Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[docvinh]

Well, how about public and private education? There are plenty of private schools out there, so why would it be unfeasible for health care?

[UncleBob]

Police and fire departments are constantly losing money. Neither is a financially profitable service. Should we hand them over to the private sector?

Then tell the people how much it is actually going to cost. Don't lie to us with these unrealistic, lowball estimates that even your own Congressional Budget Office says are bullcrap.

Be truthful to us and let us decide. Let us ask questions and give us answers - not yell at us like a raving mad-man. And actually let people ask real questions - don't bus 11 year old daughters of major campaign contributors to ask about the "mean signs".

[HowStern]

Then tell the people how much it is actually going to cost. Don't lie to us with these unrealistic, lowball estimates that even your own Congressional Budget Office says are bullcrap.

Be truthful to us and let us decide. Let us ask questions and give us answers - not yell at us like a raving mad-man. And actually let people ask real questions - don't bus 11 year old daughters of major campaign contributors to ask about the "mean signs".

This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.

It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent. It's tax money well spent. Where as we throw more money down the drain supporting Israel - we are currently giving them $7m a day and growing - and no one says boo, no one asks how much it's costing us, no one holds a protest, not even a crappy sharpie+cardboard sign.

No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.

[thrustbucket]

It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent..
:hot:
:roll:
Well if anyone had any question as to why there is debate about this, that about sums it up.
/thread

[UncleBob]

This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.

It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent. It's tax money well spent. Where as we throw more money down the drain supporting Israel - we are currently giving them $7m a day and growing - and no one says boo, no one asks how much it's costing us, no one holds a protest, not even a crappy sharpie+cardboard sign.

No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.

If you want to start a campaign to stop sending "$7m/day" to Israel and, instead, use that money on a public heath care system, I wouldn't complain (too much).

But that's not what's being done. We're just stacking more and more spending with little to no cuts. At some point, we're going to have to pay all of this back or the Federal Government is going to fail. When that happens, health insurance will be the least of your worries.

And - if it "doesn't matter" how much it's going to cost... then tell us.

[Msut77]

This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.

Some of them, that and the fact people like Bob don't have any "real" questions but are are just JAQing off.

It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent. It's tax money well spent.

If we spend say an extra percentage point of GDP than we do now but cover everyone it can rightly be considered a success.

It has been pointed that we spend much, much more on healthcare than countries that cover everyone (one of the reasons why we spend so much is TO DENY PEOPLE CARE) and when costs come into question those doing the questioning either ignore that fact altogether or focus exclusively on how much it would cost the government throwing any real definition of cost out the window.

No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.

Not everyone, just a relatively small amount of those who are on an ideological jihad.

[Ruined]

I guess if you consider "relatively small" the majority according to Rasmussen polling data. If Obamacare was voted on today in a national poll it would lose pretty badly according to the sampled data available.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

As of today,
53% oppose Obamacare
42% favor Obamacare

So the minority is currently those who think it is a good idea.


No one said the population is in favor of spending money on other ridiculous shit. But in most of those cases the money spent will have little impact on our day to day lives. Obamacare has the potential to have massive negative impact on our day to day lives for various reasons mentioned over and over. For those of us satisfied with our healthcare (again, the majority), why should we not taking a stand against it?

I plan to take a similar stand against Cap and Trade if that ever gets going in the senate for similar reasons.

[usickenme]

That's a ridiculous poll as 85% probably don't even know what "Obama Care" is . (FYI- it's a right wing talking point). It shows lack of support for THIS plan, not health care reform in general.

Anyone who has spent a few years in the real world knows that people who are satisfied with their current plan are living in a dream world. The current model means that plans change yearly. Hell I've liked my plan at times and it has always changed because of cost into something crappier. Making a stand based on how your life is now, with no thought to the future is dumb, plain and simple.

Sitting and doing nothing also the potential to have massive negative impact.

[Msut77]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
---
Now let me tell a little story.

A woman I work with has been really stressed lately and I didn't know why.

She finally opened up to me the other day and told me the cause was her sons recent major surgery.

The insurance company pre-approved everything and they went through with it, he is doing fine now.

A month or so after the surgery however she started getting bills, they paid the surgeon but apparently expected him to the perform the operation in the waiting room as they didn't cover the anesthesia or the cost of the operating theater. They also started to try and claim it was elective even though more than one doctor stated it was absolutely necessary.

She said she might have to go bankrupt if things don't get reversed.
---

There are people in this thread arguing that we cannot do what basically every other wealthy industrialized country does.

Now it certainly is true that America has its share of abjectly stupid people (just look at certain posters in this thread) just as it is true that other systems aren't perfect but other systems do not pay anywhere as much as we do for the privilege of denying care even to those who have in all fairness paid for it.

[HowStern]

If you want to start a campaign to stop sending "$7m/day" to Israel and, instead, use that money on a public heath care system, I wouldn't complain (too much).

But that's not what's being done.

Exactly my point. Ok say you are a 15 year old kid. Your mom is the government. Your neighbor is Israel. A new car is health insurance.

Your mom keeps taking your money and giving it to your neighbor. She then offers you a new car but says it will cost more money. Instead of demanding she stop supporting the neighbor with your money you instead start making signs saying "No new car! Your car makes me sick! I don't want Omamacar"

Sounds stupid right?

People are protesting the wrong things. There's no prioritization.

[The Crotch]

Kind of a passing observer right now, but...For those of us satisfied with our healthcare (again, the majority)....
Wait, what the fuck?

I mean, that may be true, but that don't really follow from what you just said...

[UncleBob]

Exactly my point. Ok say you are a 15 year old kid. Your mom is the government. Your neighbor is Israel. A new car is health insurance.

Your mom keeps taking your money and giving it to your neighbor. She then offers you a new car but says it will cost more money. Instead of demanding she stop supporting the neighbor with your money you instead start making signs saying "No new car! Your car makes me sick! I don't want Omamacar"

Sounds stupid right?

People are protesting the wrong things. There's no prioritization.

Actually, if it meant the new car was going to make my mother go bankrupt and have to sell me and the rest of her children off to the Chinese as slave labor to pay her bills, I'd rather not have the new car. :p

Again, find me a Democratic (or Republican or whatever) proposal that comes forward with a public option for health care that isn't paid for by raising taxes - instead is paid for by cutting spending elsewhere - then we can discuss that.

[mykevermin]

I guess if you consider "relatively small" the majority according to Rasmussen polling data. If Obamacare was voted on today in a national poll it would lose pretty badly according to the sampled data available.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

As of today,
53% oppose Obamacare
42% favor Obamacare

So the minority is currently those who think it is a good idea.


No one said the population is in favor of spending money on other ridiculous shit. But in most of those cases the money spent will have little impact on our day to day lives. Obamacare has the potential to have massive negative impact on our day to day lives for various reasons mentioned over and over. For those of us satisfied with our healthcare (again, the majority), why should we not taking a stand against it?

I plan to take a similar stand against Cap and Trade if that ever gets going in the senate for similar reasons.

You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real; 17% believe that their weight is not a problem in a country where 2 out of every 3 are overweight; and a very small margin can name our current secretary of state (let alone other positions).

While the fearmongering, "death panels," "rationing," "cost," and other purely speculative arguments have motivated the whackjob base of people against Health Care Reform ("Obamacare?" Really? Talk like a fucking grown up if you want respect, ok?), it's rather quite simple: those people who you and your ilk have pushed to be against health care reform have been lied to and led under false pretenses to come to the same conclusion as you.

So you're "the majority," but shame on you (and you know you deserve it) because you and yours are incapable of having a single reasonable debate on why the health care system should be left in private hands.

Your deception has gained support. Additionally, taking "53% oppose health care reform" to mean "53% are fine with their health care policy as is" shows the degree of statistical illiteracy you have such that you shouldn't be allowed to debate at all. Go back to dragging a comb through "blogs" and "op-eds" for evidence, since you clearly can't handle statistics.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

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?

One of the biggest barriers to medicine is the education cost. A doctor runs up $250K of debt just to work 120 hours a week for two years.

If government is controlling medicine, they can make medical education free for a commitment to practice medicine for X number of years. They already do this to push doctors into disadvantaged areas. The number of doctors will increase while the quality of doctors might increase. Price is a function of supply and demand. An increase of supply with no increase in demand drops price.

The other big barrier to medicine is malpractice insurance. MotherofCaitlyn's OBGYN retreated to Indiana due to high malpractice premiums in Kentucky. In a government controlled environment, people are suing the government only if the government allows it. Realistically, a person crippled by a doctor's mistake would simply be moved to government disability instead of lengthy, costly contingency trials.

[Msut77]

Kind of a passing observer right now, but...
Wait, what the fuck?

I mean, that may be true, but that don't really follow from what you just said...

My co-worker was satisfied with her healthcare until she was on her way to joining the sixty some odd percent of those who go bankrupt due to medical bills (nearly 80% of whom had insurance).

[UncleBob]

You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real;

Guess that explains why Obama was voted in to begin with. And Bush. Twice.

...we're really screwed, aren't we?

[UncleBob]

In a government controlled environment, people are suing the government only if the government allows it.

While I'm all for Tort Reform, this right here is a scary thought.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

While I'm all for Tort Reform, this right here is a scary thought.

Yep.

[RAMSTORIA]

they can make medical education free for a commitment to practice medicine for X number of years.

http://www.tvland.com/prime/photogallery/quirky_turkey/photos/19_tvland_quirky_turkey_northern_exposure.jpg

youve sold me, obamacare will work, joel hasnt let me down yet.

[dmaul1114]

If government is controlling medicine, they can make medical education free for a commitment to practice medicine for X number of years. They already do this to push doctors into disadvantaged areas. The number of doctors will increase while the quality of doctors might increase. Price is a function of supply and demand. An increase of supply with no increase in demand drops price.


Yep. And they do similar things with excusing student loans of people who become teachers in some areas.

Just say they have to practice for X number of years in hospitals and other high need areas before going into private practice and the loans can be forgiven and pay could be a bit lower.

But again the real issue is getting the costs of procedures, lab work etc. down and cutting out wasteful use of expensive procedures more so than it's a salary issue IMO.

[fullmetalfan720]

What kind of reform could be done without a public option?
Allow people to buy much cheaper insurance that only covers emergencies?
This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.
They really are.
It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent. Oh boy.
It's tax money well spent. Where as we throw more money down the drain supporting Israel - we are currently giving them $7m a day and growing - and no one says boo, no one asks how much it's costing us, no one holds a protest, not even a crappy sharpie+cardboard sign.Maybe the Democrats should have thought about health care reform before they threw trillions at the financial industry. What did that get us? A higher unemployment rate than they said we would have if we did nothing. Did it solve the fundamental problems of the economy? No. It gave trillions to bankers as a thank you gift for helping the politicians get elected. The same thing is happening with this health care bill. There won't be any real help for the poor or middle class. No, the government will just take at least 11% of their income, and give them a crappy health care system, while giving billions to their friends in the medical industry.
No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.Benefit a large amount of the population my ass. Subsidies won't kick in until you spend 11% or so of your income on health care. That's a benefit alright.
You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real;
Come on now, let's not bring religion into this.
17% believe that their weight is not a problem in a country where 2 out of every 3 are overweight; and a very small margin can name our current secretary of state (let alone other positions).This is the effect of this bullshit madison avenue culture that worships celebrities, and "acting tough." Everyone lives in a fantasy world dominated by their mesmerizing teevee. Just look at that Micheal Jackson bullshit.
While the fearmongering, "death panels," "rationing," "cost," and other purely speculative arguments have motivated the whackjob base of people against Health Care Reform ("Obamacare?" Really? Talk like a fucking grown up if you want respect, ok?), it's rather quite simple: those people who you and your ilk have pushed to be against health care reform have been lied to and led under false pretenses to come to the same conclusion as you. You are the one who has been lied to. You are told by all the loving liberal figures that this bill will be magical and solve all the problems and make health care affordable for everyone. It won't. It won't be affordable for the poor and the lower middle class. I don't see how it will really be cheaper than private health care if there isn't cost cutting techniques such as rationing. You can't just give the government control of something and expect it to magically solve all your problems.

[ninju D]

You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real; 17% believe that their weight is not a problem in a country where 2 out of every 3 are overweight; and a very small margin can name our current secretary of state (let alone other positions).

While the fearmongering, "death panels," "rationing," "cost," and other purely speculative arguments have motivated the whackjob base of people against Health Care Reform ("Obamacare?" Really? Talk like a fucking grown up if you want respect, ok?), it's rather quite simple: those people who you and your ilk have pushed to be against health care reform have been lied to and led under false pretenses to come to the same conclusion as you.

So you're "the majority," but shame on you (and you know you deserve it) because you and yours are incapable of having a single reasonable debate on why the health care system should be left in private hands.

Your deception has gained support. Additionally, taking "53% oppose health care reform" to mean "53% are fine with their health care policy as is" shows the degree of statistical illiteracy you have such that you shouldn't be allowed to debate at all. Go back to dragging a comb through "blogs" and "op-eds" for evidence, since you clearly can't handle statistics.


:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause::applause:

Well said, sir!
I wish we could turn the temp down on this country and the general discourse, but I'm not sure how that happens...

[Msut77]

Allow people to buy much cheaper insurance that only covers emergencies?

You are a glutton for punishment.

[fullmetalfan720]

You are a glutton for punishment.
Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to do this? Give me one valid reason why people shouldn't have the option to buy cheap health care that only covers emergencies.

[ninju D]

Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to do this? Give me one valid reason why people shouldn't have the option to buy cheap health care that only covers emergencies.

We have that already. Its called Catastrophic coverage. It's not cheap either.

[Msut77]

Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to do this? Give me one valid reason why people shouldn't have the option to buy cheap health care that only covers emergencies.

I see no reason to answer your Bobesque questions, at least until you answer an honest one of mine.

Did you ever wonder why the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is such a famous saying?

[fullmetalfan720]

I see no reason to answer your Bobesque questions, at least until you answer an honest one of mine.

Did you ever wonder why the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is such a famous saying?
If you are talking about preventative care, it costs a lot but doesn't help much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32275652/ns/health-health_care/
The value of a widespread prostate cancer screeninghttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32275652/ns/health-health_care/#) was questioned Friday by the top medical officer for the American Cancer Society. "Screening does not clearly save lives and many men who get aggressive treatment clearly do not need aggressive treatment," Dr. Otis W. Brawley said in response to the announcement that Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has prostate cancer. He stressed that men should know the risks and benefits of screening for the disease.
Now can you please stop avoiding the fact that this bill doesn't actually help the poor or middle class afford care when they can't afford it now?
We have that already. Its called Catastrophic coverage. It's not cheap either.
We don't have the form that I would like to see.

[ninju D]

Now can you please stop avoiding the fact that this bill doesn't actually help the poor or middle class afford care when they can't afford it now?
You're right. I'd love to see it do more for those people. Problem is, its just not realistic. Too many people are losing their damn minds already just because we want to give people a choice.

[Msut77]

If you are talking about preventative care, it costs a lot but doesn't help much.

First off that isn't really what the article says.

And no I am not just talking about prevention as just what is in that article.

We don't have the form that I would like to see.

No, surprise here.

[UncleBob]

Giving some people "choices", while taking real choices away from others...

[UncleBob]

Okay, I'm not talking about townhalls or such here. I'm going to go a different direction.

Who believes in our right to freely associate with individuals of our own choosing?

It's a good idea.

Who thinks the government should be able to completely spin this around and force individuals to associate with other individuals not of their own choosing?

[lawdood]

Okay, I'm not talking about townhalls or such here. I'm going to go a different direction.

Who believes in our right to freely associate with individuals of our own choosing?

It's a good idea.

Who thinks the government should be able to completely spin this around and force individuals to associate with other individuals not of their own choosing?

Who thinks you're once again talking out of your bunghole with made up scenarios not in the least bit based on facts?

:wave:

[Snake2715]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
---
Now let me tell a little story.

