The Sky is Falling!

Raystradamus?

This would not have anything to do with the news that health insurance rates will be going up 10% again this year now would it?

Even with all they lying on TV, etc. the American people know what they want. Someone with the know how and the ability to promote it should start a web petition of Americans who sign and promise that they will vote against any Congressman or Senator who votes against a public plan or prevents it from happening, in any way. Even if it meant letting the other party win. It is time we stood up to our bought and paid for Congress. These people should face demonstrations at their local offices every single day until this is done.

The GOP is making progress and Obama is losing the momentum. I don't think we will see HealthCare anytime soon.

It's pretty funny how the Obamanoids hold up these polls as some sort of truth, when they used to rail against the Bushco crowd when they would post the same bullshit polls touting some neocon agenda.
You people are delusional.

You people are delusional.

#6 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-06-18 01:48 PM

And your a Pussy.

6 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at

After noon shark tank.

"The GOP is making progress and Obama is losing the momentum. I don't think we will see HealthCare anytime soon."

Possibly true, but obviously not with the public. If the insurance company lobbies can exert so much influence as to derail what 78% of Americans want then it is time we were in the streets. It is time to take our country back from the corporations. Left or Right, it should be important to have a nation which does what the people want, not just what a bunch of millionaire CEOs want.

"Even if it meant letting the other party win."

Wha WHa WHAT?!

Who are you and what have you done with our Danni?

"Who are you and what have you done with our Danni?"

If we don't get these corporate lobbying POS out of our Congress and force Congress to start representing us then what's the point of even pretending this is a free country, a democracy, or even a great country.

If we don't get these corporate lobbying POS out of our Congress and force Congress to start representing us then what's the point of even pretending this is a free country, a democracy, or even a great country.
#11 | Posted by danni

Preaching to the choir.

But you know that.

I just enjoy hearing you say things like this.

.....what's the point of even pretending this is a free country, a democracy, or even a great country.
#11 | Posted by danni

You mean you still pretend? I gave that up a long time ago. You would do well to prepare for the worst.

Freedom was lost when Raygun came into power.

No, correction, freedom was lost when JFK was assassinated, Raygun just broke the country.

#11, 13: What country do you guys live in? The one I live in (USA) is a great country full of freedoms. If you qualify, you may consider emigrating to it.

Notice how the focus is kept on cost with the deluded public holding on to the expectation that somehow unlimited health care would be available "free" to all under a public plan.

Two fallacies.

One, the health care resource is limited. Only tbhe beneficiaries of various entitlements will change. And the elderly and disabled and those with orphan diseases will suffer most as expensive life-extending procedures and medications are denied.

Two, the idea that health care will cost less. It won't as the plan envisions the expenditure of the same percentage of GDP as is used today. It's only the supposed source that will change, but the burden will remain the same.

It's the flimflam man in action. Promising what is actually nothing. But raising quite a fuss in the process.

One salutary effect might be the rescue of the Social Security system as expensive procedures are denied the elderly and disabled, and they are instead relegated to hospice care. With the shortened life-spans due to denial of service, the draws on the Social Security pool will decrease.

"The public" is unaware of what the plans entail and their costs and consequences in terms of quality and availability of care. What is most remarkable is that groups that supposedly represent aged constituencies such as the AARP, wholeheartedly support a program that will inevitably redound to the detriment of their members. You really need to wonder about the subtexts and the personal agendas being served as endemic corruption continues to erode our society.

And wait until the budgetary constraints hit. California should be a demonstration project on how government provided health care resources will be maintained in times of economic distress. Will care just be eliminated? We'll see.

"Two fallacies. One, the health care resource is limited."

Stupid with a capital S-T-U.

News flash: health care resources are limited.

One, the health care resource is limited.

Hey dummy, how many doctors are there in the US? How many hospitals?

When you are patient #301 in a 300 bed hospital you will see how limited they are.

It is time to take our country back from the corporations.

#9 | Posted by danni

And put it entirely on the hands of an increasingly totalitarian government.

Good Plan there.

You'd probably like living in the UK.

I don't think we will see HealthCare anytime soon

We will see some form of health care revamp, that's assured, the question is will we see a costly public option. I think if the public actually knew the costs of a full-time public plan and how it would hit their pocket books - save professional welfare recipients (unless of course we tell welfare recipients they will receive a smaller monthly stipend if a public option is instituted) - you would see a different polling number.

Tax whatever it costs it'll be worth it. I can get by on less. I'll just get a studio apt.

"And put it entirely on the hands of an increasingly totalitarian government."

How about if we put it into the hands of the electorate????
Why are conservatives so willing to accept corporate rule???

"No, correction, freedom was lost when JFK was assassinated, Raygun just broke the country."

