Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, August 01, 2009

House Democrats tonight pushed ambitious healthcare legislation through a key committee, clearing the way for a final vote this fall. The largely party-line decision will allow a full House vote after the August recess. Democratic lawmakers are geared up to promote the overhaul across the country.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

corky

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment that would replace the committee's plan with a more comprehensive government health program known as a "single payer" plan -- an alternative that is strongly supported by liberal activists. Weiner withdrew the amendment after Democratic leaders promised that his measure would be brought before the full House for a vote.

That Bill costs a fraction of the 1 trillion, if anything at all, but it is too practical, effective, and efficient in cutting the billions of current administrative cost in the compulsively greedy and dangerous insurance industry to be acceptable to "real 'Mericans".

Deja Vu.

Uh oh! The Democrats might actually change something important. That would be a serious defeat for the Limbaugh/Republicans. It looks as though they can't get thier way with the millions they are spending to "bribe" Congress. CAn Anyone argue that it would be better to allow lobbyists to decide this issue?

I think we need to organize a protest and sing in fron of congress:

"Go tell it on the Democrats, not to kill my grandma!"

The opposition is not exagerating here. Socialized health care leads to rationing which leads to doctors and hospitals making decisions that if someone is of certain age, a certain procedure is not worth it. I know becase I have friends in relatives who who live abroad who have to deal with socialized medicine. It doesn't work. It will end life prematurely for many people unnnecessarily.

www.moonbattery.com

Access to a really good health plan that is portable, allows pre-existing conditions and choice of doctors, puts annual maximums on patient contribution, and not only costs less than industry plans, but increases less annually, will help those that have insurance as well as those that don't.

All the scare tactics about hurting small business and ebil gub'mint control are just excuses not to do anything about controlling a runaway industry in insurance that is just as responsible and in dire need of reform and regulatory and systemic control as is the runaway financial industry, which, along with an unnecessary war and out of control health care costs, put us in the leaky boat we were in.

But the economy is proving resilient and there will be a Health Bill of some sort this year. And as things improve next year the Dems will hold nearly steady in 201o elections and Obama will have 8 years to implement this plan.

Of course, his idea to pay for it was a 5 percent tax on millionaires who pay less actual tax than their secretaries, but that was too "socialistic" for the pure of heart corporate defenders.

Moonbat, more like.

I am excited that we just might get something useful out of all this. When I left my job for a start up, the insurance was a big problem. When the startup failed and I had to consider Cobra, it was $1100/month. Fortunately I went back to my old job, with a raise, and full reinstatement of all benefits.

Other acquaintances of mine weren't so fortunate.

"a 5 percent tax on millionaires who pay less actual tax than their secretaries"

Almost: a lower percentage of their overall income goes for taxes.

But they can't pay even as much as their secretaries do in taxes because if they did, then when Joe Six Pack eventually becomes a millionaire, he might have to pay more, too.

As if Joe is ever going to be a millionaire. He has just been bamboozled (lol!) and culture warred his entire lifetime into voting against and promoting against his own self-interests.

By people who have more money than votes.

Single Payer Universal Health Care is the ONLY way to remove for-profit industry from medical care.

"Single Payer Universal Health Care is the ONLY way to remove for-profit industry from medical care."

Which is exactly why it will pay everything it needs to keep that from happening.

During HillaryCare, I sat on a Board that sent a Representative to meet with Ira Magaziner, HC's right-hand-man. The quote when the guy returned was memorable: "Well, I learned two things. One, single-payer is absolutely, positively the way to go. Two...no way in hell that will ever happen."

After the recess, watch these elected officials change their tune. Remember the first health care national plan under Clinton(s)?
They lost the house of reps after trying that.

Socialized health care leads to rationing which leads to doctors and hospitals making decisions that if someone is of certain age, a certain procedure is not worth it.

Yeah, Obama was born in Kenya and Saddam had WMD. Member, just cause you righties say it, doesn't mean its true. Longer lives less costs and similar or better medical outcomes in every western country with socialized medicine ( and there aren't any that don't have it)indicates you are wrong.

Again....

I don't think even you Liberals are 100% sure that Obama was born in the United States. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to shut up the so-called "Birthers".

I have no doubt Obama is a U.S. Citizen.

I also have no doubt what the birthers are. They've posted enough on the 50+ threads to make it perfectly clear.

'clearing the way for a final vote this fall'

Yes, this fall. Not what the Barry wanted at all, for good reason. The 'sign this before anyone has a chance to read it' strategy failed.

Yav. All he has to do is show his birth certificate. That's all. Is that really asking for so much? It's a little to late anyway, the dude's president. If his father was a British subject then let the chips fall, all he has to do is show the birth certificate. It's not like anyone is accusing him of being from mars, people just want to see his birth certificate. Not a form pumped out by some clerk of court, a honest to goodness birth certificate.

Yav. I know I'm eligible because I have a birth certificate that shows both my parents were US citizens. I would proudly show it to anyone who asked.

Which begs the question why anyone would have a problem with showing their birth certificate if they were president of the most honest and transparent presidency ever promised ever.

Zulu,

Since you've posted the same thing on two threads, let me ask the same question I did on the other thread:

Do you believe Obama is and was legally eligible and is the legitimately elected President of the United States?

Yes or no.


Uh oh! The Democrats might actually change something important. That would be a serious defeat for the Limbaugh/Republicans. It looks as though they can't get thier way with the millions they are spending to "bribe" Congress. CAn Anyone argue that it would be better to allow lobbyists to decide this issue?

#3 | Posted by danni

Danni,

Have you ever asked a provider what is the overwelming cause of medical costs going up?

It's law suits, libility insurance, and "Defensive" medicine.

THE Democrats are not even addressing this!

All they want is Universal Healthcare. If they get it, we all lose. I will have to go to another country to get heart surgery if I get sick after age 60.


Socialized health care leads to rationing which leads to doctors and hospitals making decisions that if someone is of certain age, a certain procedure is not worth it.

Yeah, Obama was born in Kenya and Saddam had WMD. Member, just cause you righties say it, doesn't mean its true. Longer lives less costs and similar or better medical outcomes in every western country with socialized medicine ( and there aren't any that don't have it)indicates you are wrong.

Again....

#15 | Posted by northguy3

Uh... LOL!!!

This is happening in Europe and Canada.

You can't deny facts.

Read the assertion again and get back to me.

Yav,

I believe the question could be resolved immediately if the President wanted to make the problem go away.

He either wants the issue to stay alive for three reasons:

1. It's lost. Shit happens.

2. His dad was a British subject and he isn't eligible for Presidency. Yikes. Now what do we do.

3. He likes having the issue around because it gives his minions the ability to group anyone who opposes him on anything in with the conspiracy theory crowd.

I feel #3 is the reason.

So my answer to you is yes, I think he's a legitimately elected President of the United States.

Are you okay with him squandering millions of dollars quashing lawsuits and leaving an atmosphere of doubt for base political reasons?

Are the citizens of the United States who ask to see the President's birth certificate to be held in contempt for asking such a critical question?

Is 2008 the year when the people of the United States learned they are contemptible creatures who should learn their place and shut up?

At this point I would say that's Barak H. Obama's position.

All of the Libs on this thread are saying the same thing.

The Insurance companies are the reason for rising medical costs.

