30% of insured Americans) are covered by one government plan or another including the vast majority of elderly.

Saying that having many of those people filed under "no change" (or the ones that think reform will hurt medicare also discussed in the link) skews things significantly is more probable than probably.

Yet you still don't have this wonderful thing called PROOF.

[Msut77]

Yet you still don't have this wonderful thing called PROOF.

Do you define proof as poorly as you define "clear cut"?

The link (heh) you post, the meta link talks a great deal about how those covered under medicare warp the debate in unexpected ways.

Such as here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121982/Seniors-Skeptical-Healthcare-Reform.aspx

Apparently you really didn't do your homework.

Way to fail.

[AdultLink]

Do you define proof as poorly as you define "clear cut"?

The link (heh) you post, the meta link talks a great deal about how those covered under medicare warp the debate in unexpected ways.

Such as here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121982/Seniors-Skeptical-Healthcare-Reform.aspx

Apparently you really didn't do your homework.

Way to fail.

Way to fail? All you've done is ASSume that people with medicare vote for no change, and people without vote for change.

You don't have proof on this, and sorry to say, but knowing my mother and her friends, I know plenty who would disagree.

Or even if you meant people with medicare would vote for change, your arguing over proof you don't have, on a poll made to random people. You talk about fail, but you are arguing over 'facts' you made up in your head.

[mykevermin]

Paul Krugman nails it on the head in his latest op-ed.

The irony of screaming "THIS IS AMERICA!" during a town hall on health care, with the goal of said shouting being to put a halt to discussing the issue, is not lost on me.

Then again, the fact that so much of this debate is flush with ridiculous misinformation and attacks with no basis in reality that seem to be what shapes the public's opinions wasn't lost on me either.

When half your town hall is on medicare, and three fourths of the town hall is there to oppose a government-run program, I'd say you have probable cause to doubt the intellectual underpinnings of the public's opinions.

[AdultLink]

Paul Krugman nails it on the head in his latest op-ed.

The irony of screaming "THIS IS AMERICA!" during a town hall on health care, with the goal of said shouting being to put a halt to discussing the issue, is not lost on me.

Then again, the fact that so much of this debate is flush with ridiculous misinformation and attacks with no basis in reality that seem to be what shapes the public's opinions wasn't lost on me either.

When half your town hall is on medicare, and three fourths of the town hall is there to oppose a government-run program, I'd say you have probable cause to doubt the intellectual underpinnings of the public's opinions.

The main issue isn't people being dumb. Like the gallup poll on health care, people want reform. The problem is, today people don't trust their politicians.

Because of that, we're at a standstill. People want reform but don't want politicians to do it.

[KingBroly]

Am I the only one who is seeing the PR disaster in the making for the Democrats' hands here?

The quotes are all over the place on this one. Here's a quote from Pelosi: "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare." Excuse me? Am I missing something here? Anyone seeing any swastikas in any videos for these events?

Video source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas .html

If they get a public option, there is going to be a massive shitstorm the likes of which no one can predict. If there isn't one, people will claim they're weak.

[mykevermin]

The main issue isn't people being dumb. Like the gallup poll on health care, people want reform. The problem is, today people don't trust their politicians.

Because of that, we're at a standstill. People want reform but don't want politicians to do it.

When you have a substantial portion of people (anecdotally, mind) who are simultaneously on government-run health-care and scared of politicians getting their hands on their health-care then you absolutely have a gap between intelligent disagreement of the program and people who have opinions but no real information guiding them.

It also doesn't change that those opposed to government-run health care are, rather than attempting to debate the merits of it, preventing the conversation from happening. It's not a matter of "here's the entertaining stuff for the dumb plebes to watch on CNN/Fox/MSNBC, and here's some real boring stuff but actual news on NPR," like it normally is in the world. It's a matter of "we have an opinion, and we're going to stop you from talking." Which is a whole other level of appalling.

It's embarrassing and shameful.

[Msut77]

Way to fail?

It is blindingly obvious you either never read all that you linked to or don't really understand it.

So yeah fail is as good word as any.

As an aside Arthur Laffer recently displayed the mental acumen that supply siders are known for saying "Just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid ... done by the government".

[Snake2715]

This whole abortion thing is really going to be an issue... I bet this may be one thing that really slows this down, if not kills it entirely.

[mykevermin]

Fuck that. Democrats have 8 years of paying for shit we never wanted and were morally opposed to under our belts. And that's just 8 of the past 8 years.

Let's talk about government funding for things we disagree with...Iraq, Guantanamo, Rendition, faith-based initiatives, blackwater, halliburton, corrections corporation of america, aig, bank of america...and I'm sure hundreds of other moments.

[mykevermin]

Looks like I may be wrong: Democrat blogs/orgs (TPM specifically) are apparently organizing the protest groups at the town hall meetings.

[Msut77]

http://www.nbc26.com/global/category.asp?C=171398&clipId=4021715&topVideoCatNo=146343&autoStart=true

Also:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908070008

[lawdood]

Am I the only one who is seeing the PR disaster in the making for the Democrats' hands here?

The quotes are all over the place on this one. Here's a quote from Pelosi: "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare." Excuse me? Am I missing something here? Anyone seeing any swastikas in any videos for these events?

Video source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas .html

If they get a public option, there is going to be a massive shitstorm the likes of which no one can predict. If there isn't one, people will claim they're weak.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/97481/thumbs/s-STROLLER-large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/97482/thumbs/s-WASILLAKID-large.jpg

[KingBroly]

Any story to go with those shots?

Also, the second shot...not seeing it.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't see the above links. Alrighty then.

[lawdood]

Any story to go with those shots?

Also, the second shot...not seeing it.

They were at the town halls protesting Pelosi, healthcare and whatever else Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh told them was evil.

The kid's shirt in the second pic says "Hitler made great speeches too" while throwing up a Heil Hitler salute.

[lawdood]

Any story to go with those shots?

Also, the second shot...not seeing it.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't see the above links. Alrighty then.

and here's another...and I apologize for the ugliness of the other pic attached to it, hope no one's eating while viewing this post:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/97615/thumbs/r-LIMBAUGH-large.jpg

[KingBroly]

They were at the town halls protesting Pelosi, healthcare and whatever else Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh told them was evil.

The kid's shirt in the second pic says "Hitler made great speeches too" while throwing up a Heil Hitler salute.

Well, the salute is entirely missed because of poor camera work. The shirt I've seen before.

Let me say this: The line from Pelosi still shouldn't have been said. Why? Because there are many uninformed Americans who will see and hear that quote and say "fuck this bill" and not question it further because it isn't worth their time to find out, don't have the time or they don't want to know and will accept the quote as fact. From a PR perspective, it's a head shaker.

[fullmetalfan720]

Wow, this is really fucked up. Not only do they pack the town hall with their people, but afterwards, one of the union people who they let in starts beating up a protester.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlVJYc5Bjyg
Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.

"It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked," he said.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument#tp_n ewCommentAnchor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhR3T4aw)

[lawdood]

Well, the salute is entirely missed because of poor camera work. The shirt I've seen before.

Let me say this: The line from Pelosi still shouldn't have been said. Why? Because there are many uninformed Americans who will see and hear that quote and say "fuck this bill" and not question it further because it isn't worth their time to find out, don't have the time or they don't want to know and will accept the quote as fact. From a PR perspective, it's a head shaker.

No, the PR nightmare is the GOP and conservative groups led by millionaires and the health insurance industry hiring people to shout down town hall meetings and then trying to claim they're just average, grassroots inspired citizens.

When you don't have facts, go the juvenile and ignorant route I guess...

Wow, this is really fucked up. Not only do they pack the town hall with their people, but afterwards, one of the union people who they let in starts beating up a protester.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhR3T4aw)

Yeah, it is really fuck ed up when the GOP and the health insurance industry packs the town halls with plants looking to drown out real citizens with real questions.

[fullmetalfan720]

No, the PR nightmare is the GOP and conservative groups led by millionaires and the health insurance industry hiring people to shout down town hall meetings and then trying to claim they're just average, grassroots inspired citizens.

When you don't have facts, go the juvenile and ignorant route I guess...



Yeah, it is really fuck ed up when the GOP and the health insurance industry packs the town halls with plants looking to drown out real citizens with real questions.
Do you have any evidence people are being hired to do this? It looks like the Obamacare proponents are doing this, however, as seen in the videos I posted.

[fullmetalfan720]

Yeah, it is really fuck ed up when the GOP and the health insurance industry packs the town halls with plants looking to drown out real citizens with real questions.
Oh sure. And I suppose no one was beat up?

[lawdood]

Do you have any evidence people are being hired to do this? It looks like the Obamacare proponents are doing this, however, as seen in the videos I posted.

Read the news dude, do just some minor research. Freedom Works led by Dick Armey and other groups aligned with the health care industry are behind these disruptions. Or do you only believe and read about what fits your already held beliefs?

Oh sure. And I suppose no one was beat up?

And I suppose no one on the right is calling and making death threats?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/obama-allied-unions-threa_n_254204.html

[Ruined]

No, the PR nightmare is the GOP and conservative groups led by millionaires and the health insurance industry hiring people to shout down town hall meetings and then trying to claim they're just average, grassroots inspired citizens.

When you don't have facts, go the juvenile and ignorant route I guess...

Yeah, it is really fuck ed up when the GOP and the health insurance industry packs the town halls with plants looking to drown out real citizens with real questions.

Looks more like the Obamacare people organized with the purple shirts causing crap, not the average people who just plain think Obamacare sucks (which is the majority according to multiple polls now, btw).

Hell I might go to one of these meetings now, not going to let some government sponsored army crap on my rights; will stop at Walmart and see if I can snag a purple shirt with yellow typeface lol.

[Ruined]

Read the news dude, do just some minor research. Freedom Works led by Dick Armey and other groups aligned with the health care industry are behind these disruptions. Or do you only believe and read about what fits your already held beliefs?