Probably right about the moment in time when it was lost.

Figures don't lie but liars sure figure! Polls BAHH! I wonder who they asked and what questions they asked maybe something like "do you pay too much for health insurance? Would you like to pay less?

Freedom was lost when Raygun came into power.

#13 | Posted by dxlingr

What freedom was lost then?

We lost a bunch under FDR and they are realy going away now. The damn government is running everything!!

Huh...NBC has a poll in favor of something Obama? Wow..is anyone surprised?

Guess it all depends on which poll you look at though. Rassmussen reported that only 41% was in favor while 41% disapproved of it.

"Guess it all depends on which poll you look at though."

No one except Republicans believe Rasmussen ever. The most partisan of the polls by far.

"We lost a bunch under FDR and they are realy going away now."

Such as??? What rights did you lose under FDR???

We lost a bunch under FDR and they are realy going away now. The damn government is running everything!!
#26 | Posted by Sniper

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Fauntelroy. They're still letting you run loose, aren't they? On the FDR thing? Here's a clue for the clueless: You have no idea what you're talking about. (Sooprise!)

No one except Republicans believe Rasmussen ever. The most partisan of the polls by far.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-19 10:13 AM | Reply

Tax whatever it costs it'll be worth it. I can get by on less. I'll just get a studio apt.

You should work for Obama. He can use that when he tries to sell this.

"you can just move into a studio apt and shut the fuck up..........it'll be worth it."

LOL

I think if the public actually knew the costs of a full-time public plan and how it would hit their pocket books

exactly.

THE ECONOMIST POLLSTER REPORT CARD FOR 2008

What rights did you lose under FDR???

Don't get me started on the National Firearms Act...or Executive Order 6102.

I don't know where you got your info 101...

#33 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-19 10:34 AM | Reply

I guess the presence of the links confused you?
If so, type in the old google toolbar "Rassmussen most accurate" and you can choose to read any number of the links or studies (the Fordham one is nice).

Commentary: Health care outrage goes uncovered

You probably have never heard of Robin Beaton, and that's what's wrong with the debate over health care reform.

Beaton, a retired nurse from Waxahachie, Texas, had health insurance -- or so she thought. She paid her premiums faithfully every month, but when she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, her health insurance company, Blue Cross, dumped her.

The insurance company said the fact that she had seen a dermatologist for acne, who mistakenly entered a notation on her chart that suggested her simple acne was a precancerous condition, allowed Blue Cross to leave her in the lurch.

Beaton testified before a House subcommittee this week. So did other Americans who thought they had insurance but got the shaft. As Karen Tumulty of Time magazine (who has been the journalistic conscience of health care coverage) wrote, other witnesses included:

"Peggy Raddatz, whose brother Otto Raddatz lost his insurance coverage right before he was scheduled to receive an expensive stem-cell transplant to treat his lymphoma. Why? Because Fortis Insurance Company discovered his doctor had found gall stones and an aneurysm on a CT scan -- conditions that had nothing to do with his cancer, that never bothered him and that he wasn't even aware of. And Jennifer Wittney Horton of Los Angeles, California, whose coverage was canceled because she had been taking a drug for irregular menstruation. Now, she can't get coverage anywhere else. 'Since my rescission, I have had to take jobs that I do not want, and put my career goals on hold to ensure that I can find health insurance,' she told the subcommittee."

The subcommittee's chairman, Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan, called the hearing to highlight the obnoxious and unethical practice called rescission. His researchers produced performance reviews of insurance company bureaucrats who were praised and rewarded for kicking people off their coverage.

Then Stupak asked three health insurance executives the big question: Will your company pledge to end the practice of rescission except in cases of intentional fraud?

All three health insurance executives said no.

more

#36 | Posted by Corky

Very good arguments for reform. No question.

I see why they do it. They can get stuck with a horrible member but they have these all the time on groups.....why whould an individual be any different?

Why do the state insurance departments all approve this "recission" option for them?

My initial answer would be because the carriers would threaten to not offer individual coverage policies. I'm guessing though.

There are rules that carriers have to follow for small groups (2 to 50 employees) regarding guarantee issue, minimum and maximum rates etc.... but there seems to be fewer rules with regard to individual policies.

76 percent of respondents said it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."

That's just peachy. But...

only 33 percent of respondents said they thought the president's health care plan, to the extent they knew of it, was a "good idea"

So basically people want healthcare, but not the kind Obama is peddling. Yet there he is. Peddling away. It's like if the public asked the federal government to build us a car that runs on good vibes, seats 8, emits only rainbows and looks like the batmobile, but then Obama builds a 1976 AMC Pacer and says, "here you go America, I built you a car!"