Go to the providers and ask them!

They say the top 3 are:

1. Frivolous Lawsuits
2. Liability Insurance
3. "Defensive" Medicine

Defensive medicine is those unnecessary procedures and practices done to prevent lawsuits.

So my answer to you is yes, I think he's a legitimately elected President of the United States.

End of discussion. The rest is trying to sow division and exploit less sane people for political gain. Same as the GOP Congressional members that are playing these idiots with unnecessary legislation.

One bill I would love to see passed would be a requirement to read a bill before you vote on it and explain what it does to a group of high school students in your home district.

If the high school students think the bill is crap then it goes in the trash.

This would work better than what we have now.


Zulu,

Since you've posted the same thing on two threads, let me ask the same question I did on the other thread:

Do you believe Obama is and was legally eligible and is the legitimately elected President of the United States?

Yes or no.

#20 | Posted by YAV

I lean toward "No". He broke the law. However, I think it's a stupid law to begin with. But who cares, many elected Government Officials are breaking laws all the time anyway.

I don't think it's a big deal and I really don't care.

What I do care about is that for eight years we've been going in the wrong direction. Now we are going in another direction, deeper, but still in the wrong direction.

I'm all for reading the bill before it is voted. I'd be satisfied if they actually allowed access to it for 5 days before it's voted on.

Yav. I know you're not that stupid.

Obama acts like a kid with both hands behind his back and you ask him if he took a cookie. He says he didn't, the people are just asking to see both hands.

And it's a big deal because he's keeping both hands behind his back when all he has to do is show his birth certificate.

He wants the issue. He's a slimy manipulator.

My issue is if the people of the United States ask to see the President's birth certificate, or anything else the writers of the constitution mentioned as important, than he or she had better damn well show it.

Politicians work for us. They owe us honesty. Not the Chicago run-around.

'I'm all for reading the bill before it is voted. I'd be satisfied if they actually allowed access to it for 5 days before it's voted on.'

They should have to demonstrate an understanding of the legislation to the people. I like high school kids because they are ruthless.

And I think most high school kids would beat up Al Franken and take his lunch money.

Now that would be neat.

Zulu, he's met all the legal requirements.
He was certified by all 50 states and territories.
He provided the required documentation for a passport - which is the legal proof of U.S. Citizenship, the same form he released on his website, that the Department of State requires.

That some want more is not their right, nor is it his obligation to comply with every request from lunatics.

I'm sorry this makes the Republicans look like idiots. Ok, I'm not sorry. They brought this on themselves, going all the way back to using his middle name derogatorily, spreading rumors about his birth, Palin's direct statements, etc.

When this issue came up with McCain?

Title: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] (introduced 4/10/2008) Cosponsors:
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] - 4/10/2008
Sen Coburn, Tom [R-OK] - 4/10/2008
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] - 4/10/2008
Sen Obama, Barack [D-IL] - 4/10/2008
Sen Webb, Jim [D-VA] - 4/10/2008

Latest Major Action: 4/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

hdl.loc.gov

The part that keeps me awestruck about the whole thing is the confidence some people still have in Gummit.
With their abysmal track record of failure and cost over runs, it completely defies me how some still buy the argument that:
"Sure, we fail at nearly everything we set out to do but this time, we promise it will work...trust me"
I suppose it's human nature that you can still fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time.

As I have said in the past,
it took Sept 11 to wake the American people up to the eminent threat of radical Islam,
it will take Obamacare to wake the American people up the the need for real change in Gummit.
Not Republican change...not Democrat change...true fundamental, Constitutionally compliant change.

It will end life prematurely for many people unnnecessarily.

#5 | Posted by member2586 at 2009-07-31 11:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Think of the potential savings to Medicare ands Social Security!

This is Democrats proving they are3 fiscally responsible.

But they will keep their old system for themselves.

Libertarian GI-
re: #32

It amazes me, the confidence some people still have in a deregulated financial private sector that not just a few months ago threatened the world with total global economic collapse.

You must like the regional private insurance monopolies that earn a profit by DENYING care so much that you have waved off your "gummit" provided military health care! (That is, if you are to be consistent, and credible)

"Not Republican change...not Democrat change...true fundamental, Constitutionally compliant change."

I have come to the conclusion that people are scared of this kind of change. They mistakenly believe this kind of change will bring chaos. We have grown up in a world where government constantly gets bigger and people don't think they will be able to handle life without it. I am a civilian Libertarian and I have been waiting for year for an event that would finally wake up the American people to support real change and I am afraid I will have to keep waiting for ever. With my luck, that even will probably come just one day after I die.

It will end life prematurely for many people unnnecessarily.

#5 | Posted by member2586 at 2009-07-31 11:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where the fuck did you get that?

#33 | Posted by vernon

It's a cynical plan to save SS? That's all this is? Wow, why didn't I see this earlier.

#36 | Posted by BetelG

I have friends and family who live in countries with socialized medicine. The mentality that if a person is a certain age a procedure is not worth (the patient doesn't decide this mind you) permiates even the private health plans. It's bad. My parents emigrated from a third world socialist country. I don't want the U.S. to turn into that, into what they escaped.

Member2586-
re: We have grown up in a world where government constantly gets bigger...

I don't recall you bitching when the Bush Admin. was claiming that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the executive branch during undeclared war.

I am a civilian Libertarian and I have been waiting for year for an event that would finally wake up the American people to support real change and I am afraid I will have to keep waiting for ever. With my luck, that even will probably come just one day after I die.

#35 | Posted by member2586

People are waking up, but slowly.

Most people are closet Tea-baggers. They won't admit that they believe that the Constitution is a good document to keep.

I don't recall you bitching when the Bush Admin. was claiming that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the executive branch during undeclared war.

#39 | Posted by BetelG

If he is a Libertarian, he probably was.

Member-
re: My parents emigrated from a third world socialist country.

For you to compare a "third world" country to industrial and post-industrial western economies (such as the US and most of Western Europe), is nonsense.

BetelG, I got flack from the right because I criticized Bush. I am not a situational constitutionalists like you Republicans and Democrats, only defending the Constitution when the other guys are in power. I have always been concerned about ever-growing government and about republican hypocrisy.

My parents emigrated from a third world socialist country.

Canada?

The country that my parents emigrated from squandered it's wealth, that's why it became a third world country. The U.S. is squandering it's wealth. This movie will not have a good ending. I've seen what can happen when the day of reckoning comes.

Eddie-
My guess is that he wasn't, but still claims to be a libertarian. See Neal Boortz. One would think that a libertarian would not ignore authoritarian movement even when the right was in power, right?

One would frequently be wrong, unfortunately.

Canada?

#44 | Posted by YAV

Somewhere in Latin America. I am paranoid so I won't say more than that.

Member-
re:The country that my parents emigrated from squandered it's wealth, that's why it became a third world country.

If you would name the country, the blog might have something to learn from.

I will have to go to another country to get heart surgery if I get sick after age 60.

#21 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-08-01 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Last time I was in China they were very excited about this. They are planning hundreds of new hospitals and clinics just for American 'medical tourists.'

It's already a thriving industry in Singapore and a growing one in India and the Philippines. Many of the patients now have been denied by their HMO. Once Obama runs the HMO there will be lots more business.

