Good.

It's about time he grew some cajones. I was about to write him off as as just another ass kisser.

Free health care for all!

Say NO to greedy insurance companies.
Say NO to greedy hospitals.
Say NO to greedy doctors.

The manifestation of Hope and Change!

Be Well.

Yawn. He "continues to believe". That's just mush.

I wonder if this "core belief" will continue to last until tomorrow when it changes in the face of overwhelming opposition or if he will continue to sink his own presidency with this one. Either way...what fun!! His failure will be bigger than Rush could have ever hoped for!

And people wonder why a great deal of Americans were suspicious of his address to the children.

I'm all for healthcare reform/insurance company reform, just show me how a broke country can afford to pay for it.

Say NO to greedy insurance companies.
Say NO to greedy hospitals.
Say NO to greedy doctors.

Choose one big greedy power hungry government.

I don't believe that Obama wants health care reform unless there is a total socialist state and dictatorial powers for him and a "Great Purge" of conservative thought. You can bet that this Purge will extend itself to Blue-dog Democrats also.

I'm all for healthcare reform/insurance company reform, just show me how a broke country can afford to pay for it.

#6 | Posted by Beachbuzz

By taxing your greedy republican ass at a much higher level.

just show me how a broke country can afford to pay for it.

#6 | Posted by Beachbuzz

When healthcare costs twice as much per capita in the U.S. as it does in most industrialized nations, show me how a broke country can afford to not reform healthcare.

"I don't believe that Obama wants health care reform unless there is a total socialist state and dictatorial powers for him and a 'Great Purge' of conservative thought. ... Blue-dog Democrats also."

I cannot believe that crap like this doesn't all come from the same drug corporation computer. "Socialist state" and "dictatorial powers" are bullshit of the first water, unwarranted by any facts ever presented. And purges ... that's as dumb as mandatory euthanasia for anyone over 40 and no treatment at all for Republicans.

I'd be mighty pleased my your president and mine holding out for public option if single payer is indeed off the table. I think we have the votes to tell the obstructionists to go stuff it. herm

#4

All that needed to be said.

If you actually see what he said then you would understand that it is "mush"

Good news!

Mr. President, use your Majority in both houses to get the job done, FUCK THEM REPUBLICANS, FUCK EM ALL. These people are Republicans before they consider themselves Americans, so Fuck em an lets get the job done that you were elected to do!!!

I agree Cel. Time to say fuck them and get all we can while we are still in control.

And how is it free? It fails.

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then it's bunk. Show Me the Money as they say.

Larry

*Yawn*

The million dollar question is whether or not he will sign a bill that does NOT contain a 'public option'.

Politicians like to talk out both sides of their mouths and Obama is no different.

I wouldn't be surprised if he speaks out in support of a public 'option' (sic), but won't veto a reasonable, comprimise bill.

He needs to be REALLY specific about this, a couple of days from now. He's spent his entire political career talking in rhetoric and platitudes and has gotten away with it. No more. His agenda will FINALLY be scrutinized on substance.

I agree Cel. Time to say fuck them and get all we can while we are still in control.

#15 | Posted by jackass

Spoken like a true opportunist!

Can i get a kiss before you fuck me?

I actually support a trigger bill. Pvt insurance has 2 years to get everyone covered or the public option starts.

**smooch**

LOL

Can i get a kiss before you fuck me?

#20 | Posted by mysterytoy

No and you won't get any Vaseline either.

What JeffJ said.

"Can i get a kiss before you fuck me?"

You've been fucked all yer life...what difference would a kiss make now?

Hussein is a socialist/communist, we know this, his handlers trained him this way.

Why the big headline?

This douche will be forced from office within a year.....

"Mr. President, use your Majority in both houses to get the job done, FUCK THEM REPUBLICANS, FUCK EM ALL. These people are Republicans before they consider themselves Americans, so Fuck em an lets get the job done that you were elected to do!!!"

You ignorant fucking tool. What the hell do you think your fucking hero has done on this? He left it up to Congress to write the fucking pathetic bill. Obama has not written one fucking sentence. He is as clueless as you are what will be in the final legislation. It is no wonder you talk like a fucking lunatic, you are stupid enough to think these Houses of Congress have what it takes to pass a real Healthcare Reform.

"This douche will be forced from office within a year....."

FF!!

Yer getting as bad as Skidmark.

I don't think it's funny that a terrorist plant is running my country.

Dubya is gone Rex. He is the terrorist NOT Obama.

Larry

Larry,

Given how much this issue has tanked for Obama over the month of August, if he tries any more of his campaign-esque double-speak on Wed. I think he tanks even further.

If he continues to make ludicrous claims as he has so far, this agenda-item will tank further.

If he takes petty swipes at his opposition, his agenda-item will tank MUCH further.

IMO his only choice is to articulate a clear position regarding the public option:

"Mr. President, will you or will you not veto a healthcare bill if it does NOT contain a public option."

If he fails to address that question in a VERY clear manner, I think he's screwed.

If he DOES answer it clearly, he's gonna either piss off his base, or moderates. However, he'd at least gain back some public trust and may very well pull some moderates back in if he honestly pitches why he supports the public option BUT is also forthcoming regarding at least some of the negative drawbacks.

We will soon see.

Regardless of what happens, this will be very interesting - it will be a defining moment for his young presidency, good or bad.

just show me how a broke country can afford to pay for it.

It'll cost half as much as the Iraq war per year. Drop a couple of useless military programs and the savings will be enough to pay for it. Ever wonder how the rest of the industrial world manages national health care and not spend itself crazy on its military? Every country that has national health care used to have a deficit too. Then again, they didn't have spend and borrow Republicans like Reagan and the Bush-boys. They have grown up tax policies, not kid in a candy store trickle down fantasies.

And yes, let's hope Obama does indeed have a pair.

#29

I find that a blatantly disgusting statement after supporting Bush who hand held Bin Laden instead of bringing him to justice after this country's worst terrorist attack in our history under his watch.

What has gotten into you Rex?

What Obama's problem is when the Republicans gave Him the proverbial Fuck You He should have ignored them and went at it alone. He didn't and now everything is screwed up. Too bad Your Republicans refused to deal with Hm JeffJ. It would have made things a whole lot easier.

Larry

I'm all for healthcare reform/insurance company reform, just show me how a broke country can afford to pay for it.

#6 | Posted by Beachbuzz

We could start by ending ALL foreign aid.
We could restructure trade agreements to favor the US.

We could DOWNSIZE Congress.

Do we REALLY need all of those so-called "representatives?"

What Obama's problem is when the Republicans gave Him the proverbial Fuck You He should have ignored them and went at it alone. He didn't and now everything is screwed up. Too bad Your Republicans refused to deal with Hm JeffJ. It would have made things a whole lot easier.

Larry

#34 | Posted by LarryMohr

You can't blame the GOP for this one, Larry.

He gave the GOP the big middle-finger right out of the gate on healthcare.

The problem is his own party and a big majority of the public who are very opposed to this.

The Dems could pass this bill tomorrow, if they had the courage to do so.

They've got nobody to blame but themselves and you know it.

He almost said something concrete. Maybe, just maybe... I'm not convinced yet.

"Hussein is a socialist/communist"
"This douche will be forced from office within a year"
"I don't think it's funny that a terrorist plant is running my country.
Posted by r_zeitgeist"

I wish there was an option on this site to ignore specific individuals so I could filter out the especially moronic ones.

Obama extended His hand out right after the inaugeration and they refused to shake it JeffJ. How much more should Obama had done??

Larry

"He gave the GOP the big middle-finger right out of the gate on healthcare. "

Huh? Grassley was one of the ones on the inside, and he responded by lying about 'death panels'...AFTER he had voted for the same optional counseling. And there were over a hundred Republican amendments in committee, resulting in -- count 'em -- NO Republican votes.

"...so I could filter out the especially moronic ones."

Rex is just on one of his meth-fueled benders.

He'll return to his normal, less-stupid self when he gets back into the ether.

I dunno, Dave, this one seems different somehow.

I'm a little worried about the boy.

The GOP wants nothing to do with Obama because they hope He fails so they can reclaim the WhiteHouse in 2012. It's painfully obvious to even Moi.

Larry

By taxing your greedy republican ass at a much higher level.

#9 | Posted by jackass

That's the problem with socialism--you run out of other people's money.

There are not enough taxes out here to pay for this.

Larry

Rex says we won't have wait that long, Obama will be forced to resign within a year.

Dave appears to be correct.

I don't believe anything Rex says. He talks like a man with a paper asshole the shit just keeps spewing forth. I believe Obama will complete one term. I don't know about the next.

Larry

Wrong murphy, get out of two wars and stop 99% of foreign aid and we have plenty of funds.

Do we REALLY need all of those so-called "representatives?"

#35 | Posted by Sluggo at 2009-09-07 07:55 PM

Sure. Let's start tearing apart the US Constitution and get rid of those pesky representatives. Good call der Slug.

Northy - where in the US constitution does it state YOU are entitled to healthcare funded by the government?

It may take a large part of her first term but President Palin and her conservative majority on Capital Hill will repair the damage that the Obamanation is perpetrating right now. We will have learned a big lesson about the left and its willingness to tear down this nation to advance worldwide socialism and the democrats as a left wing organization will sink into despised obscurity.

"He gave the GOP the big middle-finger right out of the gate on healthcare."

If only he had. Instead he tried to work with them. Naive.

Obama extended His hand out right after the inaugeration and they refused to shake it JeffJ. How much more should Obama had done??