Get a grip, I guess there is a senior citizen conspiracy at the AARP also?
http://www.breitbart.tv/aarp-reps-cancel-listening-session-after-participants-refuse-to-keep-their-comments-quiet/
Some "listening session," eh?

Face it, Obamacare is unwanted care!! Hopefully there is just as violent reaction to Cap & trade as well, another disaster of an idea! People aren't going to sit down and get spoon fed BS.

So long as they try to ram the public option through, IMO people will fight back.

[HowStern]

People aren't going to sit down and get spoon fed BS.




Funny because they are.

Then they ask the people around them if they want to try a taste. Using terms like "Obamacare."

[fullmetalfan720]

Funny because they are.

Then they ask the people around them if they want to try a taste. Using terms like "Obamacare."
What else do you want me to call it? Please tell me.

Read the news dude, do just some minor research. Freedom Works led by Dick Armey and other groups aligned with the health care industry are behind these disruptions. Or do you only believe and read about what fits your already held beliefs?
I don't see anything in the news that says people are being paid to protest Obamacare.


And I suppose no one on the right is calling and making death threats?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/obama-allied-unions-threa_n_254204.html"That, or you all are gonna come up against the Second Amendment."That sounds like a shitty death threat. Plus, no one has been injured by a death threat.

[lawdood]

Get a grip, I guess there is a senior citizen conspiracy at the AARP also?
http://www.breitbart.tv/aarp-reps-cancel-listening-session-after-participants-refuse-to-keep-their-comments-quiet/
Some "listening session," eh?

Face it, Obamacare is unwanted care!! Hopefully there is just as violent reaction to Cap & trade as well, another disaster of an idea! People aren't going to sit down and get spoon fed BS.

So long as they try to ram the public option through, IMO people will fight back.

No, they only accept spoon feeding from the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. :lol:

Please link me to facts that show the majority of people don't want health care reform.

[mykevermin]

This conversation is absurd.

We're talking about stifling ideas and preventing debate, and it's turned into a "Yes you did"/"no we didn't" session of fucking nonsense.

You know what I read today? This. (skip the video, go read the summary.) (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/73207.html)

17% of Americans believe they have a "major problem" with their weight. 49% believe there's no problem at all. The bulk of the remainder consider it a "minor problem."

So there you have perception. Most Americans do not perceive their weight to be an issue.

Now, what's that perception mean on the other side?

This. (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50863H20090109)

34% of Americans were obese in Jan. 2009, and just under 33% overweight - meaning 2 out of every 3 citizens is either overweight or obese.

This is not perception. This is fact. The fact is that 67% of the country is overweight or obese.

Let's go back and look at the numbers, shall we?

Perceived:
17% Their weight is a major problem
33% Their weight is a minor problem
49% Their weight is not a problem at all

Fact:
34% Are obese
32.7% Are overweight

What's this have to do with health care?

Well, as it pertains to the health of the nation, quite a bit. As it pertains to my point, it's that perception ≠ facts. I refuse to stand behind uninformed people, whether they agree with me or not. We aren't having a genuine debate. We're making posterboards instead of exchanging ideas, we're using phrases like "Obamacare"/socialized medicine instead of discussing what the provisions of the bill are. We're hand selecting comparisons to suit out conclusion, and not considering comparisons that contradict them. We're allowing opponents of a government plan to live in the naivete that medicare is not a government plan; we'd rather have allies on our side than expose them to the fact that they're against a policy that they are currently the beneficiary of.

I'm fucking sick of the misinformation, of the lies, and of the talk y'all are throwing down. You have nothing but lies about cost, lies about eugenics (FFS!), lies about rationing.

You are happy to ally yourselves with a woefully uninformed public who can't confront a fact to save their lives, refuse to point out the inherent contradictions of the way they live and what they believe, fill them full of propaganda, and prevent discourse from happening.

And you DARE to call yourself a proud American. You have the NERVE to call this democracy in action.

You're scared to death of having a civil discussion on facts, on the problems of the current system, and of being confronted with the facts of the plan. You oppose something and, frankly, none of you opponents know a thing about it.

Fuck you all.

[UncleBob]

Myke: Here's the deal - any plan that includes: A) Forced confiscation of private property by gunpoint for redistribution or B) Forced purchasing of health insurance coverage (and yes, fining people if they don't have insurance counts just the same) - simply will not be okay with some of us. THIS is a FACT.

Everything else is a distraction. Period.

[mykevermin]

Except that your broad metaphorical description of A, in order to remain philosophically consistent (and therefore valuable), must imply any form of taxation whatsoever. It's a red herring argument since the "forced confiscation...by gunpoint" is a way to describe any taxation.

And the federal plan does not involve B. Coverage is not mandatory.

[Snake2715]

Myke.

Is that based off the AMA definitions of overweight or obese? Could it be possible that just like the recent mileage revision given to all autos, could be applied to these statistics? Does the old methodology or calculations need to be thrown out and re adjusted?

Not trying to jump ship on where your headed, but that would explain some of the differences.

[gareman]

or B) Forced purchasing of health insurance coverage (and yes, fining people if they don't have insurance counts just the same) - simply will not be okay with some of us. THIS is a FACT.



Not unlike the idea that you can get huge fines and forced into an insurance plan if you get caught not having insurance on your car? I take it you are very much against this.

[spmahn]

Not unlike the idea that you can get huge fines and forced into an insurance plan if you get caught not having insurance on your car? I take it you are very much against this.

Yeah, but forcing people to at least have liability insurance for their automobile is necessary to protect other people from potentially reckless mistakes you might make, rather then to protect yourself. You're not forced to have full coverage unless you're financing your car and it's a required part of the terms. If a person chooses not to have health insurance, it's not harming anyone else. If a person doesn't have liability insurance on their car, then they are putting other people at risk.

[HowStern]

Myke: Here's the deal - any plan that includes: A) Forced confiscation of private property by gunpoint for redistribution or B) Forced purchasing of health insurance coverage (and yes, fining people if they don't have insurance counts just the same) - simply will not be okay with some of us. THIS is a FACT.

Everything else is a distraction. Period.


Even if coverage was mandatory(it isn't), you would be against this?
So, you don't mind paying for the obese, the smokers, and the drinkers? Don't you think they should pay their own way or be fined?
Because right now that guy out there somewhere that is collecting disability checks for being too fat is having his medical bill footed by us.

[lawdood]

Yeah, but forcing people to at least have liability insurance for their automobile is necessary to protect other people from potentially reckless mistakes you might make, rather then to protect yourself. You're not forced to have full coverage unless you're financing your car and it's a required part of the terms. If a person chooses not to have health insurance, it's not harming anyone else. If a person doesn't have liability insurance on their car, then they are putting other people at risk.

You SERIOUSLY think not having health insurance doesn't put other people at risk of having to pay for their health problems down the line? :lol:

[mykevermin]

Snake2715:

Based on BMI. Overweight = BMI >25, Obese = BMI > 30.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/overweight/overwght_adult_03.htm

I think BMI is a poor measure since it's nothing more than a height/weight ratio (i.e., two people of the same height/weight have the same BMI, but could be massively different in terms of their physical appearance). Nevertheless, that's a huge disparity b/w perception and reality, unless we're a nation of bodybuilders.

[JolietJake]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_health_care

Exactly what are the medical requirements involved in being declared mentally incompetent?#-o

[homeland]

Anyone else get a chuckle on the irony from the republicans lately? I.e. they stating government run health care is bad because the government will get between you and your doctor and now they demand any public option not cover abortions which last I checked (regardless of ones personal beliefs) is a legal medical condition that is decided between you and your doctor.


I dont have insurance now, and when my ex had an abortion many years ago it was out of pocket for privacy, do insurance policies usually cover abortions?

[elprincipe]

No, they only accept spoon feeding from the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. :lol:

Please link me to facts that show the majority of people don't want health care reform.

Unlike people such as yourself, who seem to want to spam message boards by regurgitating White House talking points about the protests.

And nice, careful wording on that link request. Clearly you know full well most people want health-care reform, but don't like the Democrats' plans. That's easy enough to find in any current poll, where over 50 percent consistently disagree with Obama's handling of the issue (and therefore the Democrats' plans).

I think we should all be able to agree on two things:

1. People shouting down others and preventing discussion at town halls are not behaving civilly.

2. There is a lot of emotion and protest because many people don't like the current plans going through Congress on health care, not because a relatively small number of people riled up by the likes of Dick Armey are blanketing the country.

As a side note, myke, I don't trust those obesity/overweight (over whose weight, I always wondered?) statistics. Any measure that has folks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura classified as "obese" has something very wrong with it.

[mykevermin]

You're operating under the presumption that Americans are actually informed as to the contents of the bill as proposed, and also ignoring that a large portion of people are simply opposed to "government-run health care." You know, the same folks who are disproportionately elderly, and therefore disproportionately on medicare?

;)

As for the BMI, it has its shortcomings without a doubt - but like I said, unless we're a nation of bodybuilders, then the disparity between those findings and people's perceptions of their weight problems is enormous. Lotsa cognitive dissonance at work there.

(Also, its not over "whose" weight, it's over a mean healthy weight for someone of that age/height/sex.)

[lawdood]

Unlike people such as yourself, who seem to want to spam message boards by regurgitating White House talking points about the protests.



Anytime you want to repudiate any of the so called "talking points" I've regurgitated with facts and links...I'm all eyes.

[Msut77]

Anytime you want to repudiate any of the so called "talking points" I've regurgitated with facts and links...I'm all eyes.

Don't hold your breath. All you will get is lies and intentional ignorance from the con clown car crew, oh and the occasional stupid question that doesn't actually go anywhere.

------------

The odious Sarah Palin posted this pack of disinformation on her facebook today:

...who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil... Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Reality and decency left her long ago.