We can always hope the Senate is smarter than the House. We only need ONE dem and all of the Republicans to save this country's health care.

Leave it to Vernon to make the case for health care reform, then reach the wrong conclusion.

Somewhere in Latin America. I am paranoid so I won't say more than that.

#47 | Posted by member2586 at 2009-08-01 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can't seem to think of a democratic industrial powerhouse in Latin America that fell from grace that meets the criteria you state, so you'll have to actually name the country.

(Or, you could say why you are paranoid about naming it)

#50

From your keyboard to God's ears A Citizen

We only need ONE dem and all of the Republicans to save this country's health care.

Yeah, you did such an outstanding job when you had both houses and the Presidency.

Member-
re: BetelG, I got flack from the right because I criticized Bush.

For what action/policy did you criticize Bush (it's critical to know, in the vein of libertarianism)?

I am excited that we just might get something useful out of all this. When I left my job for a start up, the insurance was a big problem. When the startup failed and I had to consider Cobra, it was $1100/month. Fortunately I went back to my old job, with a raise, and full reinstatement of all benefits.

Other acquaintances of mine weren't so fortunate.

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2009-07-31 11:57 PM

Translation : I can't cut it on my own. Mama! Mama!

Washboard-
How much do you pay for your medical coverage?

Single Payer Universal Health Care is the ONLY way to remove for-profit industry from medical care.

#12 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-08-01 01:07 AM

Who should be allowed to earn a profit?

Who should set wages?

Who should decide what gets produced, when it gets produced and how much gets produced?

Why aren't you freaks bitching about the profit in bottled water?

Washboard-
How much do you pay for your medical coverage?

Washboard-
re: Who should be allowed to earn a profit?

You understand that we are talking about life and death, and not new cars, bottled water, electronic gadgets, widgets, etc.

How much do you pay for your medical coverage?

Washboard-
Oh, you're a 'birther'. I won't waste any more time trying to get a coherent thought, or honest response, out of you.

Leave it to Vernon to make the case for health care reform, then reach the wrong conclusion.

#51 | Posted by YAV at 2009-08-01 08:50 PM

Americans have been going to other countries for many elective surgeries for many years now.

Vernon is a prophet and you're a closed minded partisan.

Leave it to Vernon to make the case for health care reform, then reach the wrong conclusion.

#51 | Posted by YAV at 2009-08-01 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag

Make the case?

WTF?

What happens when you need a knee replacment but ObamaCare says you are too old. You only get a few injections and an aspirin?

Or if you need a cochlear ear implant, but your ObamaCare case worker says you are too old. Just turn up the TV?

Or the chemotherapy that will cure your cancer is only available for those 61 and younger? Sorry, but here's some cheap morphine so your last six months will be a stupor.

Americans with the money are already going overseas for treatment they have been denied in the U.S.

But fools like you want to think that ObamaCare caseworkers (culled from TSA dropouts) will be kind, compassionate and generous.

Vernon is a prophet and you're a closed minded partisan.

Yee haw.

Vernon is a prophet and you're a closed minded partisan.

#62 | Posted by Washboard at 2009-08-01 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

..and "Washboard" has no fucking idea what he spends on his own medical coverage policy, but he's convinced that Obama is a citizen of Kenya (or some other such nonsense)

Yav,

Are you saying that Vernons examples won't happen??

I think that's exactly what will happen.

Yesterday's nooner, I gave an example of my friend who has luekemia and regular chemo wasn't working.

She was considered terminal. What would Obama's plan have done for her?

Vernon-
re: Americans with the money are already going overseas for treatment they have been denied in the U.S.

Um, dude. That's with the health care policy we have right now. I thought you were adamantly opposed to CHANGES to such a wonderful individual private, for profit, insurer system.

It's really blindingly stupid of you to state that.

BTW, Vernon, how's the health care system you use in wherever the fuck you live?

Oh, you're a 'birther'.

#61 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-08-01 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

This weeks version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

NYAH~! NYAH~! NYAH~!

I'm covering my ears and screaming real loud~!

Vern-
re: This weeks version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Actually, "you're a 'birther'" is this week's version of "you're a fucking idiot".

Same as last week.

It's really blindingly stupid of you to state that.

Exactly.

Lisa says: What would Obama's plan have done for her?

Enlighten me. What is "Obama's plan?"

BTW, Vernon, how's the health care system you use in wherever the fuck you live?

#68 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-08-01 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Excellent in Taiwan, and excellent in the Philippines.

There are half-assed government plans in both countries (Sorry sir, that's not covered) but I prefer to pay extra and get first-rate private care for my family.

You get what you pay for, and I'm not so greedy that I think other successful people should pay for my family.

healthcare is fucked.
as long as health is treated and run as a business instead of a practice or a service, there will be cracks. So, there will always be cracks. But for some people to have this fear that government pressure on healthcare will put the government in charge of letting people die, i say: please, look around you. it's happening already!
quid pro quo - i work in the healthcare industry, and i see a lot of what no one else sees.
ms. nobody, 77 yr old female, with senile dementia and decubitus ulcers has care/caid, and is 9/10 time NOT getting the treatment she deserves of the "first rate healthcare system" that so many idiots out there think we actually have.
where do you think you are? norway?
there is so much waste in healthcare, and care/caid are used as a front every day, everywhere, in some fashion. that's the compassionate side of healthcare trying desperately to break through the business model system.
but elsewhere, ms. senator's widow has the same ulcers, the same dementia, and is really the same sad shell of a person, grunting, shitting themselves, with no family visitation, now rendered valueless by any society's standard. she will live to be 100 and actually get turned every 30 minutes like she's supposed to because she has private insurance AND the golden senatorial public plan. the difference is a better bed, better food, a larger flat-screen tv, private rooms, and nurses that actually speak english.
oh, and end-of-life counselors. so you don't die screaming. it's terrible, i know.
republicans and democrats want you to die screaming. horrified, in fact.
but most of the current members of both parties, in both houses, and the POTUS don't want you anywhere near their plan. most of them, in a nursing home situation, will die cozy, in nice big airbeds, with a morphine drip. because they had an end-of-life counselor, and a social worker who actually has time and the will to listen to what their patients are saying, and the power to do something about it.

I've got some bamboo to shove under my fingernails, so I'll bid the birthers and assorted morons on this blog adios and go on to the more pleasant chore.

LOL

You can't answer a question with a question.

I asked you first! : )

Washboard-
How much do you pay for your medical coverage?

#57 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-08-01 08:57 PM

I'm in my early 50's and pay less than 400 a month for a hospitialization policy with a 2 mil. cap. BCBS.

I've had the policy since 1998. Buy insurance when you're healthy. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Get the names of those who voted for this takeover of your health insurance. When your elderly parents or another of your loved ones dies waiting in line, you'll have a list of those responsible to invite to their funeral. Of course no member of Congress or any union member will be required to stand inline with the rest of us behind the 25 million illegals, the drug addicts, the bimbos wanting morning after abortions, and the fat-assed slackers wanting liposuction.

It will be a death sentence for seniors. Happy now?

And while you're at it, I keep asking who decides when to pull life support under Obama's plan...the government, the doctors or the families. And what about living wills where patients state they want to remain on support?

No one can give me an answer.