#39 | Posted by LarryMohr

I'd be surprised if Jeff responds to this. It doesn't jive with the spin from his favorite pundit.

Wrong murphy, get out of two wars and stop 99% of foreign aid and we have plenty of funds.

#47 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-07 08:54 PM | Reply

Do you really want the US government running your healthcare? Hell, they can't even run a fucking country!

Make another comment with my name in it LaRi, and I will make you quit again.

LOL...do it Lari, do it!

Geesh Rex....what's going on with you that you have shown such utter disrespect for people, make outlandish claims and now threats???

Where is the old Rex??? I miss him!!!

Stir DOES bring up a valid point, which is my second reason for not wanting this healthcare.

Everytime the government touches something, they screw it up.

I'm not convinced it won't happen with this healthcare.

"Do you really want the US government running your healthcare?"

They already do, for 40% of the insured.

"Hell, they can't even run a fucking country!"

Leave it to Republicans to claim "government is the problem", and then set out to prove that axiom right.

"Free health care for all!"

Posted by skip_wellington

Free, it is not. How nonsensical can you be? Anything the government does is paid for with our tax dollars.

There are much better ways to reform the health care system. A good start would be to eliminate the exclusion of out-of-state insurance providers.

Go get your bible and say a prayer Lisaville, I could give one shit what you miss.

LOL

Ok Rex.

I'll not address you or your posts, please do the same for me.

Fair enough?

Fair enough.

Leave it to Republicans to claim "government is the problem", and then set out to prove that axiom right.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-07 09:12 PM

Name three (3) programs the government runs efficiently besides the military. Anytime the government gets involved worker productivity declines. There isn't ANY insentive to out perform or come up with new ideas. Just like those damn unions. Every worker is like a robot.

Funny how govt option seems to be working elsewhere but republicans are so opposed to it. It's like they would rather have the working poor die.

"Name three (3) programs the government runs efficiently besides the military."

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

Make another comment with my name in it LaRi, and I will make you quit again.

Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-09-07 09:05 PM | Reply

Sorry but You didn't make Me quit the last time Rex. Sorry to burst Your ego.

Larry

"Everytime the government touches something, they screw it up."

You say that as if the private sector had a better record. Millions of Medicare recipients would disagree with you. Just try to take away Medicare and see how they react. If it is so awful then why are they so insistent that they get to keep it?

SS works Medicare works public schools manage to work 90% of the time.

"incentive" whatever...

When people say when the Government touches something they screw it up. Aren't they saying they themselves screwed it up??

Larry

I'm not saying that Danni.

I'm just saying that there are very few government projects that don't end up getting screwed up, and used for other causes than they were originally set up for.

I'm also not saying that something doesn't need to be done.

I just don't think this is it exactly.

My main objection to this plan is that abortion is an "elective surgery".

If women who want to terminate their pregnancy for reasons other than a danger to their own...let them pay for it out of pocket.

It shouldn't be included in this health plan!!!!

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-07 09:27 PM

All of which are IN THE RED FINANCIALLY! If they were private business, they would have folded years ago. And who pays for those RED dollars? The taxpayer.

OK Lisa, if a fourteen year old is raped by her uncle then she should pay for the abortion out of pocket???
Extreme case, yes, does it really happen, yes.
When confronting abortion I think it is appropriate to also confront the ugly reasons that it is sometimes necessary before we say it is always "wrong."

When people say when the Government touches something they screw it up. Aren't they saying they themselves screwed it up??

Larry
#71 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-07 09:29 PM

Larry, did you order a large pizza last night or did the government order it for you?

Larry, did you order a large pizza last night or did the government order it for you?

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-09-07 09:35 PM | Reply

I can't have Pizza i throw it up sorry to burst Your bubble SITP

Larry

"All of which are IN THE RED FINANCIALLY! If they were private business, they would have folded years ago. And who pays for those RED dollars? The taxpayer."

Or...they would have raised their rates as did private insurance. If Medicare raised its rates at even half the rate private health insurance has it would be solvent for decades. If Congress raised the amount of income subject to SS tax as Ronald REagan did SS would be solvent for decades.
The right loves to prevent reasonable increases in the ways funds are collected for these programs specifically so they can dishonestly pretend that they can't function properly.
The right ALWAYS depends on dishonesty to make its case. That's because they are fucking liars.

SS works Medicare works public schools manage to work 90% of the time.

#69 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-07 09:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Product Of One Of Those 10% Failures

OK Lisa, if a fourteen year old is raped by her uncle then she should pay for the abortion out of pocket???

Ok Lisa, if you blow a tire on the way to work, should you pay for the tow AND the tire out of pocket? Or should your auto insurance cover that?

Danni:

Do you know my past experiences? I have mentioned it a time or two in the appropriate threads. So when it comes to bad things happening, you're preaching to the choir.

I DO have a different faith based opinion for myself regarding that subject which will differ from what I'm about to say, but I have stated many times not including those who are raped or if the life of the mother is endangered...for the sake of argument.

If I left out rape in my prior comment, I apologize and it was unintentional.

However...those ARE extremely rare cases. Most women use abortion as a form of birth control. THOSE women most certainly should pay for them out of their pocket and NOT covered under this plan!!

#79

Stirly:

I would hardly equate an accidental blown tire and towing compared to women (and men) who are deliberately irresponsible and do not use methods to avoid pregnancy.

When people say when the Government touches something they screw it up. Aren't they saying they themselves screwed it up??

#71 | Posted by LarryMohr

EXACTLY! Which leaves me in the clear since I didn't voted for Barry.

Not about the "right/wrong" nature of the wars, but the economic fallacies of those that think just ending them brings money back...

So stop two wars and quit foreign aid? No impact but positive on the US economy? "All this money" is now available?

As usual, no consideration for the downstream effects. The infamous "Unintended Consequences" again.

Who is getting paid for all the ammo, armor, etc? Various US interests. We know that 'cause we've been told that the wars were for "Big Oil" and the military-industrial complex.

Oh, I see....it is "free" money. Never works, just gets printed? Or was it coming in from taxes on the various corps, etc., that were supplying the war effort.

Yeah, SOME will be available, but a lot of it will no longer be generated.

We've seen the lack of appreciation of the L.o.U.C. in raising taxes on cigarettes, installing speed cams, and various programs that the gov't fails to think through.

The right ALWAYS depends on dishonesty to make its case. That's because they are fucking liars.

The lying left is constantly lying about how much the right lies. If the lying left lied less about the right the lying left might have less liars and the right would have more lefts, but the lying left would still have more liars.

I would hardly equate an accidental blown tire and towing compared to women (and men) who are deliberately irresponsible and do not use methods to avoid pregnancy.

#81 | Posted by Lisa at

So the government SHOULDN'T pay for it??

"All of which are IN THE RED FINANCIALLY! "

How fucking stupid are you? You said "efficient". Efficiency and funding are two different issues.

We've tried the 'free market' approach to health care. Doesn't work. Premiums and health care costs have DOUBLED in the last 7 years.

A "Public Option" is the ONLY thing that will bring competition in the health insurance industry.

Ok Lisa, if you blow a tire on the way to work, should you pay for the tow AND the tire out of pocket? Or should your auto insurance cover that?

Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-09-07 09:39 PM | Reply

I have auto club and road hazzard Thank You very much.

"It shouldn't be included in this health plan!!!!"

And, considering the Hyde Amendment, where exactly is it in the plan?

Health care is a different animal compared to auto insurance. You have a right to life and a right to protect that life You don't have a right to an automobile. Big Huge Difference.

Larry

You are equating apples to oranges, sweetie!

One is accidental, the other is out of recklessness and irresponsibility.

Good news!

#13 | Posted by Badcat at 2009-09-07 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

bring it on! I'm ready.....

How fucking stupid are you? You said "efficient". Efficiency and funding are two different issues.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-07 09:52 PM | Repl

Danforeskin - You are a douche. And a wet one at that. None of the programs you mentioned are profitable or even considered non-profit. They are ALL NEGATIVE profit programs paid for with tax dollars. Care to try again?

So let me get this straight. You can keep the insurance you have? Sure!! Every company in America will drop their employee benefits to the bare minimum required by BO. This creates wind fall profit for corporations as they make employees pay more for the coverage they have. Forcing them into the gov't plan...which is cheaper and will never be as good.

Coming to a hospital near you! Foreign doctors with substandard "degrees" will "help" offset the volume of 45 Million people.

Sure you can keep your insurance...if you can afford it.

Lets help the 10 Million or so that really need it.

BO is like a kid with a credit card.

That you God! I figured he'd wuss out, the unions must be holding his feet to the fire.

Now the dems don't have a chance but to march lock-step.

He's usually pretty slippery.

BTW, I hate to mess with the left wing jerkfest, but Hussein didn't say he was leaving the Public option in.

In fact, it will get dumped without any phony switch trigger.

You fucking morons crack me up.

I can't wait till November of 2010.

I would say at that point that the democrats will be finished as a serious party for good.

This is not Venezuela where you can just run all over the people saying "fuck you if you don't like it kiss my communist ass" like Obama is doing.

Efficiency and funding are two different issues.
#86 | Posted by Danforth

Ignorance is bliss. See "Exhibit A" above.

For example. If your muffin shop was selling millions of muffins a day, but you sold each one at a loss...would you consider it to be running efficiently? If so, I advise you not to open a muffin shop. If not, you may want to rethink the above.

"None of the programs you mentioned are profitable or even considered non-profit. They are ALL NEGATIVE profit programs paid for with tax dollars. Care to try again?"