She is either a liar or is genuinely disturbed, perhaps both.

Meanwhile Texas passed a law (which Bush signed) not all that long ago allowing doctors to pull the plug on people including children against their parents wishes, it is used at times after the parents can no longer afford continued care.

I am sure she is just as outraged about that.

[UncleBob]

Not unlike the idea that you can get huge fines and forced into an insurance plan if you get caught not having insurance on your car? I take it you are very much against this.

YOU CAN'T COMPARE PEOPLE TO CARS, YOU SICK MONSTER. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE...

...isn't that the default line whenever someone tries to link health insurance to automobile insurance?

The main difference here is that I am not required by any law to have automotive insurance. Some Democratic proposals would require me to have health insurance.

[thrustbucket]

Where I live you can get a ticket and your car impounded for not having proof of insurance when pulled over. That makes me think it is a law.

[UncleBob]

Where I live you can get a ticket and your car impounded for not having proof of insurance when pulled over.

That may be true - but there is still no law that requires an individual in America to have automobile insurance of any kind.

[lawdood]

That may be true - but there is still no law that requires an individual in America to have automobile insurance of any kind.


There's no law that requires you not to commit murders either. But there are laws that punish you if you do, just as it is with auto insurance, at least here in California.

[elprincipe]

You're operating under the presumption that Americans are actually informed as to the contents of the bill as proposed, and also ignoring that a large portion of people are simply opposed to "government-run health care." You know, the same folks who are disproportionately elderly, and therefore disproportionately on medicare?

;)

I can't argue with the plain fact that most Americans are ignorant as to what is being proposed, or that "get your stinking government hands off my Medicare!" is even more incredibly ignorant and stupid. I would say, however, that the more people learn about the plans in Congress, the less they like them. I would even assert that if people were more informed, we would see a continuation of that feeling to higher levels of opposition to Democratic plans, given that 80 percent of people are happy with what they have, and any Democratic plan is sure to change that. I do think that the Wyden/Bennett plan, an article about which I linked to a page or two back, would be something that could garner majority support among Americans.

[elprincipe]

Anytime you want to repudiate any of the so called "talking points" I've regurgitated with facts and links...I'm all eyes.

Yes, many facts and links. Like the link to the "subversive" memo (marked as a "key" link) that was authored by a Republican activist whose vast organization is insidiously blanketing America with "astroturf" protests...that claims 23 members and a total of $5,017 in funding?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/liberals_push_bogus_conspiracy.html

Or were your links and proof just that the president and Nancy Pelosi said these things, thus they must be true? :rofl:

[thrustbucket]

The government should run health care? Really? Does anyone really believe that's a good idea?

The same government that runs Amtrack, the same Amtrack which has posted a loss for every one of the last 40 years?
The same government runs the postal service - that posted a 2.4 BILLION DOLLAR loss for last quarter, and expects to lose 7 BILLION more in the next year?
This same government runs Medicaid, which by their own admission is crippled with inefficiency and corruption?

So I ask again, who wants to admit they believe it is a good idea to hand the healthcare wheel over to these people?

Finally, by the government's own bloated figures, of the 46 million people without health care, half are eligible for coverage through work or medicaid. Much of the balance of the other 23 million are the laziest, no account, high school drop out bums in the country. By giving them free health care for life and making hard working people like me pay for it, you are giving them another reason to keep their fat asses on their couches for good.

[UncleBob]

There's no law that requires you not to commit murders either. But there are laws that punish you if you do, just as it is with auto insurance, at least here in California.

As I said earlier...

(and yes, fining people if they don't have insurance counts just the same)

I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

$25 Gift Card. Show it to me. Anyone?

[lawdood]

The government should run health care? Really? Does anyone really believe that's a good idea?

The same government that runs Amtrack, the same Amtrack which has posted a loss for every one of the last 40 years?
The same government runs the postal service - that posted a 2.4 BILLION DOLLAR loss for last quarter, and expects to lose 7 BILLION more in the next year?
This same government runs Medicaid, which by their own admission is crippled with inefficiency and corruption?

So I ask again, who wants to admit they believe it is a good idea to hand the healthcare wheel over to these people?

Finally, by the government's own bloated figures, of the 46 million people without health care, half are eligible for coverage through work or medicaid. Much of the balance of the other 23 million are the laziest, no account, high school drop out bums in the country. By giving them free health care for life and making hard working people like me pay for it, you are giving them another reason to keep their fat asses on their couches for good.

Um, Medicaid is administered by the states.

And who is giving anyone free healthcare? Please link to facts to support your claims.

Also, please link to facts that the 23 million you claim are actually just lazy, no account, high school bums...or are you just coming up with that in your own mind after believing everything right wing talk show hosts, who get all their talking points from the for-profit insurance industry, tell you?

That same government you mentioned runs the VA, military healthcare and medicare, some of the best healthcare systems in the country. None of which have insurance number crunchers and bottom line watchers coming between you and your doctor.

As I said earlier...



I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

$25 Gift Card. Show it to me. Anyone?

We can just require those that choose not to have healthcare to put up multi-thousand dollar bonds instead like they do in California, perhaps that would make you happy? Or do you just want to continue playing juvenile games?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

$25 Gift Card. Show it to me. Anyone?

601 KAR 1:101. Proof of liability and cargo insurance.
RELATES TO: KRS 281.600, 281.655, 281.656, 281.670, 281.990, 49 C.F.R. Parts 387, 1023, 1043
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 281.600, 49 C.F.R. Parts 387, 1023, 1043
NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 281.655(1) requires that before any certificate or permit will be issued or renewed, the applicant or holder shall file with the department an approved indemnifying bond or insurance policy. This administrative regulation establishes a system of insurance filings for all motor carriers operating in intrastate commerce or which have been registered in Kentucky pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 1023.

Section 1. Proof of Insurance of Interstate Exempt and Intrastate Motor Carriers. (1) Evidence of insurance required by KRS 281.655(1) shall be filed for motor carriers operating in intrastate commerce and those operating in interstate commerce but which are exempt from the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission with the Division of Motor Carriers in the form of a certificate of insurance. The certificate of insurance shall be written to show the term of the policy to be continuous until cancelled under proper notice. Another form of evidence of insurance shall not be accepted.
(2) The certificate of bodily injury and property damage insurance shall be on form TC 95-211, "Uniform Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance" revised April, 1988.
(3) All household goods motor carriers shall file proof of cargo insurance on form TC 95-212, "Uniform Motor Carrier Cargo Certificate of Insurance" revised April, 1988.
(4)(a) Cancellation of insurance required to be filed pursuant to KRS 281.655(9) shall be effected through the filing of form TC 95-213, "Uniform Notice of Cancellation of Motor Carrier Insurance Policies" revised April, 1988.
(b) Notice of the reinstatement of insurance which was cancelled pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this subsection shall be as set forth in subsections (2) and (3) of this section.

Section 2. Insurance - Interstate Authorized Carriers. (1) Provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 387 as effective January 11, 1995 and 49 CFR Part 1043.2 as effective November 13, 1990, shall govern the minimum amounts of liability insurance of a motor carrier of property or passengers authorized to do so by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
(2) In accordance with 49 CFR Part 1023, Interstate Commerce Commission authorized motor carriers registered in Kentucky pursuant to 601 KAR 1:040, Section 5 shall file proof of insurance with the Division of Motor Carriers on Form B.M.C. 91, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance" revised by the Interstate Commerce Commission in January, 1982, or if more than one (1) insurance carrier is involved, Form B.M.C. 91X, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance" revised by the Interstate Commerce Commission in January, 1982. These forms are incorporated by reference.

Section 3. Reinstatement of Insurance. A motor carrier desiring to file a reinstatement of insurance which has been cancelled shall file a new certificate of insurance as required by this administrative regulation.

Section 4. Self-insurers. (1) Persons applying in accordance with KRS 281.655(11) for an exemption in whole or in part, from the requirements of KRS 281.655(1), (5) and (6) shall file their application in petition form accompanied by a balance sheet and an income statement, as exhibits, which shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant or a responsible accounting officer of the applicant and shall reflect the actual financial condition of the applicant as of the last calendar quarter preceding the date of the application.
(2) When an authorized carrier operating exclusively in interstate commerce has qualified as a self-insurer with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that commission has entered an order allowing the carrier to qualify as a self-insurer, the applicant may file, as an exhibit, a certified copy of the ICC order with its application in lieu of a balance sheet and an income statement.
(3) The cabinet shall, in its discretion, enter an order consistent with its opinion of the applicant's financial condition.
(4) The order may be revoked by the cabinet at any time when it has reason to believe that the financial condition of the applicant has changed.
(5) The cabinet may also require the filing of additional financial statements or at any time it has reason to believe the financial condition of the applicant has changed.

Section 5. Material Incorporated by Reference. (1) The following material is incorporated by reference:
(a) Form TC 95-211, "Uniform Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance", revised April 1988;
(b) Form TC 95-212, "Uniform Motor Carrier Cargo Certificate of Insurance", revised April 1988;
(c) Form TC 95-213, "Uniform Notice of Cancellation of Motor Carrier Insurance Policies", revised April 1988;
(d) Form B.M.C. 91, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance", revised January 1982, Interstate Commerce Commission; and
(e) Form B.M.C. 91X, "Motor Carrier Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance", revised January 1982, Interstate Commerce Commission.
(2) This material may be inspected, copied, or obtained at the Department of Vehicle Regulation, Division of Motor Carriers, Third Floor, State Office Building, 501 High Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40622, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The telephone number is (502) 564-4540. (20 Ky.R. 1506; Am. 2330; eff. 2-10-94; 23 Ky.R. 1012; 1592; eff. 10-1-96.)


http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/601/001/101.htm


Are we close enough?

[mykevermin]

Howard Dean just slaughtered Newt Gingrich on "This Week."