-So basically people want healthcare, but not the kind Obama is peddling.

"An additional 30 percent of the public had no opinion of Obama's proposal for reform. But when read a description of the general outline -- requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, an employer mandate, tax credits for lower income families to buy coverage, and tax increases on wealthier Americans to pay for it - the number of respondents in support rose to 55 percent."

Reading. It's FUNdamental.

It's like if the public asked the federal government to build us a car that runs on good vibes, seats 8, emits only rainbows and looks like the batmobile, but then Obama builds a 1976 AMC Pacer and says, "here you go America, I built you a car!"

good analogy. To extend it a bit would be to then have the car sent to congress to approve and then it gets shot down so Obama can come back to everyone and say "I tried but congress just wouldn't support it........give me another term and I'll try again"

"to the extent they knew of it, was a "good idea"

Very important part of that question. Most folks couldn't tell you ANYTHING about it.

#40

Or better yet, congress puts a hole in the fuel tank, breaks the windshield, puts cinder blocks where the wheels were, then passes it and puts it on the market.

Or better yet, congress puts a hole in the fuel tank, breaks the windshield, puts cinder blocks where the wheels were, then passes it and puts it on the market.

Don't forget about the "earmarks" that will be attached.

"An additional 30 percent of the public had no opinion of Obama's proposal for reform. But when read a description of the general outline -- requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, an employer mandate, tax credits for lower income families to buy coverage, and tax increases on wealthier Americans to pay for it - the number of respondents in support rose to 55 percent."

Reading. It's FUNdamental.

#39 | POSTED BY CORKY
---------------

Providing limited information to people you are polling on order to bend the numbers in favor of your own political agenda is also fun.

There was nothing incorrect about the info furnished. The point is that most people don't know the facts because the facts are obscured by partisan rhetoric.

When people know EVEN the general outline of the admin proposals, a correct outline, they are in favor of it.

#45

I see, so how did they define, "wealthier Americans", "lower income", "pre-existing conditions", ect? Just because the information was vague doesn't make it accurate. And laying out vague information with loaded terms like "wealthier Americans" is the cheapest, easiest way to sway opinion, no matter what the poll is about.

yeah but 80% of people are too stupid or just plain lazy to look into the inner parts of this massive tragedy about to unfold and almost as many are content to let the nanny government give them whatever they want regardless of the intervention that is required for the government to GIVE THEM
GIVE THEM GIVE THEM GIVE THEM...

it takes a lot of the worry about doing your fuckin job...

oh yeah

and what of the other poll...rasmussion or pew maybe that said that 70 something 5 were either okay or happy with what they have now...

sorry Johnson,

You can't prove that, but so what if the cost is the same. If you won't have to declare bankruptcy when you get sick, that is progress. As it now stands every time there's a layoff, you lose your coverage and even if you land another job quickly you face 6 months of the "pre-existing condition" gotcha clause. Just eliminating that bullshit is worth makes ridding this country of privatized greed management worthwhile.

If you won't have to declare bankruptcy when you get sick, that is progress.
-------

True, but will the plan we get eliminate that possibility? I have my doubts.

"76 percent of respondents said it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both"

Excellent, If the majority want a choice then the plans that Obama and other Dem have are not for them becaue his plan and all dem plans are out to destroy private helath care. The end goal is to have only government run health care. There will be no choice!!! The worst situation possible for controlling cost. Its cost that drive the response for choice most americans know this and must be made aware of the anti choice crowds plans!

"There will be no choice!!! The worst situation possible for controlling cost."

Why do you believe that? It currently works quite well with Medicare.

is that why OBAMA HAS talked about making CUTS in medicare...cuts that DWARF the cuts proposed by bush that were met with completely distain and anger??

THAT MEDICARE????

the one due to go broke sooner rather than later..

"THAT MEDICARE?"

Yes...the one with the ludicrously low overhead cost. That Medicare.

As it now stands every time there's a layoff, you lose your coverage

not necessarily.

and even if you land another job quickly you face 6 months of the "pre-existing condition" gotcha clause.

there is a window of time that prevents this from happening. Perhaps we should open that window further.

,i>Just eliminating that bullshit is worth makes ridding this country of privatized greed management worthwhile.

The same govt that is proposing these solutions also gave us those solutions.

"is that why OBAMA HAS talked about making CUTS in medicare...cuts that DWARF the cuts proposed by bush that were met with completely distain and anger??"

Are you too stupid to understand the reasoning behind those long term cuts or just too dishonest to acknowledge them??? You choose.

Yes...the one with the ludicrously low overhead cost.

he wasn't arguing the cost effeciency issue. He was arguing the cuts in medicare Obama has proposed.

another strawman from strawforth.