A woman I work with has been really stressed lately and I didn't know why.

She finally opened up to me the other day and told me the cause was her sons recent major surgery.

The insurance company pre-approved everything and they went through with it, he is doing fine now.

A month or so after the surgery however she started getting bills, they paid the surgeon but apparently expected him to the perform the operation in the waiting room as they didn't cover the anesthesia or the cost of the operating theater. They also started to try and claim it was elective even though more than one doctor stated it was absolutely necessary.

She said she might have to go bankrupt if things don't get reversed.
---

There are people in this thread arguing that we cannot do what basically every other wealthy industrialized country does.

Now it certainly is true that America has its share of abjectly stupid people (just look at certain posters in this thread) just as it is true that other systems aren't perfect but other systems do not pay anywhere as much as we do for the privilege of denying care even to those who have in all fairness paid for it.

Another issue of unclear or untrained people.. its called the RAP or PAR.

Anesthesiologist pathologists, and radiologists, typically do not join any network and therefore they can bill what they want. They do this simply because they can. You don't typically get to decide who reads reports, who puts you under, etc. So they are not forced to join network. Insurance companies treat them as out of network and cover less of their charges. Simple as that.


Typically doctors agree to join a network to fill their seats, however those three professions need to do no such thing. Why agree to network payments (in netowrk discounts or doctors "write offs") if you do not have to?

Some carriers American Community, Starmark, will pay these charges at in network if the provider (facility and doctor) were in network.

[ninju D]

Who thinks you're once again talking out of your bunghole with made up scenarios not in the least bit based on facts?

:wave:


Agreed. You can oversimplify anything down to a point where it no longer means anything and then you can make all the analogies you want to. But you still don't get it. Privatized insurance does not work for many people and they have to right to be healthy and see doctors and not get ass raped over the bill.

[ninju D]

Another issue of unclear or untrained people.. its called the RAP or PAR.

Anesthesiologist pathologists, and radiologists, typically do not join any network and therefore they can bill what they want. They do this simply because they can. You don't typically get to decide who reads reports, who puts you under, etc. So they are not forced to join network. Insurance companies treat them as out of network and cover less of their charges. Simple as that.


Typically doctors agree to join a network to fill their seats, however those three professions need to do no such thing. Why agree to network payments (in netowrk discounts or doctors "write offs") if you do not have to?

Some carriers American Community, Starmark, will pay these charges at in network if the provider (facility and doctor) were in network.

They will pay at in network, but they are not required to write off the remainder of the charges. That's a flaw (one of the many) in the system. And a major reason those providers don't join networks. They don't have to and they make more money when they don't join.

[Snake2715]

They will pay at in network, but they are not required to write off the remainder of the charges. That's a flaw (one of the many) in the system. And a major reason those providers don't join networks. They don't have to and they make more money when they don't join.

Thats what I said, unless I am misreading you.

The carriers pay these types of charges as in network if your carrier is one that does that. Most carriers say if the provider (anesthesiologist for example) was out of network then you get 60% coverage instead of the 80% we offer for in network providers.

Its very common and often overlooked or not understood by people who have insurance.

Now if you are talking reasonable and customary or balance billing thats a completely different topic.

[ninju D]

Thats what I said, unless I am misreading you.

The carriers pay these types of charges as in network if your carrier is one that does that. Most carriers say if the provider (anesthesiologist for example) was out of network then you get 60% coverage instead of the 80% we offer for in network providers.

Its very common and often overlooked or not understood by people who have insurance.

Now if you are talking reasonable and customary or balance billing thats a completely different topic.

You can't talk about the issue without talking about R&C and balance billing. If the insurance cos are paying at 80% on a anesthesiologist, who pays the other 20%? You do. Cause they don't belong to the network. That's why we need reform.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that hospitals and medical providers are allowed to charge any amount they see fit for their servers...
(I used to work at a major health insurer and I've seen it all. I could go on for days about how effed the current system is. And the docs are as much at fault as the insurance cos.)

[mykevermin]

Allow people to buy much cheaper insurance that only covers emergencies?

How in the world does that work logically?

"I want insurance, but I only want it to cover the crazy shit that y'all don't profit off of like major surgery and treatment. So let's take away office visits and things like that - it should be cheaper."

If you undercut profit from insurance companies, they'll find another way to soak it out of you. That's the beauty of the free market.

Think of how banks reacted to the increase in bankruptcies and defaults on credit - for Chase users, virtually everyone experienced a damn-near catastrophic increase in their APR rates. Even if you paid on time every time. Because other people fucked it up for you.

Likewise, you would be the ones fucking up insurance companies by undercutting their profits.

It's absurd. You want the market to bend to your whim, failing to realize that you would break the market.

I want a $50 Rolls Royce, in other words, is not a sensible solution to the woes of the auto industry.

[JolietJake]

Sarah Palin is either the dumbest woman in America, or the smartest, i guess it depends on your point of view.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090813/pl_politico/26078


There is absolutely nothing in that which says "death panel" to me.

[UncleBob]

Agreed. You can oversimplify anything down to a point where it no longer means anything and then you can make all the analogies you want to. But you still don't get it. Privatized insurance does not work for many people and they have to right to be healthy and see doctors and not get ass raped over the bill.

Not at all. What some people want is for the government to force private businesses to take up clients that the private businesses do not want to associate with.

Do we really want a government that forces association?

[Msut77]

Do we really want a government that forces association?

Bob I know it is quite a challenge to ask you not to be you but could you forgo the silly questions and just come out and say that you think it is perfectly acceptable to deny care to those who are sick and/or poor?

[UncleBob]

I think it is perfectly acceptable to deny services to individuals who cannot afford them.

You may call me a monster, but when was the last time you gave away your property/time to take care of those less fortunate than you? And here, you expect others to do it non-stop.

And my question is valid - do you want a government that forces association?

[perdition(troy]

Everyone should have a free house, because it's not fair to those who don't have a house that I do. I think we should all get our taxes raised and give free houses to people who don't have them because it's their right as an American.

[UncleBob]

Everyone should have a free house, because it's not fair to those who don't have a house that I do. I think we should all get our taxes raised and give free houses to people who don't have them because it's their right as an American.

Those who have houses should be forced to work one day a week building houses for those who don't. To fund these houses, those who have houses should have to pay an extra 10% of their income in taxes.

[mykevermin]

Off topic, but that's okay given the caliber of most of the posts here likening health care to other absurdities as "rights."

Isn't it "Down's Syndrome" and not "Down Syndrome"? The latter looks peculiar to me - I could swear it's the former.

[Msut77]

I think it is perfectly acceptable to deny services to individuals who cannot afford them.

Bob, you aren't exactly a millionaire.

The insurance that goes along with retail jobs isn't exactly Cadillac.

There is no reason why you couldn't end up with a health care horror story like millions of other Americans.

Would you be singing the same tune if that happened?

[dmaul1114]

There's a difference between right to owning things and having a right to things like health care. If you said "housing" or "shelter" I'd agree. And we do provide those two people who can't afford them be it public housing, welfare, homeless shelters etc.

Health care should be a basic human right, and no one should be denied needed services. And we shouldn't be paying the amounts we pay for insurance, co-pays, prescriptions etc. when many other countries have much cheap access to these things and have higher ratings on health care satisfaction.

Just too many Americans are selfish pricks who don't give two shits about others and just want to hoard their money and don't give a crap as long as they have the quality of life they want. So you have all these debates bitching about socialized medicine etc. when if done right it won't impact our taxes much and can cut what we pay in premiums. Again I do get the skepticism people have that our government can do it right.

I'm all for it, my premiums have more than doubled for pretty much the same insurance with my change of jobs as the University I work for now has cut back how much of the premiums they pay and put more burden on the employee. And mine is still cheaper than a lot of peoples at around $120 a month for medical, vision and dental.

A lot can be done just by having more government regulation of the medical system, what can be charged, what insurance companies have to pay, findings ways to cut back on wasteful use of expensive tests and procedures that aren't really needed, and having a good public option so there are fewer uninsured driving up costs for all of us when they need emergency services they can't pay for.

But I'm already getting into a debate I don't want to as it's one where I really have little respect for the other side so I try to stay away from. People that only care about their own bottom line and couldn't care less about less fortunate people who can't afford medical care etc. aren't worth my time.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Not at all. What some people want is for the government to force private businesses to take up clients that the private businesses do not want to associate with.

Do we really want a government that forces association?

Not really, but I think the government is supposed to promote the general welfare of its owners.

If there is a situation that ruins the general welfare of many of its owners such as runaway costs for an essential good or service, shouldn't the government attempt to rectify the situation?

[UncleBob]

Yup. And I already have, thank you very much.

Myke: Having safe, clean shelter is preventive health care! It's a right!

So here's a great, great thing.
A Representative from Texas opposes requiring photo ID to vote.
But his future Town Halls will require a photo ID to get in.
Nice.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/11/cant-make-it-dem-rep-who-opposes-photo-id-vote-requiring-photo-id-town-h

[Msut77]

Yup. And I already have, thank you very much.

Is this supposed to be a reply to me?

[UncleBob]

Not really, but I think the government is supposed to promote the general welfare of its owners.

If there is a situation that ruins the general welfare of many of its owners such as runaway costs for an essential good or service, shouldn't the government attempt to rectify the situation?

It's a tough line to follow - but, quite frankly, I don't think the answer is to force association on private companies and I don't think the answer is more taxes or more deficit spending. None of those three options will promote the "general welfare" of the citizenry.

[UncleBob]

People that only care about their own bottom line and couldn't care less about less fortunate people who can't afford medical care etc. aren't worth my time.

You complain about people who only care about their own bottom line, then your answer is to have the government do something. Why aren't you doing something? How many video games have you bought this year? You pay up to $50/year to play video games online! That money could have went toward helping the less fortunate.

It's not charity when you're spending someone else's money.

[mykevermin]

^ I don't follow your logic that take an argument such as "health care costs are rising out of control" as well as dmaul's prior points that a profit motive in the health care industry is one that is contrary to the very idea of health care to be properly retorted to with "donate your own money, charity case!"

It's a false solution to a false premise. But a nice Lib talking point.

[fullmetalfan720]

How in the world does that work logically?

"I want insurance, but I only want it to cover the crazy shit that y'all don't profit off of like major surgery and treatment. So let's take away office visits and things like that - it should be cheaper."

If you undercut profit from insurance companies, they'll find another way to soak it out of you. That's the beauty of the free market.
Competition. That's the beauty of the free market. If you repeal all of these regulations that allow companies to basically have a monopoly over certain areas of industry, then competition will pop up. Competition lowers prices, and results in better products. It won't matter if insurance companies are making less off of lesser plans. People will still go into that market because of a lower start up cost, if they can make a profit. Plus, companies still cheap bare minimum auto insurance plans don't they?
Think of how banks reacted to the increase in bankruptcies and defaults on credit - for Chase users, virtually everyone experienced a damn-near catastrophic increase in their APR rates. Even if you paid on time every time. Because other people fucked it up for you.
I also remember a very large interest increase after the credit card bill was passed this year.
Likewise, you would be the ones fucking up insurance companies by undercutting their profits.
More people are able to afford insurance=more customers
Also, cheap minimum coverage auto insurance works.
It's absurd. You want the market to bend to your whim, failing to realize that you would break the market.
It won't break it.
I want a $50 Rolls Royce, in other words, is not a sensible solution to the woes of the auto industry.
A $50 Rolls Royce would be a money loser. Offering cheap minimum health care is possible, without going into the red.

Anyone think state and city health care co-ops are a good idea?

[UncleBob]

^ I don't follow your logic that take an argument such as "health care costs are rising out of control" as well as dmaul's prior points that a profit motive in the health care industry is one that is contrary to the very idea of health care to be properly retorted to with "donate your own money, charity case!"

It's a false solution to a false premise. But a nice Lib talking point.

The point being, we've got a bunch of internet-armchair experts decrying those who work for personal gain, expecting these people to just give away what they've worked for - all while playing their video games. You want me to believe you're really concerned about greed? Why don't you give up what you own and live a life of poverty and charity, then come back and talk to me.

Competition. That's the beauty of the free market. If you repeal all of these regulations that allow companies to basically have a monopoly over certain areas of industry, then competition will pop up. Competition lowers prices, and results in better products.

NO! COMPETITION BAD! UGH! That's why Obama wants to create a "public option".... to compete with the private companies. Because competition won't solve the problem.

err...

[Msut77]

Bob and FMF are poster children for why a basic economic education should be mandatory starting at elementary school (when they both either dropped out or stopped paying attention).

There is no market cure for our healthcare problems.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I think the uninsurable Joliet Jake wrote it best when he posted he has nothing to lose.

...

I think of where my dad is in this situation. He has made six figures for several years, has a $30-40K pension waiting for him, has put away 20% of his pay for over a decade, owes nobody any money ... and he doesn't think he can afford to retire because of health care.

If he does retire, he is dependent on the current workers of the company to continue paying for his health insurance. Sure, he did it for 30+ years for the company's retirees, but the company keeps bribing the current workers to forego that obligation.

If he has to pay for health care, it is at least $1600 per month for him and my stepmother.

If he loses his health care, he can't be insured because of her high blood pressure and his previous prostate cancer.

Of course, he is just a loser. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans are in a better financial shape than him.

[mykevermin]

The point being, we've got a bunch of internet-armchair experts decrying those who work for personal gain, expecting these people to just give away what they've worked for - all while playing their video games. You want me to believe you're really concerned about greed? Why don't you give up what you own and live a life of poverty and charity, then come back and talk to me.

That's still guilty of a false premise. Life is not a matter of being Michael Douglad from Wall Street or Mother Teresa. You know that. But yet you argue this point like it's valid.

Given the premise of your argument, we should have no government whatsoever, as their only purpose in this world is to sever profit from the hands of those willing to work hard to get it. We should privatize police (Blackwater Xe Local PD!), fire, water, air, courts, prisons, and nature. Anything that is considered "free" or a "right" fights your philosophy...

...that is, so long as you're willing to hide behind absurd arguments you don't agree with on your own...

...you're a savvy person, you know better. "why don't you do something instead of playing video games" is the kind of post that happens when you have nothing to say, but, by gum, you're going to say something anyway. I expect that from evanft, not you.

In the meantime, we can draw up plans for "Monday Night Rehabilitation," brought to you by Carl's Jr.

[Snake2715]

You can't talk about the issue without talking about R&C and balance billing. If the insurance cos are paying at 80% on a anesthesiologist, who pays the other 20%? You do. Cause they don't belong to the network. That's why we need reform.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that hospitals and medical providers are allowed to charge any amount they see fit for their servers...
(I used to work at a major health insurer and I've seen it all. I could go on for days about how effed the current system is. And the docs are as much at fault as the insurance cos.)

I am still thrown off on your comments on R&C, it is not coinsurance. the other 20% is coinsurance and it exists on more than health insurance its also there on commerical property insurance, even residential insurance to some degree.

Now if you are saying the reform needs to target the ass raping doctors charge $5000+ for an MRI, yes thats what it needs to be doing.. how you expect them to force doctors onto networks, and therefore agree to carriers discounts if you will, is beyond me. They do not have to join the network. Some doctors wont even bill, you pay them and manually turn in the claim to whomever your carrier is... if you dont like that see another specialist... the thing is people are flocking to the ones I know like that, must be for a reason.

The cost is huge for Drug companies, doctors, assistant charges, room charges $100 to sit in the room for 30 minutes while I can hear the doc chit chat outside the door... no thanks. But thats the room charge.

I just dont know how there is a simple answer, or one that will be understood by people outside the industry.

[dmaul1114]

The point being, we've got a bunch of internet-armchair experts decrying those who work for personal gain, expecting these people to just give away what they've worked for - all while playing their video games. You want me to believe you're really concerned about greed? Why don't you give up what you own and live a life of poverty and charity, then come back and talk to me.


I've not bought a single video game this year, just got a couple of Goozex. I barely touch them as I don't have much free time and just don't dig gaming much anymore.