..and "Washboard" has no fucking idea what he spends on his own medical coverage policy, but he's convinced that Obama is a citizen of Kenya (or some other such nonsense)

#65 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-08-01 09:14 PM

I'm finished with you before I've even began.
You don't want to have a discussion.
You fancy yourself a mind reader, eh?
You know what Im thinking ?
What am I thinking now?

BTW, the greast expense in American medical care is bureaucracy -- much of it imposed by the federal government.

Some insane law like Stark II contains more than 1,000 pages, along with 20,000 pages of commentary, interpretation and regulations.

There are dozens of such laws on top of every health care sector.

The result is that a typical hospital has about half the workers not engaged in patient care, but in non-productive 'compliance.'

Why does your doctor seem so harried and busy? For every clinical worker (taking care of sick people) there are seven others shuffling paper.

The problems of health care were created by the government, which now proposes to fix it.

Enlighten me. What is "Obama's plan?"

#71 | Posted by YAV at 2009-08-01 09:22 PM

He say's part of it is for you to get an education. Start by learning to do your own homework and use the fucking google, kid!

I'll make an exception for this:

So, Washboard, you live alone, and pay over 5 grand a year just for insurance.

re: I've had the policy since 1998. Buy insurance when you're healthy.

I'm sure they'll consider that when you get something truly nasty and expensive. Your private for-profit insurer is much more loyal to you than they are to their shareholders and Wall Street.

Of course, in a few years you can get medicare, which I'm sure you will reject on principle no matter what your medical situation.

Back to the bamboo....

Yesterday's nooner, I gave an example of my friend who has luekemia and regular chemo wasn't working.

She was considered terminal. What would Obama's plan have done for her?

Posted by Lisa

It doesn't matter. She can fucking die in the parking lot for all I care.

Just so long as nobody makes a profit.

-Danni and any other libtard who loves this plan even though they haven't seen it.

"....she will live to be 100 and actually get turned every 30 minutes like she's supposed to because she has private insurance ...."

Sammy admits that he provides substandard care to Medicare patients, but he gives quality care to those with private insurance.

And, Sammy, tell us again why you want all of us under the government plan? It makes your life easier to provide substandard care?

"Oh, he's on ObamaCare, let him lie in his shit for a few hours."

And while you're at it, I keep asking who decides when to pull life support under Obama's plan...the government, the doctors or the families. And what about living wills where patients state they want to remain on support?

As I suspected, you "know" a lot about "Obama's plan" already. Which is to say you know nothing, but boy are you scared.

I'm surprised you're not asking those questions of the private health care industry?

Oh that's right. We all know the answer already. That's ok though, after all, what did Washboard say?

Who should be allowed to earn a profit?

If it's not terrorists hiding under your bed, it's the Government forcing you to give up your private insurance just so they can kill you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Hey! No need to swear!

Seems to me that those who want this health care really don't understand it.

I will tell you what would have happened under this plan....

She would have been given drugs to make her comfortable and she would have died.

what happened was, she was given an experimental chemo and after six treatments she showed improvement. They continued this chemo and she is 100 percent in remission.

Actually, "you're a 'birther'" is this week's version of "you're a fucking idiot".

Same as last week.

#70 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-08-01 09:22 PM | Reply |

So, 'actually' a birther is not necessarily a birther.

Your words do not mean anything. So you can say anything and it can mean anything.

Too bad republicans. The lower class will get coverage and your greed won't be able to block it any longer.

OMGosh Yav!!

I have yet to see anyone who supports this plan to give facts from this plan to disprove what is being said by those who oppose it. Instead, they just claim that we don't know what we are talking about!!

Then prove us wrong!!!

BTW....I care more about peoples lives than I do who makes profit!

"As I suspected, you "know" a lot about "Obama's plan" already. Which is to say you know nothing, but boy are you scared."
-----------
How many times have you bitched about the federal government, when it came to bailouts, wars, WMD, CAFE standards, etc.?

But now, somehow, you expect the same bunch of goons to create a health plan that will be thoughtful, kind, considerate and generous?

Vernon you don't even live in the USA. That means you need to just be quiet and let the less fortunate get coverage.

As I suspected, you "know" a lot about "Obama's plan" already. Which is to say you know nothing, but boy are you scared.

I'm surprised you're not asking those questions of the private health care industry?

Oh that's right. We all know the answer already. That's ok though, after all, what did Washboard say?

Who should be allowed to earn a profit?

If it's not terrorists hiding under your bed, it's the Government forcing you to give up your private insurance just so they can kill you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

#86 | Posted by YAV at 2009-08-01 09:37 PM

Translation. I can't answer any of your questions because I'm too lazy to do my own homework and too busy blogging to care. So I'll just keep acting like I know something even though post after post people can see I don't.

Then prove us wrong!!!

First, there is no plan. Obama's outlined basic principles he says need to be met. None of which would you have a problem.

Second, there are currently 11 versions in play in the House and Senate. Once they are reconciled, the House and the Senate will vote on their version. Once that's done, if approved, the House and the Senate bills will have to be reconciled.

Third, no one would have forced your friend into the Government insurance program except maybe the private insurance company because the care cut into their profits. Obama's plan is you get to keep your plan if you want it.

Washboard, you really aren't proving anything except you're an idiot.

Lisa, to whom was this directed?

"Hey! No need to swear!"

How many times have you bitched about the federal government, when it came to bailouts, wars, WMD, CAFE standards, etc.?

But now, somehow, you expect the same bunch of goons to create a health plan that will be thoughtful, kind, considerate and generous?

oh, NOW this band of idiots in DC will get it right.

What else can you expect from partisan idiots.

Jackass; I paid for private coverage in the U.S. and I pay for it now. When my next child is born in September I will pay for him in cash.

The 'less fortunate' do not go without needed care in the U.S. Check the annual reports for hospitals and find out how much 'bad debt, charity care' they gave away. It's comparable for doctors.

The US already has universal care paid for by cost shifting to private insurance.

If you're so compassionate, why aren't you volunteering at a Medicaid clinic? Or are you only compassionate with other people's money?

Besides that, it's the weekend. Shouldn't you be in Mexico paying for what no woman would choose to give you? Latinas need to go to the doctor too.

Eberly what do you have against everyone being covered?

Obama's plan is you get to keep your plan if you want it.

#94 | Posted by YAV at 2009-08-01 09:51 PM

You're extemely naive.

In less than 10 years there won't be a private option. Real businesses will go broke they won't be able to borrow and wait until they can raise taxes like the government can.

what do you have against everyone being covered?"

Everyone is 'covered.' Look up the term "cost shifting"

Eberly what do you have against everyone being covered?

nothing. But this bill is going to go a lot further than that.

If I'm wrong then I'll be the first to admit it.

Yav....

So you have seen all versions and agree with all of them??

I see more interest in costs than patient care.

I disagree...from what I have read, my friend would have been left to die.

And I was speaking to washboard who swore in his response to me.

But he earns a point for calling me kid!!

Obama's plan is you get to keep your plan if you want it.

on the first day. On the second day? perhaps not.

what I mean is that I have read that once you choose the govt option then you will be restricted from going back to a private plan later.

And I was speaking to washboard who swore in his response to me.

But he earns a point for calling me kid!!