Sure, as soon as you learn the definition of efficient. Efficiency and funding are two separate issues. Had Medicare been funded properly, it would be in the black. You asked about EFFICIENCY. Don't blame me because it has a definition you don't comprehend.

BTW, you're also dead wrong about Social Security; it's been a cash cow for years. It seems you don't understand the definition of profit, either.

It'll cost half as much as the Iraq war per year. Drop a couple of useless military programs and the savings will be enough to pay for it.
#32 Northguy
---------

I love these retarded, pie in the sky examples. If all the lobbyists in DC shit gold bricks and donated them to medicare we could pay for it too.

Unfortunately for you Obama is not ending any wars to fund health care, he's not even going to talk about it. Unfortunately for me, lobbyists shit will always stink. Both are horrible examples of health care funding because both are never going to happen. In fact, mine probably has a better chance.

"If your muffin shop was selling millions of muffins a day, but you sold each one at a loss...would you consider it to be running efficiently?"

You're another who needs to buy a dictionary. The store may be running VERY efficiently, just with a bad pricing structure.

Did someone say muffin?

cosmic debris

Public option is the death knell for universal single payer for a generation.

Everybody in, nobody out is the only way to keep costs down.

We're going to pay to know what we think.

We'd rather be dead than red.

And we may be.

#103

Look here, brother....

OK HC Educate Me for I don't understand the difference. What is the difference between the Public Option and Single Payer?? Thanks in advance for Your answer.

Larry

If your muffin shop was selling millions of muffins a day, but you sold each one at a loss...would you consider it to be running efficiently?

#98 | Posted by the_nether

That means that you could be efficiently making wonderful muffins at a prolific rate, and you're simply undercharging for them. It does not mean that the entire business of making muffins should be scrapped.

While I agree that Dems overspend at times, Repubs seem to like to underfund things until they appear to be a failure, simply so that they can point out that those things are failures.

Stir, you watching this game?

31-31

Larry,

What is being suggested by Obama is a public plan that will compete with private ins. co's. What is going to happen is that it, if the public option is passed, will begin with insuring the previously uninsurable, i.e. those with pre-existing conditions, and those who've never had health ins. and therefore are more likely to be in need of more expensive healthcare initially. These groups will be more expensive to take care of overall(it will be more like subsidy than insurance because the need will be a guarantee), so the end result will be that it appears that the public option is more expensive than private insurance.

Universal Single Payer would eliminate private ins. altogether. The reason that it will be more cost effective is that the costs will be dispersed among all taxpaying americans. The greater number of those contributing, the smaller the individual contribution need be.

Private ins. companies achieve this through refusing services, dumping the most sick, and all the other things they do which we discuss here on the regular. Well, really they don't achieve it at all. Health insurance outpaces inflation because people have nowhere else to turn.

God Bless You Hagbard Celine. I now understand it much better. Thank You for taking the time in answering My question for Me. THANK YOU.

Larry

Tell me liberals will illegal aliens be allowed to get this free insurance?

If so, you are gonna see a run for the border like never before.

"Tell me liberals will illegal aliens be allowed to get this free insurance?"

No.

So Stir, why did you run from the other thread when I pointed out you didn't know the definitions of efficiency or profit?

Obama extended His hand out right after the inaugeration and they refused to shake it JeffJ. How much more should Obama had done??

Larry

#39 | Posted by LarryMohr

Re-read my comment:

He gave the GOP the big middle-finger right out of the gate on healthcare.

As for Obama's post-inauguration bi-partisan efforts...they were nothing more than lip-service. No doubt, the GOP is a pain and is vindictive. However, the GOP was offered table-scraps regarding the crafting of the stimulus bill. The biggest spending bill in our governmnent's history, and, table-scraps.

Your arch-nemesis Bush, on the other-hand, pushed for a controversial and massive piece of legislation out of the gate (no child left behind) and had Sen. Kennedy author several key portions of the bill.

Now THAT is bi-partisanship.

Personally, I don't care if the Dems are bi-partisan or not. I just think it's funny that we were lectured as to how Obama was going to change the tone in Washington, that he was this great unifying force who was going to bring us ALL together, and he's proven to be every bit as petty and nasty as Hillary Clinton, sans the organizational skills and level of competence.

The Dems have already pushed 2 huge pieces of legislation (stimulus and Capntrade) that a majority of Americans are opposed to - HUGE pieces of legislation that are far-reaching and were rammed through in direct violation of Obama's transparency pledge (3 if your count omni-bus). They've got unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see and on top of that they are now pushing yet another piece of legislation (public 'option') that not only does the public not want, but has stirred the hornets' nest of what is otherwise a docile and apathetic public.

This is a center-right nation that is being subjected to a pretty far-left political agenda and the public is pissed. Why in the hell should the GOP sign on to any of this?

The Dems are shooting themselves in their collective feet because they won't negotiate with the GOP in anything other than a token manner. They mis-read their mandate and are now paying the price for their brazenness and arrogance.

This speech on Wednesday is a 'Hail Mary' for team Obama. The public has almost killed this issue with little assistance from the GOP - who has mostly sat back and watched this unfold to their delight.

Since the GOP is all about fucking the poor I am glad Obama decided not to include them.

"Tell me liberals will illegal aliens be allowed to get this free insurance?"

No.

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-08 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Riiiiiiiiiight!

Feel free to show me where it is in any plan.

"The Dems have already pushed 2 huge pieces of legislation (stimulus and Capntrade) that a majority of Americans are opposed to - HUGE pieces of legislation that are far-reaching and were rammed through"

WTF are you talking about? When was Cap & Trade passed?

Feel free to show me where it is in any plan.

www.politicsdaily.com

#117 | Posted by Danforth

Feel free to prove to me that the courts won't rule that illegals have a "right" to benefits under any government health plan

Feel free to prove to me that the courts won't rule that illegals have a "right" to benefits under any government health plan

#119 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-09-08 01:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nice. Subsidies to illegal residents are explicitly forbidden in any of the bills being considered, but those "activist" judges.....

You've got your stupid AND your crazy covered from all sides, Gimme.

Danforth-
You are henceforth free to prove to me that bullshit monkeys don't fly out of Gimme's ass whenever he is under stress.
(Good luck with that, BTW)

LOL

Illegals will only be covered if they are OK'd by the Grand Old Pinnochio's imaginary 'Death Panels' (who won't finish their 4 year terms so they can cash in with book deals, etc.)

Tell me liberals will illegal aliens be allowed to get this free insurance?

#111 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-09-08 12:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

No. And the insurance is not "free". There are subsidies for private insurance to low income LEGAL residents, such as you.

You are being lied to.

BTW, have you read Obama's address to the school kids?

Buzkiller-
Be wary of the millionaires working for corporations who tell you that all your problems are because of those OTHER poor people, dumbass.

By the way, it's estimated that only 5% of those currently uninsured would participate in a "Public Option" - 5% of the 15.6% of Americans currently uninsured, or 106,383 Americans.

A "Public Option" is the ONLY way to create competition and lower health insurance premiums, which have DOUBLED in the last 7 years. "Market Forces" have NOT resulted in lower premiums for anyone, have they?

Feel free to show me where it is in any plan.

www.politicsdaily.com

#117 | Posted by Danforth

Feel free to prove to me that the courts won't rule that illegals have a "right" to benefits under any government health plan

#119 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-09-08 01:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

I just had to see that again, LOL! Bullshit knows no boundaries, and lies no reckoning from folks like Gimme.

You folks take care....gotta go take care of some biz.

Tell me something: What's the biggest problem people have with the "public option"?

Are they worried that private insurance companies with go out of business? If that's the case, isn't that protectionism? Isn't competition GOOD for the market, and GOOD for the product, and GOOD for the consumer?

Not flaming here, just want to know what the beef is. And I'd love an answer that doesn't involve the word "socialism". Many aspects of our country have socialistic elements. Our tax dollars pay for all 3 branches of government. Our tax dollars pay for our military. Many people have problems with both, but both are necessary.

Question: Isn't health care necessary? And if not, why?
And if it is necessary, what's wrong with the public option?
What's wrong with giving this a chance, with giving this an opportunity to work, however long it may take to fine-tune it?
What's wrong with giving the tax-paying citizens of this country a healthcare system that has their needs in mind?

What's the biggest problem people have with the "public option"?

Are they worried that private insurance companies with go out of business?

~TheTom

Apparently so.

Why do GOPhers hate Free Enterprise and Capitalism?

Be Well.

No public option = No Health Care Reform.

Also the 17 majors who make up the near monopoly who have colluded to raise health care ocsts through the roof over the last few years need to be shaken up and other companies need to be allowed into the market to increase competition in order to lower costs.

Plus the public option must include a government willing to negotiate with Big Pharma for better prices on drugs.

Be Well.

Without a public option to compete with FOR PROFIT big healthcare/pharma, which will drive down costs, there is little point to reform, except perhaps to MAKE them stop practices like denying healthcare to their clients when a terminal problem is discovered.

Without the public option, costs will continue to rise, people who get seriously ill will continue to go bankrupt (reformed for poor individuals but not corps by the Contract ON American congress) and lose their homes.

Apparently, some folks who have not suffered themselves, have no empthy or understanding of other people's plights as long as they have THEIRS, eh?

Finally, to the people who claim illegal aliens will be covered. Do you NOT realize they are already being treated, as well as others with no healthcare insurance, which also drives our costs up? HELLO?

You are already paying for it, along with the 30% overhead/profit margins of the private, for profit, corporations.

When was Cap & Trade passed?

#118 | Posted by Danforth

It passed in the house.

Although, it is not law yet.