"He was arguing the cuts in medicare Obama has proposed. another strawman from strawforth."

So...are you going to pretend you don't know the reason, as well?

I know the reasons. Obama wants more burden to be placed into the hands of private insurance (yes, the same one you all are so disgusted with)

cuts that DWARF the cuts proposed by bush that were met with completely distain and anger??"

He was also arguing the hypocrisy of liberals deflectionforth

"He was also arguing the hypocrisy of liberals deflectionforth"

If you can find where I excoriated Bush for being sensible, link away.

Until then, you're full of shit. It's just a fantasy to you: pretend I took a position I never took so you can bash it.

Now...what were you saying about strawmen and deflections?

Poll: 76% Want Public Option for Health Care

I think it's a good idea to have government-sponsored insurance at the state level, just like everything else. Why does it need to be federal? It would be good to have insurance available for thos who can't afford insurance.

A good alternative is to provide a Government-led program at the state level that pools the uninsurable.

I know the reasons. Obama wants more burden to be placed into the hands of private insurance (yes, the same one you all are so disgusted with)

#59 | Posted by eberly

WRONG!

We all want to take care of the unfortunate who can't afford insurance because the premium costs too much.

However, NONE of us want the dead-beats (who don't buy insurance) to get insurance from the government. I think those people should have their children taken away from them for NEGLECT!

If you can find where I excoriated Bush for being sensible, link away.

he was talking to Danni, deflectionforth. It didn't have anything to do with any position you have had.

Now...what were you saying about strawmen and deflections?

they are your 2 best friends.

However, NONE of us want the dead-beats (who don't buy insurance) to get insurance from the government.

Well, you and I don't want an abuse like that to happen. But I wouldn't go so far as to say "none" of us.

I think those people should have their children taken away from them for NEGLECT!

We could start with a program that allows for the automatic enrollment of children under a certain age (18 for example) and leave the others out for now.

"they are your 2 best friends."

Says the guy who has recently befriended fantasy and bullshit.

Eddie,

What about folks like me? I carry insurance for my kids but the cost means that their clothes all come from goodwill, when they get clothes at all. Now if the gov were to offer a program where I could get insurnace a bit lower than I pay now would you have an issue with that?

I guess the question is where do you draw the line between failing in your personal responsibility and simply having been smacked around by life a bit?

"We all want to take care of the unfortunate who can't afford insurance because the premium costs too much. "

Oh I wish that were true but the reality is far different.

Are the "undocumenteds", and their offspring anchor babies going to pay for ANYTHING?

Their only purpose in our soon to be Third World country is to send back their wages to their countries of origin.....(Last count $$8 BILILION).

When does the insanity stop????

Maybe give back Kalifornkia to Mexico. They can take care of their citizens on their own.

The Non-Hispanic population maybe entitled to Food Stamps, or is that only in the US?

I have an idea!!!! Why cant I get my torn ACL repaired while wait for postage stamps. Im too stupid to care for my myself or my family. I need a nanny-state to tell me what to do. Oh please Barry help me!! What should I do?? My little boy skinned his knee what should I do!!!!

If they allow the private sector to offer custom insurance while the government version is one-size fits all, let it rip. The private sector will tear them up.

The governement's roll should be to regulate, force transparency, keep certain entities from becoming monopolies, etc. Mr. Obama simply wants to claim credit for "fixing" the healthcare system using government power. I'm not opposed to everyone being forced to have coverage but this coverage should cover only CATESTROPHIC events and NOTHING else similar to the way an umbrella policy simply picks up the slack where a persons other coverage leaves off. One need look no further than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to see how well the government administrates these things. All of these entitlements have TRILLIONS of dollars in unfunded liabilities. It will require major new taxes just to pay for all the current promises let alone all the new ones our government want to create.

the answer for any poll like this is really simple and should be seen by anyone

PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING THE REAL STORY

it sounds good to tell people that they will be getting free care and while the word free isnt used all the time, thats what people think

and it sounds good about competion but the government normally doesnt allow competion for very long...fedex and the other aside...

and RATIONING WILL BE A part of it you can almost bet on it...cant help but be there when so much of the bill is dedicated to COMPARATIVE EFFEVTIVE REsEARCH

and remember this...DIEING PATIentS ARE NoT cost effective.........

MORE FROM KUDLOW

47 million figure not insured a "BOGUS" number.

of the 46 million...there are millions who are college students counted seperately from thier families

there are millions who are eligible for things like schips and who are not signed up

and there are millions of illegals who DONT DESERVE FREE HEALTH CARE

so the number helped is something like 16 million just as the CBo said and NOW the dems are talking shit about the CBO..
imagine that???