#102 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-08-01 10:00 PM

The post wasn't addressed to you. Look again.

www.dcmsonline.org

Many years ago health insurance was pure insurance. If 100,000 people lived in an area and it cost $1,000,000 per month to provide care for all 100,000 then everyone paid their fair share and paid $10.00 plus a small administrative fee per month and everyone was covered. The cost was evenly spread out among the population, everyone was taken care of and no one suffered a severe loss. But the insurance industry figured out that all those younger people in high school and college almost never spent any money on health care. So the insurance industry started offering experience rated policies based on age, demographics, employers, etc. and those students now only had to pay $5.00 per person per month. The insurance industry had a marketing advantage and captured a healthier base of patients at lower risk and made a better profit. Problem was that the rest of the population that was older and sicker had to now pay a higher premium in order to balance the system.

In my opinion a viable solution is to go back to the population based systems. To many, this would be a single payer system. Maybe it is not the best way. But the basic principle here is that if you spread the cost of care out evenly amongst the entire population and everyone pays their fair share then everyone is covered and no one gets hurt.

I checked out cost shifting and it clearly says single payer is the best option.

I agree.

Oh...sorry.

Then I guess I'm not a kid??

Darn it!!!

If I'm wrong then I'll be the first to admit it.

#101 | Posted by eberly

I can't wait

You're extemely naive.

In less than 10 years there won't be a private option. Real businesses will go broke they won't be able to borrow and wait until they can raise taxes like the government can.

I've studied several different country's plans that mix private and public health insurance - and have for decades. Australia's a prime example. There are few countries that are solely single payer, Taiwan, Canada for example. Most have a hybrid system.

As to Lisa's question on who pulls the plug, Medicare is and has been a Government run system, all the way through, for years. I'm not seeing people pushed out onto the streets or denied care so they die because of costs.

But let's recap what the last Republican President did do as Governor of Texas: He signed a law allowing hospitals to terminate life-support for incapacitated patients, even against the wishes of the family if the family could no longer pay.

But the basic principle here is that if you spread the cost of care out evenly amongst the entire population and everyone pays their fair share then everyone is covered and no one gets hurt.

are you serious? If we had people willing and able to "pay their fair share" then we wouldn't be in this mess now would we??

what makes you think we could have a system where everybody pays their fair share?

I said it on another thread, bit it is worth repeating here...

As to nationalized health care...you are smoking something bad! There is no doubt that it will lead to rationing. Hell, it is in the bill. Which I guess would be a good thing if you control the board that makes those decisions. I was considering this the other night when I was watching a special on Meth. It laid out how many people on meth have HIV or Hep. I might support the "what can you contribute to society" basis of rationing that would deny the elderly hip replacements if we can deny drug users, deadbeats, bums, and others that suckle at the tit, but contribute nothing health care. However, I strongly suspect that the committee would not go along with that. (Of course, there will be another president and that guy may appoint some people to the comitee that think that way.) Then there are all of the resources spent on "drive by shootings" and gang wars. Again..apply the fault / contribution analysis and deny. I don't think that is the system you envision...or at least I hope it is not.

what makes you think we could have a system where everybody pays their fair share?

#109 | Posted by eberly

Go to a national sales tax and everyone pays. Look up fair tax. Universal healthcare would not be a problem.

"I don't think even you Liberals are 100% sure that Obama was born in the United States. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to shut up the so-called "Birthers"."

Dumbass, don't you it's all a secret liberal plot to discredit the wingnuts?

But the basic principle here is that if you spread the cost of care out evenly amongst the entire population and everyone pays their fair share then everyone is covered and no one gets hurt.

are you serious? If we had people willing and able to "pay their fair share" then we wouldn't be in this mess now would we??

what makes you think we could have a system where everybody pays their fair share?

#109 | Posted by eberly at

Incidentally, what do you do with the people that can't afford to pay "their fair share"? Will you handle it like you do taxes and make someone else pick up the slack? Unlike the argument for a progressive tax system...I believe the dems think we ALL need health care equally. Would you be willing to EXCLUDE people who don't pay their "fair share"? Doesn't that put you right back where you are now?

Go to a national sales tax and everyone pays. Look up fair tax. Universal healthcare would not be a problem.

except we aren't going to do that. Forget about a national sales tax.

now, back to reality and the fact that folks like me who already willingly pay for those who can't, I would really like to be left alone.

I just have serious doubts that they will let me.

This will be an even BIGGER program of the "haves" paying for the "have nots" and I don't believe it will be any better.

Eberly - what I mean is that I have read that once you choose the govt option then you will be restricted from going back to a private plan later.

That's the way Germany's plan operates.

Lisa, I haven't read all 11 plans. I have read the main points from 4 of them (I think, though some other plans may have gotten mixed up in what I was looking through).

Anyway, there's about 80% (?) overlap (agreement) in what I've read. Nothing's struck any fear in me from what I've read.

As to nationalized health care...you are smoking something bad! There is no doubt that it will lead to rationing. Hell, it is in the bill.

That's funny. There is no bill. See 108.

YAV,

If there is no bill then what is going to be voted on in Congress after the August recess? The article certainly references several bills.

www.google.com

-There is no doubt that it will lead to rationing. Hell, it is in the bill. Which I guess would be a good thing if you control the board that makes those decisions.

Obama keeps trying to give Repubs the credit for that part of the plan, an amendment that sets up a committee of doctors, patients, and hospitals.

If you think the accounting bottom-line, profiteering market system is more fair to patients than the committee would be, I have some swamp la... er, real estate you might be interested in.

Eberly I am upper middle class. I will also be paying for those less fortunate. I am happy to do so.

If there is no bill then what is going to be voted on in Congress after the August recess? The article certainly references several bills.

That's the House bill, not the Senate's. The reconciliation within the House has been completed.

Here's a PDF of the 10 slides outlining the House version:

www.washingtonpost.com

The Senate has 3 active bills it has to reconcile and it appears it will diverge from the House bill. That reconciliation process between the two will be contentious.

There are few countries that are solely single payer, Taiwan, Canada for example. Most have a hybrid system

Wrong again, Yav. I live in Taiwan. I use CIGNA.

What else are you wrong about?

Wrong again, Yav. I live in Taiwan. I use CIGNA.

Is that true for the Taiwanese?

BTW, I really screwed up the House and Senate status switching them around. The Senate completed their work, what, 2 weeks ago?

A Citizen, I believe you're correct in the House bill that will be voted on, not yet passed or rejected. Not on its contents, but if you can show what you say (thomas.loc.gov) I'll concede.

What else are you wrong about?

BTW, Vernon, I'm OK with admitting it when I am wrong.

"There is no doubt that it will lead to rationing"

We can't afford to kid ourselves. Rationing is in our future, and would have been if McCain had been elected. We need to get off that issue, since the demand spike will lead to it anyway.

www.npr.org

Taiwan's health care system.

Are they wrong?

Vernon, I DON'T provide substandard care, nor did i say i did. not all who work in healthcare provide it. most of us are cogs in very big, very confusing machine, but that doesn't change the fact that substandard care IS STANDARD CARE.
None of us know what the bill will look like, and what kind of care our CONGRESS AND SENATE are hatching for us... but don't pretend that it's fine the way it is.

Vernon?

That's the way Germany's plan operates.

yeah, and now it has 85% of the marketplace.