"What's wrong with giving the tax-paying citizens of this country a healthcare system that has their needs in mind?"

Who is going to pay the huge salaries of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck if Health Insurance companies can't make virtually unlimited profits???
Come on, why do you want them to be homeless????
You probably want the CEOs of the insurance companies to work for only one or two million a year.
Communist!!!

Who is going to pay the huge salaries of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck if Health Insurance companies can't make virtually unlimited profits???

the same people. you know....the advertisers on the program.

You are already paying for it, along with the 30% overhead/profit margins of the private, for profit, corporations.

this number really bothers some folks. they get all hot and bothered by it because they believe that some public option will somehow operate with such a lower number.

I'm all for a public option but you will all be disappointed when you learn that the public option won't operate at a figure not all that far from private, for profit health insurers.

The impact should be simply lower and more competitive premiums (I hope).

"the same people. you know....the advertisers on the program."

Many of which are health insurance companies, Big Pharma, etc. Just think how much money the health care industry spends on advertising, none of which is allowed in other countries. Every penny of it adds to the cost of health care in America.
And yes, it does help the networks pay people like Rush Limbaugh 400 million dollars.

"I'm all for a public option but you will all be disappointed when you learn that the public option won't operate at a figure not all that far from private, for profit health insurers."

Yeah, Dollar Bill McGuire would love for us to believe that the huge salaries, etc. do not have an impact on cost of health care insurance. They think we can't do arithmetic, they are probably right for many Americans who have about an 8th grade average educational level. When you wonder how these crooks get away with what they do you only have to consider that they don't exactly have to convince the most educated of folks.

I've decided I'm for the public option too, with two restrictions: (1) that our government actually allow private insurers to compete with the public option instead of imposing thousands of restrictions on what private insurers must cover, who can/cannot be dropped, etc; and (2) that anyone on the "public option" be required to pay something according to their income.

Since neither of my restrictions would ever be imposed, I am not for the public option.

They think we can't do arithmetic, they are probably right for many Americans who have about an 8th grade average educational level.

the arithmetic has already been done and you apparently are one of those at a 8th grade level.

it means pennies a month to most people. no significant impact.

Oh, and I'm sure the top individuals running the public option will work for whatever you make
:-(

"it means pennies a month to most people. no significant impact."

Baloney.

"Oh, and I'm sure the top individuals running the public option will work for whatever you make"

They won't be getting anywhere near the amounts taht the greedy insurance company executives get.
And Joe's ideas would simply set the for profit insurance companies shift the burden of insuring anyone with any pre-existing condition onto the public option plan. That's not competition, the same rules should apply to the public plan as the private plans.
None should be able to reject people at will, all should have to share the burden of actually insuring people who have health issues.

When you wonder how these crooks get away with what they do you only have to consider that they don't exactly have to convince the most educated of folks.

#137 | Posted by danni

You know, it is possible to be 'most educated' and STILL disagree with your worldview.

Just a thought.

this number really bothers some folks. they get all hot and bothered by it because they believe that some public option will somehow operate with such a lower number.
I'm all for a public option but you will all be disappointed when you learn that the public option won't operate at a figure not all that far from private, for profit health insurers.
The impact should be simply lower and more competitive premiums (I hope).

#135 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-09-08 09:45 AM

Huh? I have FACTS with linked references that prove my assertion. How about YOU?

Here's the raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen "only" as much as Medicare spending, they'd be 1/3 lower than they are.

We don't have a Medicare problem we have a health care problem.

there is no question that a public option should force the private insurers (who do operate in an oligopoly) to operate more efficiently, offer better premiums, coverage etc.., treat customers better, etc......

For that reason, I'm for it.

Education, national security, healthcare....

These are among the things that cannot be left to FOR PROFIT private corps.....

They won't be getting anywhere near the amounts taht the greedy insurance company executives get.

Please name a number. At what dollar amount does one evolve from being productive, work-hard, work-smart, risk-reward, entreprenuer/business executive to becoming "greedy".

$250K? - that's a number the lefties like to bandy about.

$200K?

$80K?

Name a number and defend it.

That's not competition, the same rules should apply to the public plan as the private plans.

You have it backwards. It's the "public" plan that isn't competition.

"You know, it is possible to be 'most educated' and STILL disagree with your worldview."

I'd never claim differently and plenty of posters right here fit that description, however the folks influenced by Glenn Beck do not. There are really different types of opposition to health care reform, there are real fiscal conservatives, real laissez faire -ish capitalists, etc. but then there are too the folks who react on virtual command to right wing pundits with very little critical thought. There are many of those who post right here too.

#146 | Posted by danni

Fair enough.

"Name a number and defend it."

You take a look at the huge amounts they are taking home and defend that. I think we could look at other countries and see how much their top execs earn and perhaps get a feel for what is really required. I think a change in the law which would shift much more power to the voting shares of stock instead of the boards of directors would be another thing that could be done. Changes in tax laws to make CEOs more interested in long term company profit instead of short term stock market gain would be another.

"That's not competition, the same rules should apply to the public plan as the private plans."

It's the public option's fault for imposing those rules upon itself. Consumers who want a barebones plan should be able to get one if they want one.

Danni,

A fair amount of trepidation regarding a government plan is out-of-control debt and an unsustainable deficit projection.

Our government has proven incapable of managing the budget. A government plan empowers them to spend a boatload more. People are rightly concerned about it. I could NEVER get behind a government plan until our government, be it run by Democrats or Republicans, demonstrated an ability to be fiscally-responsible.

It's the public option's fault for imposing those rules upon itself. Consumers who want a barebones plan should be able to get one if they want one.

#149 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2009-09-08 10:08 AM

And then get bailed out when they go bankrupt and lose their homes, eh?

Great PLAN JOE! Are you a "plumber"?

#148 | Posted by danni

I wasn't defending their compensation. I was just trying to get a better idea as to what does and doesn't constitute greedy from your POV. Hell, professional athletes, artists, musicians, actors, and even some trial lawyers out-earn most of these executives.

While I respect your thought toward a change in power structure, it seems like every time such a change has been implemented, nothing really changed in regards to executive compensation.

Poor Jeff J,

He's been shown with linked references that govt run healthcare like medicaid and va actually run their programs at less cost and more efficiently than private, yet wants to change the argument to govt overall...

Gee Jeff,

Do ya think maybe we should stop spending HALF A BILLION dollars a year for decades on end at the pentagon, since they didn't keep us safe on 911?

Do tell.

"Our government has proven incapable of managing the budget."

That's one way of looking at it, another is that the Republicans have repeatedly passed tax cuts in spite of running huge deficits. Passed tax cuts while fighting two wars.
I don't think blaming "government" is really specific enough, I think we need to blame the people who made the decisions for the government.

Burn the Communist National Parks!

Disband the Socialist military and the Marxist Medicare!

Tear up the evil Federal Government highway system!

Get rid of Socialist Security!!

Frakkng morons.....

Good morning!

"It's the public option's fault for imposing those rules upon itself."

The rules should be imposed by congress on any company, public or private, that wants to enter the health insurance market. If you shift the burden of most people with pre-exisiting conditions, etc. on to the public plan then the private insurers could probably undercut the public option because their outlays for claims would be so low. Is Joe an employee of a private insurer?? Sure seems intent on increasing their profits at the expense of taxpayers and Americans with health issues.

"Do ya think maybe we should stop spending HALF A BILLION dollars a year for decades on end at the pentagon, since they didn't keep us safe on 911?"

Shouldn't that be "HALF A TRILLION"???

"And then get bailed out when they go bankrupt and lose their homes, eh?"

No.

Any other stupid questions?

That's one way of looking at it, another is that the Republicans have repeatedly passed tax cuts in spite of running huge deficits. Passed tax cuts while fighting two wars.
I don't think blaming "government" is really specific enough, I think we need to blame the people who made the decisions for the government.

#154 | Posted by danni

While the GOP certainly deserves blame, the DNC is poised over the next 10 years, at current trajectory, to more than double ALL of existing debt.

He's been shown with linked references that govt run healthcare like medicaid and va actually run their programs at less cost and more efficiently than private, yet wants to change the argument to govt overall...

'Efficiency' is meaningless when government can't balance the books.

Do ya think maybe we should stop spending HALF A BILLION dollars a year for decades on end at the pentagon, since they didn't keep us safe on 911?

Apples and oranges. A total non-sequitur. And yes, some responsible cuts can be made to our military budget IMO. For example, while I had strong reservations about it, halting additional funding for the F-22 Raptor was probably a good decision.

Good morning!

#155 | Posted by Corky

Good morning.

-Name a number and defend it.

How about the number at which one starts getting tax breaks that poorer people don't have?

Obama's original plan to the Congress paid for 1/3rd of the cost with a 5 percent tax on people who already get much more than that in special breaks.

Bacchus pays for it with tax on "Cadillac" health plans for the wealthy.

#160

Ah, you knew I was talking to you, lol.

You have it backwards. It's the "public" plan that isn't competition.
#145 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2009-09-08 10:01 AM

Private Health Insurance Competition Weak in Many U.S. Markets

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
August 24, 2009

E-mail this Article Post Comment Print this Article Article Reprints
One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition -- just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.

Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.

For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system.

Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies.

"There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers,'' said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant.''

Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.

Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit.

A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people.

"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums,'' said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report. "A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates.''

"The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan.''' Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate.''

CBO studies show that only about 10 million people would actually use the public option plan.

But that would be 10 million less using the ER, and 10 million more in a buying co-op to get costs down.

"While the GOP certainly deserves blame, the DNC is poised over the next 10 years, at current trajectory, to more than double ALL of existing debt."

No doubt we have our work cut out for us. A strong recovery is necessary if we ever hope of digging our way out of debt. Also as much as some hate the thought we are going to have to raise taxes. I think that the debt will end up being the motivation for the tax increases which will also end up being the motivation for the rebuilding of American manufacturing. We should make any business deductions contingent upon the investment being made in America not China or India.

first of all
its GOVERNMENT Option
and obama and biden and pelosi and reid are all meeting or met in the white house
and that means one thing

the rest of us are going to get fucked.

didn't mean to ditch the argument earlier folks.

I had a meeting to get to.

Medicare, the publicly managed plan for the elderly in the United States, spends 5 percent of each health care dollar on administrative expenses, compared with the 17 percent devoured by private insurers on average. This is because private companies spend more on marketing, often pay exorbitant salaries to executives, and take a cut of each health care dollar for profits and company reserves.

this makes my argument for me.

Medicare doesn't have to market it's product as they have no competition. they don't have to work with MDs, PPOs, other networks..etc.. all of that costs money to deal with.

A public option will have to incur those costs to do business. How do you expect hospitals, clinics, MDs, specialty hospitals, PPOs, other networks etc to just roll over and accept the plans offered by a public option unless you just put a gun to their head?

The salaries? Yes, exhorbant and needs to be addressed. But even if they all took next to nothing in compensation it will still have little impact if any for their members. It doesn't really address the problems.

"The Dems could pass this bill tomorrow, if they had the courage to do so."

Making the House a Pelosi-free zone would help enormously.

I mean, would you want to do anything she was for?

If this Health Care Reform Bill is such a GREAT thing then WHY did Congress write in a clause that exempts from having to participate in it?

If it isn'y a Good Deal for THEM then why is it such a Good Deal for US?

"A public option will have to incur those costs to do business."

No it won't if we have the planned web site where you can compare plans. Hospitals and doctors will accept the Public Option insurance just like Medicare.

Which all begs the question of what is the value-added benefit of having an insurance company at all, other than to enrich some people on profits made on the illnesses of others?

The insurance industry is not needed in the health care equation at all, as it only raises costs.

"what is the value-added benefit of having an insurance company at all"

You mean, other than allowing people to pool their money so medical bills can be paid that they could not otherwise afford?

Forget that whole "freedom of contract" thing. Anyone who wants private insurance must be an idiot. Right Dorky?

No it won't if we have the planned web site where you can compare plans.

gee. then why do private insurance companies waste money on their marketing strategy if it would work like you say?

you are very naive.

Hospitals and doctors will accept the Public Option insurance just like Medicare.

how do you know? you don't even know the reimbursement amounts and you are sure they they will accept it.

you are very naive.

-other than allowing people to pool their money so medical bills

A public option allows the same and at a fraction of the cost, a cost that will not double over the next 5 years. So, with that in mind now, what is the value added benefit of an insurance company?

anyone who thinks that a government option wont be the end of other insurers is a fool and an obama dupe

I could take michael jordon and FOUR CLONES and have them play against one referee and the REF would win every time because he makes the rules which is why a govt health plan will ALWAYS WIN

A public option allows the same and at a fraction of the cost, a cost that will not double over the next 5 years.

I agree if that is true.

However, I don't own a crystal ball and I'm not going to just swallow what I want to hear because I'm desparate for something.

- I don't own a crystal ball

You have a brain, of sorts, try using it here....

#177

proof that corky wants to just swallow whatever is fed to him because it is what he wants to hear and it fits in with his ideology.

Read entire site in under 3 minutes. Impressive.

anyone who thinks that a government option wont be the end of other insurers is a fool and an obama dupe

#175 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-09-08 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag

Insurance companies are the middle men in the health care industry. Do you think the millions they employ work for free, and that their salaries go to health care? How about those enormous insurance buildings and the millions in bonuses the execs make every year--do you think that helps anyone to better health? I would be happy to see all health insurance companies cease to exist, and have the government handle the health insurance for all Americans.

Just like the MILITARY and POLICE. I don't support the concept of local contractors to protect neighborhoods and States---I support the Federal Government eliminating such entities and having a several branches of the military under government control, and paid for by the government.

The military and police protect the citizens of this country---so does health care---I see no reason why we have a socialized military and police force, and can't have the same concept applied to health care. Eliminating private insurance providers would bring health care costs down dramatically. Eliminate the middle man.

How do you expect hospitals, clinics, MDs, specialty hospitals, PPOs, other networks etc to just roll over and accept the plans offered by a public option unless you just put a gun to their head?
The salaries? Yes, exhorbant and needs to be addressed. But even if they all took next to nothing in compensation it will still have little impact if any for their members. It doesn't really address the problems.

#167 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-09-08 11:31 AM

Actually, it would help if you would try researching your info and providing links to credible sources....supporting your pov....

Let's see how govt run programs fare, when coupled with private insurance/healthcare corps....k?

The repugs screamed that private corps could do the job better and for less and demanded they gain access to the govt programs already running. How did that work out?

Part of the rise in Medicare costs and in premiums for seniors stems from extra subsidies to private insurance companies. Medicare Advantage is the part of the program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via private plans. Policy changes, particularly in 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. Medicare currently overpays private plans by an average of 14 percent, with overpayments as high as 20 percent in certain parts of the country.6
However, there is no evidence that this extra payment leads to better quality for Medicare beneficiaries.7 Insurers, not beneficiaries or the Medicare program, determine how these overpayments are used and this includes marketing and other administrative costs.8 This means that seniors do not always get the full overpayments back in the form of extra benefits. Moreover, some plans offer lower cost-sharing for drugs and vision care but higher cost-sharing for services such as hospitalizations and home health services. As a result, seniors can end up spending more out of pocket under a Medicare Advantage plan, not less.9
Extra subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans are a problem for America's seniors. All Medicare beneficiaries pay the price of these insurance subsidies through higher premiums even if they are not enrolled themselves in a Medicare Advantage plan. In fact, these subsidies will add $3.60 per month to premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries in 2010.10 This means that a typical older couple in traditional Medicare will pay almost $90 next year on average to subsidize private insurance companies who are not providing their health benefits.
Eliminating these overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans could save the Federal government, taxpayers, and Medicare beneficiaries $177 billion over the next 10 years.11

a govt health plan will ALWAYS WIN

#175 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2009-09-08 12:14 PM

So, which do you prefer?

A govt, OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE to WIN?

or Giant Global healthcare/pharma corporations whose bottom line is and always will be PROFITS??

Whose side are you on, bud?

Again, education, national security and healthcare cannot be left up to FOR PROFIT corporations......

"A public option allows the same and at a fraction of the cost"

A public option does not allow freedom of contract. It allows freedom to contract with one entity on that entity's terms. True freedom of contract would allow citizens to contract with any insurer they want. Mandating private insurers out of the marketplace, or forcing them to provide the same product as the "public option," is the opposite of freedom of contract.

or Giant Global healthcare/pharma corporations whose bottom line is and always will be PROFITS??

Whose side are you on, bud?

I'm on the side for solutions......you are on the side of simply going after something and someone you don't like regardless of what actual impact it might have...whether negative or positive.

you are convinced that anything that sticks it to insurance companies is better than what we have and therefore you are in favor of.

fine. that if your right.

But some of us want the right solution. Again, if a public option creates this then then I am for it but it isn't a simple as reading a website written for folks like you who want and need to believe what is being fed to them.

Actually, it would help if you would try researching your info and providing links to credible sources....supporting your pov....

buffalo bob believes he does that too woke.

you can support ANYTHING with links to "credible sources" on a fucking blog, fool.

LOL

gotta go. carry on......

So, Joe has no answer to the question of what the value-added benefit of insurance companies is. Thought not, because there is none.

-A public option does not allow freedom of contract. It allows freedom to contract with one entity on that entity's terms.

Of course it does. A person can contract with whatever entity they wish.

If insurance companies can't compete, if they offer no added value, they will go the way of the horse and buggy.

The only reason they haven't already is the brainwashed pimps they've created out of Joe Six packs.

I'm on the side for solutions......you are on the side of simply going after something and someone you don't like regardless of what actual impact it might have...whether negative or positive.
you are convinced that anything that sticks it to insurance companies is better than what we have and therefore you are in favor of.
fine. that if your right.
But some of us want the right solution. Again, if a public option creates this then then I am for it but it isn't a simple as reading a website written for folks like you who want and need to believe what is being fed to them.
#184 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-09-08 01:00 PM

No, some of you want the RIGHT WING solution, which is the status quo.....

Otherwise, you'd be presenting some PLAN of your own instead of naysaying everything that is presented....eh?

The first attempt at even broaching this subject was brought up by the clinton's, early in the 90's and shouted down by the same naysaying rhetoric and LACK of plan by the right wing.....

Since then the costs associated with healthcare have doubled and tripled in American and STILL people like yourself are echoing the right wing talking point...."we don't know enough yet"

Get a clue son....

>>>
you can support ANYTHING with links to "credible sources" on a fucking blog, fool.
#185 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-09-08 01:03 PM

and btw ....calling people FOOLS, who post FACTS, supported by links to credible sources, while presenting NONE of your own makes you WHAT?

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

just show me how a broke country can afford to pay for it.

#6 | Posted by Beachbuzz

Yea, it's a shame that the guy you voted for twice broke it.

"So, Joe has no answer to the question of what the value-added benefit of insurance companies is."

Sure I do. The fact that you are too dense to recognize that answer is no fault of mine.

"A person can contract with whatever entity they wish."

When government steps in and says that all private entities may only offer what the government offers (as is the case with H.R. 3200)? That'd be like introducing a bill requiring everyone to use Microsoft products only, then saying you have the freedom to buy any computer products you want. When the options you want are mandated out of existence, you are no longer free to seek them.

"If insurance companies can't compete, if they offer no added value, they will go the way of the horse and buggy."

When they are mandated out of existence, it is no longer their fault for not being "able to compete."

"A public option does not allow freedom of contract."

It's called regulation. Yes, we can regulate the insurance industry so that it serves the public good. Pre-existing condition rejections, etc. simply turn insurance into an opportunity to take people's money only to reject their claims if and when they ever need coverage. Health care reform should be, at least, regulation of the industry.
At the very least.

Politically speaking though, I think the Blue Dogs are going to force a bill that the Progressives will, rightly, reject. Then the same Republicans who will not negotiate now will use the failure to get health care reform against the Democrats in 2010.
Never let it be said that the Democratic Party plays politics as well as the Republican Party.

Joe must be one of those plumbers who makes more than $250,000 dollars a year and isn't a plumber, eh?

LOL

Bad ANALOGIES are not facts.....

Do you have ANY facts, with links to credible sources to your assertions?

I have two or three govt run programs that function well to keep costs down for consumers, UNTIL repugs attempted PRIVATIZATION of them.....

Does that tell you ANYTHING at all?

How about this.

OUR GOVT is by for and of the PEOPLE. Why are you SHILLING for giant, global healthcare/pharma corps that make Americans pay MORE for their healthcare than the rest of the world and what is necessary?

Do tell.

The Republicans created the most incompetent administration in history and now they point to its failures and say...."see government can't do anything right."
They are either too stupid or too dishonest to recognize that not all administrations were so completely incompetent.

And the most frustrating part is that they know this. They KNOW how stupid and ignorant they are.

#145 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2009-09-08 10:01 AM

Jeff J wants some numbers.

Here's some.

The richest 1% of Americans, approximately 141,000 people, average 7.4 MILLION dollars per year. Think any of them WORK for a living?

The richest 2% make more than $250,000 a year.....

THINK about that for a minute......

How many people are 2% of 300 million Jeff?

98% of Americans make LESS THAN $250,000 dollars a year.

Yet, here you are, shilling for the richest 2% and not wanting them to pay a fair share of taxes.....

I guess you believed EVERYTHING this guy said, eh?

"why tax the rich ...they always find ways not to pay the taxes"
George W. Bush

Another legacy of President George W. Bush: massive income inequality
Peter Cohan
Aug 14th 2009 at 4:00PM

George W. Bush left so many memorable things in his wake. Sure, there were those two wars. And then there's that legacy of white-hot hate wielded by wacky multimillionaire talking heads. However, for a legacy that keeps on giving, W's greatest leave-behind is a level of income inequality that outpaces even that of the Roaring '20s that led to the Great Depression.

In 2007, the top .001 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages -- about twice the figure for 2000, notes Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at University of CaliforniaBerkeley. Saez also found that the top 10 percent of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages: a level "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928."

What did W have to do with this? He cut $1.3 trillion worth of taxes, 32.6 percent of which went to the top 1 percent of earners. And thanks to $7.8 million in contributions from Ameriquest, a subprime-mortgage company, President Bush pushed his Ownership Society initiative to get poor people into mortgages they could not afford so that Wall Street could engorge itself on borrowing to buy toxic waste.

Obama is unqualified to lead, unable to communicate, unwilling to listen. He is, however, angry, vengeful, and happy to lie about every major legislation thus far. But these are just the facts. Let's not let those get in the way of a liberal's opinion. Or when faced with the irrefutable, just blame it all on Dubya. The playbook is predictable.

But these are just the facts.
#196 | POSTED BY 2010RIGHTAGAIN AT 2009-09-08 03:29 PM

What FACTS? Try this. Post some FACTS along with links to CREDIBLE SOURCES proving your assertions......otherwise, you are just posting your opinion, which is based on WHAT?

rushaddict told you so, eh?

LMFAO

Somebody break out the Ashton Stamp for this retard that currently calls herself "woke".

"Health care reform should be, at least, regulation of the industry.
At the very least."

The health industry is already regulated. If you argue those regulations should be changed, that's one thing. If you want to change those regulations to force private industry to mirror the benefits provided by a "public option," you're talking about something else. And it certainly isn't "freedom of contract" when there are plenty of Americans who have no desire for a health plan that covers everything the government plan will cover.

"And it certainly isn't "freedom of contract"

Who in the hell cares. We need health care that works not an opportunity for big companies to rip off customers the way they do now.

Sorry boys.....namecalling is not an argument.

Especially coming from someone who names themselves with a military name, but never served, eh?

LOL

Joe

repost:
OUR GOVT is by for and of the PEOPLE. Why are you SHILLING for giant, global healthcare/pharma corps that make Americans pay MORE for their healthcare than the rest of the world and what is necessary?
Do tell.

Do you work for big pharma?

"Do you work for big pharma?"

I asked that too. Why do you shill for the insurance industry Joe???

me=Officer
you=enlisted

I've only told you that several times now, boy.
Nobody ever accused a supposed vietnam vet enlisted punk of being smart though. In fact, quite the opposite. No wonder we lost that war.

"Who in the hell cares."

And there we get to Danni's actual opinion. It only took two posts to get you to stop pretending you cared about the Constitution.

"We need health care that works not an opportunity for big companies to rip off customers the way they do now."

And the pertinent question is whether H.R. 3200 is the correct way to get us there.

"Do you work for big pharma?"

I do.

Indirectly.

I often get sick and don't go to the doctor.

But that's not really what I meant.

Dear Cherryboy....

NEVER met a war vet who denigrates other war vets.....

LMFAO @ YOU

""Do you work for big pharma?"
I asked that too. Why do you shill for the insurance industry Joe???"

There is a difference between opposing H.R. 3200 and being a shill for insurance companies. I support reforms to the insurance industry that would give more power to Americans (increased use of HSA's, for one). Just because you oppose government takeover of an entire industry does not mean you are a shill for that industry. It means you recognize that anything government does, it does it poorly.

-The health industry is already regulated.

Barely, rarely, and vaguely.

There are no federal regulations concerning rescission of benefits, as an example.

And most insurance companies have an effective monopoly in the markets they sell to, with only 1 or 2 providers in each.

How much do they pay you to pimp for them, Joe?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.
The original brainwashing was a great investment.

And the pertinent question is whether H.R. 3200 is the correct way to get us there.

#204 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2009-09-08 04:09 PM

You got a plan, Joe?

Let's see it.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way, eh?

-increased use of HSA's, for one

More HMOs... an industry talking point.

-anything government does, it does it poorly

There goes Joe blaming his public education again.

For 3 decades we've heard the same LYING arguments from neocon right wingers....

DEREGULATE

Industry will do the right thing.

Cut taxes for the richest 1% and allow corps to pay zero taxes and the money will TRICKLE DOWN...

How's that worked out for us?

Now, we are hearing people who don't have enough sense to realize what is in their own best interests, shouting down those who are proposing FIXES for the 3-4 decades of FAILED neocon policies....going back to nixon/ford.

They have no plan. Just continue the same failed policies/status quo......

It's sad to see.

I'll BITE.

Let's see your plan Joe.

With links to the sources please.

First and foremost, you're an idiot, which is par for the course with your ilk. I've never claimed to be a war vet. You'd still snap to the position of attention and saulte me, bitch.
Never forget it. Now, you're dismissed, enlisted man.

I don't know of a soldier, marine, airmen, or coastie, war vet or not, that doesn't denigrate somebody else's service. I think you're a fraud.

"I don't think it's funny that a terrorist plant is running my country." R Zeitgeist

Yes, it ran a long time and it's called "A Little Shop of Horrors" - watch out!

"You got a plan, Joe?"

I love how lefties' only defense of H.R. 3200 is "YOU GOT A PLAN BUDDY?" Yes, there are other plans out there, but shouldn't a response to someone attacking YOUR plan be a defense of YOUR plan? Defend your plan, and I'll show you mine.

another repost cause i guess some folks prefer not to read anything that gets in the way of what they've been told....

This study with link shows how introducing privatization into medicare created higher costs with less service, especially for low income people...
www.medicarerights.org

Not only is the scandalous treatment of American Troops at Walter Reed military hospital connected to Halliburton and Katrina-era FEMA (see video right) but it's also, at its core, a deeply, deeply conservative scandal.

"Privatization," or the transfer of any and all services into the hands of market morality, is a fundamental part of the conservative project.

For its past performance in the public sector, see Energy Crisis, California.

This time, under some shady circumstances, a private firm IAP was given the contract to take over a number of services at Walter Reed, despite the fact that the employees' bid was lower.

Only after IAP "protested" (according to Waxman's letter to General Weightman PDF) was the employees' bid "increased" and the contract awarded to the private firm headed by ex-Halliburton official, Al Neffgen.

This privatization precipitated an 80% drop in care workers, leading to a human scandal that the market will never ever, ever be equipped to handle. It's neither the market's, nor conservatives', business. At the heart of privatization is the belief that competing desires to make a buck will "take care of everything."

Walter Reed is another in a series of tragic bottom lines.

I find it troubling and disengenuous the way right wingers fiddle with govt programs that work, by privatizing them (VA, Medicare), then want to claim they don't work well.....
pathetic is what it is....

Education, healthcare, national security, among other necessities, CANNOT be left to FOR PROFIT corporations.....