There's no argument of substance against health care reform.

As Dean pointed out in response to Sarah Palin's twitter about "Obama's death panel" and the various arguments that "Obamacare" will euthanize your grandparents, in his career as a practicing physician, coverage/treatment was never denied as a part of medicare, and regularly bureaucratized, denied, refused payment of, or rescinded at the insistence of private insurance programs.

Now I knew that already, that the "euthanasia/eugenics" and "denied treatment" options were a red herring that sound good and are parroted by people who clearly didn't think critically about what they were saying. But Dean succinctly slew that beast. Now it's just a matter of hoping people will stop making such absurd arguments.

[UncleBob]

Are we close enough?

Nope.

Would anyone in the class like to provide the right answer?

[craig134]

I can't help but roll my eyebrows at the people who think the current system is fine, and that rationing health-care is a greater evil because coverage is denied to certain people. Even if coverage is denied in a lottery-style national health-care system, at least care would be apportioned to people on a random basis, rather than in the current system where the quality of the care you receive is largely a function of your socio-economic class or economic resources. As it stands we simply treat those who possess money as worthwhile while those without as detritus. Which is completely contrary to the ethics of equality this nation was supposedly founded on. But America has always more been about mouthing words rather than following them.


And to be clear: I have no issues with health care; my father owns a business, so I would be one to benefit from the current system.

[lawdood]

Nope.

Would anyone in the class like to provide the right answer?

No one wants to play your stupid game. Either provide your own facts and explanations or GTFO.

[UncleBob]

No one wants to play your stupid game. Either provide your own facts and explanations or GTFO.

Dangit! I thought I told my stable of trained Ninja-Assassins to stop holding people at knife point, forcing them to read and respond to my posts. I'll resend that memo out right away and make sure everyone gets it this time.

So, for those who still can't seem to understand, I'll give you a big ol' hint - how many four year old girls have automotive insurance?

[HowStern]

UncleBob, you're line of thinking is ludicrous.

The law states that if you drive you MUST buy auto insurance. You owe FOC $25.

Why would they make people who don't drive buy insurance? They wouldn't make dead people buy health insurance.

Living -> Buy health insurance

Driving -> Buy car insurance.


Easy as that.

[UncleBob]

UncleBob, you're line of thinking is ludicrous.

The law states that if you drive you MUST buy auto insurance. You owe FOC $25.

No, I don't. I was very clear in my offer.
I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

Why would they make people who don't drive buy insurance? They wouldn't make dead people buy health insurance.

Living -> Buy health insurance

Driving -> Buy car insurance.

Easy as that.

See, that's where there's a huge difference between auto insurance and health insurance (aside from the "CARS ARE NOT PEOPLEZ", of course). No one is required to have auto insurance. If you don't want to take it out, you have the simple option of not operating a motor vehicle.

In a world where you are required by law to pay for health insurance, the only other option available is to kill yourself.

[UncleBob]

On an aside, all this talk about Princess Nancy and the Nazi-Symbolism makes me wonder where she was during the entire Bush era...
http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_nazi.jpg

Don't recall her speaking up against the same stuff then.

[HowStern]

No, I don't. I was very clear in my offer.




See, that's where there's a huge difference between auto insurance and health insurance (aside from the "CARS ARE NOT PEOPLEZ", of course). No one is required to have auto insurance. If you don't want to take it out, you have the simple option of not operating a motor vehicle.

In a world where you are required by law to pay for health insurance, the only other option available is to kill yourself.

No the other option is to pay the stupid fine so that the rest of don't foot the bill for those without insurance. Everyone pays their own way,

[lawdood]

On an aside, all this talk about Princess Nancy and the Nazi-Symbolism makes me wonder where she was during the entire Bush era...
http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_nazi.jpg

Don't recall her speaking up against the same stuff then.

That's because it wasn't this prevalent at Congressional townhalls and community meetings. Please, by all means, show us where "average" citizens were showing up with posters like that.

[Msut77]

Lawdood:

Try not to respond to Bob's irrelevant meandering.

Trust me.

[lawdood]

Lawdood:

Try not to respond to Bob's irrelevant meandering.

Trust me.

Yeah, you're right. my bad. ;)

[fullmetalfan720]

Could it be? Government corruption in the health care bill!
The NYT is reporting that PhRMA will spend $150 million in advertising to support the White House health care plan in August (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy/09lobby.html?partner=rss&emc=rss):
The drug industry has already contributed millions of dollars to advertising campaigns for the health care overhaul through the advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA. It has spent about $1 million on similar advertisements under its own name.
All of the commercials closely echo common Democratic themes about medical care for all, consumer protection and “health insurance reform.” Some supporters of the overhaul have hired public affairs and advertising firms with close ties to the White House and Senate Democrats, including GMMB, which worked on the Obama campaign, and AKPD, which previously included David Axelrod, who is now the president’s top political adviser.

In a statement released by the President on June 20 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-President-Obama-on-Agreement-to-Bring-Down-Drug-Prices-for-Americas-Seniors/):
I am pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation's pharmaceutical companies that will bring down health care costs and reduce the price of prescription drugs for millions of America's seniors. As part of the health reform legislation that I expect Congress to enact this year, pharmaceutical companies will extend discounts on prescription drugs to millions of seniors who currently are subjected to crushing out-of-pocket expenses when the yearly amounts they pay for medication fall within the doughnut hole any payments by seniors not covered by Medicare that fall between $2700 and $6153.75 per year.

Former Blue Dog Billy Tauzin, who now heads PhRMA, told the New York Times it was a "rock solid deal." Jim "Stickboy" Messina (Obama's "Josh Lyman") "confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message" to the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html).
McJoan asked (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/6/762752/-Is-Max-Baucus-Writing-the-White-House-Bill) the other day if Baucus is writing the White House's health care bill. I don't think there is any question that he is, that Tauzin knows he is, and that the idea that he's "holding up" the White House is not grounded in reality. And that the deal cuts the legs out from underneath Jeff Merkeley, who was trying to negotiate for $63 billion in rebates (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124845536681979471.html) for drugs provided under Medicare.
The only question is how much the Democrats got in exchange for gutting the government's ability to control health care costs.
During the campaign, this was Obama's position (http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Barack+Obama+on+Health+Care):
Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion.

It no longer appears on the health care page at mybarackobama.com. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/)
But, let's do the math. In ten years, $30 billion a year would mean $300 billion in savings. The deal cut by the White House is for $80 billion in savings. So the pharmaceutical industry gets to keep $220 billion for the low low price of $150 million in August to pass health care reform so Rahm Emanual won't be 13-1 (http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/07/rahm-goes-apeshit-on-liberals-in-the-veal-pen/).
A hundred fifty million for two hundred twenty billion in savings: an excellent return on investment by anyone's standards.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma/
Before you start screaming about how this article is "written by those damn dirty cons," its actually written by liberals, who want Obamacare.

[AdultLink]

Honestly, after all of the shit that has gone on the past few years, if you at this point think government is there to help you deserve to be swindled.

It's hilarious watching idiots believe the liberals, esp when the liberals are just as corrupt as republicans.

After all, this is the same administration who needs $18 MILLION to redesign the gov web site.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

Which really at the most should be half a million to a million, but Obama has to pay his special interest groups with taxpayer money...

[UncleBob]

No the other option is to pay the stupid fine so that the rest of don't foot the bill for those without insurance.

So, you can avoid having health insurance by paying "fines" into the government health insurance program?

Everyone pays their own way,

Really?

Really?

It seems a government option, paid for by taxpayer funds, means everyone doesn't pay their own way.

[UncleBob]

Anyone else get a chuckle on the irony from the republicans lately? I.e. they stating government run health care is bad because the government will get between you and your doctor and now they demand any public option not cover abortions which last I checked (regardless of ones personal beliefs) is a legal medical condition that is decided between you and your doctor.

And now, we demonstrate why Government-ran Health Care is a bad idea.

One moment, we're refusing to fund abortions. Then, perhaps, some innovative Stem-Cell therapy. Next thing you know, you can't get medical care for your infertility because you don't meet the government criteria for having children.

It's easy to laugh it off and say stuff like this would never happen - but, let's say in eight years, there's another "political revolution". We all know one party doesn't keep power for long. What happens when Another Bush-like conservative gets back in power and his party tries to push an agenda that refuses to allow tax dollars to go toward abortions?

[UncleBob]

Triple Post:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics

I want you to argue with them and get in their face

Now there's someone who wants polite, open discourse.

[gareman]

And now, we demonstrate why Government-ran Health Care is a bad idea.

One moment, we're refusing to fund abortions. Then, perhaps, some innovative Stem-Cell therapy. Next thing you know, you can't get medical care for your infertility because you don't meet the government criteria for having children.

It's easy to laugh it off and say stuff like this would never happen - but, let's say in eight years, there's another "political revolution". We all know one party doesn't keep power for long. What happens when Another Bush-like conservative gets back in power and his party tries to push an agenda that refuses to allow tax dollars to go toward abortions?


That's a non-issue. Its not like there are these huge citizens revolutions and government reforms every 4-8 years when there are administration changes. Like the fact that I don't freak out, nor do presidents change things back and forth depending on party, that my tax money goes to killing criminals or funding a war I have been against since the beginning. Or how about paying to jail people who I think shouldn't even be in jail.

[thrustbucket]

Um, Medicaid is administered by the states.
That doesn't qualify as "Government"?

And who is giving anyone free healthcare? Please link to facts to support your claims.
Ask any emergency room worker that question, and try to keep a straight face so they don't punch it.

Also, please link to facts that the 23 million you claim are actually just lazy, no account, high school bums...or are you just coming up with that in your own mind after believing everything right wing talk show hosts, who get all their talking points from the for-profit insurance industry, tell you?
This is hard to take seriously from someone with your avatar, so I'll only wink at you and play the same game by asking you to prove that I'm wrong.

I never claimed those are hard facts, those are my guesses. You really believe 23 million without insurance are all victims? Really?
The point your missing is the fact that there is only 23 million out of 380 million people being totally uninsured in this country (yes some by choice), makes it a very hard sell on everyone else that they need to put any of their present coverage in jeopardy by allowing risky massive overhauls of the entire system.

That same government you mentioned runs the VA, military healthcare and medicare, some of the best healthcare systems in the country. None of which have insurance number crunchers and bottom line watchers coming between you and your doctor.
I'd expect anyone working for the government to get great healthcare from the government.

We can just require those that choose not to have healthcare to put up multi-thousand dollar bonds instead like they do in California, perhaps that would make you happy? Or do you just want to continue playing juvenile games?
The only games I see being played are in the house and senate.

Look, I'm not arguing that nothing should change or that there aren't problems. I am arguing against anyone that believes the answers lie within government run healthcare/single payer system. History and facts simply prove the government can't manage anything efficiently or effectively, even with their newfound endless supply of money.

[HowStern]

So, you can avoid having health insurance by paying "fines" into the government health insurance program?



Really?

Really?

It seems a government option, paid for by taxpayer funds, means everyone doesn't pay their own way.


Yeah, they do. That's what the fine is. It's saying "OK, look you didn't buy insurance for yourself and the rest of us aren't going to pay for you so now you are being fined."

We aleady have this in massachusetts. Forced health insurance. The fine isn't small. You can't collect your tax return without proof of insurance. That's a hefty fine.

[UncleBob]

Yeah, they do. That's what the fine is. It's saying "OK, look you didn't buy insurance for yourself and the rest of us aren't going to pay for you so now you are being fined.

So, again, the only way to opt out of have health insurance is to kill yourself. Otherwise, you get to pay "fines" into the system that pay for your health insurance - thus giving you health insurance anyway.

[HowStern]

So, again, the only way to opt out of have health insurance is to kill yourself. Otherwise, you get to pay "fines" into the system that pay for your health insurance - thus giving you health insurance anyway.


I don't think this is the current bill though. Forced coverage.

They way they do it here though is you pay based on your income.

But to think killing yourself is a better option is plain demented. Not to mention extremely privileged. There are people who will die without coverage. My brother in law is 17 and has type 1 diabetes. He doesn't live in MA though. So, next year when he turns 18 his insurance coverage is gone. If he goes 3 days without his medicine he can die.


To assume everyone is so privileged that they would consider killing themselves to avoid having health insurance is beyond fucked.

[perdition(troy]

if he stays in school his coverage is still there, just so you know.

[fullmetalfan720]

I don't think this is the current bill though. Forced coverage.

They way they do it here though is you pay based on your income.

But to think killing yourself is a better option is plain demented. Not to mention extremely privileged. There are people who will die without coverage. My brother in law is 17 and has type 1 diabetes. He doesn't live in MA though. So, next year when he turns 18 his insurance coverage is gone. If he goes 3 days without his medicine he can die.


To assume everyone is so privileged that they would consider killing themselves to avoid having health insurance is beyond fucked.

Its not about "privilage." Its about having a choice. If you don't want health insurance, or can't afford it, you shouldn't be forced into the option of, "buy insurance, or pay the government fines." I like how all these proposals on the Democrat's side force people to buy insurance, or pay a large fine, and insist that they will make health care "affordable." Then they say that subsidies won't kick in for the poor until they spend 11-12% of their income on health care. How is that affordable? I guess they won't even be able to choose between food and health insurance anymore.

[thrustbucket]

The logic behind fining people without healthcare is that they will use healthcare anyway (emergency rooms), and the rest of us pay for it.

[HowStern]

^Thank you thrust. You'd think that it's a pretty simple concept to get..Guess not, though..

[lawdood]

Look, I'm not arguing that nothing should change or that there aren't problems. I am arguing against anyone that believes the answers lie within government run healthcare/single payer system. History and facts simply prove the government can't manage anything efficiently or effectively, even with their newfound endless supply of money.

What you are actually arguing is so factually wrong and illogical, it borders on not making sense and/or just plain made up.

First, the government is NOT taking over the healthcare system, they are simply creating a public option for those that can't get it any other way and by doing so hopefully bringing down and reigning in spiraling costs when the FOR PROFIT healthcare providers have to compete.

Secondly, there is NO OTHER ENTITY possible that could reform healthcare other THAN the government. Either they do it or it never gets done and spiraling healthcare costs break the system and bankrupt the nation. See, if you didn't know, the FOR PROFIT healthcare industry makes BILLIONS each year on the backs of Americans sicknesses, disease and other ailments. They have no reason to make any changes while their profits keep flowing in. It's like the oil companies really caring about Americans getting away from their dependence on foreign oil. They don't.

And finally you compeltely ignored my statement about the government run VA and Medicare healthcare systems. They are quite successful and as well run, if not better run, than any other healthcare systems in the country.

PROTIP: Those that receive their healthcare from those agencies are NOT government employees.

[UncleBob]

The logic behind fining people without healthcare is that they will use healthcare anyway (emergency rooms), and the rest of us pay for it.

Simple solution - deny individuals access to the emergency room if they cannot pay for it.

And finally you compeltely ignored my statement about the government run VA and Medicare healthcare systems. They are quite successful and as well run, if not better run, than any other healthcare systems in the country.

Medicare is successful? Really? Even more so considering it's pretty much completely funded by confiscated taxpayer dollars?

Oh, and the idea of the government picking and choosing what health procedures individuals can get paid for by the government - the Liberal Gods over at DailyKos had some comments and the following link: http://m.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/

Seems like the government already does this in the cases of abortions - and will likely continue to do so.

[mykevermin]

I like how all these proposals on the Democrat's side force people to buy insurance, or pay a large fine

You're either misinformed or outright lying. Either way, I recommend you rectify that.

Massachusetts ≠ "all these proposals on the Democrat's side."

[thrustbucket]

First, the government is NOT taking over the healthcare system, they are simply creating a public option for those that can't get it any other way and by doing so hopefully bringing down and reigning in spiraling costs when the FOR PROFIT healthcare providers have to compete.
Well it's kind of early to be making claims as to what the change will actually do. Especially when there are several proposals. Some are more 'government takeover' than others.

Secondly, there is NO OTHER ENTITY possible that could reform healthcare other THAN the government. Either they do it or it never gets done and spiraling healthcare costs break the system and bankrupt the nation.
I don't disagree with that statement, but there is a huge difference between government taking control of an industry and government providing regulatory laws, policies, and guidelines for an industry. Different proposals on the table waffle between each extreme, which is the heat source of the debate, imo.

And finally you compeltely ignored my statement about the government run VA and Medicare healthcare systems. They are quite successful and as well run, if not better run, than any other healthcare systems in the country.
I honestly can't comment on the VA. You could be right about that. But Medicare? Seriously? The words "Fraud" and "Medicare" are used in sentences together more often than "Country Music" and "Shit".

PROTIP: Those that receive their healthcare from those agencies are NOT government employees.
I realize that. Except in the case of the VA, they are or were government employees.

[lawdood]

Well it's kind of early to be making claims as to what the change will actually do. Especially when there are several proposals. Some are more 'government takeover' than others.


I don't disagree with that statement, but there is a huge difference between government taking control of an industry and government providing regulatory laws, policies, and guidelines for an industry. Different proposals on the table waffle between each extreme, which is the heat source of the debate, imo.

Please post links to the sections of the healthcare bill that actually spell out the government taking control of the healthcare industry...all that is proposed is a public OPTION...There's NOTHING in reality which says what you're trying to suggest. Either back up your claims or admit you're wrong.


I honestly can't comment on the VA. You could be right about that. But Medicare? Seriously? The words "Fraud" and "Medicare" are used in sentences together more often than "Country Music" and "Shit".


I realize that. Except in the case of the VA, they are or were government employees.

What does fraud being perpretrated by individuals have to do with the government running of Medicare? Individuals try to (and do) defraud private insurance companies EVERY DAY, please try again.

[fullmetalfan720]

What you are actually arguing is so factually wrong and illogical, it borders on not making sense and/or just plain made up.

First, the government is NOT taking over the healthcare system, they are simply creating a public option for those that can't get it any other way and by doing so hopefully bringing down and reigning in spiraling costs when the FOR PROFIT healthcare providers have to compete.

Secondly, there is NO OTHER ENTITY possible that could reform healthcare other THAN the government.
That's true. If government could just get rid of many of the health insurance regulations, health insurance could be affordable again.
Either they do it or it never gets done and spiraling healthcare costs break the system and bankrupt the nation.
In case you haven't noticed, we are already going to be bankrupt. See bailouts/social security/medicare.
See, if you didn't know, the FOR PROFIT healthcare industry makes BILLIONS each year on the backs of Americans sicknesses, disease and other ailments. They have no reason to make any changes while their profits keep flowing in. It's like the oil companies really caring about Americans getting away from their dependence on foreign oil. They don't.
That tends to be what happens when you let a few companies have a monopoly over an industry.
What does fraud being perpretrated by individuals have to do with the government running of Medicare? Individuals try to (and do) defraud private insurance companies EVERY DAY, please try again.
When you have billions of dollars a year in fraud, that's not a good thing. If you look at the article I posted earlier, you will see that there is already fraud in the health care bill. $220 billion of it to be exact.
You're either misinformed or outright lying. Either way, I recommend you rectify that.