And I doubt that is what was promised when the plans rolled out.

why have that provision? If for no other reason than to take healthcare over....like in Germany.

I will also be paying for those less fortunate. I am happy to do so.

sure you will. judging by the satisfaction you display here on the DR for others...I'm buying that!:-(

including the knuckledragging bible thumpers who always vote republican?

Go to a national sales tax and everyone pays. Look up fair tax. Universal healthcare would not be a problem.

posted by jackass

Danforth the moderate (LOL) would have jumped all over a "fair tax" plug if it had been a conservative who mentioned it.

LOL

Eberly they don't deserve my tax dollars. They don't believe in helping others why should I help them?

Eberly I know a fair tax would allow for all the social programs I want and it won't allow slimy republicans to cheat their way out of paying taxes.

Insurance companies gave up any credibility they might have ever had in terms of operating in the public interest a very long time ago.

They operate with as much concern for patients, their "costs", as does any other business, they do whatever is necessary to cut them. Often literally in that business.

Most modern nations feel a moral imperative to put health above profit. But then, we have a country where industry has frightened conservatives into into voting against their own best self-interests for at least 70 years.

Insurance companies gave up any credibility they might have ever had in terms of operating in the public interest a very long time ago.

I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about ME.

Oh, and BTW, save the bullshit "profit" hating bullshit. You will gladly accept less from a govt option but as long as nobody "profited" you will be okay with it.

stupid is stupid.

But then, we have a country where industry has frightened conservatives into into voting against their own best self-interests for at least 70 years.

cry us a river.

Eberly they don't deserve my tax dollars. They don't believe in helping others why should I help them?

You will, whether or not you want to.

satisfied?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
--Upton Sinclair

Submitted for your consideration: Mr. Eberly, insurance agent.

why have that provision? If for no other reason than to take healthcare over....like in Germany.

Eberly, I'm actually reading the House version at thomas.loc.gov right now. So far I can't find what you're talking about. I was wondering if you'd mixed up Germany's system with what's being proposed when I said that.

thomas.loc.gov

Mind numbing.

Do you have any exact wording?

- less from a govt option

Proposed govt options offer much more than do current policies in portability, no pre-existing, limited annual patient costs and many other features. So much so that private plans will be adopting those features also.

Submitted for your consideration: Mr. Eberly, insurance agent.

I don't sell health insurance anymore. I do strictly commercial insurance.

Proposed govt options offer much more than do current policies in portability, no pre-existing, limited annual patient costs and many other features. So much so that private plans will be adopting those features also.

link?

RE: #137 - i sit corrected, some of us know what the bill will look like

cry us a river.

#134

Retort of a seriously concerned citizen, lmfao.

Translated: we got ours, so FO!

Eberly is an insurance agent? Oh shit he will be unemployed and homeless if this goes through. No wonder he is so biased.

I'm actually reading the House version at thomas.loc.gov right now. So far I can't find what you're talking about. I was wondering if you'd mixed up Germany's system with what's being proposed when I said that.

Something was leaked a couple weeks ago and language to that effect was in it. It was on a thread here. Perhaps that wording was removed.

We have to honest here, there is a lot of "if they have this or if they don't have that....."

Translated: we got ours, so FO!

Actually it is crying a river over the fact that you can't get what you want because you are a extremist liberal wacko who will never get what you want.

We have to honest here, there is a lot of "if they have this or if they don't have that....."

There's a lot of stuff about ending involvement though, and nothing I can find about not rejoining. For instance:

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), once an individual qualifies as an Exchange-eligible individual under this subsection (including as an employee or dependent of an employee of an Exchange-eligible employer) and enrolls under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan through the Health Insurance Exchange, the individual shall continue to be treated as an Exchange-eligible individual until the individual is no longer enrolled with an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

It appears, at least in the House version, eligibility is based on poverty levels, opting in and Medicare requirements. You can opt out, but I can't find any restrictions on getting in again except as the State determines - though that isn't clear.

Ok, my flu's caught up with me. I have to get to bed.

I don't sell health insurance anymore. I do strictly commercial insurance.

Strictly commercial?

Be Well.

"Rationing" and "Loss of choice" in choosing doctors is a reality in the current system we have of profiteering 'health care' insurers who are really only in it for profits - NOT health care., and who eat up 10-30% of every dollar in 'administrative costs' as compared to 2% for Medicare.

Just ask your doctor's office next time you go for a visit how many restrictions and hoops they have to jump through as health insurers change codes (to confuse billing), how many treatments are denied, how many drugs won't be paid for, and who REALLY dictates which doctors you can see and what the doctors you are allowed to see can and cannot do according to your plan.

How easy it is for you to choose your doctor (don't go out of that 'network' now), can you call up a specialist and make an appointment.? Can't be done according to your 'health' insurance policy - well, unless you're on Medicare ... a 'single payer' plan.

Most posters here are probably 'white collar' employees with far better insurance plans than the average American to begin with.

I know becase I have friends in relatives who who live abroad who have to deal with socialized medicine.

#5 | POSTED BY MEMBER2586

You know nothing. And you make things up.

"Danforth the moderate (LOL) would have jumped all over a "fair tax" plug if it had been a conservative who mentioned it."

He would have jumped all over it regardless, had he been here.

www.youtube.com

I feel Happy!

I have to wonder at all the people who say a public option will kill private insurance? Ok so it will be cheaper but acording to these same people the care will be crap so only those who can't afford better will choose it. Really where is the threat to a high quality high cost health care in low quality low cost care?

The only way I see it killing private insurance is if there is no choice to go back like Eb suggestted. Which does not appear to be the case, however it could still be stuck in.

Even then they could find a way to make money off suplemental care for all those that want to avoid rationing.

Raul Castro who took over the presidency last year called state spending "simply unsustainable" and said the cash-strapped government would reorganize rural schools and scrutinize its free health care system in search of ways to save money

america in 5 years.

Enlighten me. What is "Obama's plan?

there is no clear-cut "Obama plan" or "Democratic plan." Obama has listed several goals, but he has drawn few lines in the sand.no body knows what's in it,so lets just pass it because its one of obamas prioritys

Finally some honesty, Semtex111. Well, up to the "so lets just pass it" part. I'm not advocating that, nor is Obama unless it meets the goals he's laid out. The "House passes" then the "Senate passes" then they're "reconciled" part of our legislative process sucks, IHMO.

The interesting thing to watch is if it falls short, will Obama have the courage to veto?

Of course that doesn't stop the fear mongering of killing old people, denying care, no matter what our history with Medicare shows.

yes, lets have the government provide our health care.

make no mistake about it if this happens there will be no turning back; taxes will increase and increase with declining care.

You dems out there think that this is about your elected officials caring.........well guess what? this isn't about providing health care this is about controlling you and your vote

One of the most popular health care programs in the world is Medicare, which serves around 50 million people and is run by the US Government.

findarticles.com

One of the most popular health care programs in the world is Medicare, which serves around 50 million people and is run by the US Government.

findarticles.com

#158 | Posted by Corky at 2009-08-02 04:26 PM |

And is broke. You forgot to mention that. Of course that's not really important. Right?

And is broke. You forgot to mention that. Of course that's not really important. Right?

And it only gets those that are already old or disabled while the for profit companies get to carry them while they are young and inexpensive. Of course that's not really important. Right?