#216 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-09-08 04:28 PM

In fact, it's exactly what they have done to our government, then shill for giant global corporations, while borrowing billions from Japan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and commie China......to invade/occupy countries that did not attack the usa.....AND do not put the 2 TRILLION and counting costs into their budgets......

Yet, when a plan to provide healthcare to 45 million Americans AND insure private corps play fair with those of us who do have insurance, the repugs attempt to shout it down in the name of debt....

Disengenuous at best. Criminal at worst.

I love how lefties' only defense of H.R. 3200 is "YOU GOT A PLAN BUDDY?"
#215 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2009-09-08 04:28 PM

NO PLAN, eh Joe?

Just let the healthcare cost double and triple AGAIN over the next 8 years,eh?

That is NO PLAN Joe.

You CLAIM to have a plan, but cannot produce it. Don't feel bad, cause your "righty" buddies don't have one either.....their plan is the giant, global health/pharma corporations plan...eh?

THINK

I love how lefties' only defense of H.R. 3200 is "YOU GOT A PLAN BUDDY?"
#215 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2009-09-08 04:28 PM

Kind of like how the right's only defense of invading Iraq was "you love Saddam." The only thing shorter than the sight of some around here is the memory.

"Kind of like how the right's only defense of invading Iraq was "you love Saddam."

I never defended invading Iraq, I criticized it from the beginning. Try to stay relevant.

"You CLAIM to have a plan, but cannot produce it. Don't feel bad, cause your "righty" buddies don't have one either"

Paul Ryan introduced an alternative plan in the House. While it isn't perfect, I'd prefer that plan over H.R. 3200. Just because you have not heard of other plans does not mean they do not exist.

Oh, so you are now 100% of the right Joe? Did I say "Joe said" or did I say "the right?"

Try to stay literate.

YOUR PLAN Joe....

You said you have one.

When will it be introduced to congress?

Let's see it.

With link to a credible source please.

Health Care: Ryan would reform our employment-based insurance system by replacing the current tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals, and $5,000 for families. This would encourage employers to take the money they currently spend providing health insurance and give it directly to workers, who could then use it to purchase competitive, personally owned insurance plans. That would be insurance that met their needs, not those of their bosses, and people wouldn't lose it if they lost their jobs.

Let's do the math Joe....

$13,000 a year for family of 4
-5000 tax credit....uh, is that 5k deducted from our income, Joe?

$8000 per family, just for the insurance, doesn't include copays, procedure costs @ 20% or pharmaceuticals....

Uh, no thanks Mr. Ryan....

NEXT

Got another plan you'd like to share Joe?

"In 2007, U.S. health care spending was about $7,421 per resident and accounted for 16.2% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP); this is among the highest of all industrialized countries."

Among the highest. No, I think it is the highest by a lot.

Ok Lisa, if you blow a tire on the way to work, should you pay for the tow AND the tire out of pocket? Or should your auto insurance cover that?

#79 | Posted by Beachbuzz

I know you didn't ask me, but you pay it out of pocket. What fool has ever claimed a flat tire and a tow on his insurance?

"Oh, so you are now 100% of the right Joe? Did I say "Joe said" or did I say "the right?"

Try to stay literate."

You quoted me, I assumed therefore that your post was in response to me. Lighten the fuck up.

"YOUR PLAN Joe....

You said you have one.

When will it be introduced to congress?"

I see. So now, everyone who opposes H.R. 3200 needs to have devised their own personal plan to save the healthcare system. That's an interesting bar you've set there. Where's your plan for world peace?

Lighten the fuck up.

Follow your own advice.

"Now, please explain to everyone how healthcare insurance costs can be paid with a $2500/$5000 tax credit"

The large amounts employers currently pay for health insurance could be put into an HSA for employees, to be spent as they see fit, in conjunction with the 5K, be it on insurance or individual treatment bills for those who rarely go to the doctor. Many younger people wouldn't even come near to spending all of that money every year on healthcare (I certainly didn't when I was uninsured), and the money they don't spend could roll over to be used in years they need it, or again, could be used in conjunction with the 5K to purchase insurance. Or maybe your lefty legislators could decide to take the unspent money and give it to people who need it, or give larger tax breaks to people with certain diseases. Or give more than 5K depending on income. Either way, there is no need for a public option but instead more competition in the private industry, which increased use of HSA's would create.

I am betting we do not end up with a public option without tort reform. Otherwise, we end up with a plan like Switzerland's where there is no public option but insurance companies, pharma, service providers, etc. are all heavily (and I mean heavily) regulated. Everyone will still be able to make a buck, but they are going to have to follow some stringent rules and price controls.

I support #232. If we can regulate the airlines, we can regulate the insurance companies.

Lighten the fuck up.

#228 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2009-09-08 05:14 PM

MMmmmm,. I'm guessing Joe DOES have health insurance, eh?

LOL

Joe, it took me just a couple of mins to DEBUNK Mr. Ryan's bill, I'm just humble retired teacher.

So then, you claim there are many such bills/plans, yet you don't post any. And I had to look up Ryan's myself. If you are so damned sure that a public option is not advisable, just wtf are you basing it on? rushaddict? bully o'lielly? you been getting a "handjobbity" from sean or what?

What is wrong Joe, no links or don't know how to post them????

Here is a link to a healthcare corporation's info...from last October...some interesting FACTS about how much and how fast these costs are going to continue to rise if not addressed.

Kan,

We regulate public utilities as well, and I seem to be getting power on a regular basis.

I have never argued in favor of the current system. I have only argued that it is not the place of the Feds to replace it. An insurance company that operates in more than one state falls under interstate commerce and Congress can regulate that.

Here's some info from the Kaiser study (link above) I think is interesting.....in talking about how to cover the uninsured, including 9 MILLION children in the richest country in the world.......
>>>
What Can Be Done to Decrease the Number of Uninsured?

Options for Covering the Uninsured

1. Building on the Current System

2. Expand public coverage by building on Medicaid and SCHIP.

3. Create new group insurance options for individuals and businesses

in part obviously
www.kff.org

1. Ok, but 65% of us get it via employer. But we are heading for 10% unemployment, meaning even more will be w/o insurance.
AND we see how great the corps are at eliminating competition and fixing their prices, eh?

2. LMFAO

3. For those without access to employer-based coverage and who are not eligible for public programs, some proposals would create new national or regional purchasing pools, modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and offering a range of health plan options that could be purchased by individuals or by businesses for their employees. Premium subsidies based on income would be available to ensure that coverage is affordable, even for those with low incomes. (from the linked study)

Again, LMFAO, even the insurance companies own studies are pointing to the fact that GOVT run healthcare is the answer......TWO of their solutions involve public models....LOL

I may change to Kaiser, just for the fact that they have the integrity to report this stuff honestly.....

Adopting a Single-Payer System To fully address the inefficiencies and gaps in the current system, some argue that it is necessary to fundamentally change the way we finance and provide health care coverage. A third approach would replace the current system with one in which the government finances coverage through income and other taxes. One proposal would create a new national insurance plan, modeled on Medicare, that would contract directly with private providers and possibly insurance companies to provide services to beneficiaries. Another proposal would create a new government financed health care system in which individuals purchase insurance on their own through state or regional purchasing pools.

AGAIN, this is from a healthcare corporation's own non profit study.... www.kff.org

Read it for yourself......I cannot make this stuff up....eh?

LOL

Joe? You still here? I'm ready to read about all the other plans presented to congress by the repugs......

I have never argued in favor of the current system. I have only argued that it is not the place of the Feds to replace it. An insurance company that operates in more than one state falls under interstate commerce and Congress can regulate that.

#236 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2009-09-08 05:40 PM

I'll take that argument.

Here are two quick points telling you WHY it IS our govt's place....

1. "to promote the General Welfare"

2. healthcare, education, and national security are among the things too important to be left to FOR PROFIT corporations.....

Now, give me two reasons why you don't think it is our govt of, by, for the people's place to help us get healthcare and reduce costs...

btw...in regards to simple regulation....

1. I've never seen a neocon repug talk in favor of regulation, so I'm guessing you aren't one, eh? Can you imagine their backlash to such an idea?

2. Ever notice how those pesky corps have off shore offices and use teams of lawyers to find ways around paying any taxes, following regulations, etc.....think they might do that?

Thanks for the honest and civil debate

1. I've never seen a neocon repug talk in favor of regulation, so I'm guessing you aren't one, eh?

Been telling you that for a long time.

1. I've never seen a neocon repug talk in favor of regulation, so I'm guessing you aren't one, eh?

Number one is the 10th Amendment and the fact that I see no place where there is aright to be healthy. If such a right exists, then every company selling unhealthy food is infringing on your rights.

Number two is that this is bait and switch. Prior to winning the White House, the DNC told us time and again the the chief drain on our economy was the war in Iraq and the housing crisis. We gave them the White House so they could deal with THOSE problems, not so they could push them back and instead finally do something they have tried to do for years.

I may change to Kaiser, just for the fact that they have the integrity to report this stuff honestly.....
#237 | Posted by woke at 2009-09-08 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Not the same Kaiser

I have never argued in favor of the current system. I have only argued that it is not the place of the Feds to replace it. An insurance company that operates in more than one state falls under interstate commerce and Congress can regulate that.

#236 | POSTED BY KANREI

However, because people are getting out to the Town Halls, there is some really good ideas coming out of the Right to fix the current system.

One of them (that the idiot Republican Congress hasnt thought of) is competition. Allow the 1000s of different Insurance companies to compete in all states. Like Auto Insurance, we'll get down to 7 or major companies and a 20 smaller emerging ones.