Massachusetts ≠ "all these proposals on the Democrat's side."
The reform bills offered by both Senate and House Democratshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31782553/ns/politics-capitol_hill/#) would impose an individual mandate — a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance. Taxpayer-provided subsidies would go to lower-income Americans if they could not afford to purchase it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31782553/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

[UncleBob]

Get paid to go to townhalls! (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/astroturf-for-healthcare-earn-10-15hr)

[mykevermin]

fullmetal720: See if you can find it here. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.senate.gov%2FBAI09A84_xml.pd f&ei=vXKBSrKrD4eaMfy4vKIL&usg=AFQjCNEN9OGTSa53p814GFRKS1zS1J4nFw&sig2=9qxyTOPALoK4padyoCVMgw)

Bob: That's disgusting.

[paddlefoot]

Logan's Run

[perdition(troy]

/funded by soros (j/k j/k)

[thrustbucket]

Please post links to the sections of the healthcare bill that actually spell out the government taking control of the healthcare industry...all that is proposed is a public OPTION...There's NOTHING in reality which says what you're trying to suggest. Either back up your claims or admit you're wrong.
I'm busy and am at work, so I'll go ahead and opt for being wrong this time.

What does fraud being perpretrated by individuals have to do with the government running of Medicare? Individuals try to (and do) defraud private insurance companies EVERY DAY, please try again.
If you seriously haven't heard about the corruption, ineffeciencies, and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, then lucky for you. See above. You can call me wrong and I will believe your naive and we can leave it at that.

[Msut77]

That's true. If government could just get rid of many of the health insurance regulations, health insurance could be affordable again.

Aside from the fact that this is code for dropping unprofitable people off of insurance this line of "thought" was destroyed roughly twenty pages ago.

[perdition(troy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy/09lobby.html?_r=1

The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.

With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

So it's the conservatives that are being funded by people from the healthcare system?

[lawdood]

That's true. If government could just get rid of many of the health insurance regulations, health insurance could be affordable again.


Yes, that would work wonders to help American citizens and reform the healthcare industry. I mean, look what it did for Wall Street.


If you seriously haven't heard about the corruption, ineffeciencies, and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, then lucky for you. See above. You can call me wrong and I will believe your naive and we can leave it at that.

Yes, I've also heard about the fraud and inefficiencies of the private insurance sector...that's why we're trying to REFORM healthcare.

So it's the conservatives that are being funded by people from the healthcare system?

Why wouldn't the drug companies want to help reform the system? More people with health insurance = more customers. Isn't that what cons like?

[saturninus]

I have advocated the single-payer healthcare system. It is less drastic than what Obama wants to do, creating a whole new government institution to "compete" with health insurance companies.

I have no love for health insurance companies. People advocating against reform or any universal system probably never had a pre-existing condition.

[fullmetalfan720]

fullmetal720: See if you can find it here. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.senate.gov%2FBAI09A84_xml.pd f&ei=vXKBSrKrD4eaMfy4vKIL&usg=AFQjCNEN9OGTSa53p814GFRKS1zS1J4nFw&sig2=9qxyTOPALoK4padyoCVMgw)

Bob: That's disgusting.
‘‘PART VIII—SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
20 PAYMENTS
‘‘Sec. 59B. Shared responsibility payments.
21 ‘‘SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS.
22 ‘‘(a) PAYMENT.—
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any indi
vidual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage
104
O:\BAI\BAI09A84.xml [file 1 of 6] S.L.C.
1 (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health
2 Service Act) for any month during the taxable year,
3 there is hereby imposed for the taxable year, in addi4
tion to any other amount imposed by this subtitle,
5 an amount equal to the amount established under
6 paragraph (2).There you go.

[thrustbucket]

Yes, I've also heard about the fraud and inefficiencies of the private insurance sector...that's why we're trying to REFORM healthcare.



I am not defender of private healthcare. Reform is fine with me. As long as there is never a chance that I MUST get some type of approval from a government suit or committee to get surgery, I'm cool.

[lawdood]

I am not defender of private healthcare. Reform is fine with me. As long as there is never a chance that I MUST get some type of approval from a government suit or committee to get surgery, I'm cool.

lol, but getting that approval from an insurance company suit or committee only looking out for the profitability of the company and not your well being, is just fine?

BTW- for the millionth time, there is NO government takeover of healthcare in any bill being proposed. Of course if you get your info from the likes of someone like Glenn Beck, you might think differently. I encourage you to do some research on the proposals yourself rather than relying on the misinformation coming from talking heads on the right.

[Ruined]

logan's run

+1

[Ruined]

BTW- for the millionth time, there is NO government takeover of healthcare in any bill being proposed. Of course if you get your info from the likes of someone like Glenn Beck, you might think differently. I encourage you to do some research on the proposals yourself rather than relying on the misinformation coming from talking heads on the right.

While there is no straight-up government takeover, what is proposed in the forerunner house bill will likely result in insurance companies being unable to financially compete with the gov't due to businesses picking cheaper subsidized public plans for their employees. The loss of so many contracts will cause a crumbling of the private insurance industry, and possible destruction of it (see Canada).

So while there is no direct government takeover, the Pelosi bill (and likely any other with a public option) will result in indirect government takeover over time. This will result in Americans losing their freedom to choose another insurance provider, losing their personal freedoms under the disguise of "preventative healthcare," increased taxes to pay for the public plan, and lowered quality of care in order to serve a greater quantity of people. The public option needs to be removed from any proposal before you will see a majority of Americans supporting it.

[lawdood]

While there is no straight-up government takeover, what is proposed in the forerunner house bill will likely result in insurance companies being unable to financially compete with the gov't due to businesses picking cheaper subsidized public plans for their employees. The loss of so many contracts will cause a crumbling of the private insurance industry, and possible destruction of it (see Canada).

So while there is no direct government takeover, the Pelosi bill (and likely any other with a public option) will result in indirect government takeover over time. This will result in Americans losing their freedom to choose another insurance provider, losing their personal freedoms under the disguise of "preventative healthcare," increased taxes to pay for the public plan, and lowered quality of care in order to serve a greater quantity of people. The public option needs to be removed from any proposal before you will see a majority of Americans supporting it.

Got any facts to back up your outlandish and fear mongering claims and predictions? Are you an expert in the research of the private healthcare industry and done your own homework on this...or did you just grab the talking points because they fit your political perspective?

See Canada is it? If comparing a country with better healthcare than our own system is your attempt at proving your case....you don't have one.

[Ruined]

Got any facts to back up your outlandish and fear mongering claims and predictions? Are you an expert in the research of the private healthcare industry and done your own homework on this...or did you just grab the talking points because they fit your political perspective?

Common sense? The government can piss away money like water, using taxpayer dollars and borrowing to cover the costs. Private companies do not have that luxury, they have to turn a profit to stay afloat. Thus, the government care can initially be priced significantly cheaper than private care for that very reason, and once businesses start to elect the cheaper option private companies will lose large amounts of business. If you can spend millions to build a tunnel for turtles to cross under the highway, you can spend lots of money to put your competitors (private insurers) out of business, too. Once the private insurance companies have been bled dry, the government can adjust their spending so they are no longer in the red.

For a government that seems to be ever hungering for more power, it is not just a possibility, but also a likelihood if a public option is enacted.

See Canada is it? If comparing a country with better healthcare than our own system is your attempt at proving your case....you don't have one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

Looks like a winner. Not.

Population
US: 307,120,000
Canada: 33,742,000

Costs might a vary... a bit.

[HowStern]

Ruined, France has the number one health care in the world by WHO standards(we are 37th). They have both a public option and the private industry still thrives. Care to explain?

And despite the scare tactic horror stories about canada they are rated above us at 30th. And believe me we have plenty of our own health care horror stories. Even if we do have less health care horror stories you have to remember we also have a lot less people with health care at all.

[RAMSTORIA]

im so sick of that 37th number

http://www.fightingdiseases.org/pdf/Trouble%20in%20the%20Ranks.pdf


Over half the weighting of the index (62.5%) consists of evaluations of equality, rather than quality of service. The rankings tell us nothing about the ability of a health system to make sick people better; they just uphold the political consideration of achieving equal access for everyone, however poor the service.

The rankings fail to include absolute healthcare measures such as five-year cancer survival rates. These are crucial indicators of a health system’s performance.

In focussing so heavily on relative levels of service and funding “fairness”, the rankings inherently reward socialised, tax-funded systems in which healthcare levels may be equal, yet of a very poor quality.

[mykevermin]

Eh, Ruined's not worth discussing with. He "+1"d the Logan's Run comment, as if to suggest that, under our current system, people are never, ever, ever, ever, ever denied treatment or cost-prohibitive surgery - left to die, as it were, unable to pay for their health care, despite being insured.

Anyone who subscribes to that level of self-deception is a buffoon and an ideologue of monumental proportions, and not worth debating anything with.

Or, Ruined, if you don't want to get all crybaby about how I'm being unkind for a moment, could you care to defend your "+1" post while maintaining that coverage denials, and therefore deaths, happen under our current profit-motivated structure?

EDIT: Ramstoria: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Campaign_for_Fighting_Diseases - part of an apt critique is providing alternative measures, and more than "this measure is not good enough." What you provide doesn't get at that.

[RAMSTORIA]

they dont offer an alternative to the study as a whole but they do suggest ways the study could have more "accurately" interpreted its data

thanks for the sourcewatch link, ive never seen the website and that will come in handy time and time again.

[lawdood]

eh, ruined's not worth discussing with. He "+1"d the logan's run comment, as if to suggest that, under our current system, people are never, ever, ever, ever, ever denied treatment or cost-prohibitive surgery - left to die, as it were, unable to pay for their health care, despite being insured.

Anyone who subscribes to that level of self-deception is a buffoon and an ideologue of monumental proportions, and not worth debating anything with.

Or, ruined, if you don't want to get all crybaby about how i'm being unkind for a moment, could you care to defend your "+1" post while maintaining that coverage denials, and therefore deaths, happen under our current profit-motivated structure?


+1


;)

[mykevermin]

^ indeed it is.

[fullmetalfan720]

Aside from the fact that this is code for dropping unprofitable people off of insurance this line of "thought" was destroyed roughly twenty pages ago.
Oh, totally. And my motto, Sega Dreamcast, is code for "Kill the Jews":roll:
Yes, that would work wonders to help American citizens and reform the healthcare industry. I mean, look what it did for Wall Street.
The whole economic crisis was created by these people who we have "fixing" it. Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, the Goldman gang. They all used their connections in government to create the environment to make billions and trillions for themselves and their friends. That has nothing to do with what I would like to see done on health care though. I would like to have health insurance offered that is cheap, and only for urgent medical needs, that few would otherwise be able to afford.

[lawdood]

The whole economic crisis was created by these people who we have "fixing" it. Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, the Goldman gang. They all used their connections in government to create the environment to make billions and trillions for themselves and their friends. That has nothing to do with what I would like to see done on health care though. I would like to have health insurance offered that is cheap, and only for urgent medical needs, that few would otherwise be able to afford.

So you're going to tell us all about how you hate apples and use it as your argument as to why you hate oranges. Gotcha.

[fullmetalfan720]

So you're going to tell us all about how you hate apples and use it as your argument as to why you hate oranges. Gotcha.
Its a totally different thing. The goldmen gang used their connections to get specific laws repealed so they could make money (Glass-Steagall), and companies all the time get new regulations based to kill their competitors, and corner the market. I want to see regulations repealed so that it would be possible for people to buy cheap health insurance that only covers emergencies. This would help the people, not the monopoly men.

[Msut77]

Oh, totally. And my motto, Sega Dreamcast, is code for "Kill the Jews":roll:

That is practically the only thing deregulation means in this context, it is certainly what all the people I have ever seen pushing for it mean.

I want to see regulations repealed so that it would be possible for people to buy cheap health insurance that only covers emergencies. This would help the people, not the monopoly men.

Regulations aren't a very important reason for why healthcare is so expensive in this country.

Besides the concept of "only" covering emergencies is ridiculous.

[fullmetalfan720]

That is practically the only thing deregulation means in this context, it is certainly what all the people I have ever seen pushing for it mean.
You apparently don't pay much attention.


Regulations aren't a very important reason for why healthcare is so expensive in this country.
When you have to cover a ridiculous amount of conditions, and things that just aren't needed, that tends to cost a lot.
Besides the concept of "only" covering emergencies is ridiculous.
How is it ridiculous?

[fullmetalfan720]

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=6809
Here's a CNN clip detailing corruption in the health care bill.
Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.
While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.
Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.
Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART (http://www.kick-start.org/) program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.
How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?
Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.

There is Chuck Norris's op-ed on the hidden things in the house health care bill.

[Msut77]

You apparently don't pay much attention.

I tune you out on occasions but I don't think that is the case here.

When you have to cover a ridiculous amount of conditions, and things that just aren't needed, that tends to cost a lot.

Again, that isn't very important when it comes to why healthcare costs so much in this country.

How is it ridiculous?

Because there are any number of cases where someone gets treated for something catastrophic where a little bit of preventative care would have fixed the problem.

You ever wonder why the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is so popular?

There is Chuck Norris's op-ed on the hidden things in the house health care bill.

And to think you get upset when you are called a silly person.

[mykevermin]

Like "Delta Force" Chuck Norris?

LOL.

What an over-the-top ideology-based reaction to government programs.

[lawdood]

When the opposition has to rely on Chuck Norris and Sarah Palin's "death panels' you really know facts and logic are not on their side.

[The Crotch]

I'm a page behind here, but...

"The Truth About Canada?"

...

Really?

...

Alright, okay, fine. I admit it. I do not understand The United States of America. I do not understand it in any way, shape, or form. You guys confuse the fuck out of me. Why do you guys keep trying to confuse the fuck out of me? You know it's going to take six to twelve weeks before I can get to a doctor so I can have the fuck put back in to me.

Dick move, America.

[UncleBob]

‘‘PART VIII—SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
20 PAYMENTS
‘‘Sec. 59B. Shared responsibility payments.
21 ‘‘SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS.
22 ‘‘(a) PAYMENT.—
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any indi
vidual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage
104
O:\BAI\BAI09A84.xml [file 1 of 6] S.L.C.
1 (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health
2 Service Act) for any month during the taxable year,
3 there is hereby imposed for the taxable year, in addi4
tion to any other amount imposed by this subtitle,
5 an amount equal to the amount established under
6 paragraph (2).
There you go.

No one ever commented on this.

[mykevermin]

^ Hey, he's right. It's in at least one senate version right now.

BFD.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I want my $25 Amazon gift card.

[fullmetalfan720]

^ Hey, he's right. It's in at least one senate version right now.

BFD.
Its in every version. You buy health care or get a fine.

EDIT: So, of course this will hurt the poor, and lower middle class because they will be forced to buy health care, whether they can afford it or not. You know, I think this bill is going to hurt more than it helps.

[thrustbucket]

Its a totally different thing. The goldmen gang used their connections to get specific laws repealed so they could make money (Glass-Steagall), and companies all the time get new regulations based to kill their competitors, and corner the market. I want to see regulations repealed so that it would be possible for people to buy cheap health insurance that only covers emergencies. This would help the people, not the monopoly men.

You are preaching to the "More regulation is always good" crowd, you might as well be writing in Swahili.

[mykevermin]

Its in every version. You buy health care or get a fine.

EDIT: So, of course this will hurt the poor, and lower middle class because they will be forced to buy health care, whether they can afford it or not. You know, I think this bill is going to hurt more than it helps.

If you ignore the credits and offsets for the cost of a program.

and you thought this bill would hurt before it would help long ago, so now you're just cherry picking items. like your chuck norris op-ed (:rofl:) that tried to fearmonger parental counseling programs.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Its in every version. You buy health care or get a fine.

EDIT: So, of course this will hurt the poor, and lower middle class because they will be forced to buy health care, whether they can afford it or not. You know, I think this bill is going to hurt more than it helps.

The US is going to screw universal health care after dozens of countries have implemented it correctly?

Like our representatives, I'm not reading the bills.

I assumed we would be headed to a single payer system like Canada, Medicare or Medicaid.

If you get sick, you go to the hospital and get whatever is wrong with you fixed.

The hospital sends the bill to the government.

On payday and April 15th, the government jacks your check with higher taxes.

I don't really see how you can not have insurance when the government "provides" it.

[perdition(troy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FFSOMED%3AIND) out here.”

Not a life changing quote, but it does kind of open your eyes to why people think "rationing" will come into effect.

[fullmetalfan720]

If you ignore the credits and offsets for the cost of a program.
The credits don't kick in until you hit 11-12% of your paycheck spent on health care.

[thrustbucket]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc



Not a life changing quote, but it does kind of open your eyes to why people think "rationing" will come into effect.

That's where I keep seeing this argument go in circles.

One side keeps saying "Show me where it says the government is going to ration healthcare and drive private insurance company's out of business!"

The other side keeps saying "It may not be there but not only does it open all the doors for that stuff, but takes several striding steps as well, and when have we known the government to not take a mile when given an inch?"

Both sides are right, imo. The Pro side is simply saying there is nothing to be afraid of in any proposal presented, which is true. The con side is (rightfully) skeptical of granting government any powers and where it will lead.

Strictly going by the patterns of history, I predict this will ultimately just lead to the pro side winning with the argument of "Well we have to do something, we can't just keep things the way they are - we'll close our eyes and throw a dart at the proposal table, and when things turn sour with government power, we'll blame the other side some how."

[mykevermin]

[URL]Not a life changing quote, but it does kind of open your eyes to why people think "rationing" will come into effect.

Indeed it is not a life-changing quote at all. Do you think that these examples would never be denied care in some cases, and given care in others, based on the current system we have now?

[Snake2715]

Indeed it is not a life-changing quote at all. Do you think that these examples would never be denied care in some cases, and given care in others, based on the current system we have now?

I think the issue is now you have some control whom you give that decision to, by shopping and choosing the carrier you are comfortable with due to word of mouth, research, etc.

This government option would not be doing that for some poeple.

Its like having one investment company in this country to handle all our investments... that would never fly.

Thats the issue, it may happen now, but you had some control over whom you placed your care in. A lot of companies offer multiple carriers or plan types, you can get individual, you can stack coverage with two or more carriers, etc.

[Msut77]

Not a life changing quote, but it does kind of open your eyes to why people think "rationing" will come into effect.

Depends on what you mean by rationing in our system there are very real kinds of rationing that basically gets ignored and there are people on the right screaming and crying about disabled babies getting killed and government agents visiting grandma with extreme prejudice.

So except for those who might get fooled,it isn't "life changing" since the people above who live to spread lies and disinformation certainly aren't going to stop.

[RAMSTORIA]

That's where I keep seeing this argument go in circles.



and it will continue to do so. i was talking with a friend last week on the golf course and he was saying that we just should have a single payer system, and i agreed, which caught him off guard. i explained that i wish congress would just go one way or the other, either go balls out and go single payer or work on drastic health care reform with the current system. the way congress is working right now they want to pussy foot some where inbetween to please both sides of the isle. but thats just it, they want to please both sides of the isle (ie 500 people in DC) while the rest of america just sits and watches and hopes that it all works out.

[UncleBob]

So, to sum things up:

We have presidential staff members admitting that they astrotufed Obama's campaign and plan to do the same for the health care situation: 1 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html)

We have political leaders telling their followers to "argue with them and get in their face." when someone disagrees with them : 2

We have political staffers stuffing the "townhall" forums with people that support their point of view, asking pre-loaded questions: 3 (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/12/the-illustrated-guide-to-obamacare-human-props/)

We have a government that can - and WILL - deny medical procedures, even when the patient and the doctor agree to the procedure: 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment)

We've got groups paying individuals to go to the townhalls and push the group's agenda: 5 (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/astroturf-for-healthcare-earn-10-15hr)

We've got the health care system funneling money into their political allies to get *their* plans pushed through: 6 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/health/policy/09lobby.html?_r=1)

We've got heath care reform bills that force citizens to buy into the health insurance industry, in spite of the fact Myke didn't even believe such terms were in there: 7 (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6171003&postcount=691)

I mean, I could totally see why this is awesome!

[UncleBob]

I want my $25 Amazon gift card.

I will give a $25 Amazon Gift Card to the first person who can point me to any Federal, State or Local law that requires all US citizens covered by the jurisdiction of said law to have automotive insurance.

I want you to show me a law that requires all citizens covered by the jurisdiction of that law to have automotive insurance.

I made the offer - don't be upset if you failed, miserably. You never had a chance at winning, because it was a loaded offer to begin with - there is no such law because a law requiring everyone to have insurance would be asinine.

[Msut77]

a law requiring everyone to have insurance would be asinine.

It works in Germany.

[UncleBob]

It works in Germany.

<Godwin>So did Hitler, at one time.</Godwin>

[UncleBob]

Question: Groups of people are showing up at townhall meetings. Mostly, they can be divided into two groups - those for government-based reform and those against it.

Now, from the various pictures I've seen, both groups tend to gather outside and carry signs.

One group tends to carry around hand-made signs.
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-blogs/austin/politics/upload/2009/07/protesters_criticize_obama_hea/protest0709.jpg

One group tends to carry a large amount of pre-printed, professional signs.
http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Health_Care_Protest.jpg

Which group are we supposed to believe is funded and astroturfed again?

[Ruined]

"Obama's Healthcare Horror"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/

...written by an Obama-supporting Democrat.

[mykevermin]

http://dir.salon.com/topics/camille_paglia/

Boy, look at all those articles that show support for Obama.

:roll:

[HowStern]

That woman speaks well of Sarah Palin, actually complimenting her, on multiple articles.

Liberals underestimate Sarah Palin's vitality and -- yes -- smarts at their own peril.A beady-eyed McCain gets a boost from the charismatic Sarah Palin, a powerful new feminist -- yes, feminist! -- force.

[Ruined]

Yes, it appears she does not suffer from Talking Point Syndrome like many Obama supporters.

[thrustbucket]

Question: Groups of people are showing up at townhall meetings. Mostly, they can be divided into two groups - those for government-based reform and those against it.

Now, from the various pictures I've seen, both groups tend to gather outside and carry signs.

One group tends to carry around hand-made signs.
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-blogs/austin/politics/upload/2009/07/protesters_criticize_obama_hea/protest0709.jpg

One group tends to carry a large amount of pre-printed, professional signs.
http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Health_Care_Protest.jpg

Which group are we supposed to believe is funded and astroturfed again?

Don't be stupid, that only proves the Health insurance companies are greedier than we thought, only giving their payed protesters enough money for poster-board and markers.

[Ruined]

Rasmussen: Obamacare support falls to an alltime low
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rasmussen: "Obama's Hoof in Mouth Disease"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/obama_s_hoof_in_mouth_disease

If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.

If that doesn't make you LOL, not sure what will. :)

[HowStern]

^Uhh, I'm guessing his point was that private insurers will thrive. Since the naysayers main argument is that a public option will take over.

[perdition(troy]

So we get to look forward to a program in the red every single year! Sweet.

(according to obama's quote that makes me lol everytime i see it)

[UncleBob]

^Uhh, I'm guessing his point was that private insurers will thrive. Since the naysayers main argument is that a public option will take over.

I do wonder if the public health care system will be set up similar to the public postal service. Like, for example, special laws designed around protecting the USPS with no regard to the competitors in the market. Sure makes for some fair competition there.

[Ruined]

^Uhh, I'm guessing his point was that private insurers will thrive. Since the naysayers main argument is that a public option will take over.

Thats one obvious argument, that the govt will purposely price their public option in the red to run private healthcare out of business. Then after private competition is eliminated, govt will increase the price to normal levels. All possible in the way our gov't runs. In that sense, the analogy Obama made does not make any sense, as USPS does not really directly compete anymore with FedEx/UPS for consumer dollars; USPS is more into non-critical letters and small/light packages while FedEx and UPS are more into critical letters and large/heavier packages. The public option and private on the other hand will be directly competing on all levels, and it is likely one of the two will lose in the end. Since the govt can essentially have unlimited money due to taxation and borrowing, the private option is the obvious one that would lose.

But, for the Pelosi house bill that argument need not even be made. It says directly in the bill that you can keep your current private insurance, but private insurance companies cannot write new policies and people cannot change their current policies. So if you change jobs or have a child, etc, under the Pelosi house bill you will be out of luck and forced into the public option. Of course, people with what will be far superior private insurance would not want this.

The public option needs to be dropped entirely for Obama to have a chance of passing any type of health reform.

[thrustbucket]

That was a horrible analogy for Obama to make. The Post Office loses billions per quarter and plans to lose 7 billion in the next year, all trying to just compete with FedEx and UPS. That should speak volumes for how efficient government runs anything.

[dmaul1114]

It's a tough issue for me on some levels.

But really, in the end it comes down to the fact that health insurance shouldn't be a big profit industry. It should be essentially a non-profit giving people medical care that every human being should have access to. And premiums should be at the point to just cover expenses and save up some money to have a nest egg for rainy days and unexpected increases in costs etc.

And the bigger part is cutting down health care, which has also become all about money and getting rich vs. doing the job to help people, and thus you have a lot of unecessary surgerys and other procedures done just to put more insurance money in the doctors pocket, vs. saving expensive procedures for last resorts when all other cheaper options have been exhausted.

So honestly, I don't have much problem with a public option that drives costs down. Insurance shouldn't be about multi million or billion dollar profits making the executives super rich. It should be about running a system that gives every working person affordable access to health care with premiums set at a level to operate at a small profit.

Though I do understand the skepticism people have about the ability of the government to do that.

My only concern is to do it right and get a system that works like Frances, and not get a system that is bogged down like Canada's and some other countries. Though honestly, I'm willing to put up with longer waits on non-emergency care if it means more people have access to health care.

[mykevermin]

The public option needs to be dropped entirely for Obama to have a chance of passing any type of health reform.

What kind of reform could be done without a public option?

[thrustbucket]

It's a tough issue for me on some levels.

But really, in the end it comes down to the fact that health insurance shouldn't be a big profit industry. It should be essentially a non-profit giving people medical care that every human being should have access to. And premiums should be at the point to just cover expenses and save up some money to have a nest egg for rainy days and unexpected increases in costs etc.

And the bigger part is cutting down health care, which has also become all about money and getting rich vs. doing the job to help people, and thus you have a lot of unecessary surgerys and other procedures done just to put more insurance money in the doctors pocket, vs. saving expensive procedures for last resorts when all other cheaper options have been exhausted.

So honestly, I don't have much problem with a public option that drives costs down. Insurance shouldn't be about multi million or billion dollar profits making the executives super rich. It should be about running a system that gives every working person affordable access to health care with premiums set at a level to operate at a small profit.

Though I do understand the skepticism people have about the ability of the government to do that.

My only concern is to do it right and get a system that works like Frances, and not get a system that is bogged down like Canada's and some other countries. Though honestly, I'm willing to put up with longer waits on non-emergency care if it means more people have access to health care.

So do you believe that once people in the medical industry are not making nearly as much as they are (which would have to happen if what you said came to pass), we'd still have enough people wanting to go to 12 years of school to be in that field to provide good care?

It's a serious question. I honestly don't know the answer.

It's a careful juggle; of course there are always going to be people that are truly altruistic, will sacrifice, and want to help people for whatever pay. But how many people will leave or not enter the medical fields once it's really not nearly as lucrative?

[mykevermin]

^ yes. The Davis and Moore argument for functional stratification was debunked decades before any of us were born.

[dmaul1114]

So do you believe that once people in the medical industry are not making nearly as much as they are (which would have to happen if what you said came to pass), we'd still have enough people wanting to go to 12 years of school to be in that field to provide good care?

It's a serious question. I honestly don't know the answer.

It's a careful juggle; of course there are always going to be people that are truly altruistic, will sacrifice, and want to help people for whatever pay. But how many people will leave or not enter the medical fields once it's really not nearly as lucrative?

I think they should be paid well enough to make it worth their while so we get talented people doing it. But still, the best doctors are the ones who do it for reasons other than money. But I still think you'd get good people doing it. Look at a Academia--tons of talented people getting paid less (and often working more hours) than they could get in the private sector. As long as the pay is pretty good, you're still going to get talented folks. Not everyone is some sheer capitalist out to minimize work and maximize income. But everyone wants to make a comfortable living.

But the main issue is just not jumping right into expensive treatments just because they want to make money, or to make money for their surgeon friend etc., more so than how much a procedure costs. Though things need to be done to standardize costs of procedures--it's ridiculous how insurance in one state will get billed several times the cost of the same procedure in another state etc.

So my point is more we need to stop jumping right to say a shoulder surgery without first trying massage and physical therapy etc. Expensive procedures should rarely be the first option unless it's and emergency that can definitely not be treated effectively another way.

[HowStern]

That was a horrible analogy for Obama to make. The Post Office loses billions per quarter and plans to lose 7 billion in the next year, all trying to just compete with FedEx and UPS. That should speak volumes for how efficient government runs anything.

Police and fire departments are constantly losing money. Neither is a financially profitable service. Should we hand them over to the private sector?

[dmaul1114]

Police and fire departments are constantly losing money. Neither is a financially profitable service. Should we hand them over to the private sector?

Exactly. A lot of public services aren't going to be profitable. They're just basic services that most think a government should provide to their citizens.

I think Health Care should fall under that type of service, but other's don't and I'm not too interested in debating the issue as it's just one of those pointless internet debates about as much fun as banging my head on a brick wall.