TAO, you missed the point. the point is Medicare doesn't work.

"TAO, you missed the point. the point is Medicare doesn't work."

Sure it does.

Your local medical provider makes his Mercedes payments with the reimbursements received from "Medicare."

woops, just read that 2 of Obama's admin guys say there is no guaratee middle class taxes won't go up.

along with a Global Warming (oh sorry, I meant climate change)tax. health care tax, internet tax, national sales tax.....am I forgetting any?

"just read that 2 of Obama's admin guys say there is no guaratee middle class taxes won't go up."

Got a link for that? So we can read what "2 of Obama's admin guys say"?

Truth, It's broke, runnin' in the red, no money, etc...

drudge report, there ya go

actually it was the treasury sec.

"Truth, It's broke, runnin' in the red, no money, etc..."

So, those Medicare reimbursements your local medical provider will receive this coming week will bounce?

Is that what you're saying?

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere."

Honesty and reality.

How refreshing.

"Truth, It's broke, runnin' in the red, no money, etc..."

And is broke. You forgot to mention that. Of course that's not really important. Right?

It's not bankrupt if that's what you meant by "broke." Medicare HI potentially will go negative in 2017. The SMI portion is adequately funded. BTW, this isn't new - this was a decision the Bush Administration made when they inadequately funded Medicare HI starting in 2003.

www.cms.hhs.gov

And it only gets those that are already old or disabled while the for profit companies get to carry them while they are young and inexpensive. Of course that's not really important. Right?

The obvious fix is political poison.

"And is broke....important, Right" should be italicized.

you don't get it do ya? it's supposed to be running on a balance budget of its own. So therfore it doesn't work

Soon greedy republicans won't be able to withhold care from those who can't afford it. Soon the poor will be able to get not only emergency care but preventive care.

"you don't get it do ya? it's supposed to be running on a balance budget of its own. So therfore it doesn't work"

So, in otherwords, your local medical provider's Medicare reimbursement payment this week will bounce, and his Medicare patients won't get seen.

Is that what you mean by "it doesn't work"?

If I "don't get it" please explain what your local medical provider will do when his Medicare reimbursement payments will bounce this week.

Or next week.

Or next month... etc.

Truth,, honesty? you got to be kidding. they knew all this during the campaign. I don't know why it has taken him so long to start taxing the middle class. Clinton did it within 60 days after he campaigned on lowering the middle class income tax

truth, if you don't understand what I'm saying you must be real young or stupid

"Clinton did it within 60 days after he campaigned on lowering the middle class income tax"

You mean Bill Clinton, who was elected 3 years and 10 months later?

"truth, if you don't understand what I'm saying you must be real young or stupid"

But, if you're the fount of wisdom here, and Medicare is broke, what is your local medical provider going to do when his Medicare payment bounces.

Isn't that the definition of "broke": no money to pay your bills?

Okay, if Medicare is broke, what is your local medical provider going to do when his Medicare reimbursement payment bounces next week?

Or the week after that?

Or next month? etc.

It won't go broke if we tax the rich properly.


It won't go broke if we tax the rich properly.

#179 | Posted by jackass

LOL!!

Are you serious?

How long are you and the rest of the left going to be stupid!??!

We need to control the costs. You know LOWER the costs!

If we do that, then there is no tax needed.

BTW, ask the Providers, costs can be controlled. Very easily! It takes the left saying to themselves that Universal Healthcare is a bad idea and try to fix it!

Anyone who says that the insurance companies are driving up costs are the only reason, does not understand the problems.

If we destroy the Medical Insurance industry in this country, we will be at the mercy of the government to get our health care.


"Clinton did it within 60 days after he campaigned on lowering the middle class income tax"

You mean Bill Clinton, who was elected 3 years and 10 months later?

#177 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

Truth,

You've been farely vocal and rather ignorant the last couple of days.

Are you just a young, ignorant lefty who will eventually get a job, start raising a family and then untimately wake up and realize that perhaps he was wrong all this time?

yeah sure ..
lets have govt take over health care even when faces with these TEN facts

www.ncpa.org

Afkabibble,

I only got to the first two in your list of ten. Both are based on bogus science. If you eradicate other, less lethal diseases, then the big ones eventually get you. Look at the average ages of the cancer patients; I'd bet therein lies the difference.


yeah sure ..
lets have govt take over health care even when faces with these TEN facts

www.ncpa.org

#182 | Posted by afkabl2

That's ok. If this health care plan passes the House, then there will be many many Congressmen thrown out on their butts.

Has anyone told Pelosi that her emperor has no cloths?

Both are based on bogus science.

#183 | Posted by Danforth

Doubtful.

Do you have a link that refutes this?

SEe the clip of the town meeting with sibellious and spector
laughed at and shouted down ...

the revolution is growing

"Doubtful."

Why? What do you think goes up killers as things like heart disease and diabetes drop?

of course dan I diagree but after your honesty on the nooner, it would be nice to know where you got your info and you never know...a good debate might even break out......welluntil celisary chimes in

goes up killers as = goes up as killers while

AND THE spector rally

lady said..
the govt that cant run a program on cars is going to run this much of our economy...

wish I could have been there.......but then I would have had to be in philly and well......no thanks...

PAGE 131 of health care proposal

health benefit cost advisory..

IF PASSED...get used to seeing this name..
they according to house version will be deciding whats covered, whats not covered and what the costs will be..

GOVERNMENT more and more into your life.

The problem with covering everyone is the same as cash for clunkers.

You have to estimate the amount of money you need to cover it.

Then, when you discover there isn't enough money appropriated to pay for it, Congress has to authorize more.

As for cash for clunkers, the fight is on about cost.

Eventually, the gov't will have to decide whether to borrow to insure everyone or place a cap on spending.

Which is worse: Borrowing to maintain National Coverage or Capping the costs which will have to limit the care provided.

I don't recall you bitching when the Bush Admin. was claiming that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the executive branch during undeclared war.

#39 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-08-01 08:38 PM

Holy shit what a fucking retard. Member was always against the Bush admin. Some "memory" you have there.

If it's not terrorists hiding under your bed, it's the Government forcing you to give up your private insurance just so they can kill you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

#86 | Posted by YAV at 2009-08-01 09:37 PM

Of course your comment ignores that many people who have private insurance have it through their employers, and if their employers want to go cheap and buy the public plan, many won't have the choice of keeping what they have now.

#192

Interesting tying the two programs together. The cash for clunkers program has the dealers take, the cars and pour something into the engine, rendering dead for ever. Could the "dems want to kill Grandma" healthcare bill mean something?

I predict the Democrats will be all in favor of tort reform...

...once the Government runs our health care and has to pay the cost.

Don't worry. I hate Republicans equally.

Our Founding Fathers really screwed up when they failed to put congressional term limits into the Constitution.

Honestly, Americans would be better served if our Congress was "elected" through a National Lottery system and regular people represented us.

The political system we have now really sucks and will eventually lead to bloodshed (just history repeated itself).

I predict the Democrats will be all in favor of tort reform...

...once the Government runs our health care and has to pay the cost.

Don't worry. I hate Republicans equally.

Our Founding Fathers really screwed up when they failed to put congressional term limits into the Constitution.

Honestly, Americans would be better served if our Congress was "elected" through a National Lottery system and regular people represented us.