And for the people who can't afford insurance because of pre-existing? 36 states already have pools for these people to participate in. Force all states to have them.

"Number two is that this is bait and switch. Prior to winning the White House, the DNC told us time and again the the chief drain on our economy was the war in Iraq and the housing crisis. We gave them the White House so they could deal with THOSE problems, not so they could push them back and instead finally do something they have tried to do for years."

Health care reform was one of the major policies that Democrats campaigned on. He has already addressed the war in Iraq, we have had a major pull back of troops and troops have already started leaving Iraq. He has passed legislation to try to deal with the housing crisis but banks seem unwilling to go along on that though some are beginning to, my daughter's mortgage company just agreed to a very good change in her terms. I've even been offered one on my condo though I don't owe all that much. I don't know where you got the idea though that health care was not supposed to be on the agenda.

"And for the people who can't afford insurance because of pre-existing?"

MOst states are struggling to pay for the Medicaid they have now. Why would we want to allow insurance companies to profit on younger, healthier customers and then pass off anyone who has had an illness in the past to the taxpayer. The insurance companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be your only choice for health insurance when you are young and healthy when their costs are low and their profits are high then when you become ill or when you become older they want to hand you off to the taxpayer. No, no, no. We need to tell them if you are in the game then you are in the game with everyone. You take the good with the bad and you spread the risk out over your entire risk pool and profit by operating efficiently. That's how you force down costs, not by giving them all the profits and we take all the costs.

Kaiser Family Foundation: History, Spending and Governance

"Since we began in 1991, our goal has been to build an institution that plays a special role as a trusted source of information in a health care world dominated by vested interests. That institution-building process continues today."
Drew Altman, Ph.D.
President and CEO

Industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and his wife Bess established the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in 1948 with the goal of meeting "the unmet health care needs of the citizenry." One of Henry Kaiser's favorite sayings was "find a need and fill it," and that's what the Foundation has tried to do. While the Foundation was established in 1948, it is in a sense a relatively young organization. Under the leadership of CEO Drew Altman, Kaiser was completely remade from the ground up beginning in 1991, with the mission, expertise, programs, and operating foundation-style it's known for today.
With an endowment of over half a billion dollars, Kaiser has an operating budget of over $40 million per year. The Foundation operates almost exclusively with its own resources, though we do occasionally receive funds from grant-making foundations, primarily to expand our global programs.

The Foundation's trustees including former policymakers and leaders from business, academia, and the non-profit community serve a maximum of two five-year terms. The Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.

"And for the people who can't afford insurance because of pre-existing?"

MOst states are struggling to pay for the Medicaid they have now. Why would we want to allow insurance companies to profit on younger, healthier customers and then pass off anyone who has had an illness in the past to the taxpayer.
#244 | Posted by danni

Oops, Danni, your ignorance is showing.

36 states have insurance pools. Insurance companies are forced to participate in these pools if they want to do business in that state. That means they are forced to take on a percentage of the risk and every state does it differently.

Number two is that this is bait and switch. Prior to winning the White House, the DNC told us time and again the the chief drain on our economy was the war in Iraq and the housing crisis. We gave them the White House so they could deal with THOSE problems, not so they could push them back and instead finally do something they have tried to do for years.

#240 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2009-09-08 06:06 PM

....."have tried to do for years"......and during those years the cost of healthcare has TRIPLED or worse....eh?

What did the repugs do about it?

Reforming healthcare WAS part of the platform that got Obama elected, as Danni has rightly pointed out.

And, again, as she pointed out, Obama HAS dealt with iraqnam....pulling our troops back and handing security of iraqnam over to the iraqis....i'd say that's on track for a 16 month further pullout as he promised.....no?

The housing market has begun to recover.....

Positive Statistics in Foreclosure Market Suggest Hope for Home Owners
Tue Sep 8, 2009 2:08pm EDT

Decreases in the number of foreclosure filings in each state and increases in prices in many of those same states seem to suggest good news, although the news is still mixed in some parts of the country.

Within these and other key states, the changes in foreclosure filings in major cities also seem to be showing improvement with only a few exceptions.

Although fewer foreclosures can help reduce the supply of available homes on the market, the prices are also important. In four out of the five top real estate markets, prices have increased.

Oops, Danni, your ignorance is showing.
36 states have insurance pools. Insurance companies are forced to participate in these pools if they want to do business in that state. That means they are forced to take on a percentage of the risk and every state does it differently.

#246 | POSTED BY EDDIE AT 2009-09-08 09:07 PM

>>>

High-risk pools, which have been used by states to cover the "medically uninsurable," do not work.

Thirty-five states offer a high-risk pool for people who have been denied coverage in the individual insurance market or otherwise cannot obtain insurance.13

However, high-risk pools generally charge significantly higher rates than they charge for a healthy individual in the individual insurance market,14 meaning that only relatively high-income people can afford the coverage.

One study estimated that only eight percent of the uninsurable population is able to enroll in high-risk pools, mainly because of high premiums.15
Benefits through a high-risk pool are also not guaranteed. Some state high-risk pools have annual caps on enrollment, or limit eligibility only to people who had prior group health coverage in the preceding 63 days. And one state high-risk pool has been closed to new beneficiaries since 1991.16
All high-risk pools also impose pre-existing condition exclusions for six months to one year, during which time care for the very condition that made someone uninsurable is not covered.17

Just watched a reairing of C-Span's "Washington Journal" with Sen. Charles Grassley. He was asked when the last time he had to choose a health insurance plan. Answer? 1971! That guy needs to go back to raising corn. He's so out of touch from what the average American is going through with health insurance it isn't funny. Premiums have gone up many fold since he last had to pay for it.

A public option is the ONLY way competition can be restored. Singapore ranks #3 in life expectancy. Guess what? They can choose from either private insurance or a public option. No one's gone out of business, but premiums are affordable and the people are healthy.

Screw the Republicans! Pass a public option with or without their help. They could care less about Americans and only cater to big business. It's ALWAYS been that way.

Oh, and he commented about 'we can't afford ....'

If he and his party had had some discipline and responsibility to our citizens our national debt would have been paid off rather than us paying for a trillion dollar Medicare Part D (they wanted to fire the auditor who was going to truthfully testify as to it's true cost ... "illegal" to negotiate drug prices aside - what a joke that was!), a trillion dollar war in Iraq, and on and on.

Talk about a bunch of hypocrites. Maybe not. Maybe they were just adhering to Ronald Reagan's "Starve The Beast" adage - where they make a point of running up such massive debt programs that help citizens get left by the wayside while their rich cronies buy bigger yachts.

Come to Fort Lauderdale, see the yachts. I've lived here for many years, thirty years ago there was nothing compared to the megayachts of today. These vessels cost many millions and are a visible clue to us peasants that the wealthy are much wealthier than they used to be. And no, it hasn't trickled down.

"High-risk pools have been around for over 30 years and currently exist in 35 states, but they only cover about 207,000 Americans. The biggest barrier to enrollment is cost. High-risk pools are inevitably expensive because all of the enrollees have medical conditions that could potentially result in costly medical bills, which means the pools cannot spread costs across low-risk and high-risk individuals."

What's wrong with you headless suits?

THE SAME PLAN AS CONGRESS HAS, OR NO PLAN.

"THE SAME PLAN AS CONGRESS HAS, OR NO PLAN."

We can't afford that but we could demand that Congress gets the same choices we get.

We can't afford that but we could demand that Congress gets the same choices we get.

#253 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-09 11:29 AM | Reply

Of all of the BS I've seen from the talking heads, why hasn't anyone of note ever mentioned this? Why isn't this the cry of every town hall attendee, whether pro or con?

How in the hell can those cocksuckers, who make their livings off of our money, justify having something better than their employers?

Let the negotiations begin here: You get what we get, or fuck off.

Excellent idea

Why are the religious leaders seemingly absent from this Health Care debate?

Is it because the Republican party which seems to be so objectionable to Health Care reform is a party dominated by the religious right?

A religious right that does not seem to want to talk re' Health Care as applied to the Christian messages having to do with the concepts of the good samaritan (i.e. helping a total stranger), the concept of being your brothers keeper even the feeding of a large crowd with a few loaves of bread and 2 fishes so that everyone got a share?

As in...Whatsoever you do to the least of my people you do to me.

Where are this typically vocal crowd that like to call themselves 'values voters'?

Is not one of their values visa vie Health Care to take care of others?

It lends one to speculate exactly what are their 'values'.

Frankly this lack of input regarding this very real and moral issue of Health Care from these so called religious leaders implies their real values are relative who it applies to.

Whatever it is, it is not the story of the good samaritan nor about being in any sense your brothers keeper.

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in"

Why are the religious leaders seemingly absent from this Health Care debate?
GODALMIGHTY

I don't believe they are absent from it. You are correct in saying the RIGHT WING evangelical fundamentalists are AGAINST reforming healthcare, I would guess.....and they get ALL the press, don't they?

Try this.

Google

"religious leaders for healthcare reform"

and see what you get....

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,480,000 for religious leaders for healthcare reform

"President Barack Obama Wednesday demanded Congress act now on health reform, warning more Americans would die if Washington again does nothing to expand care and cut the costs of insurance. "

"Some people are going to try to scare you (ME!!!)"

Ah, YOU have healthcare insurance eh Dave?

Screw those 9 MILLION KIDS that don't eh?

Nice.

Great SPEECH, eh?

It's nice to be represented by someone who can read and understand what he is reading and most likely actually had something to do with the content.

LOL