And I have always donated to charitable causes.

And this is just typical, conservative hyperbole. No one is asking anyone to give up huge portions of their money. Just to be willing to pay a little more tax (if even necessary if the needed cut backs in medical care spending and wasteful spending in other areas are made) to ensure that everyone can have access to health care.

No one needs to give up everything, or even a lot for others and the general welfare of the country. But people shouldn't be so self centered that they're opposed to maybe paying some more taxes so everyone can have the access to health care that they enjoy.

[lawdood]

I think it is perfectly acceptable to deny services to individuals who cannot afford them.

You may call me a monster, but when was the last time you gave away your property/time to take care of those less fortunate than you? And here, you expect others to do it non-stop.

And my question is valid - do you want a government that forces association?

Such a caring response...a Christian man are you?

On that note, I find it baffling that in a nation supposedly built upon Christian values (you know, the stuff Christ preached) it's so much easier to sell war than it is healthcare reform.

Right Wing "Christian" perspective:

killing people = DO IT! DO IT! SPEND ALL THE MONEY YOU NEED!

helping fellow citizens and making the country a better place for all = NO WAY! SOCIALISTS! EVIL!

[Msut77]

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/08/amenable-mortality-us-health-care-system-versus-other-countries-.html

The only thing our current system is number one on is how much we pay.

[Snake2715]

How in the world does that work logically?

"I want insurance, but I only want it to cover the crazy shit that y'all don't profit off of like major surgery and treatment. So let's take away office visits and things like that - it should be cheaper."

If you undercut profit from insurance companies, they'll find another way to soak it out of you. That's the beauty of the free market.



Myke,

You must not know of how, or what is available out there. Its funny you have so many opinions, but this response leads me to believe that you have not had to shop for insurnace that much.

It does exist as mentioned. Its major medical, or catastrophic, or sometime short term coverage.

I want a $5,000 -$10,000 deductible (self insurance portion), no rx, no office copays. But if I get in a car accident, have a heart attack, etc I want coverage and to not go bankrupt. Normally its cheap and sometimes its guaranteed issue.

Statistically you are not going to have a problem. Statistically 90+% of the insured americans dont even use their deductible up.

Saying this doesnt exist is like saying life insurance doesnt exist. It does I can put policies on 75 year old's.

However your point holds true on all insurance. I recently worked with a guy, we insure his business, and provide him group health coverage as well. He wanted me to look at his daugthers coverage in Texas as she has 3 children and had an ER trip with his Grandaughter.

The premium on 3 females 17 yo or less.... $270 a month. It was pretty good coverage... the bill from a hopsital for the ER visit. $28,000. Yeah in about 103 years she will have paid them back for that one trip that was covered...

Thats the problem with health insurance. Everyone acts like these carriers are only making money. Its not always true. The ones banking are the facilities and doctors, as well as the carriers.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

On that note, I find it baffling that in a nation supposedly built upon Christian values (you know, the stuff Christ preached) it's so much easier to sell war than it is healthcare reform.

Let's start spreading rumors ...

I believe Saddam and Osama were in favor of private healthcare companies.

I also think the health care benefits for Al Queda are currently a HMO.

Go, Internetz, do your thing!

[lawdood]

Myke,

You must not know of how, or what is available out there. Its funny you have so many opinions, but this response leads me to believe that you have not had to shop for insurnace that much.

It does exist as mentioned. Its major medical, or catastrophic, or sometime short term coverage.

I want a $5,000 -$10,000 deductible (self insurance portion), no rx, no office copays. But if I get in a car accident, have a heart attack, etc I want coverage and to not go bankrupt. Normally its cheap and sometimes its guaranteed issue.

Statistically you are not going to have a problem. Statistically 90+% of the insured americans dont even use their deductible up.

Saying this doesnt exist is like saying life insurance doesnt exist. It does I can put policies on 75 year old's.


If you're going to try and prove something exists and you're right with such detailed information, your argument would be helped tremendously if you actually linked to the facts and insurance programs which actually back up your claims, otherwise your supposed claims and opinions on Myke's wrongness hold no weight.

Let's start spreading rumors ...

I believe Saddam and Osama were in favor of private healthcare companies.

I also think the health care benefits for Al Queda are currently a HMO.

Go, Internetz, do your thing!

Your claims will be taken as fact only once Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin repeat them as such...which should be by tomorrow...oh wait, that would go against everything their private insurance company overlords have taught them, DOH! ;)

[fullmetalfan720]

Bob and FMF are poster children for why a basic economic education should be mandatory starting at elementary school (when they both either dropped out or stopped paying attention).

There is no market cure for our healthcare problems.
You say I am so bad at economics....... Then you won't even comment on the fact that the poor and a large amount of the middle class will not be afford this government option health care. Yet, they will still be forced to buy it. Yeah, I'm really bad at economics.

[Snake2715]

I think the uninsurable Joliet Jake wrote it best when he posted he has nothing to lose.

...

I think of where my dad is in this situation. He has made six figures for several years, has a $30-40K pension waiting for him, has put away 20% of his pay for over a decade, owes nobody any money ... and he doesn't think he can afford to retire because of health care.

If he does retire, he is dependent on the current workers of the company to continue paying for his health insurance. Sure, he did it for 30+ years for the company's retirees, but the company keeps bribing the current workers to forego that obligation.

If he has to pay for health care, it is at least $1600 per month for him and my stepmother.

If he loses his health care, he can't be insured because of her high blood pressure and his previous prostate cancer.

Of course, he is just a loser. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans are in a better financial shape than him.

How many independant insurance agents has he called to get this $1600 figure?

Does he have medicare parts A & B?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

...the fact that the poor and a large amount of the middle class will not be afford this government option health care.

I missed this in the 41 pages. How much is government option health care again?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

How many independant insurance agents has he called to get this $1600 figure?

Does he have medicare parts A & B?

As far as the independent insurance agents, I don't know. I know that is how much he says the company pays for his insurance.

Medicare won't work. He is 58 and she is 63.

[mykevermin]

The premium on 3 females 17 yo or less.... $270 a month. It was pretty good coverage... the bill from a hopsital for the ER visit. $28,000. Yeah in about 103 years she will have paid them back for that one trip that was covered...

:rofl: if you think an insurance company pays the amount stated on a medical bill.

[fullmetalfan720]

I missed this in the 41 pages. How much is government option health care again?
At least 11% of your income. More based on how much you make over the poverty line.

[thrustbucket]

Such a caring response...a Christian man are you?

On that note, I find it baffling that in a nation supposedly built upon Christian values (you know, the stuff Christ preached) it's so much easier to sell war than it is healthcare reform.

Right Wing "Christian" perspective:

killing people = DO IT! DO IT! SPEND ALL THE MONEY YOU NEED!

helping fellow citizens and making the country a better place for all = NO WAY! SOCIALISTS! EVIL!

If the people had reason to believe the government was capable of running anything else as well as they do the military the attitude might be different. We have a long list of good humanitarian ideas on paper we were asked to help fund through taxation that have turned into massive cluster fucks.

Edit: Actually if there were a proposal out there that had the military running the new healthcare system, you'd probably have more support.

[Snake2715]

If you're going to try and prove something exists and you're right with such detailed information, your argument would be helped tremendously if you actually linked to the facts and insurance programs which actually back up your claims, otherwise your supposed claims and opinions on Myke's wrongness hold no weight.

First I have no issue with Myke. I rarely get into these political debates really because I am pretty new to the scene. I do read them off and on and have my own opinions on certain things.

To answer your question or comment on your point of me having to support it with facts.

Thats the problem here. Let me give you an example. "there is no way I can get games for less than retail" yet when they find sites like CAG, they are blown away. Until they knew about it, it might as well have not existed.

Funny, most people treat their health insurance like that. If they hear one thing, thats the fact, or if a family member has a story, thats how it is in all situations, across all state lines, for everyone.

I would almost guarantee there are "non Profit" (dont let this fool you as the money gets funnelled), guaranteed issue plans for individuals in almost all, if not all, states.

You need to do your work and call local agents and shop around a little. Not take the HR's word at you employer as the final answer. Not listen to a family member or friend and call it quits.

This stuff exists. There are plans out there that do not look at PRE X, there are major medical or consumer driven health plans, there are limited payment or calander year max plans. All of them are different approaches to keeping costs down. Some work perfectly for some people.

Here are a few off the top of my head. There are so many more its not even funny.


http://www.assuranthealth.com/corp/ah/

https://www.aetna.com/iqs/aimquote.do

http://www.goldenrule.com/health/short-term-health.shtml

http://www.goldenrule.com/health/high_deductible.shtml

http://www.celtic-net.com/short-term-medical-insurance.aspx

http://www.aimhealthplans.com/

http://www.humana-one.com/

[dmaul1114]

What people have to realize is that the tax increase for a public options (or a full public system) could be partly off set by other factors.

Your taxes go up, but hopefully your insurance premium (if there is one depending on system, your income etc.) goes down as needed cuts to wasteful healthcare costs are made going forward. Hopefully co-pays for office visits and drugs goes down. If it was a full public system, hopefully wages would go up if employers weren't contributing.

But it's all up in the air as to how that pans out.

I just see nothing wrong with paying a bit more taxes in each income bracket to be sure everyone has good coverage. Any of us never know what could happen to us health wise or with our jobs etc. so we could end up benefiting from it down the road. It's not just something that benefits the working poor.

And honestly, it could probably be paid for with minimal tax increases if the government could make needed cuts in areas like defense, foreign aid and so on. So I do share the frustrations of the conservatives on that front as I'd rather see universal health care paid for with cuts in other wasteful spending and minimal tax increases.

It just rubs me the wrong way when people are thoroughly opposed to paying any more taxes to help everyone have health care, and even more when they come back with silly retorts asking people to give up everything they have--like that's some how comparable with asking people to be willing to pay a few % more of their income in taxes to ensure that themselves, there families and everyone else always has health coverage.

[perdition(troy]

Note to OP:

Change thread title to Obama Care Could be Costly.

[lawdood]

If the people had reason to believe the government was capable of running anything else as well as they do the military the attitude might be different. We have a long list of good humanitarian ideas on paper we were asked to help fund through taxation that have turned into massive cluster fucks.

Yes, because the Iraq war was run perfectly wasn't it? Got some examples and facts to back up your claims of the long list?

Here's an idea, if you don't want the public insurance option, you don't pick it. It is certainly better than nothing for many people and the fact that it has worked successfully in most other countries around the world seems to suggest it should work here.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

At least 11% of your income. More based on how much you make over the poverty line.

How much for a family of four making $50-70K?

[perdition(troy]

Yes, because the Iraq war was run perfectly wasn't it? Got some examples and facts to back up your claims of the long list?

Dear obama. GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan already.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yes, because the Iraq war was run perfectly wasn't it? Got some examples and facts to back up your claims of the long list?

Here's an idea, if you don't want the public insurance option, you don't pick it. It is certainly better than nothing for many people and the fact that it has worked successfully in most other countries around the world seems to suggest it should work here.

Humans are geared towards more than two choices.

[fullmetalfan720]

How much for a family of four making $50-70K?
No one will say. I would assume that it would be similar to the cost of private insurance, simply because there aren't any magical things the government to make health care suddenly cheap.
Yes, because the Iraq war was run perfectly wasn't it? Got some examples and facts to back up your claims of the long list?

Here's an idea, if you don't want the public insurance option, you don't pick it.
Sure you can not pick the public option, but you would have to pick something else from a limited pool.
It is certainly better than nothing for many people and the fact that it has worked successfully in most other countries around the world seems to suggest it should work here.
Yes, taking away 11% of a poor person's income to give them crappy health care is better than nothing. Does the public option include free food?

[fullmetalfan720]

Dear obama. GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan already.
Yes please. And while you are at it, pull the troops out of Japan, Germany, South Korea, and such. We really don't need to be there.

[The Crotch]

Dear obama. GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan already.
I am unsure as to whether or not this is totally serious. I am aware of the fact that you want troops out of both countries, but do you actually expect a withdrawal from Afghanistan? Obama promised to stay in Afghanistan very early on in the whole election thing. I do not know why this seems like such a shocking betrayal to some people.

[thrustbucket]

Yes, because the Iraq war was run perfectly wasn't it? Got some examples and facts to back up your claims of the long list?

You really should pay more attention.
I specifically said "Military" instead of "War" for a reason.

And even though it's off topic, it's not even debatable that our military is capable of winning pretty much any war with any other country right now, as long as the goal for winning is the traditional pure and simple subjugation. Unfortunately that's not the goal, so it's hard to call Iraq a war. It's a political operation using the military with with an impossible number of PC constraints to navigate through successfully. It's an attempt at brain surgery with a forklift.

[thrustbucket]

Yes please. And while you are at it, pull the troops out of Japan, Germany, South Korea, and such. We really don't need to be there.

I agree with that statement. If we reduced our military down to just doing what it was originally intended to do: protect our borders, we'd have enough money for free health care for everyone in the country; and we could even provide healthcare to mexico "officially".

[Snake2715]

yeah then what would happen with the new influx of jobless soldiers?

Would it be worse then the mexican "takeover" we have now?

[lawdood]

yeah then what would happen with the new influx of jobless soldiers?

Would it be worse then the mexican "takeover" we have now?

One thing's sure, they'd all have great, government run healthcare under the VA.

[mykevermin]

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/investors_business_daily_short.php

Here’s the original line, which is now stricken from the editorial:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."



But IBD’s correction creates another problem. Here is its entire text:

"Editor’s Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JolietJake]

I think it is perfectly acceptable to deny services to individuals who cannot afford them.

You may call me a monster, but when was the last time you gave away your property/time to take care of those less fortunate than you? And here, you expect others to do it non-stop.

And my question is valid - do you want a government that forces association?

I've volunteered at schools, i've volunteered at retirement homes, i've given more money than i can remember to local charities.

Health care helps society as a whole. A healthy population is happier and more productive than they would be sick.

You're just a greedy bastard who would sooner let people die than be relieved of a single penny.

[JolietJake]

That is hilariously sad Myke.

[RAMSTORIA]

One thing's sure, they'd all have great, government run healthcare under the VA.

i dont know about great... i deal with veterans regularly through me job (i work in health insurance) and most of them arent happy. my buddy is in the army right now stationed in germany, his wife just had a baby. ask her what she thinks of their insurance coverage, i can assure you it wont be positive.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

No one will say. I would assume that it would be similar to the cost of private insurance, simply because there aren't any magical things the government to make health care suddenly cheap.

My family of four already pays a pretty penny for health care from the money explicitly withheld from my wife's check and from the money my wife's company can't pay her because it is paying a significant chunk of the health care plan.

The public option removes the possibility of bankruptcy due to medical bills. I'm going to spend the next two decades paying off credit card and student loan debts, putting two kids through a middle class lifestyle and state college, paying off a mortgage and socking away 10-15 years of living expenses in a variety of investments. If medical expenses continue to grow faster than GDP like they have since the 70s, what will be enough in 2029, 2049? Should I be like my father and work until I'm eligible for Medicare or should I move to any of the 3 dozen countries where I could just retire when I have no debts and a modest nest egg?

[Ruined]

Doesn't really matter if you get a serious disease and die before it is your turn to get adequate care for it, now does it?

Perhaps they could try restricting private health insurance companies from being publically traded, that would take some focus off of profit and perhaps improve things. Reform COBRA and pre-existing conditions coverage. Allow the public to select less extensive private coverage. A public option, however, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[lawdood]

i dont know about great... i deal with veterans regularly through me job (i work in health insurance) and most of them arent happy. my buddy is in the army right now stationed in germany, his wife just had a baby. ask her what she thinks of their insurance coverage, i can assure you it wont be positive.

How many people honestly 'rave' about their healthcare, private or public? The costs and copays alone for private keep skyrocketing, while fewer and fewer procedures are covered for many.

I know firsthand that the VA provides pretty damn good healthcare coverage, esp. for the price.

[mykevermin]

Doesn't really matter if you get a serious disease and die before it is your turn to get adequate care for it, now does it?

Oh, stop.

Perhaps they could try restricting private health insurance companies from being publically traded, that would take some focus off of profit and perhaps improve things. Reform COBRA and pre-existing conditions coverage. Allow the public to select less extensive private coverage. A public option, however, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

:lol: Give the customers more choices! Take away the public option!

[RAMSTORIA]

How many people honestly 'rave' about their healthcare, private or public? The costs and copays alone for private keep skyrocketing, while fewer and fewer procedures are covered for many.

I know firsthand that the VA provides pretty damn good healthcare coverage, esp. for the price.

well you described it was great coverage and just now desscribed it as pretty damn good. so if its so great, they why shouldnt people rave about it? but i get your point, i think were really just splitting hairs on VA coverage. plus your from sacramento, so ill assume youre a cool guy that goes to streets of london and not a douche that goes to powerhouse.

[Ruined]

Oh, stop.



:lol: Give the customers more choices! Take away the public option!

Problem is Pelosi's bill takes away the private option giving the customers far less choices than they've ever had, reducing them to a whopping 1 - the government. Yeah, you can keep your private insurance - until you get married, change jobs, or have a child, at which point you are forced into the public option. If you want more choices, Obamacare is not what you are looking for.

[lawdood]

well you described it was great coverage and just now desscribed it as pretty damn good. so if its so great, they why shouldnt people rave about it? but i get your point, i think were really just splitting hairs on VA coverage. plus your from sacramento, so ill assume youre a cool guy that goes to streets of london and not a douche that goes to powerhouse.

lol, that I am. :lol:

[mykevermin]

Problem is Pelosi's bill takes away the private option giving the customers far less choices than they've ever had, reducing them to a whopping 1 - the government. Yeah, you can keep your private insurance - until you get married, change jobs, or have a child, at which point you are forced into the public option. If you want more choices, Obamacare is not what you are looking for.

Are you arguing against a public option at all, or the public option as the only choice? You're being inconsistent here.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Are you arguing against a public option at all, or the public option as the only choice? You're being inconsistent here.

This country has the greatest health care in the world. Sure, you have to work until you're 70 to enjoy it, but why wouldn't you want to work that extra 20 years? Free time kills.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Doesn't really matter if you get a serious disease and die before it is your turn to get adequate care for it, now does it?

Tough call.

Financial ruin under our current system or a possibly lower quality of health care?

Which would you choose?

[maxim2boobles]

When I masturbate I pretend my dick is the slap chop an I'm destroying vegetables. Do you think that's a eating disorder?

[lawdood]

When I masturbate I pretend my dick is the slap chop an I'm destroying vegetables. Do you think that's a eating disorder?

lulz

[UncleBob]

Wow - I missed a lot while working.

Few things - not everyone who is anti-"ObamaCare" is Republican, and not all of us are evil Warmongers. As I stated before, personally, I was against going into Iraq and wasn't convinced going into Afghanistan was a good idea. To be all "Oh, you'll pay for war, but not for health." is disingenuous at best.

Second, No, you don't have to be Mother Theresa - however, we all work and do our best to maximize our lives. That's why some of us can, say, play video games, afford XBox Live memberships, etc. If you do it, it's really a game of pot calling the kettle black for you to get mad at those who do it as well - just better than you.

It'd be like Charles Manson saying Osama is a bad person or such. "Sure, I killed people - but he killed way more." No one would listen to that and we certainly wouldn't hail him as a patron saint for it.

Third - I keep hearing what a greedy bastard I, and those who oppose "ObamaCare" are. Think long and hard about this.

I would probably benefit from "ObamaCare". I doubt my taxes would go up much - and the money I pay into for my current coverage would probably be much less.

The same for most of you. I keep seeing y'all post these stories about how the current system has ruined your lives, the lives of co-workers, loved ones, etc.

It seems y'all would benefit. All while making other people pay for it. Y'all would probably come out ahead, while others would be on the losing end of the stick.

So, I would say, if you want "ObamaCare" and it makes your life better - then *YOU* are the ones being greedy bastards - expecting others to pick up your tab.

[dmaul1114]

The point is most everyone will probably end up paying less for health care in the long run, and maybe paying a bit more taxes. Only time will tell what the ratio of those changes turns out to affect our bottom line.

And I'm like you, I do pretty well for myself working as a professor and I'll ALWAYS have pretty good health care. SO I doubt "ObamaCare" would make my life better. I'll likely always be a state employee at universities, so my health care will always be good. No one will ever have to "pick up my tab." I'm just fine paying some more taxes if that's what it takes to give similar options to those less fortunate. And I have little respect for others who are well off and don't have the same attitude.

AndI don't get mad at people who do better than me. I get mad at both people who do better AND worse than me, who don't care about others less fortunate than them and bitch and moan about maybe paying a bit more taxes to give those worse off than them similar access to health care.

And I hate the "well why don't you live in poverty and give everything to charity" non-sense responses for two main reasons.

1. It's stupid hyperbole. Asking people to not be miserly, assholes who don't want to give up maybe a few percentage points more of their income in taxes (which will likely be off set somewhat long term by lower insurance premiums) to make sure everyone has decent health care options is not a huge sacrifice on par with expecting people to give up everything. I mean we're at most talking what? Maybe giving up one meal out a month or something? Even less than that if you factor in savings in health care premiums going down over time.

2. People who don't have generosity on that front probably donate relatively little to charity themselves. And any donations they do make are probably for tax purposes rather than any generosity or kindness. With exceptions of course, there are those who just hate government and oppose healthcare reform on that front who may be very generous in their donations.

[UncleBob]

And I'm like you, I do pretty well for myself working as a professor and I'll ALWAYS have pretty good health care. SO I doubt "ObamaCare" would make my life better.

Actually, like I said above, I'd probably come out ahead with "ObamaCare" - in the short-term, at least. I'm merely trying to look beyond my own self-interests.

1. It's stupid hyperbole. Asking people to not be miserly, assholes who don't want to give up maybe a few percentage points more of their income in taxes

A few more points here, a few more there - next thing you know, you've got 1% of the population paying for 40% of the government... oh, wait!

And any donations they do make are probably for tax purposes rather than any generosity or kindness.
Do people *really* give millions to charity just to write off a couple of thousand dollars on taxes?
That doesn't seem like a very winning proposal to me...

[dmaul1114]

Those people are the exceptions to the rule.

There's no use talking about the top few percent. It's the upper middle class, lower upper class etc. that I was more targeting with that comment.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree. As we have polar opposite views on how government should work and how people should live their lives.

[UncleBob]

I think we'd agree more than not.

In fact, I'm not completely against the idea of government sponsored health insurance. I'm merely against making it mandatory, taking away the rights of private companies to offer insurance on the same level and raising taxes/deficit spending to pay for the government-sponsored coverage.

[Paco]

When I masturbate I pretend my dick is the slap chop an I'm destroying vegetables. Do you think that's a eating disorder?

Is it slapping your troubles away?

[Ruined]

Are you arguing against a public option at all, or the public option as the only choice? You're being inconsistent here.

I am arguing against the public option because I believe if included *at all* the government will rig it so that it WILL become the only choice in time even if it is not initially. Pelosi's bill is already rigged this way, it says so right in the bill that you can keep your private insurance, but if you switch jobs/get married/have kids you are forced into the public option. Even if the final senate bill did not have this language, with the initial bill drafted as such it reveals the direction the government wishes to go in - public option being forced upon people as the only option.

[mykevermin]

Why don't you link me to this "Pelosi Bill" that forces care, because all I've come across that has her name on it is this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3426:

And so you're against the public option because it will become the only choice. How does that work? How will the public option force others out of the market?

[UncleBob]

Myke - you do know that - at least - one version of the bill includes a section that makes it illegal for a private company to sign up new customers or allow customers to change their policy, right?

This will, effectively, kill private insurers.

[mykevermin]

I've not seen that, no. But please provide evidence, I'd like to see it.

[UncleBob]

Page 16
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[fullmetalfan720]

To all of you who support these bills, this isn't health care reform. Its bullshit. Its the medical industry's bailout.
Look at this article written by a progressive:
Many progressives are getting all bent out of shape over the "brown shirt" rabble organized by health industry PR firms to disrupt the so-called "town meetings" being organized all over the country by Democratic members of Congress.
What they are conveniently forgetting is that these are not really "town meetings" at all, at least in the sense of the town meetings I grew up with, and started out covering as a young journalist in Connecticut--that is, meetings called and run democratically, with leaders elected from the floor, open to all residents of a community.
These "town meetings" are really nothing but propaganda sessions run by members of Congress who are trying to burnish their fraudulent credentials as public servants, and trying to perpetrate a huge fraud of a health care bill that purports to be a progressive "reform" of the US health care system, but that actually further entrenches the control of that system by the insurance industry, and to a lesser extent, the hospital and drug industry.
ObamaCare is to health reform what bank bailouts are to financial system reform, which is to say it is the opposite of what its name implies.
The right-wing nuts who cry that ObamaCare is introducing euthanasia for the elderly and infirm, or that it is socialism, are ignorant wackos, to be sure, but they are right about one thing: Americans are about to be royally screwed on health care reform by the president and the Democratic Congress, just as they've been screwed by them on financial system "reform."
The appropriate response to this screw-job is the one the right has adopted: shut these sham "town meetings" down, and run the sell-out politicians out of town on a rail, preferably coated in tar and feathers they way the snake-oil salesmen of old used to be handled!
This is not about civil discourse. This is about propaganda. The Obama administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership have sold out health care reform for the tainted coin of the medical-industrial industry, and are holding, or trying to hold, these meetings around the country to promote legislation that has essentially been written for them by that industry--legislation that will force everyone to pay for insurance as offered, and priced, by the private insurance industry. What a deal for those companies--a captive market of 300 million people! There will be little or no effort to control prices, and the higher costs will be financed through higher taxes, and through cuts in Medicare benefits.
This isn't "reform." It's corruption, pure and simple.
Any mention of a system that works--single payer--the system we already have in the form of Medicare for the elderly and disabled, and the system that has proved successful for almost four decades in Canada-- has been systematically blocked and censored out of the discussion. Every effort has been made to bury an excellent bill, HR 676, offered up by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), which would cover every American by simply expanding Medicare to cover everyone.
The only proper response at this point is obstruction, and the more militant and boisterous that obstruction, the better.
Instead of opposing the right-wing hecklers at these events, progressives should be making common cause with them. Instead of calling them fascists, we should be working to turn them, by showing them that the enemy is not the left; it is the corporations that own both Democrats and Republicans alike.
The only proper approach to the wretched health care legislation currently working its way through Congress at this point is to kill it and start over. At these "town meeting" staged events, Obama and the Democrats need to hear, in no uncertain terms, that we don't want no stinkin' ObamaCare. We want Medicare for all.
That's the truth about this health care reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
Here's an article detailing how Obamacare is just another corrupt piece of legislation.
A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.
The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.
In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."
What happened to the 300 billion in savings we were promised?
This:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma

[mykevermin]

Page 16
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Skimming over that (sorry, soopa busy today) it appears to be nothing more than defining what falls under the definition of "grandfathered care." Am I looking at a different page 16 than you?

[Ruined]

Page 16
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

+1

What you don't know can kill you! Or at least render you at the mercy of the government as their public plan becomes your only option in time.

[dmaul1114]

All this talk about choice confuses me at times.

Who cares about choice if the health care plan is affordable for all and the coverage is good? As long as my premiums are reasonable (compared to current rates) and I can get the care I need in a timely manner (timely based on urgency of the problem) I couldn't care less how many health care options.

Having wasted a few hours of my busy schedule on picking out health care and other benefits crap at my new job a couple of weeks ago, I'd probably prefer the convenience of not having a bunch of plans to compare and just having one that was at least as affordable and as good of coverage as what I get now.

Choice is usually pretty limited anyway--there were only 6 or 7 plans I could chose from through my employer, and only 2 of them were affordable to me. A high deductable one that had a $27 premium a month which wasn't an option as I'd never hit the $3,000 deductible barring an emergency. So really the only option I had was the $110 a month HMO option--which I'm not a huge fan of with needing referrals for specialists etc. But I wasn't paying $300+ a month for the plans that allowed self referral.

And I don't think a public option would kill private plans. There would always be some pricier plans around for the better off who want to pay more to have more flexibility in their health care plan etc.


And so you're against the public option because it will become the only choice. How does that work? How will the public option force others out of the market?

I understand where he's coming from. People think the public option will run like a non-profit--or more likely even at a loss--and premiums will be so low that the private sector can't compete. Or more at least won't want to compete as these are greedy, capitalistic companies out to maximize profits by charging as much as they can and paying for a few services for their customers as they can legally manage. And they won't be able to do that and keep customers if there's a public option out there giving the same (or better care) for less price.

Which gets to my point, who cares about choice of the public option is more affordable and gives the same or better care? Which country's like France show can work well.

[perdition(troy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

@ dmaul. read it, it's about france's healthcare system.

[dmaul1114]

Decent read. Any system is going to have it's problems--especially in these economic times. Seems they need to do more to cut costs and maybe raise taxes some more to not lose so much money.

But it's still vastly preferable to having a huge number of uninsured in your country IMO.

The quote that stood out to me though, was this one:


In France, "If you are in medical care for the money, you'd better change jobs," says Marc Lanfranchi, a general practitioner from Nancy, an eastern town. On the other hand, medical school is paid for by the government, and malpractice insurance is much cheaper.

I say amen to that. When I'm picking doctors I usually end up switching several times until I find a doctor who takes his time with patients, doesn't overbook appointments in each day and rush around going through as quickly as possible etc. etc. to maximize the amount of money they bring in.

A huge part of health care reform MUST be keyed on getting costs down. And having government pay for schooling (so doctors don't have huge loans) and getting malpractice down will be a big part of that as then they can charge less for their services without hurting their bottom line as much.

People should not be going to med school primarily to become rich. They should be going as they care and want to help people, while at the same time making a nice upper middle class or lower upper class living. And those are the kind of people I want for my doctor. Not the person rushing form patient to patient and ordering uneeded tests and treatments that net them or their friends more money.

But that's just me. I have little respect for people who put becoming rich as their main life goal. We all want to do well for ourselves and have a comfortable living. But I have much more respect for those who do something they love and feel is important with the monetary benefits as the secondary reasoning. As such I don't want such people treating me, so I tend to go through a few primary care providers before finding one I like.

[perdition(troy]

The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989.That's the thing that stuck out to me personally.

Meh.

[dmaul1114]

Doesn't bother, health care shouldn't be for profit. Ideally it would be right at cost or as close as possible each year in a public system.

But I'm fine with it losing money, it should just be coupled with savings in government spending in other areas.

Cut back the military, and stay out of wars that aren't necesary to defend our borders and that could pay for it there.

For 4 years pay to put the X number of people cut in the military scale back through college (as opposed to paying X number of annual salaries on that number of people) so they scaleback isn't totally screwing people who wanted to stay in, and then you have your savings there.

Cut back foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt (pay them millions not to attack Israel) etc. etc.

So it is annoying that they aren't talking about such cutbacks to pay for health care.

[thrustbucket]

To all of you who support these bills, this isn't health care reform. Its bullshit. Its the medical industry's bailout.
Look at this article written by a progressive:
That's the truth about this health care reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
Here's an article detailing how Obamacare is just another corrupt piece of legislation.
What happened to the 300 billion in savings we were promised?
This:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma

The bush that article keeps beating around is that there is a much more important issue at the heart of all these other issues, healthcare included.

It's frustrating as hell to watch the national debate keep centering on the limbs of the beast while everyone is continuously and successfully distracted away from the heart of the beast.

This leads me to this bumper sticker I'm thinking of having made and giving out: "Want real change? Don't vote for anyone that doesn't promise to abolish the Federal Reserve".

Until we get in that mindset, it's around the merry-go-round we'll go while it rusts and flies apart.

[Ruined]

And I don't think a public option would kill private plans. There would always be some pricier plans around for the better off who want to pay more to have more flexibility in their health care plan etc.

The Pelosi/House plan forbids private insurance companies to write new policies, and it forbids consumers to change their private policy, forcing them into the public option if they change jobs/marry/have kids. So there would be *no* option *except* the government public option under the Pelosi/House plan as you can see from the bill text a few posts above. The bill kills off private insurance companies on purpose.

So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.

[Msut77]

Bob basically comes right out and says that he is willing to sacrifice his family at the altar of "free markets".

Other posters point to problems that countries with universal healthcare systems have, which exist but could probably be solved if they were paying any where close to the amount we pay.

[perdition(troy]

The Pelosi/House plan forbids private insurance companies to write new policies, and it forbids consumers to change their private policy, forcing them into the public option if they change jobs/marry/have kids. So there would be *no* option *except* the government public option under the Pelosi/House plan as you can see from the bill text a few posts above. The bill kills off private insurance companies on purpose.

So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.

Agreed

[Ruined]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/pennsylvania/election_2010_pennsylvania_senate_election

Looks like Specter picked the wrong time to switch to Democrat. He's now lost his lead and is getting killed in the polls due to his recent endorsement of Obamacare. (He trails 48% - 36% as a result)

[dmaul1114]

The Pelosi/House plan forbids private insurance companies to write new policies, and it forbids consumers to change their private policy, forcing them into the public option if they change jobs/marry/have kids. So there would be *no* option *except* the government public option under the Pelosi/House plan as you can see from the bill text a few posts above. The bill kills off private insurance companies on purpose.

So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.

I can see that, and I don't really support putting those kind of restrictions in. There should just be a public option and private companies can do whatever they want to try to compete IMO.

But I'm also not freaking out about it, as I said earlier I don't care if I have choices as long as the public health care is affordable and the quality of care comparable to what I get now.

As long as it's costing around what people with good jobs/insurance pay now (as percentage of income) and offering the same (and likely better) coverage in terms of not denying things, problems with pre-existing conditions etc. etc. then who cares about choice beyond the just anti-government, libertarian types?

[Ruined]

I can see that, and I don't really support putting those kind of restrictions in. There should just be a public option and private companies can do whatever they want to try to compete IMO.

But I'm also not freaking out about it, as I said earlier I don't care if I have choices as long as the public health care is affordable and the quality of care comparable to what I get now.

As long as it's costing around what people with good jobs/insurance pay now (as percentage of income) and offering the same (and likely better) coverage in terms of not denying things, problems with pre-existing conditions etc. etc. then who cares about choice beyond the just anti-government, libertarian types?

What exactly would motivate the government to have a quality of care to be comparable to what you have now if there is *no competition*? If there is only the government option and nothing else, you will take what they give you and like it, because you have no other option. Don't like it? Too bad. And that is why the current democrat bills are dogs. Private insurance competition needs to be in there, and all of the current democrat bills essentially eliminate that competition over time, leaving a single government public option with no competition as the *only* option. That leaves open the possibility of the care being significantly worse than what you have now with the citizen having nothing they can do about it and no ability to elect coverage from another provider.

Frankly, given the intentions of the Democrat bills out there which all explicitly eliminate private insurance over time, I won't trust ANY bill with a public option in it for that reason. Our government seems keen to take everything over exclusively. Thus, I and many other are staunchly opposed to any bill containing a public option at all as a result.

[dmaul1114]

I just see that as typical anti government paranoia.

They have incentive to take the best care possible of their citizens. If they don't they aren't going to get re-elected.

If the health care system sucks, there would be all kinds of uproar.

So I don't share your pessimism. I think it could be done right and end up costing most people less in the long run with no real reduction in quality of care other than maybe some longer waits for non-urgent issues.

[perdition(troy]

What exactly would motivate the government to have a quality of care to be comparable to what you have now if there is *no competition*? If there is only the government option and nothing else, you will take what they give you and like it, because you have no other option. Don't like it? Too bad. And that is why the current democrat bills are dogs. Private insurance competition needs to be in there, and all of the current democrat bills essentially eliminate that competition over time, leaving a single government public option with no competition as the *only* option. That leaves open the possibility of the care being significantly worse than what you have now with the citizen having nothing they can do about it and no ability to elect coverage from another provider.

Frankly, given the intentions of the Democrat bills out there which all explicitly eliminate private insurance over time, I won't trust ANY bill with a public option in it for that reason. Our government seems keen to take everything over exclusively. Thus, I and many other are staunchly opposed to any bill containing a public option at all as a result.

http://www.ukrecession.com/wp-content/uploads/clapping.gif

[Ruined]

I just see that as typical anti government paranoia.

They have incentive to take the best care possible of their citizens. If they don't they aren't going to get re-elected.

If the health care system sucks, there would be all kinds of uproar.

So I don't share your pessimism. I think it could be done right and end up costing most people less in the long run with no real reduction in quality of care other than maybe some longer waits for non-urgent issues.

Have you had any experience firsthand with the free government healthcare Medicaid program? Because I have. Its not even close to what private healthcare companies deliver in terms of quality of care. It is servicable and you can get your health needs met to an extent - which is not bad since its 100% free - but compared to the private options one pays for its slim pickins in terms of doctors and especially specialists; also you often have to jump through hoops and/or face long waittimes to get advanced procedures done.

So while its possible we could get mediocre public healthcare, why in the hell would I want to give up my premium private healthcare for that?? Just to save a buck or two? I'd rather spend the cash out of my check for premium healthcare, and also not have my freedoms restricted by the gov't under the banner of 'preventative healthcare.'

[dmaul1114]

Exactly, that's a 100% free program, so it's not comparable.

I would expect it to be completely different with a public option since people are paying into it (either in premiums that go to the government or in taxes for that purpose etc.) to get their health care, rather than just being free health care for the poor.

I wouldn't expect to see the same limitations on choice of doctors, specialists etc. I'd expect it to be at least as good as in HMO network. Which is what I've had for years to keep my premiums down.

[Ruined]

That might work for you but I always pay extra for the PPO-esque option (often called different things depending on the provider). I'll easily pay more to get maximum doctor access, which often means quickest and best treatment. Once again, with a public-only system having something like that would be unrealistic due to the costs and logistics of it; the government bungles nearly everything they touch, I don't see why healthcare would be any different.

[dmaul1114]

I can see that.

The referral process can be tedious, but I don't use it much since I'm in excellent health, eat healthy and work out at least 3 or 4 times a week. I might would consider a PPO option if the price difference wasn't so great. My HMO is like $110 a month to me, the cheapest PPO option was around $330. Both are way up from what they were a few years back in this state before the economic crisis and the state drastically pulled back their premium contributions.

But ideally the public option should be more like a PPO--maybe have to have a Primary Care Provider but can self refer to specialists. Say a $15 co-pay to your PCP, $25-35 to specialists.

That would actually save the system money as if they require referrals they have to pay for the PCP office visit to give you the referral and for the specialist visits. So I don't see why they couldn't do that type of system. But I guess the concern is that people would make uneeded use of specialist, who tend to greedily charge a lot more for simple office visits than a general family doctor.

[mykevermin]

So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.

Can you please source this for me? UncleBob linked to actual legislation, but what he pointed to did not relate to this point.

You, on the other hand, have linked to opinion-editorial articles and opinion polls.

[Msut77]

Can you please source this for me?

Good luck with that. You cannot even get him to state why he thinks (let alone prove) the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world.

Presumably it is because Glenn Beck said so.
------
More required reading.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/295/17/2037.pdf

"The United State has a considerably greater expenditure on medical care (US $5274 per capita) than in the United Kingdom (US $2164 adjusting for purchasing power). To determine whether that expenditure translates into better health outcomes for the adult US population, data on the degree of morbidity in each country beyond the childhood years are needed."

"With the sole exception of cancer, there exists a sharp negative gradient across both education and income groups in both countries ... As a result, country differences are larger and tend to be more statistically different at the bottom of the social hierarchy than at the top. Level differences between countries are sufficiently large that individuals in the top of the education and income strata in the United States have comparable rates of diabetes and heart disease as those in the bottom of the income and education strata in England."

[fatherofcaitlyn]

To all of you who support these bills, this isn't health care reform. Its bullshit. Its the medical industry's bailout.


As twisted as it sounds, I hope you're right.

I hope everything coming out of Washington makes life worse for the vast majority of people.

Why?

I pretty sure we're supposed to abolish a government that is destructive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the hope that a new government can most likely effect the people's safety and happiness.

The government has been fucking up SO much in the last 10, 20, 140 years that you have to wonder how many more chances it will get to turn things around.

[mykevermin]

As twisted as it sounds, I hope you're right.

I hope everything coming out of Washington makes life worse for the vast majority of people.

Why?

I pretty sure we're supposed to abolish a government that is destructive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the hope that a new government can most likely effect the people's safety and happiness.

The government has been fucking up SO much in the last 10, 20, 140 years that you have to wonder how many more chances it will get to turn things around.

It's almost time for September TV premieres.

They're safe.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It's almost time for September TV premieres.

They're safe.

I know. If only there was something like the sunglasses from "They Live" ...

[thrustbucket]

Foc, are you calling for revolution?

[mykevermin]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6184123&postcount=885

Anybody?

[Ruined]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6184123&postcount=885

Anybody?

Its in the same area FoC linked, not sure what part of what I said you are debating. (p16 of the bill) I figured you were just being difficult. Bottom line you have to have your insurance grandfathered in, then it is not possible to change it - if you change jobs, for instance.

[Msut77]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-times-real-reporter-dana-gould-town-hall

Watch the video.

[Ruined]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_pa ssing_congressional_plan

54% of Americans believe passing no healthcare reform is better than passing the current congressional plan. I'm with them.

[HowStern]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-times-real-reporter-dana-gould-town-hall

Watch the video.

Shit makes me nuts.

Kids will die if healthcare stays the way it is but people against reform say Obama is "Hitler."

[fullmetalfan720]

Shit makes me nuts.

Kids will die if healthcare stays the way it is but people against reform say Obama is "Hitler."

Kids will die if these bullshit health care reform bills pass. They aren't reform. They're bullshit.

[Ruined]

Kids will die if these bullshit health care reform bills pass. They aren't reform. They're bullshit.

It appears the majority believes, no matter what they think is ideal, that the current bills are in fact bullshit.

[Msut77]

Shit makes me nuts.

Kids will die if healthcare stays the way it is but people against reform say Obama is "Hitler."

Well to be fair a fair portion of children wouldn't die so much as their quality of life would be drastically reduced.

It would be mean to tar all of those against reform with being for a "pro-dead children" plan, they aren't all like unclebob.

[mykevermin]

Its in the same area FoC linked, not sure what part of what I said you are debating. (p16 of the bill) I figured you were just being difficult. Bottom line you have to have your insurance grandfathered in, then it is not possible to change it - if you change jobs, for instance.

What has FoC linked to?

Those pages define grandfathering, they don't come close to being able to be interpreted that you only have the option for public health insurance if you change jobs or whatever other criteria you listed.

I'm not being difficult. I'm trying to hang onto the only shred of decent debate in this thread - as the remainder if silly conservative philosophy and opinion polls which reinforce that a stupid public should stay stupid and have opinions.

[HowStern]

I'm not sure how anyone with a grain of knowledge about healthcare in other developed nations can defend the current system here.


France - public option - spends almost half the GDP we do, rated #1.

Japan - public option - speds half the GDP we do and has the longest life expectancy.


USA - no public option - spends twice as much as every other developed nation - lowest life expectancy among them and rated #37


How is our current system ideal?

[Msut77]

I'm not sure how anyone with a grain of knowledge about healthcare in other developed nations can defend the current system here.

Some have almost no knowledge of how it works in other countries, with many it is willful denial. Then there are those who just lie about it (We're #1/Health Insurance = Hitler).

France - public option - spends almost half the GDP we do, rated #1.

Japan - public option - speds half the GDP we do and has the longest life expectancy.


USA - no public option - spends twice as much as every other developed nation - lowest life expectancy among them and rated #37


How is our current system ideal?

Just an example as a percentage (%) of GDP, the United States has a greater total public expenditure on health care than the United Kingdom does.

Not total expenditures, public expenditures.

Meaning more big ol' government health care in the US than the UK.

[fullmetalfan720]

Well to be fair a fair portion of children wouldn't die so much as their quality of life would be drastically reduced.

It would be mean to tar all of those against reform with being for a "pro-dead children" plan, they aren't all like unclebob.
How the fuck is opposing these health care bills anything close to a "pro-dead children" plan? Its just like the Cap & Trade debacle. It doesn't actually help, rather it hurts, and if you are against it, you either hate people, or the Earth. If you think everyone has the right to health care, these bills aren't going to help. If you really want everyone to have access to free health care, offer Medicare to everyone, if they want it. Don't play bullshit with these bills that are being debated. They aren't going to help anyone. They take away 11-12% (at least) of people's income to buy health care. Who does that help? Insurance companies. Who gets 220 billion in savings? Insurance companies. Who is practically bankrupt because of the derivatives trading? Insurance companies. Its a secret bailout, disguised as "Health Care Reform." And all of you suckers have fell for it.

[Msut77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Q0FFNtlqU&feature=channel_page

[thrustbucket]

If you think everyone has the right to health care, these bills aren't going to help. If you really want everyone to have access to free health care, offer Medicare to everyone, if they want it. Don't play bullshit with these bills that are being debated. They aren't going to help anyone. They take away 11-12% (at least) of people's income to buy health care. Who does that help? Insurance companies. Who gets 220 billion in savings? Insurance companies. Who is practically bankrupt because of the derivatives trading? Insurance companies. Its a secret bailout, disguised as "Health Care Reform." And all of you suckers have fell for it.

I've been mostly lurking this thread because I didn't have the energy to formulate a statement that is essentially that.

One "Nail on the head" achievement for you.

Of course, you aren't going to be surprised when they bully their plan through with all the grand flaming sense of emergency they did with the last bailout package, are you? That's the only way it will pass, and everyone for it knows it.

[UncleBob]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

[UncleBob]

More Astroturfing from Camp Obama:
http://www.barackobama.com/twitter/tweetyoursenator/?source=108

Use our automated website to SPAM your representatives with Twitter messages.
Odd, I sent one using this site, but it doesn't show up on the map... Wonder why?

[Ruined]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sebelius_health_care

Progress.... Though still not near ideal since it will likely be government subsidized. And it is still unknown whether this is movement towards the eventual elimination of private healthcare a la the Pelosi bill, won't know that until we see the text of the bill. I'll be straight up, after that Pelosi house bill I just don't trust these guys anymore on this topic. (similar to how I felt after cap and trade passed in the house)

[fullmetalfan720]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sebelius_health_care

Progress.
More proof that this health care bill is bullshit. There won't be a public option. There will only be an individual mandate, so that people are forced to pay for insurance they can't afford, all the while giving the health insurance, and drug companies a huge bailout.

[Ruined]

More proof that this health care bill is bullshit. There won't be a public option. There will only be an individual mandate, so that people are forced to pay for insurance they can't afford, all the while giving the health insurance, and drug companies a huge bailout.

That being said, I don't think lower income families should get 100% free healthcare a la Medicaid either for certain specific instances; take ER visits, for example. I know plenty of people that abuse that system and go to the ER when their doctor doesn't give them a certain medication they want (usually because that medication often has addictive properties); we are talking going to the ER twice a week for a month to get med refills (benzos are famous for spurring this). If they added a co-pay of $25 to ER visits it would probably restrict said visits to true emergencies.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Foc, are you calling for revolution?

Not really. I'd rather not go to prison.

Mass exodus, maybe.

Frankly, I don't think armed conflict is necessary. The government has made so many promises it can't keep (Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security), pisses away so much money (Iraq and Afghanistan) and continues to borrow from people who won't lend money forever (Russia and China). If one foreign country decides to back out or the current obligations are kept, the whole infernal contraption will fall apart.

If our politicians weren't all on the same page, some state would have left the Union by now.

When historians document this period of history, does anybody think they'll be kind to us because of how duped we were?

[mykevermin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sebelius_health_care

Progress.... Though still not near ideal since it will likely be government subsidized. And it is still unknown whether this is movement towards the eventual elimination of private healthcare a la the Pelosi bill, won't know that until we see the text of the bill. I'll be straight up, after that Pelosi house bill I just don't trust these guys anymore on this topic. (similar to how I felt after cap and trade passed in the house)

It's a shame that political pressure from an idiotic, foaming-at-the-mouth public is having an effect on these proposals. Misinformation from the elites in the health care industry, supplemented by the uninformed "YEAH!" and cheerleading from people like you, who mistake their opinion is fundamentally flawed by your inability to (1) discern fact from fiction because (2) everything you believe is filtered through your ideology first.

It was the right-wingers, starting with Nixon, that have led to the US corrections system increasing its budget 4 times over (at the least!), its population 7 times over, and discovering that the people who experience this system are more likely than ever to reoffend and be rearrested after release. The philosophy of scaring the public, Willie Horton style, into voting for the guys who would put people behind bars and for longer, helped keep the Republicans in power for several decades; likewise, the "soft on crime" label damaged Democrats immensely during this time period.

And in the end, almost 4 decades later, we still favor this "lock 'em up and throw away the key" philosophy, never stopping to listen to reason that it's too expensive, or that it's ineffective, or that creating an enemy to combat and making the public scared of what might happen was a way of lying and manipulating the public. That we embraced and supported such a backwards and foolish idea of what "corrections" should be like that we've damaged our society for decades to come. And in the end, we have ourselves to blame for following ideology and not empiricism (as Ruined likes to admit, empiricism just isn't as trustworthy as ones gut instinct), and we have the financial and social penalties of fucking up corrections to deal with throughout the rest of our own lives.

I became an empiricist because I looked at the prison system in the US, particularly over the past ~40 years. That's why it's so difficult to see and deal with an easily duped American public screaming misinformation, ignoring facts, and crying foul. Because they don't have facts on their side. The closest you came to a fact, Ruined, was an insinuation that a page defining "grandfathered" health care meant that we would all be forced into a public option - at best, a misreading of text so incredibly off the mark that I question your English literacy; at worst, lies so strong that you are fully aware of the degree to which you have to stretch facts and lie to foment support for your vantage point. Both are extraordinarily shameful and disgusting.

[fullmetalfan720]

Not really. I'd rather not go to prison.

Mass exodus, maybe.

Frankly, I don't think armed conflict is necessary. The government has made so many promises it can't keep (Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security), pisses away so much money (Iraq and Afghanistan) and continues to borrow from people who won't lend money forever (Russia and China). If one foreign country decides to back out or the current obligations are kept, the whole infernal contraption will fall apart.

If our politicians weren't all on the same page, some state would have left the Union by now.

When historians document this period of history, does anybody think they'll be kind to us because of how duped we were?
Here's what we are going to see. This country is falling apart, and if you don't think so, you aren't paying attention. China isn't buying US dollars anymore. Everyone is looking to dump their dollars. Now, the only people buying them are the Federal Reserve. You can't have the people who are printing the money buy the debt, because it causes a massive devaluation of the currency. Our economy is about 72% consumer spending. You can't sustain that. We make almost nothing anymore. Income inequality is at an all time high. The government keeps coming up with these scams that only benefit the extremely wealthy, while screwing over everyone else. The basic idea behind capitalism has been destroyed by the idea of "Too Big To Fail." We aren't a Republic anymore, instead we have turned into an oligarchy. The fact is, we are heading toward either a revolution, collapse, or war.

[mykevermin]

I mean, FFS, you keep referring to a "Pelosi Bill," and yet you've not linked to a SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION with her name on it. You've not provided a SINGLE QUOTE FROM HER that is in regard to health care.

Yet if we listen to you, it's "Pelosi Bill/Pelosi Bill/Pelosi Bill." Where did this phrase come from? You haven't read it anywhere on actual documents. Did you make it up? Did you get it from Glenn Beck and his hilarious "poison nancy pelosi segment?" (was that the one that followed his advice that his viewers don't do anything violent to politicians? or was is the one where he decried how miserable and ruined and wretched our health care system is)?

There is no "Pelosi Bill," and yet you use that tired old boogeyman. Admit it. You have no facts on your side, just ideology and...well, ideology. Allow me to frame it very succinctly and painfully: the closest Ruined came to providing a fact involved a citation of John Stossel.

:lol:

EDIT: Here's an extra :rofl: for "hysterical panic" fullmetalfan. GTFO - you and Sarang and the other wingnuts can have a "world's going down the drain because we didn't elect Ron Paul to annihilate the federal government" pity party somewhere else. Stay on topic in here, and go start another "money masters" circle jerk in another thread.

[fullmetalfan720]

EDIT: Here's an extra :rofl: for "hysterical panic" fullmetalfan. GTFO - you and Sarang and the other wingnuts can have a "world's going down the drain because we didn't elect Ron Paul to annihilate the federal government" pity party somewhere else. Stay on topic in here, and go start another "money masters" circle jerk in another thread.
What are you delusional? Do you not know how economics works? Have you seen the price of gold lately?
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au883-999.gif
Only goes to 1998
Metals Date Time(EST) Bid Ask Change Low High
http://www.kitco.com/images/graph_down.gif (http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegoldnewyork.html) GOLD (http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegoldnewyork.html)08/14/2009 17:14 947.60 948.60 -7.30 -0.76% 941.20 959.40
http://www.kitco.com/market/
Gold is at record highs, and you think the dollar is fine? The Treasury can't get China to buy our debt anymore, and you think everything is fine?

The Euro is at 1.4294 US Dollars (1 Euro = 1.4294 US Dollars)
It has been as low as 0.8324 US Dollars per Euro, a mere 8 years ago. (1 Euro = 0.8324 US dollars)
Is this normal?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

EDIT: Here's an extra :rofl: for "hysterical panic" fullmetalfan. GTFO - you and Sarang and the other wingnuts can have a "world's going down the drain because we didn't elect Ron Paul to annihilate the federal government" pity party somewhere else. Stay on topic in here, and go start another "money masters" circle jerk in another thread.

FMF720 forgot to link this a couple of pages back.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14768

I didn't see a lot of comments about it. Assuming it isn't complete and utter bullshit, wouldn't you be opposed to another bailout as health care reform?

[mykevermin]

fullmetalfan, I'm saying start another thread - cut the "collapse all your political woes into one big burst" nonsense. Not an iota of what you said is on topic. That's why I'm saying. God damn you're a dense dude. But you already knew that.

FoC, did you mean to link to something else? Because what I read at that link was nothing new, unique, or inspiring, but a lazy, poorly written opinion-editorial that (1) doesn't bring anything new to the table and (2) declared the bailout package a failure without providing evidence for it.

[Msut77]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

An op-ed, which is mostly an advertisement for Whole Foods and you choose to quote an anecdote with no numbers leading to a rather silly leap of logic.

Wacky Mackey's plan calls for having employees pay more, companies pay less and for people with pre-existing conditions (and those who are just not profitable) to be covered even less.

Oh and then go after Medicare.

Nice wharrgument Bob.

[fullmetalfan720]

fullmetalfan, I'm saying start another thread - cut the "collapse all your political woes into one big burst" nonsense. Not an iota of what you said is on topic. That's why I'm saying. God damn you're a dense dude. But you already knew that.

It all fits in. The government doesn't work for the people anymore. It works for whoever gives the politicians the most money for their campaigns. That's why we have the bailout scam, and this health care reform scam. Since you seem to think that the bailout was such a good idea, answer this question. Why is it that the ultra-rich should be given trillions when the make some bad gambles, but the rest of us are given nothing? The same principal that is behind the bailouts, is behind health care reform. Screw over the people, give the big corporations lots of money. Do I really need to post these things a third time?
Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
Democrats in Pay-For-Play Deal With PhRMA? (http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma/)

http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma/

[mykevermin]

"It all fits in." The true cattle call of the conspiracy theorist.

The bailout is the other side of the coin that, were this another round of bush tax cuts, you'd be gushing about how awesome it is that government was shrinking.

You're upset about the method of attempting to keep the economy from collapsing, not realizing that it's the same thing as a method you would have been, for lack of a better phrase, "sweet on."

You're conflating several issues as usual. Are you against funding the market to keep it from collapsing (as you would suggest from your reaction to the bailouts), or are you just jealous that you did not get a slice, too (as you suggest in the above post)? If it's the former, good on you. But if it is the former, then your post above makes no sense. If it is the latter, then your objection isn't to the economic technique being employed, but, rather, that you're simply jealous.

Look, dude, I believe in what C Wright Mills called "The Power Elite." I don't need any modern day conspiracy theorists to tell me or convince me of that. But that doesn't mean that I'm an ideological knucklehead who is uniformly against anything because it might violate what I *think* is supposed to be some philosophical consistency. That's lazy and inept. I prefer nuance and complexity in how I view policies in the world. But this phony idea of "consistency" more often than not leads us to being concerned about image and ideology and than it does actual thought and debate.

In the end, I'm not really interested in the money screamers such as yourself. We were $11T in debt at the start of this year. Your Johnny-come-lately-tea-party folks don't interest me, since they're comprised of the old-ass motherfuckers who were responsible for the policies of the last 30 years. I doubt the sincerity of anyone who finds themselves a grown adult, in 2009, *now* concerned about government spending.

Paul Krugman is right - no matter what policies he tried, no matter what he would do, or say, it would lead to hysterics, screaming, and reactionary paranoia among the right-wing. He could do no right, and the media would actually be such a bag of fucking wimps that it would spend time debunking (and therefore dignifying) the absurd dipshit claims of the right wing. "No, there won't be death panels, and there won't be euthanasia" are things said by the media, which helps whip up the fucking idiots on the right into a storm because it validates their existence and critiques.

Paul Krugman made the claim that we would have years of reactionary screaming, braying, and outrage that is wholly disconnected from fact - in January of 2008, before the primaries. He was dead right. And your nonsense doesn't refute that.

[thrustbucket]

EDIT: Here's an extra :rofl: for "hysterical panic" fullmetalfan. GTFO - you and Sarang and the other wingnuts can have a "world's going down the drain because we didn't elect Ron Paul to annihilate the federal government" pity party somewhere else. Stay on topic in here, and go start another "money masters" circle jerk in another thread.
Those "circle jerk" issues will come up when it comes to almost every political headline, because those issues are the true heart of this hydra. You can only argue the nuances and intricacies of the limbs so long before the argument leads to it's root causes.

I often wish you had watched all of money masters, because with your mind I think we could have some truly meaningful discourse in this place; assuming you were open-minded enough not to discard it all based on some typical academic formula of lack of scientific consensus or accreditation.

"It all fits in." The true cattle call of the conspiracy theorist.

The bailout is the other side of the coin that, were this another round of bush tax cuts, you'd be gushing about how awesome it is that government was shrinking.
Absolute BS. Your argument against this stuff totally collapses when you start making assumptions that those that are against all this spending were somehow ok with it when Republicans/Bush did it. That's simply not true and shows your willful ignorance and selective memory of those voices the past several years.

You're upset about the method of attempting to keep the economy from collapsing, not realizing that it's the same thing as a method you would have been, for lack of a better phrase, "sweet on."
Again, myself and many others were decrying it just as much at least two years ago. We predicted the same patterns would persist no matter who was elected, as proof that the majority of the so-called political debate had become nothing but a puppet show. Then, when we turn out to be right, you and others conjur up all this "you weren't this mad with Bush" horse shit - well you aren't going to get away with the same tired partisan banter on this one.

In the end, I'm not really interested in the money screamers such as yourself. We were $11T in debt at the start of this year. Your Johnny-come-lately-tea-party folks don't interest me, since they're comprised of the old-ass motherfuckers who were responsible for the policies of the last 30 years. I doubt the sincerity of anyone who finds themselves a grown adult, in 2009, *now* concerned about government spending.
This paragraph sums up just how out of touch you really are from political thinking outside your own (which is to be expected from one that still hasn't put down the MSM popcorn and walked away from the fixed political chess match). I don't even know where to start.

Paul Krugman is right - no matter what policies he tried, no matter what he would do, or say, it would lead to hysterics, screaming, and reactionary paranoia among the right-wing. He could do no right, and the media would actually be such a bag of fucking wimps that it would spend time debunking (and therefore dignifying) the absurd dipshit claims of the right wing. "No, there won't be death panels, and there won't be euthanasia" are things said by the media, which helps whip up the fucking idiots on the right into a storm because it validates their existence and critiques.

Paul Krugman made the claim that we would have years of reactionary screaming, braying, and outrage that is wholly disconnected from fact - in January of 2008, before the primaries. He was dead right. And your nonsense doesn't refute that.
There isn't a more left-leaning pro-spending so-called economist other than Krugman in the media - and you've made it clear several times you not only like him and admire him but think he's accurate and stellar. That's fine, keep reading his stuff partisan quaking if it entertains you - but just know that while you admire Paul Krugman when he predicts water will be wet, some of us don't have time to listen to such elementary predictions, nor are we as impressed.

All I have to say to that Krugman hot air is that as long as we keep slicing everything up as "left did that and right did this", "Repubs did this and Dems did that", "YOUR people ruined this the past 30 years and MY people are trying to fix it" - you are not only simply following the standard recipe for the idealogical shell game that has taken this country to where it's at, but you'll help those truly in power take it to where they want.

That's your choice, if you are aware of the wizard behind the curtain but still prefer his faux political discourse/debate and show with the curtain down, good for you, but stop bashing those that are more interested in separating distractions, puppet shows, political slight-of-hand, and mis-information from simple follow-the-money fact finding and truth.

It's cute when you try to distill every single argument you disagree with down to a "right-wing" one, but it's getting a little stale. Sooner or later your going to have to admit that truth doesn't have a "side" or ideology.

[UncleBob]

Obama: Necessary Public Option no longer necessary? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/ns/politics-white_house/)

[Ruined]

mykevermin, is it really necessary to personally attack people that don't agree with you? Is it necessary to call people "stupid" just because their vision of healthcare doesn't align with yours?

It really seems you are going off the deep end here attacking everyone as being naive, conspiracy theorists, upset republicans, rabid, stupid, whatever, while it is just a case of different visions for what healthcare should be. The government is responding to the majority who was apalled by the House bill, and is finally starting to realize that the public plan is simply not going to float. You might want that public plan, but polls show the majority of Americans including myself do not want a public option or anything resembling England/Canada healthcare. And there was plenty of evidence provided over the past 45+ pages whether you personally accepted it or not.

If you want to lash out at someone, lash out at your House democrat representatives who came up with a health bill with such extreme language and big-government direction. If their bill was less radical, you would not have had this public outcry.

[thrustbucket]

If you want to lash out at someone, lash out at your House democrat representatives who came up with a health bill with such extreme language and big-government direction. If their bill was less radical, you would not have had this public outcry.

The problem is that we have a President who is, going by much of his past, a radical (until he ran for president). We have a Senate and Congress filled with radicals. They see this as a rare opportunity to do some massive radical agenda ramming. It's as simple as that.

What they didn't expect was that most of America is not radical, nor do they usually like radical ideas (even though I do from time to time). So they have no choice now but to convince everyone that those that vocally oppose their plan are radicals.

The whole thing is rather radical.

[mykevermin]

mykevermin, is it really necessary to personally attack people that don't agree with you? Is it necessary to call people "stupid" just because their vision of healthcare doesn't align with yours?

It really seems you are going off the deep end here attacking everyone as being naive, conspiracy theorists, upset republicans, rabid, stupid, whatever, while it is just a case of different visions for what healthcare should be. The government is responding to the majority who was apalled by the House bill, and is finally starting to realize that the public plan is simply not going to float. You might want that public plan, but polls show the majority of Americans including myself do not want a public option or anything resembling England/Canada healthcare. And there was plenty of evidence provided over the past 45+ pages whether you personally accepted it or not.

If you want to lash out at someone, lash out at your House democrat representatives who came up with a health bill with such extreme language and big-government direction. If their bill was less radical, you would not have had this public outcry.

Stop dancing for a moment.

Go back to the house bill you cited. Provide the logic behind how you get from a page defining policies that qualify for grandfathering and your claim that this "Pelosi Bill" forces you, and everyone, into the public option, with no chance at retaining private insurance.

Cut the umbilical cord to your op-eds and do your own fucking analysis for a moment.

Also explain to me why you call it the "Pelosi Bill."

Have some self-respect and do your own work - I'm rather tired of your ideology, your admittance that you're not interested in data but you are interested in your gut reaction, your citation of op eds, etc.

The closest you came to anything "fact" related in this entire thread is a John Stossel op-ed.

[Msut77]

I see Bob has failed yet again to make an argument other than "unprofitable people should die" and that him and other posters have a profound lack of not only solutions to our problem but also understanding what the problem is in the first place.

[trq]

The problem is that we have a President who is, going by much of his past, a radical (until he ran for president). We have a Senate and Congress filled with radicals. They see this as a rare opportunity to do some massive radical agenda ramming. It's as simple as that.

What they didn't expect was that most of America is not radical, nor do they usually like radical ideas (even though I do from time to time). So they have no choice now but to convince everyone that those that vocally oppose their plan are radicals.

The whole thing is rather radical.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Amanojaku/128889640032558044.jpg

[evanft]

Nice fucking job Democrats. You have one of the most powerful majorities in recent history, and you can't pass a watered-down version of the singles biggest thing you've wanted to do since FDR. You allow mentally defective fucktards who are completely disconnected from reality to bully you into submission. Fuck you you fucking pussies.

[Msut77]

Healthcare reform and expanding access to all is about as radical as expecting Doctors to wash their hands before seeing a patient.

[fullmetalfan720]

Healthcare reform and expanding access to all is about as radical as expecting Doctors to wash their hands before seeing a patient.

Uh, expanding access to health care to all is something these bills won't even come close to doing.

[Msut77]

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/16/gibbs-white-house-still-supports-public-option/

[trq]

Nice fucking job Democrats. You have one of the most powerful majorities in recent history, and you can't pass a watered-down version of the singles biggest thing you've wanted to do since FDR. You allow mentally defective fucktards who are completely disconnected from reality to bully you into submission. Fuck you you fucking pussies.

Seriously. The only thing "radical" the Democrats are doing is grabbing their ankles for loudmouth idiots on the Right with record speed.

[thrustbucket]

radical definition
radi·cal (rad′i kəl)
adjective
of or from the root or roots; going to the foundation or source of something; fundamental; basic a radical principle
extreme; thorough a radical change in one's life
favoring fundamental or extreme change; specif., favoring basic change in the social or economic structure
designating or of any of various modern political parties, esp. in Europe, ranging from moderate to conservative in program

BOT. of or coming from the root
MATH. having to do with the root or roots of a number or quantity

Etymology: ME < LL radicalis < L radix (gen. radicis), root

noun
a basic or root part of something
a fundamental
a person holding radical views, esp. one favoring fundamental social or economic change
a member or adherent of a Radical party
CHEM. a group of two or more atoms that acts as a single atom and goes through a reaction unchanged, or is replaced by a single atom: it is normally incapable of separate existence
MATH.
the indicated root of a quantity or quantities, shown by an expression written under the radical sign
radical sign

***********************************

So who exactly is and isn't radical where healthcare is concerned?

[Msut77]

Slightly nsfw:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thrustbucket

Like I said, a push for Universal Healthcare is about as radical as expecting doctors and nurses to wash their hands (the two concepts are about the same age) and just because it wasn't always done that way doesn't make it (ooh scary) radical.

You want radical check out Bobs "unprofitable people should die" plan, seems like something you would support.

[camoor]

Nice fucking job Democrats. You have one of the most powerful majorities in recent history, and you can't pass a watered-down version of the singles biggest thing you've wanted to do since FDR. You allow mentally defective fucktards who are completely disconnected from reality to bully you into submission. Fuck you you fucking pussies.

Evanft, you surprise me. This is exactly how I'm feeling right now.

WTG America. You want to get fucked hard by big insurance, bend over and open wide and they're going to give you a big surprise.

Like I always say - America's new healthplan: don't get sick.

[trq]

favoring fundamental or extreme change ... So who exactly is and isn't radical where healthcare is concerned?

Look man, I'm not gonna get into it with you. It's not exactly reading tea leaves to suss out your position on this, and we've gone around in circles too many times for me to think there's a point in my explaining the details.

If you think Barack Obama is a radical, or that trying to get fifty million Americans access to health care is radical, then more power to you. You and the X-treme sports marketing people have your work cut out for you, because -- literally -- the rest of the English speaking world has a tougher benchmark than "to the left of fucking crazy assholes on the Right" for that word.

[UncleBob]

Wow. Now we're arguing over the definition of "radical"... Face it, the idea of government-sponsored, universal health care in the United States *is* radical.

Of course, being "radical" in-and-of itself doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It just means it's a major, all-at-once change in the way things have been done. Be honest with yourself. Put aside the death panels, the slaughter of the old folks, the rationing and the lines, etc... the basic premise of what's being put on the table *is* big. No, HUGE.

If there was a main stream candidate that wanted to shut down the Federal Reserve, I'd say that guy's idea was radical.
If there was a main stream candidate that wanted to pull all of our troops back home from overseas and focus on our problems here, I'd say that guy's idea was radical.
If there was a main stream candidate that wanted to abolish the IRS and establish the Fair Tax, I'd say that guy's idea was radical.

I'd agree with every one of them, but I could recognize that the actions would have a major effect on every day lifestyle for every American.

So would "Obamacare". It's a radical plan.

[trq]

Wow. Now we're arguing over the definition of "radical"... Face it, the idea of government-sponsored, universal health care in the United States *is* radical...

... to people who are sheltered, uninformed, or otherwise regressive. To everyone else, however, it's not radical at all -- it's fucking common sense. And since the latter substantially outnumber the former, it is literally not a radical idea to most people, as most people understand the term "radical."

To put it another way: TV ain't "radical" technology just because the Amish don't have it.

Put aside the death panels, the slaughter of the old folks, the rationing and the lines, etc...

This is why we can't have nice things.

[thrustbucket]

trq, just because something is radical doesn't mean it isn't right. Completely overhauling how our government works in every single Americans lives is radical. I guess you are the only one that has a hard time calling it such, but it's not a bad thing.

I think your problem is that when you hear the word radical, you think of things like http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix5/gathering_-1.jpg

The founding fathers were radicals. MLK was a radical. Abraham Lincoln was a radical. Pretty much every good change that's ever come down the pipe has been from radicals. I strongly advocate electing more radicals; they just may be a different flavor than your preferred radicals.

My only point was that because it is radical (meaning an extreme change, which the healthcare proposals mostly are) most Americans, of all political leanings get scared. This is natural. People don't like radical changes to their lives and it's natural to want to scrutinize it. Americans know what it feels like to be rushed and pressured by a slick salesmen that don't even fully understand what they are selling, and that's why the polls are where they are.

Now, maybe you personally have meticulously read the current proposals on the table and you think they are fabulous. Fantastic for you. But give the courtesy to others to do the same and find parts that may be a bit iffy to them - after all, even you should agree that such a major, costly, and lasting change in America must get it right the first time and must be bulletproof.

[The Crotch]

Shit. This is hard.

Bob, what font do you use for that?

[saturninus]

Radical or not sometimes things need to get done.

I have always advocated a single-payer system over creating a whole new entity just to administer a public option. That seems less radical to me.

[mykevermin]

I am arguing against the public option because I believe if included *at all* the government will rig it so that it WILL become the only choice in time even if it is not initially. Pelosi's bill is already rigged this way, it says so right in the bill that you can keep your private insurance, but if you switch jobs/get married/have kids you are forced into the public option.

+1

What you don't know can kill you! Or at least render you at the mercy of the government as their public plan becomes your only option in time.

The Pelosi/House plan forbids private insurance companies to write new policies, and it forbids consumers to change their private policy, forcing them into the public option if they change jobs/marry/have kids. So there would be *no* option *except* the government public option under the Pelosi/House plan as you can see from the bill text a few posts above. The bill kills off private insurance companies on purpose.

What exactly would motivate the government to have a quality of care to be comparable to what you have now if there is *no competition*? If there is only the government option and nothing else, you will take what they give you and like it, because you have no other option. Don't like it? Too bad. And that is why the current democrat bills are dogs. Private insurance competition needs to be in there, and all of the current democrat bills essentially eliminate that competition over time, leaving a single government public option with no competition as the *only* option. That leaves open the possibility of the care being significantly worse than what you have now with the citizen having nothing they can do about it and no ability to elect coverage from another provider.

Frankly, given the intentions of the Democrat bills out there which all explicitly eliminate private insurance over time, I won't trust ANY bill with a public option in it for that reason. Our government seems keen to take everything over exclusively. Thus, I and many other are staunchly opposed to any bill containing a public option at all as a result.

Its in the same area FoC linked, not sure what part of what I said you are debating. (p16 of the bill) I figured you were just being difficult. Bottom line you have to have your insurance grandfathered in, then it is not possible to change it - if you change jobs, for instance.

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.

Defend these statements. You've not even come close to doing so.

1) What is a "Pelosi Bill" and why is it called such?

2) Where is the language that supports your claims that private companies cannot write new policies? Language that says you MUST buy the public healthcare anytime you get married/etc.

Stand up for yourself and defend these claims. You've done nothing of the sort.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I see what UncleBob and The Crotch are doing, but I refuse to put "Capitalism" under my icon.

[Msut77]

Now we're arguing over the definition of "radical".

I wouldn't call it an argument.

Someone misused the word intentionally and got called on it.

Which summarizes the entire healthcare "debate" really.

[UncleBob]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Merely meant that, aside from the crazy stuff, the basic idea of this bill is a radical overhaul from "status quo". Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If I said I wanted to build a giant system of houses that would provide shelter for every man, woman and child, and do it for free - that would be a radical change from how we operate today.

Shit. This is hard.

Bob, what font do you use for that?

Maiandra GD

I see what UncleBob and The Crotch are doing, but I refuse to put "Capitalism" under my icon.

The funny thing is, the Joker is more of an Anarchist. So I'm not really sure the point that particular group is trying to make. I just figured it'd be more fun this way.

[UncleBob]

I'm not a doctor, I just play one at town hall meetings. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/video-obamacare-fans-take-astroturfing-to-a-new-level/)

[Msut77]

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96137&provider=gnews

Apparently some of the 'baggers were contemplating protesting at one of these but backed off at the last minute.

[HowStern]

There is a trend in here. People against the public option are linking to op-eds and blogs. People for a public option are linking to hard data and facts.

[UncleBob]

There is a trend in here. People against the public option are linking to op-eds and blogs. People for a public option are linking to hard data and facts.

Damn ingrates. Should just stop having opinions and shut up. Government knows what's best for them.

Screw the Republic, give in to the Democracy! (+10 points to whomever actually knows the difference between the two and which one we are).

[mykevermin]

Oh, Bob. That's fifth grade social studies stuff right there. Representative democracy vs direct democracy.

[Msut77]

In case anyone failed to notice any claim Bob had to be treated seriously (even after his pro-death plan) was obliterated when he Hitler'd himself.

[UncleBob]

Oh, Bob. That's fifth grade social studies stuff right there. Representative democracy vs direct democracy.

Not *quite*. http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

In case anyone failed to notice any claim Bob had to be treated seriously (even after his pro-death plan) was obliterated when he Hitler'd himself.

Wow, Msut. You really take the cake. You keep hammering away at me with this idea of a "pro-death plan". You're about as swift as Sarah Palin and her death panels. You two would get along well.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96137&provider=gnews

Apparently some of the 'baggers were contemplating protesting at one of these but backed off at the last minute.
I love how people on the left decry the use of the term Obamacare, and yet resort to an immature sexual euphemism to describe their opponents. Such hypocrisy.

There is a trend in here. People against the public option are linking to op-eds and blogs. People for a public option are linking to hard data and facts.
There is a trend in here. People for the public option still won't tell me how taking away 11-12% (at least) of people's income who can't afford health insurance in the first place, helps them afford it. They also don't seem to care that Obama promised 300 billions in savings, but after meeting with the pharmaceutical industry, now only has 80 billion in savings. Or how these bills will somehow result in 500 billion or so in Medicare savings without a reduction in care. Yeah, there's a real trend going on.

[Msut77]

Damn ingrates. Should just stop having opinions and shut up. Government knows what's best for them.

Bob, do you really think it is too much to ask to expect someone to have an informed opinion?

You keep hammering away at me with this idea of a "pro-death plan".

It is a fact that you repeatedly stated that unprofitable should die.

Are you going to lie about it now?

Like I said between that and your "lol. hitler" there is no reason to take you seriously.

[HowStern]

Damn ingrates. Should just stop having opinions and shut up.


Well, if they aren't basing their opinions on facts and hard evidence, yeah they should shut up.

Who would you rather hear talk about guitar, a kid who's good at guitar hero or Eddie Van Halen?

[mykevermin]

Not *quite*. http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

I fail to see the distinction you're trying to make.

[UncleBob]

It is a fact that you repeatedly stated that unprofitable should die.

Are you going to lie about it now?

Quote me. Now. I want to see a quote, from me, that says "unprofitable people should die". (aside from that right there, of course.)

Well, if they aren't basing their opinions on facts and hard evidence, yeah they should shut up.

Who would you rather hear talk about guitar, a kid who's good at guitar hero or Eddie Van Halen?

Neither, really.

The fact is, when something is pointed out to someone who has already formed an opinion, the person is going to come up with a reason to dismiss that something. Period. People have pointed out the flaws in the WHO #37 figure. It's dismissed. People have pointed out the polls that show Americans don't want a "Public Option". It's dismissed. People have pointed out that the tax base is already disproportionally distributed. It's dismissed.

You're not interested in hard facts and data.

[UncleBob]

I fail to see the distinction you're trying to make.

Not surprised.

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

[HowStern]

The fact is, when something is pointed out to someone who has already formed an opinion, the person is going to come up with a reason to dismiss that something. Period. People have pointed out the flaws in the WHO #37 figure. It's dismissed. People have pointed out the polls that show Americans don't want a "Public Option". It's dismissed. People have pointed out that the tax base is already disproportionally distributed. It's dismissed.

You're not interested in hard facts and data.


The WHO recognizes the flaws on their rankings themselves. But it's the best available. You can't possibly think for a second a country that spends twice as much as everyone else, half the population isn't covered, the second highest obesity levels, and has the lowest life expectancy has a good system?

Secondly, polls that show people don't want a public system don't mean we shouldn't have one. Clearly Americans know little about health.

If I went around and asked kids if they should have to brush their teeth and 60% of them said no. Then that must mean we should stop brushing kids teeth?

[Msut77]

Quote me. Now. I want to see a quote

You are resorting to a not particularly subtle form of lying Bob.

You're not interested in hard facts and data.

Like I said between lying and lol.hitler. there is no reason to take you seriously.

[mykevermin]

Not surprised.

What is the distinction you're trying to make?

[Msut77]

The WHO recognizes the flaws on their rankings themselves. But it's the best available. You can't possibly think for a second a country that spends twice as much as everyone else, half the population isn't covered, the second highest obesity levels, and has the lowest life expectancy has a good system?

Notice that he doesn't "argue" that what we have is "#1", or substantially better than other wealthy industrialized nations considering what we spend.

Asking someone against reform to you know actually refute something or make an argument is beyond their ken.

[fullmetalfan720]

The WHO recognizes the flaws on their rankings themselves. But it's the best available. You can't possibly think for a second a country that spends twice as much as everyone else, half the population isn't covered,
Last time I checked, half the population is no where near the amount uninsured. 155 million people in this country are not uninsured.

the second highest obesity levels, And that's the fault of our health care system how? By that logic, Third World countries with terrible health care systems should be full of fat people.
and has the lowest life expectancy has a good system?I highly doubt that we have the lowest life expectancy in the world.
Secondly, polls that show people don't want a public system don't mean we shouldn't have one. I suppose if polls show we shouldn't be in Iraq, that means we should? Who cares what the hell the people want? We just do whatever the fuck we want! No one wants Cap & Trade, who gives a fuck? No one wants a shitty public option with bailouts for the health care industry, who gives a fuck? Do you realize how ridiculous your statement is?
Clearly Americans know little about health. Clearly you know little about these health care bill, our current system or America.
If I went around and asked kids if they should have to brush their teeth and 60% of them said no. Then that must mean we should stop brushing kids teeth?You are talking to fucking kids. Are you fucking kidding me? Learn how to fucking use an analogy.

[mykevermin]

Why do we separate out children as not to have valid opinions on issues?

naivete, innocence, and their general ability to be easily fooled.

;)

"Keep your government off of my medicare!" sums up my feelings on the anti-reform folks.

[UncleBob]

If I went around and asked kids if they should have to brush their teeth and 60% of them said no. Then that must mean we should stop brushing kids teeth?

So... let's treat the American citizenry like a bunch of little kids. Big Government Knows Best.

You are resorting to a not particularly subtle form of lying Bob.
I keep seeing a lot of talk from you, but no quotes.

[Msut77]

Big Government Knows Best.

Page one.

Countries that have systems where the government has a large hand in healthcare or even just as simple as regulating insurance companies have better outcomes than our system and they spend less.

And yes this includes countries not normally seen as part of the Soviet Bloc such as Switzerland and Japan.

I keep seeing a lot of talk from you, but no quotes.

All I ever see are lies and nonsense from you.

[fullmetalfan720]

Page one.

Countries that have systems where the government has a large hand in healthcare or even just as simple as regulating insurance companies have better outcomes than our system and they spend less.

The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...335rGu_Z3KXoQw (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw)

[UncleBob]

All I ever see are lies and nonsense from you.

I believe you've been moderated before for your lies and name calling.

Either find a quote from me in regards to "unprofitable people should die" or drop the Sarah Palin-esque crap.

[Msut77]

Bob, what do you think happens to people who are denied care?

At ER's especially?

I don't expect to get an answer because this is all a game to you.

[thrustbucket]

Damn ingrates. Should just stop having opinions and shut up. Government knows what's best for them.

Screw the Republic, give in to the Democracy! (+10 points to whomever actually knows the difference between the two and which one we are).
The textbooks and founding papers say we are a representitive democracy (Republic). But anyone born with eyes and ears connected to at least a gram of grey matter would know that what we have now, in practice, is a Corporate Oligarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_oligarchy).


"Keep your government off of my medicare!" sums up my feelings on the anti-reform folks.

It would be great if they just extended Medicare as the answer though. The hard sell is that we need Medicare, Medicaid, and something else entirely.

[mykevermin]

The textbooks and founding papers say we are a representitive democracy (Republic).

Don't say that. Bob swore that I was incorrect when I said republics and representative demcracies were not the same thing. He didn't follow up when I pressed him on it, instead going after msut.

It would be great if they just extended Medicare as the answer though. The hard sell is that we need Medicare, Medicaid, and something else entirely.

I don't follow how this would be superior. With a public option, consumers of the option would be directly paying into it. That would not be the case with medicare. How is it thus better?

[The Crotch]

I love how people on the left decry the use of the term Obamacare, and yet resort to an immature sexual euphemism to describe their opponents. Such hypocrisy. Eh. Fair game, I says. The Urban Dictionary definition is old, and of non-Msut origin. A substantive argument? Naw. Kinda funny? Yeah.

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming.

[thrustbucket]

Don't say that. Bob swore that I was incorrect when I said republics and representative demcracies were not the same thing. He didn't follow up when I pressed him on it, instead going after msut.


Well, in this case, I agree with you. That's what it's suppose to be. Now the real trouble is in arguing that's what we have.....

[fullmetalfan720]

I don't follow how this would be superior. With a public option, consumers of the option would be directly paying into it. That would not be the case with medicare. How is it thus better?
With Medicare, you aren't forcing people to buy something they can't afford.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The bill should simply be if the US health care is rated below 30th place before 2010, Medicare becomes available to everybody and taxes will be raised as needed.

Common welfare, folks. If the free market can't make it work, Big Brother has to force it so.

[HowStern]

Clearly you know little about these health care bill, our current system or America.
You are talking to fucking kids. Are you fucking kidding me? Learn how to fucking use an analogy.

Are you fucking kidding me? Learn how to understand an analogy. See:

Why do we separate out children as not to have valid opinions on issues?

naivete, innocence, and their general ability to be easily fooled.

;)


And:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=player_embedded#t=112

And:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html

And:

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions


Now you will see why I place American's opinions on level with children's.

[fullmetalfan720]

Are you fucking kidding me? Learn how to understand an analogy. See:
My point was that kids can't vote, and haven't yet developed the cognitive power to understand that they need to brush their teeth.

And:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=player_embedded#t=112

And:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html

And:

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions


Now you will see why I place American's opinions on level with children's.That is painful to watch. Of course, this is what happens when a country is so drugged out of its mind by the magical teevee, drugs, alcohol, and everything else. The sad thing is, you probably could have asked all of those people who Michael Jackson is, and they would all know. These people don't know anything about the world, their country, or how things work, and yet they probably know everything about their favorite celebrity. Its this level of celebrity worship that causes most of the problems we have right now. People are basically dazed by their flickering tv, and their football, and the endless reality shows. As a result of this, what was once the greatest educated country in the world is now lagging behind the rest of the world. People don't understand what the hell single-payer, capitalism, communism, oligarchy, republic, fiat currency, Medicare, or any thing else is. Yet they know what a sack, a field goal, a touchdown, and all these things that don't really matter are. We've been screwed over too many times by politicians, and no one cares, because they don't even know who they are. They just go along with whatever everyone else is doing, that's why you see all these idiots for the latest puppet who can't even tell you why they support them. Nothing matters to them except for their celebrities, and sports. Its absolutely rediculous. This is the decline of empire America. Everything is falling apart.

[mykevermin]

Which is precisely why public opinion is a bad proxy for making claims that Obama's plans for health care reform are bad.

;)

[ToadallyAwesome]

I am sure you can find people that stupid in any nation. How difficult it would be to find these people in the different regions is up for debate but I don't suspect those poll results would be that different. I saw something similar picking on the British a long time ago.

Anyway, enough off-topic ranting from me.

[UncleBob]

Eh. Fair game, I says. The Urban Dictionary definition is old, and of non-Msut origin. A substantive argument? Naw. Kinda funny? Yeah.

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming.

I think the reference was to the "tea baggers"

Don't say that. Bob swore that I was incorrect when I said republics and representative demcracies were not the same thing. He didn't follow up when I pressed him on it, instead going after msut.

Didn't say you were wrong. But you're not getting it. Democracy = Majority Rules. Republic = Majority Rules with minority rights. The idea is that 51% of the voters shouldn't be able to abuse 49% of the voters.

Bob, what do you think happens to people who are denied care?

At ER's especially?

I don't expect to get an answer because this is all a game to you.

And yet, you still have not provided any such quotes from me. I'll answer you once you admit you're a liar.

The bill should simply be if the US health care is rated below 30th place before 2010, Medicare becomes available to everybody and taxes will be raised as needed.

Common welfare, folks. If the free market can't make it work, Big Brother has to force it so.

Not a horrible idea - except for one thing... instead of raising taxes, how about cutting spending? :)

[The Crotch]

I think the reference was to the "tea baggers"
Ah, dammit, you're right. Not sure how I missed that. Musta had Thrust on the mind.

[UncleBob]

Now you will see why I place American's opinions on level with children's.

While I sympathize with you on the intelligence of the general American public, I would like to point out that the majority of American voters did vote for Obama. If the majority of Americans aren't to be trusted, can we get rid of him?

...and don't take this as a shot at Obama's "58 states" line, but your video reminded me of something I saw on TV once that almost made me cry. I tried to find it online, but had no luck. There was a TV Game Show called "Street Smarts" - the premise was that they would ask people on the street questions and the contestants back in the studio had to guess which of the three people on the street would be able to get the right answer.
Anywhoo, they did a geography-based episode (the only one I ever saw...). For commercial buffers, they were using what I assume to be "street" people that didn't make the final cut. They'd ask one question, then show the answers from many different people. One of the questions was "How many states are there in the US." People were all over the map.

To go from there, some time after 9/11, when we were poised to go into Iraq and every American was waving their flags (or attaching the magnets to their cars) and burning their Dixie Chicks CDs (not sure the exact timeframe when I came up with this idea), I created what I dubbed the "Patriot or Idiot" quiz. Questions like "How many states are there?" and "Which one of these people was not a president featured on US currency?" (multiple choice - everyone would pick Eisenhower when the answer was, of course, my favorite Ben Franklin from the $100 bill.). I also had the Hiroshima/Nagasaki question in there (Because it was ironic to me that we *had* to go into Iraq because Saddam just had those WMDs, when we were the only country to detonate a nuclear device as an act of war). I forget what all I had - but it was all stuff based on US history, geography, etc.. Anyway, the idea was to go to the local mall and interview people with the questions. I never did it, but I did ask several people the questions. Honestly, I was surprised with the number of questions people got right! While I could have easily made a similar video (sadly, without the number of people wanting to attack Australia) by splicing the "best" answers together (no, there are not 51, 52 or more states. No Puerto Rico isn't a state. No Washington DC isn't a state. Quit trying to argue with me.), I'd say people got about 65% of the questions correct. It was still sad, but it was better than I expected.

Still, one of my favorite moments was when I came into work one day and two of the "people greeters" at the front doors (combined age, about 200 years) stopped me and pointed to a car in the parking lot with a flag flowing in the wind, tied to the antenna. "Do you know what flag that is?" "I think it's the state flag for Texas. I'm pretty sure." (it was). "Good. Better not be no damn Iraquian (?) flag."

Anywhoo... way off subject now.

[Msut77]

If I could divert this thread back to substance for a while:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14purchasing.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

Might be a few billion to beat out of that pinata.

It also appears as if Republicans will have zero intention of even voting for a co-op plan or any real compromise plan at all and that a public option is still on the table.

Failure even for a compromise one could call the Swiss option isn't tenable.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/reinhardt.health.inflation/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

[fullmetalfan720]

If I could divert this thread back to substance for a while:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14purchasing.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

Might be a few billion to beat out of that pinata.
How are you going to come up with 500 billion in savings out of that?
It also appears as if Republicans will have zero intention of even voting for a co-op plan or any real compromise plan at all and that a public option is still on the table.

Failure even for a compromise one could call the Swiss option isn't tenable.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/reinhardt.health.inflation/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
Not only is that a terrible op-ed, but I don't see any solutions in it. Also, these bills being debated aren't reform. I don't see how anyone could think that if any of these bills get passed all of our problems will be solved. They won't, and instead we will have new problems.

[mykevermin]

That's how Democrats pass bills.

They start off with semi-neutered bills (i.e., not a single-payer plan).

They capitulate to the Republicans, whose votes they don't even need if they were a functioning, coherent party, and neuter their bill under the mirage that Republicans will stop bitching and vote for "bipartisanship."

The Republicans still bitch.

The final bill is a tatters of its initial already-weakened initial proposal, with nothing to assist the public at large and a bunch of handouts for large corporations.

And the Republicans still don't vote for it.

Every. Fuckin'. Time.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/08/18/tomo/story.jpg

[perdition(troy]

1st comic pic, meh.
2nd comic pic, that sounds exactly like things democrats say about rush.
3rd comic pic, i've seen plenty of posts using that rhetoric in this topic.
4th, snore.
5th, there is no bi-partisanship in washington.

[thrustbucket]

Ah, dammit, you're right. Not sure how I missed that. Musta had Thrust on the mind.

When did I talk about tea baggers?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Crotches always think about thrusting.

[fullmetalfan720]

That's how Democrats pass bills.

They start off with semi-neutered bills (i.e., not a single-payer plan).

They capitulate to the Republicans, whose votes they don't even need if they were a functioning, coherent party, and neuter their bill under the mirage that Republicans will stop bitching and vote for "bipartisanship."

The Republicans still bitch.

The final bill is a tatters of its initial already-weakened initial proposal, with nothing to assist the public at large and a bunch of handouts for large corporations.

And the Republicans still don't vote for it.

Every. Fuckin'. Time.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/08/18/tomo/story.jpg
My solution to you: stop voting for the Democrats. They give you the same thing every time. Maybe if everyone would realize this and stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans, we could have some real political parties.

[mykevermin]

Who would I vote for, then? The Greens? NADER?

:rofl:

[fullmetalfan720]

Who would I vote for, then? The Greens? NADER?

:rofl:
If you want. You've got to realize, the Democrats are never going to give you what you want. That's why we need new competitors like the Reform party, or the Progressive party, that have popped up over time.

[mykevermin]

Here's my level of cynicism:

I don't get what I want because they're fucking WIMPS WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH A MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE FUCKING WHITE HOUSE.

Not because they're corrupt.

They need to drink "powerthirst" or some shit. Bunch goddamned babies in the beltway, lettin' bitches use lies and bullshit to weaken an already weak bill.

[HowStern]

It's just we have spineless Dems. Have any of you ever read James Carville's Had Enough? It's basically about how our Dems have no backbone. It's more or less a guide on how the democrats should be arguing.

Would be great if he ran for office.

[fullmetalfan720]

Here's my level of cynicism:

I don't get what I want because they're fucking WIMPS WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH A MAJORITY OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE FUCKING WHITE HOUSE.

Not because they're corrupt.

They need to drink "powerthirst" or some shit. Bunch goddamned babies in the beltway, lettin' bitches use lies and bullshit to weaken an already weak bill.
See, that's the thing though. The Democrats not only don't do what they say they will, but they also lie to your face. Look at FISA, Iraq, torture etc. Its because they don't actually care. When they do actually push something though, it tends to be terrible. Look at Cap & Trade.
It's just we have spineless Dems. Have any of you ever read James Carville's Had Enough? It's basically about how our Dems have no backbone. It's more or less a guide on how the democrats should be arguing.

Would be great if he ran for office.
Oh fuck no. Not James Carville.

[thrustbucket]

There are good Democrats and Republicans, they are just very few. That's why my own personal push is to try and convince other people to ignore party affiliation and only vote for those that promise to try and abolish the Federal Reserve. That's the root core problem that almost all others stem from - once people realize that, it's my hope that we can finally vote in those (of any party) that might get us real change.

It's hard to keep hope for this alive, though, because if the regulars in this forum are any litmus test, most people simply refuse to believe there is a root cause to all their pet-issues the headlines tell them are important, or they enjoy focusing on them too much. Most people tend to think they can still get real change in the country by tackling each separate political issue - and that's depressing.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Abolishing the Federal Reserve won't fix stupid.

[thrustbucket]

No it won't. But it would be the first logical step to crippling the influence of the central banks/corporations on our law-makers.

"He who has (makes) the gold makes the rules" is 100% true.

[HowStern]

Oh fuck no. Not James Carville.

Yeah, I mean, he wasn't a wrestler or anything.... :roll:

What was that post where you were talking about how people have an infatuation with movie and tv stars?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

No it won't. But it would be the first logical step to crippling the influence of the central banks/corporations on our law-makers.

"He who has (makes) the gold makes the rules" is 100% true.

If the Fed helps the Culling, it can't be all bad.

[fullmetalfan720]

Yeah, I mean, he wasn't a wrestler or anything.... :roll:

What was that post where you were talking about how people have an infatuation with movie and tv stars?
I'd rather not have an idiot like James Carville in an leadership position. We don't need the Republicans calling people "anti-american", and the Democrats "Judas."