"Our Founding Fathers really screwed up when they failed to put congressional term limits into the Constitution."

They did put term limits in the Constitution.

They're called elections.

President Reagan says that after leaving office he ''would like to start a movement'' to repeal the constitutional amendment that limits Presidents to two terms.

Mr. Reagan, in a restatement of a past position, said the limitation interfered with the right of the people to ''vote for someone as often as they want to do.''

www.nytimes.com

I'm sure they'll consider that when you get something truly nasty and expensive. Your private for-profit insurer is much more loyal to you than they are to their shareholders and Wall Street.

Of course, in a few years you can get medicare, which I'm sure you will reject on principle no matter what your medical situation.

#82 | Posted by BetelG

You're such a dick, Boyd. You asked the guy like 5 times what he paid for his private insurance. He gives you a straight answer and you pop off with nothing but smart ass remarks. What a pussy you are.

They did put term limits in the Constitution.

They're called elections.

President Reagan says that after leaving office he ''would like to start a movement'' to repeal the constitutional amendment that limits Presidents to two terms.

Mr. Reagan, in a restatement of a past position, said the limitation interfered with the right of the people to ''vote for someone as often as they want to do.''

www.nytimes.com

#198 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

You're right. At least partially.

Term limits are Constitutional for the office of the President.

It's the "elections" part of your thesis that is incorrect.

We no longer have "elections" - instead we have "selections".

Either the USA goes to Congressional Term Limits or this country is doomed.

It is impossible for professional politicians to fairly represent the People. If they did, the money donors would simply "select" someone else.

Congressional Term Limits is the ONLY HOPE FOR THIS COUNTRY.

Eberly what do you have against everyone being covered?

#98 | Posted by jackass

It's obvious that you don't know much about the plan. Even if it is implemented, not everyone will be covered. There will still be several million without coverage.

Eberly I know a fair tax would allow for all the social programs I want and it won't allow slimy republicans to cheat their way out of paying taxes.

#131 | Posted by jackass

You mean like half the people Obama appointed to positions at the highest levels of government? That kind of tax cheating?

As soon as the dumbf@ck Dems pass this legislation, it will be the end of the Democrat Party. This bill will do for the Democrats did what the Iraq War did to the Republican Party.

When the stories about poor old grandma who can't get certain treatments or procedures because some souless liberal hack made the termination that she was too old and the procedure/treatment was too expensive, there will be outrage. Look at the outrage at these libtard townhall meetings now, the Dems are getting destroyed politically and the majority of Americans do NOT want healthcare reform. 80% of Americans are happy with their insurance and medical care. The Dems are driving toward the political cliff and stepping on the gas toward it Thelma & Louise style.

Health Care Reform?

Reform?

More like Nationalization.

The Democrat agenda is to destroy our private health care system in favor of health care nationalization.

A One-Payer System - run by the U.S. Government.

And...

...all of the most of the key Democrats are on record saying just that.

What's next?

A nationalized housing market? How about a nationalized entertainment market?

No?

i thought they hadn't even written the fucking thing yet.

Congressional Term Limits is the ONLY HOPE FOR THIS COUNTRY.

#200 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-08-03

it wouldnt have to be if politicians did what they were intended to do..
go to dc...make laws and then go home and have to live under those laws themsleves......

and I know the SC has ruled on this but "WE THE PEOPLE" could change it

term limits along with a budget balance requirement would make us the super power for all time...

"Congressional Term Limits is the ONLY HOPE FOR THIS COUNTRY."

As I said earlier, we already have term limits.

They're called elections.

Selections? Only if you're too pussy to run yourself.

Otherwise............

President Reagan says that after leaving office he ''would like to start a movement'' to repeal the constitutional amendment that limits Presidents to two terms.

Mr. Reagan, in a restatement of a past position, said the limitation interfered with the right of the people to ''vote for someone as often as they want to do.''

www.nytimes.com

"Either the USA goes to Congressional Term Limits or this country is doomed."

Amazing that we've lasted 230+ years without them.

Only cowards call for Constitution amendments to "solve" a problem which the people don't want.

It is always a truth: "My Congressman is great! It is all those others who are the problem."

The people of Pinellas County, Florida, like Bill Young. Why shouldn't they have the right, as Ronald Reagan said, to "vote for someone as often as they want to do.", like Bill Young?

Only cowards call for Constitution amendments to "solve" a problem which the people don't want.

yeah you do have a point here but in todays political world...is there really a way to get EITHER party back to ways that would work like several people here are talking about
you know......may have to to FORCE the issue

and lets see if how well SOCIALISM and nationalized things have worked in past

story this morning about the ukrane in the early 30's

STALIN told them that farming was to be nationalized
ukrane was important to farming and tried to resist.
stalin shut down the borders and in a year several million people STARVED TO DEATH.......

now IM not saying american health care in a couple of years would cause death of millions but the point is

THAT SHIT DOESNT work.............

"yeah you do have a point here"

Not my point, Ronald Reagan's point:

President Reagan says that after leaving office he ''would like to start a movement'' to repeal the constitutional amendment that limits Presidents to two terms.

Mr. Reagan, in a restatement of a past position, said the limitation interfered with the right of the people to ''vote for someone as often as they want to do.''

www.nytimes.com

Only cowards call for Constitution amendments to "solve" a problem which the people don't want.

again...has the country changed so much and govt gotten so friggin big that it would take that

but there is always this problem anyway

who would VOTE IN term limits....the very people who would have to go home and get a real job...
that alone will keep it from happening

AS TO HEALTH CARE

I heard a caller propose something..

he asked why couldnt obama fix medicare and medicaid and if he showed the govt could do that...may make people change their mind

and he then said...large corps will usually have tests cases before they make big changes.........so what about asking a state or two to do all the things he wants and see if it turns out like "NEW COKE" then we will know it wont work

"Either the USA goes to Congressional Term Limits or this country is doomed."

Amazing that we've lasted 230+ years without them.

Only cowards call for Constitution amendments to "solve" a problem which the people don't want.

It is always a truth: "My Congressman is great! It is all those others who are the problem."

The people of Pinellas County, Florida, like Bill Young. Why shouldn't they have the right, as Ronald Reagan said, to "vote for someone as often as they want to do.", like Bill Young?

#208 | Posted by truthsetyoufree

For the same reason you drink Coke or Pepsi and not Wilfred's or Jackinator.

It's call marketing.

Either one has the money for marketing.

Or, one doesn't.

Incumbents?

THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE MONEY!

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS NOW!

By the way, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution were once called The Bill of Rights. I wonder if the good folks back then were cowards too?

"By the way, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution were once called The Bill of Rights. I wonder if the good folks back then were cowards too?"

Posted by BENDOR at 2009-08-03 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag: non sequitur

Meanwhile, only cowards seek to amend the Constitution to force something which the people don't want ("My Congressman is great! It is all the other Congressmen who are the problem.").

"CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS NOW!"

We already have them.

They're called elections.

Why shouldn't the people have the right, as Ronald Reagan said, to "vote for someone as often as they want to do"?

If the federal government were to suck down to the size it should be term limits wouldn't matter. The fact that what a politician can do with tucking crap in loop holes making federal law cover things the federal government should not be messing with there is too much power held by our so called representatives.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable