Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday unveiled the much-awaited Finance Committee version of a health care reform bill -- an $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts with no visible Republican backing.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

This is one of half a dozen Bills out of the Senate and the House, all of the others having a public option.

In conference, it will be the President, and the backers of all those Bills, so a public option can still be included.

As a matter of fact, unless there is some other way to insure that the plans offered by the insurance companies in the Exchange are affordable, then there is no way to make them mandatory.

I certainly would not support a health Bill that was mandatory, but not affordable..... the insurance company wet dream.

BAUCUS even spellcheck can't help that one

No Republican support for Senate Finace Bill
-
"Soooprise! Soooprise!" - G. Pyle

Posted by Corky at 12:02 PM

this morning it was said that even the dems from the SIx dont support the end result...and he is said to be BY HIMSLEF on the press conference.
so IF HE IS...that should mean that the dems might not like it either because you KNOW they would all be there for FACETIME if they did...

Finally these six Senators who together represent a tiny segment of America are off center stage and the more progressive Senators and Congressmen can get busy and put together a real bill.

These pols are always in CYA mode. Give up good parts of the Bill to GOP whiners who are never going to vote for any Bill no matter what is in it.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-16 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag: AMEN!!

Finally these six Senators who together represent a tiny segment of America are off center stage and the more progressive Senators and Congressmen can get busy and put together a real bill.

One that provides free health insurance to all Americans great and small - to all who illegally cross our borders - to all who refuse insurance voluntarily - to all who refuse to work voluntarily - to all - oh hell, you get the point

- DUMMI

When the dems consider Tort Reform first - then they can be considered serious about reforming health care and lowering costs. When they consider removing impediments for issuing insurance cross country - ignoring state boundaries, then they can be considered serious - otherwise, just another social program designed to move us 100 steps closer to an ideal nanny state.

Poor Corky is still humping that dead public option corpse. He's the only one that doesn't notice it's unattractive, stinks to high hell and has rotted away. Necrophilia for a piece of dead piece of legsilation is just sick, Corko. Go to speed dial and call that therapist again.

I certainly hope the insurance companies will tell us all what to think.

Jay Rockefeller is expressing reservations on whether he will vote for the bill, and I'm also hearing there are some union objections also.

Could get rely interesting!

-I certainly hope the insurance companies will tell us all what to think.

They paid Max enough so that he would know what to think.

#8

The same thing happened last year when he was the last Hillary supported, talk about unattractive and stinking!

Max Baucus: best investment we ever made.
~The Helth Industry

"Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange."

Is the fed going to usurp the states right/domain of regulating the insurance coverage available in thier respective states? Does this mean that insurers can cross state lines? or are there going to be 51 exchanges? The answer to this question will have a large impact on states with high premuims (Cali), and those with lower premuims.

"Republican leaders have clearly made a short-term political calculation: The public is cooling to the president's proposals, so score points and stay away from any unity with Barack Obama. He's portrayed as the liberal, the socialist, the big spender and taxer. Do not get in his way. If we leave him to his own devices, Obama will rebuild the GOP base for us.

Sure, there's some truth to that. And it's also easy, when there's not much else in the offing -- either in leaders or new ideas.

But there's also a problem with the notion that an opposition-only party is just fine. "Voters look at us and say we're not even in the game," says one GOP strategist. "We need to start waking up and start to become a party that can lead."

It's a notion supported by the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, in which voters were asked whether "Republicans are generally offering constructive criticism or are they being obstructionist for mostly political reasons?" Their answer: Sixty-one percent said obstructionist.

That's not surprising, since it is the de facto congressional strategy. The problem is that when voters, particularly those important independent voters, look for an alternative, they often like to know what the party out of power would do if it were given a chance to lead.

The congressional strategy is only compounded by the GOP leadership vacuum. It's always hard when you don't own the bully pulpit of the White House, but Republicans can't seem to find anyone to really take the stage at all. That became crystal clear last week when Rep. Joe Wilson decided to call the president a liar during his address to a joint session of congress.

Wilson became the angry, undisciplined voice of the GOP. He was an embarrassment -- both to himself and to his party. If that's what the GOP wants, it may help rebuild its base. But nothing more"

www.cnn.com

That is a boring question Andrea, let's just continue bashing Baucus.

Sinceerely

The Left.

"I certainly would not support a health Bill that was mandatory, but not affordable"

How does your apparent desire to mandate the price of private insurance square with the liberals' argument that Obama's health plan will "increase competition" in the health insurance industry? I've been hearing liberals tell me for weeks that a public option will force private insurers to lower their rates because it will be so attractive all on its own.

-your apparent desire to mandate the price of private insurance

Your apparent desire to create a strawman just went the way of your law degree, down the tubes.

But there are some insurance companies that would likely still hire you to pimp for them.

The public option would keep premiums affordable, and is the only real reform that I've seen that would, and I have suggested nothing else.

Perhaps improving your reading skills would help?

You just called for a health bill that will "insure that the plans offered by the insurance companies in the Exchange are affordable." Explain how my characterization of your argument is not correct.

You just called for a health bill that will "insure that the plans offered by the insurance companies in the Exchange are affordable... via a public option.

There now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

"As a matter of fact, unless there is some other way to insure that the plans offered by the insurance companies in the Exchange are affordable, then there is no way to make them mandatory.

I certainly would not support a health Bill that was mandatory, but not affordable..... the insurance company wet dream."

"unless there is some other way" obviously refers to the public option.

I know context is a fallacy to most rwingers, but you should know better.

You didn't say "via a public option" until now. Don't pretend everyone should have known that's what you meant.

-You didn't say "via a public option" until now.

"In conference, it will be the President, and the backers of all those Bills, so a public option can still be included.

As a matter of fact, unless there is some other way to insure that the plans offered by the insurance companies in the Exchange are affordable, then there is no way to make them mandatory.

I certainly would not support a health Bill that was mandatory, but not affordable..... the insurance company wet dream."

Joe "Context?" the Lawyer

Is the fed going to usurp the states right/domain of regulating the insurance coverage available in thier respective states? Does this mean that insurers can cross state lines? or are there going to be 51 exchanges? The answer to this question will have a large impact on states with high premuims (Cali), and those with lower premuims.

I see this was ignored. Mostly because people would rather discuss theory rather than reality.

One the reasons why there are so few competitors in some areas of the country is because of the state specific regulations that a carrier has to comply with to conduct business in those specific states. So the question is extremely relevant......will the exchange recognize state specific rules/regs or just tell all of them to fuck off?

Whatever, Dorky. Nothing in your comment suggests that a public option was the "some other way" you were referring to.

-"...so a public option can still be included.

As a matter of fact, unless there is some other way..."

Really, Joe,

You prolly would argue that you are not arguing.

How would anyone know that "some other way" means "public option?" Wouldn't saying "some other way" right after you say "public option" suggest that you meant something other than a public option? This ought to be interesting.

-How would anyone know that "some other way" means "public option?"

If they had the slightest ability to comprehend what they were reading, they would know.

Which apparently leaves you out, Joe the Pettifogger, Esq.

Typical Dorky post. Next time you're cornered, just shut the fuck up.

"Bacchus" bill?

Sign me up!

Finally these six Senators who together represent a tiny segment of America are off center stage and the more progressive Senators and Congressmen can get busy and put together a real bill.

It shows the left will demean the moderates of their own Party.

This disagreement was evident during BushII (conservatives talking down moderate repubs) -- but not nearly as blatant.

No Republican support for Senate Finace Bill
-
"Soooprise! Soooprise!" - G. Pyle

Posted by Corky

NO Democrat support either!!!!!!!!!

Shazam!!!

A trillion here, a trillion there. I wish these idiots would spend money like it was skin being flayed from their own backs.

Obamacare, Universal Heathcare, a Public Option, Socialized Medicine, or whatever you wish to call it, will not happen until we remove all of the asshats that are on the take from some special interest lobbies.

Since we now seem to have in power the "Ruling Class" that the founding fathers warned us about, there isn't a snow cones chance in hell that anything will get done by these idiots.

Baucus' bill appears to be a gift to insurance companies. They sure got their money's worth. It seems like the bill is designed to fail or in the unlikely event that it becomes law, provide unprecedented windfall profits for Max's financial backers. What a turn-coat this guy has turned out to be.

When the dems consider Tort Reform first

#7 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-09-16 12:27 PM | Reply

Everyone is in favor of "tort reform" until:

1) an OB/GYN pulls his kid's head off during child birth;

2) a drunk driver runs over his three-year-old kid in a crosswalk;

3) a surgeon leaves an instrument in his abdomen;

4) he finds human excrement in his fast food;

and so on ....

Then, he just wants to sue the bastards for everything they've got!

We need to get single payer. If the greedy repubs don't like it just deport them. Africa or China is a good place for them.

it's nothing but payback for those Denis Healy types that pull the strings - works for both major parties - nothing to see, Move On, taxpayer/min wage worker....

maplight.org

look up how the health industry hooked up the pols ...

"...the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, in which voters were asked whether "Republicans are generally offering constructive criticism or are they being obstructionist for mostly political reasons?" Their answer: Sixty-one percent said obstructionist."

- CNN

Right Corky! WHY ELSE would the republicans on the Finance Committee refuse to sign on to the bill they negotiated in the first place?

If the GOP hates the deal that finally gets passed they have NO RIGHT to bitch. Why would any dems bother to WASTE TIME negotiating in the future when they know the GOP will not support the resulting legislation?!

Then the REPUBLICANS blame Obama for not supporting bipartisanship! That is about as funny as Palin running for VP!

Obama may have his door open but do not expect any Democratic Senators to waste further time with the opposition when they do not bargain in good faith, then try to add a bunch of amendments to the Health Care legislation at the last minute.

So the question is extremely relevant......will the exchange recognize state specific rules/regs or just tell all of them to fuck off?

Can we get a Federal public option that follows its own rules?

This bill is garbage and I hope DOA. It should fail in the committee vote. It's a gift to the Insurance Industry, as the Market clearly demonstrated today. Not to mention the tax burden on the middle class.

Two months wasted proving the GOP would destroy any effort and then, when they get their way, still won't vote for it. Now the bill's such absolute garbage no sane Democrat should vote for it.

Yawn . . .

How many months have we wasted on this? Just to start over?

And what have we missed, being distracted by this dog and pony show?

#39
Oh, two months. Perfect.

Poor Corky is still humping that dead public option corpse. He's the only one that doesn't notice it's unattractive, stinks to high hell and has rotted away. Necrophilia for a piece of dead piece of legsilation is just sick, Corko. Go to speed dial and call that therapist again.

#8 | Posted by cookfish

Hahahahah!!! That's the funniest thing I've read in years!

As I said before. There are two power groups fighting it and and NONE OF THEM GIVE A FAT FLYING FUCK ABOUT INSURING YOU.

group1: old insurance mafia(own the republicans) -- leave things the way they are, we are assfucking the populace to our liking already.

group2: a collection of business interests(own the democrats) -- want to dump their employee insurance plans on the populace.

All the plans are nothing more than the same corporate cocksuckers fighting over the pie: FUCK YOU!

I support medicare +.

Hahahahah!!! That's the funniest thing I've read in years!

#43 | Posted by American1st at 2009-09-16 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't read much...

j/k

We need insurance sales reform. If there are 1300 companies selling health insurance in the US, then I should be able to buy it from all or none of them.

Hagbard, that was funneh!

Although I may have phrased it "That made me laugh harder than I have in years!"

"If there are 1300 companies selling health insurance in the US, then I should be able to buy it from all or none of them."

And what will you do after M&A reduces that to 13?

But wait,

It isn't Friday after 7 PM...what the hell is this doing out already?

Why is this so fucking difficult for America to get its arms around? First you
make it compulsary for ALL Americans to have health insurance and then let free market forces to take over

Before you know it the GEICO's of the world will be killing themselves for your business

Its been this way with car insurance for how many years???

'First you make it compulsary for ALL Americans to have health insurance'

No thanks.

HORRIBLE BILL!! The health insurance industry gets twice what they asked for. It must have been written by insurance lobbyists and lawyers, then Baucus doubled what they get.

Fuck you GOP

Making health insurance 'mandatory' means nothing if health insurance companies can deny coverage, or deny claims.

Tell your reps what you think.

www.healthreform.gov

healthcareforamericanow.org

my.barackobama.com

Baucus has a D in front of his name, but he's from Montana. There are no democrats in Montana. He should be expelled from the party, and put where he belongs---in the R column.

Democrats come up with their own bill, blowing off any sane proposals from the Republicans. Total crap bill is the result. Republicans oppose it, and are then labeled as "obstructionists". A bad bill is a bad bill, and Democrats just want political cover for passing it. Get some sucker Republicans on board, and bet your ass that Dems will be fighting behind the scenes for who gets permission to vote against it in order to save their political hide. Just look what Harry Reid did recently. He pressed for passage, got the votes, and then changed his vote to "no". When asked, the crack press took his "no comment" without question.

I hope the Democrats go this on their own so that 2010 can be another 1994. It may turn out that way as it is, but these liars, cheats and traitors need to be shown the door by the busload.

Boojiboy, You want compulsory insurance, and THEN you want "the free market to take over"? But how is it a free market if your customers are compelled to buy your product? Idiot.

Free markets like that work real well. Ever hear of OPEC? Idiot.

Disney, you're not laboring under the impression that health care is a free market now, are you?

I get one or two choices offered by my employer, or I go it alone at triple the cost.

But if I turn down my employer's option, I don't get the hundreds per month put back on my paycheck.

A free market would put the insurance companies out of business. Heck, they're terrified as it is that a public option might do the same. Remove the profit motive and we are closer to a system that cares more about medical outcomes than Wall Street returns.

"Democrats come up with their own bill, blowing off any sane proposals from the Republicans."

Dinsey

Dude, this bill is the result of Republicans who insist on no public option. Get real.

Baucus' so-called bi-partisan bill is an unpassable piece of shit.

Too many give aways to the Insurers.

All the good ideas have had their sharp edges filed down which is too often the case.

That sed, it's only the first of a number of proposals to be considered and at least it has people talking about the specifics instead of just going around screaming "zOMFG Soshulizm!!!!".

Well, some people anyway.

Be Well.

Amen, brother!

They should just open up Medicare to anyone who wants to buy in. And lose "Medicare Advantage" - an industry written POS that eats up a big chunk of every dollar that should be going for providing health care.

Baucus' bill is DOA. Dead. Stick a fork in it.


'First you make it compulsary for ALL Americans to have health insurance'

No thanks.

#51 | Posted by zulu

Yeah, the Zulus of the world are fine with the rest of us paying their medical bills when they land in the emergency room or get sick due to lack of preventive medicine.

'Yeah, the Zulus of the world are fine with the rest of us paying their medical bills when they land in the emergency room or get sick due to lack of preventive medicine'

If half of the pie in the sky BS you slack jawed liberals promised came true I'd be jumping up and down with enthusiasm rooting for health care reform.

But poor people are still poor, in spite of trillions spent. Social Security won't exist in 30 years despite trillions spent. Nothing the libtards promise happens, the only thing you can count on from the left is being called a racist if you stop giving them money.

It's perfectly hilarious how passionately convinced you libtards are in believing the next big ticket -> this nation can't afford it -> feel good -> well intended social program is going to work despite all evidence to the contrary.

If the rational free market side is able to put the public option down like the sick dog it is at least there will be a emergency room to go to. People will have to pay for their health care and that means they'll have to get up really early and go to work in the morning (bo ho ho).

And guaranteed it's the whole get up early and hold a job and earn a living that the MiniMans of the world aren't fine with. It just isn't fair, boohoo.

"Democrats come up with their own bill, blowing off any sane proposal from the Republicans."
DISNEYLAND

When's the last time a republican's come up with a "sane" proposal?

'When's the last time a republican's come up with a "sane" proposal?'

Anytime you hear libtards using the 'racist' word. When Democrats can't win an argument they get scared and start calling people racists, it's their way.

#64 | Posted by zulu

Non sequitar flag.

Be Well.

ZULU,
Blaming the Dems for the fact that the Rethugs can't come up with a sane proposal? Sounds pretty racist.

"They should just open up Medicare to anyone who wants to buy in."

It would be interesting to read what the objections to this would be. Every healthy person who bought into the program would be helping to offset the expenses of older sicker people already covered so it would help make it more solvent. It would seem to me that every Medicare recipient would favor this proposal.

It would seem to me that every Medicare recipient would favor this proposal.

what would they gain? they get great care and they pay virtually nothing for it. (compared to what it costs)

they can only lose in this deal.

They would get a more solvent program so it would increase their sense of security. Those who buy into the program would be contributing more than the cost of their own health care just like we do now with private insurance.

They would get a more solvent program so it would increase their sense of security.

My mom and inlaws are pretty secure right now. they aren't worried about their care.

Any changes would change that.

IN any case, their "sense of security" is not that important. Either we provide the care or we don't.

We just need to worry about providing the same care they have been getting.

We all know how much older folks (anybody over 50) handles change.

So what, I read the whines of opponents of health care reform use the fact that Medicare is going broke all the time so this would help fix that without raising Medicare taxes. You never really gave me any reason not to offer this opportunity to people. It would be terrific for the self-employed, unemployed, those working for very small businesses, etc. What harm could it do???
Lots of benefit and no harm....that's a pretty good idea.

This is not about health care, it is about power. Passage of this will cost us 13 to 14% (+) on top of our tax. What for? To grab votes and money to spend on another vote getting devise. Ten years ago Pres Clinton said save SS now. Gore campained on a "Lockbox for SS" and it is going broke. Why? The money is used for anything and everything. They can't stop because it would mean cutting programs that garner votes. Health Care like every other peogram will always be going broke. Next, where in the Constitution does it say anything about gov providing health care? Every law restricts FREEDOM...

"We all know how much older folks (anybody over 50) handles change."

I'm well over 50 and very ready for change.

I guess it's probably unlikely that a Democrat could write a bill that would get mass republican support, but I thought that's why they had three republicans on the committee. Whatever. This makes me really irritated because I figured the Baucus bill would be a starting point where there could be some consensus for a full debate. If it dies, I just don't see how anything is going to pass.

I need to read the bill and see what it really entails.

Guess the repulicans don't support billions in a tax increase from a guy who, gee, imagine that, lies (plural). He might as well have said "Read my lips, no new taxes" and all you dumb fucking sheep bit hook line and stinker.. Maybe thats why they say liberalism is a mental disorder.

The more I hear about the bill, the more I like it. Baucus plans to raise hundreds of billions of dollars by taxing high-value plans. And those high-value plans are owned primarily by government workers, and union members. I have a high-deductible plan which is the farthest away from the kinds of plans Baucus is going after.

Of course, BO's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 will be out the window if this passes. Gobama!

The Baucus plan is great....for insurance companies. They will get millions of new customers and no new competition to bring more price competition. NOt surprising when you look at how much money Baucus has taken from the insurance industry lobbyists.

What Democrats Want to Change in the Baucus Health-Care Bill

Here are their five biggest issues with the legislation, and what Baucus can - or in some cases cannot - do to assuage these fears.

news.yahoo.com

Amen, brother!
They should just open up Medicare to anyone who wants to buy in. And lose "Medicare Advantage" - an industry written POS that eats up a big chunk of every dollar that should be going for providing health care.
Baucus' bill is DOA. Dead. Stick a fork in it.

#60 | POSTED BY TIMEX

I think it opens the door for a whitehouse presented version which will be medicare for all.

Baucus's bill sucks major dick. What the fuck is wrong with that man? The repukes don't want ANY bill.

"I think it opens the door for a whitehouse presented version which will be medicare for all."

If it were entirely voluntary and people paid premiums just like insurance and thereby made Medicare more solvent then what would be wrong with it??

Baucus and some Dems want to take taxpayer dollars to help low income people get private insurance, that will be more expensive than paying for Medicare for them would be, where is the sense in that??? If the government is going to pay for it then we should use the most economical method to provide coverage which would be Medicare.
The Baucus bill is the insurance industry's dream come true.

"Baucus's bill sucks major dick. What the fuck is wrong with that man? The repukes don't want ANY bill."
#79 | Posted by Legio at 2009-09-17 10:12 AM

The dems bill sucks major dick. What the fuck is wrong with them? The repukes don't want ANY bill. Fixed that for you.

Which is worse? A bad bill or no bill. A bad bill you have to blame Obama and the dems. No bill and you can put all the blame on the repubs. Seems like you are in a quandry.

"The Baucus bill is the insurance industry's dream come true."

I'm sure they wouldn't oppose it.

"To sum up, the Baucus-Obama plan would increase the cost of insurance and then force people to buy it, requiring subsidies. Those subsidies would be paid for by taxes that make health care and thus insurance even more expensive, requiring even more subsidies and still higher taxes. It's a recipe to ruin health care and bankrupt the country, and that's even before liberal Democrats see Mr. Baucus and raise him, and then attempt to ram it all through the Senate."

Lots more, read it here:

online.wsj.com

Some of the facts which seem to be missed about these plans include....

A public option is premium-based, not free, not government subsidized, just a pooling of money to purchase insurance as the Fed government and many others do. The 30 percent they save from having to pay profits is used to subsidize those who cannot afford any insurance at all.

A public option is NOT AVAILABLE to people who currently have company based insurance, so it is NOT A GOVERNMNET TAKEOVER of health care or insurance.

Mandatory insurance is for those that can afford it, fines only apply to those who can afford it, others are subsidized by above mentioned savings.

No abortions from tax dollars, and no illegal immigrants are covered.

Even a bloody Neocon like David Frumm said the other day that as long as a Dem Pres was willing to take the heat on something that had to be done anyway, why are Repubes standing in the way?

JUSTGETTINGALONG and I agree about the Baucus bill's subsidies. Foolish to just hand insurance companies billions in easy profits when we could more efficiently put people who qualify for subsidies into Medicare.

I think Obama should drop all of the bills so far proposed and just push for expanded Medicare coverage for those who can't afford health insurance, for small businesses that can't afford it for employees though if they earn enough they wuold be expected to pay premiums into Medicare.
Enlarging the insurance industry which is at the root of the growth of health care costs is counter productive to the goal of making health care gobble more and more of GDP.

"A public option is NOT AVAILABLE to people who currently have company based insurance,..."

C'mon Corky...under the plan, employers can opt to provide employees health insurance or pay an 8% "tax." Once the employer drops the insurance and elects to pay the 8%, where will the employees then get their insurance??? How long before the "public" has ALL the medical insurance in the country???

I think one reason they don't just expand Medicare, the easy and affordable thing to do, is that even now Seniors are worried about how their coverage might be effected.... Seniors being some of the easiest scare targets for Rethugism.

#86

That was a House plan.

Even the CBO estimates only about 10 million people over ten yeas would use the public option.

C'mon Corky...under the plan, employers can opt to provide employees health insurance or pay an 8% "tax."

To whom? The government or the employee?

Corky, while I agree seniors are easy to frighten, we also have a problem with funding Medicare and will have to raise Medicare taxes on workers to continue it. So those of us still working will have rising health care costs for ourselves and rising Medicare taxes too. That is unsustainable, can't work. The best way to make Medicare solvent long term is to allow working people to choose Medicare and pay into it with premiums which could rise just like health insurnce rises and thereby Make Medicare more solvent and allow ourselves to have less expensive health care at the same time.
I think everyone involved in the health care debate knows perfectly well that this is the only viable way to go long term but are just afraid of the insurance companies lobbyists and their big bucks.
The debate about health care really isn't about providing health care, it's about the power of lobbyists and the corporations that hire them.

-The best way to make Medicare solvent long term is to allow working people to choose Medicare and pay into it with premiums

Exactly, which is why I mentioned that even a Neocon like Frumm is smart enough to see that if there is a Dem Pres willing to take the heat on fixing Medicare, why would Repubes stand in his way and then get blamed later?

Good point. Frumm is a smart guy, not crazy like some folks who are Republicans.

Smart, but bloody evil. I can't believe CNN has him as a moderate conservative commentator..... I guess he's the closest thing they could find these days.

"To whom? The government or the employee?"

To the government. It would be a tax equal to 8% of total payroll. That would be less than the business' total health care expense. OF COURSE the business will elect to pay the tax causing the employees to enroll in the "public" plan.

"OF COURSE the business will elect to pay the tax causing the employees to enroll in the "public" plan."

JEST as the President has said, we have to get health care costs down to help the economy. Now I just want to ask you, if it would require doing something like the public option to make our economy start really recovering wouldn't you be for it even if it went against some ideological objections? Or, would you knowingly let the country's economy continue to shrink just to be able to say you were preserving ideological pureness??

Sounds like win/win to me.

The new Congressional plans only offer public options to those who have no insurance, canceling any fear of a vast migration from private company plans..... and even the original Bills had tax incentives and mandates to prevent that.

But, since you won't hear that on Rush or Beck, Jest wouldn't know.

"The best way to make Medicare solvent long term is to allow working people to choose Medicare and pay into it with premiums which could rise just like health insurnce rises and thereby Make Medicare more solvent and allow ourselves to have less expensive health care at the same time."
#90 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-17 10:58 AM

Just curious if the premiums will be the same for all, regardless of age, weight, habits, pre-existing conditions etc.

As for less expensive healthcare... If 30% of costs to medicaid/medicare can be attributed to tobacco and alcohol abuse, what is going to happen if another countless millions are added? This doesn't even take into account the other unhealthy lifestyles. Which will lead to poorer health and more coverage.

"Now I just want to ask you, if it would require doing something like the public option to make our economy start really recovering wouldn't you be for it even if it went against some ideological objections?"

I have no faith whatsoever that the government taking over 18% of the U.S. economy would result in recovery, less cost or financial stability. That is the whole crux of my objection. I just DO NOT believe them and their projections. I wouldn't give a damn WHICH administration proposed it and I was adamantly opposed to the Bush admin prescription benefit as well. Just look at what it is now.

Good point. Frumm is a smart guy, not crazy like some folks who are Republicans.

#92 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-17 11

you only think this because he wont give shit right back to begayla and carville and the other hatefull blowhards. he is about as good as that alex guy when it comes to throwing carville and begayla shit back in thier face.

The Cloward-Piven strategy refers to a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income."

-government taking over

Last year, when assigned by the GOP to come up with the best scare phrases to use in this debate, Frank Lutz came back to them with, "government takeover of health care" as the number one propaganda tool.

But, since a public option is premium-based and since it is available to those without health care, that phrase is a misnomer.

"establishing a guaranteed national income."

translation

take money from people who work for a living and give it to lazy bastards who will then keep voting for goddamn democrats because that way they would keep the check coming for doing nothing

help the helpless
fuck the clueless and lazy

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years
earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of
government.' 'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury.'
From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a
dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1.
from bondage to spiritual
faith;
2.
from spiritual faith to great
courage;
3.
from courage to
liberty;.
4.
from liberty to
abundance;
5.
from abundance to
complacency;
6.
from complacency to
apathy;
7.
from apathy to
dependence;
8.
from dependence back into
bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University
School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

Number of States won by:

Democrats: 19

Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by:

Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:

Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2

Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the
United States is somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

"If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the
USA in fewer than five years."




#104 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2009-09-17 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag: Missed the par about a government of, by, and for the people...... just sounds a bit too Commie....

"Missed the par about a government of, by, and for the people......"

Didn't miss it, Corky. Here it is...the PEOPLE are referred to as the MAJORIY. I realize your reading comprehensin is subpar so you can be excused for not recognizing it.

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,..."

Finally these six Senators who together represent a tiny segment of America are off center stage and the more progressive Senators and Congressmen can get busy and put together a real bill.

#4 | Posted by danni

NO THEY DIDN'T The dumb shit did it all alone.

The debate about health care really isn't about providing health care, it's about the power of lobbyists and the corporations that hire them.

#90 | Posted by danni
The debate about Health Care really isn't about providing health care, it is about control of money. The libs love the goberment cheese, and like them there teattes to latch there money grubbin lips around. The rest of the country belives that we can control our money better than the GOVT can.

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

Date Sept 11-12, 2009
Better 28%
Worse 47%
Stay the same 19%
Not sure 5%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

Date Sept 11-12, 2009
Up 47%
Down 25%
Stay the same 21%
Not sure 7%

September 16, 2009
By 60% to 38%, Americans do not believe that the government can expand healthcare coverage without raising taxes on the middle class or affecting the quality of care

The rest of the country belives that we can control our money better than the GOVT can.

#108 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-09-17 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag Bernie Madoff Closing Point

#111 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
What a dumb ass point you made. When madoff does it, is illegal, when the GOVT does it (ie medicare, social security) you libs cheer for it and ask for more. Damn you are stupid.

The debate about Health Care really isn't about providing health care, it is about control of money. The libs love the goberment cheese, and like them there teattes to latch there money grubbin lips around. The rest of the country belives that we can control our money better than the GOVT can.

But we don't (and can't) control our money, the way health care is paid for in America. For most working Americans, that money, about $10,000 per year paid by your employer for your health care, never makes it into your hands. You never get a chance to "control" it. Then the $10,000 you never got paid goes to the health insurer of your "choice" -- chosen from the small menu provided by your employer.

The best way to encourage efficiency (and thus lower prices) in our health insurance market is to allow Americans to participate in a separate funding instrument -- a public option.

And Single Payer would almost certainly achieve efficiencies of scale sufficient that private insurance could not achieve equivalent outcomes at the same cost. But with 17% of our GDP tied up in health care, single payer would be too disruptive. Even though it eventually needs to happen, it can't happen all at once.

Finally, you're completely insane if you think employers WANT the responsibility of procuring health insurance for their employees. GM can't compete with Toyota because Toyota has an unfair advantage -- Japan pays their employees health care, not Toyota. Leaving Toyota free to do what they want to do, build cars.

What a dumb ass point you made. When madoff does it, is illegal, when the GOVT does it (ie medicare, social security) you libs cheer for it and ask for more. Damn you are stupid.

#112 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-09-17 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

The people who believed Madoff were stupid. The people who say what you say are stupid. That's why I always recommend two countries to twits like yourself. Think of it. No libs--no social security--no medicare--no universal Health care--strong States rights and a weak central government--no affirmative action--no gay rights--no abortion--no welfare--low low taxes on the rich and high taxes on the middle class and poor--no unions--never a lib President--never a lib in Congress--never a lib on the Supreme Court---unregulated banking--no people like me telling you what a moron you are.

You see, the ship has already sailed in this country for all the things you despise--the things I mentioned---but if you start you own country, you can start from scratch and make the country you've always wanted. There are millions just like you--they are waiting for you to join the movement. Put your money where your mouth is.

www.sonofthesouth.net

www.texasnationalist.com

images.google.com

There are millions upon millions just like you--fed up with libs, but they have the courage to want their own country. It seems you just want to sit on your ass and whine about this country instead of taking control of your own future. I am one of the few libs wanting two countries, but our numbers are growing also. Take several of the Southern States---A vote in each State would determine which country they wanted to join. We would still be allies and trade partners. You would have the same Constitution to tear apart as you see fit. Don't tell me how much you love America as you bad mnouth it every chance you get. Get some courage--grow some balls--be a man--start your own country and quit whining like a leetle gurl.

"Get some courage--grow some balls--be a man--start your own country and quit whining like a leetle gurl.'

Have you already laid claim to some land on the moon? Or is that available to start a new country. Hell world for that matter. Drops us a line when you get settled in.

Baucus's bill is unworkable. Okay, it's real workable for insurance companies, but it's unworkable for the rest of us. I see a mandatory coverage requirement, but I don't see anything that says said mandatory coverage has to be made available at any rate people can afford. There is no public option to encourage said affordability, either. The door is open to the pillaging and rape of the American consumer in the name of not doing either to the American taxpayer.

This is a whole new sandbox for the health insurance industry to shit in, nothing more, nothing less. Baucus ought to be ashamed of himself - I expect this kind of horseshit from Rethugs, but I had hoped for better from Dems.

#116 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2009-09-17 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks Democrap shit doesn't stink.

Mandatory coverage is illegal. If you are on board with that, you missed your leader back in Germany in the late 30's early 40's.

Don't like the sand in the sandbox, get out or make your own - or don't get sick (and he tosses a layup for the libtards).

-Mandatory coverage is illegal.

Gee, there goes elcid without his auto insurance.....

#114 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
We did start a new country, it is called the United States of America. We got rid of all the tax taking, govt loving wussies then. We just need to do it again.

#113 | Posted by snoofy
A lot of people I know, including myself negotiate with our company a flat payment for health care. I do control my own money, then I choose a major medical health policy and pay my own damn way for medical issues. I negotiate with doctors and get a much better rate for cash than medicare or any other insurance gets. I do it on my, and I do it a lot better than any govt cheese could do for me. I wish people would have some self respect and take care of themselves.

You would have the same Constitution to tear apart as you see fit. Don't tell me how much you love America as you bad mnouth it every chance you get

Damn, I did not even read that part the first time through, you are one crazy SOB. If you love America, you hate govt involvement in your life. That is what it was founded on, and what the constitution is for. I guess you don't understand the word freedom.

I wish people would have some self respect and take care of themselves.

I wish people would have some respect for others and take care of themselves and their fellow Americans too.

Freechoice, I don't believe your story is in any way representative or even possible for the majority of people. Also the scheme you've described is going to screw over someone who is not a good negotiator. American's health outcomes shouldn't be determined by how good they are at haggling.

If you love America, you hate govt involvement in your life.

I take it you only drive on private roads. Good for you!

#122 | Posted by snoofy
I wish people would have some respect for others and take care of themselves and their fellow Americans too

I do, it is called charity. I give well over 10% to charity, more than any lib in congress, senate, or WH. Libs are all for their fellow American with someone else's money, but not with their own...

Freechoice, I don't believe your story is in any way representative or even possible for the majority of people. Also the scheme you've described is going to screw over someone who is not a good negotiator. American's health outcomes shouldn't be determined by how good they are at haggling.

Waaaa Waaaaa, you are a whiney bitch. Anybody can do it, it is just a lot of people are to lazy. They are called demowussies, they want their daddy the GOVT to take care of them, cause they can't do it for themselves. Freedom means free to succede or to fail. If there is no failure, there is no freedom.

#123 | Posted by snoofy
nice straw man, get real

- If you love America, you hate govt involvement in your life.

Gave up on all that silly government of, by, and for the people nonsense when Ronnie Reagan told him to.

#126 | Posted by Corky
Good try. Once again, no relation on facts, just some tired knock on someone you can't defeat. So what you are saying is that our founding fathers created this govt so that we all would be dependeant on the govt, and so the govt could control more and more of our lives?

No, I'm saying that they created a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and instead of fighting the systemic problems it has, your ilk just dubs it" "ebil Gub'mint", and lets corporations run it instead.

Terrible thing that so many people gave up on both their responsibility for self-government and a great American ideal.

Again all this is moot, Dems have enough votes to pass whatever they want. They can't even get it done because the bat shit crazy progressive libs are way to greedy. Instead of doing what would be best for the country they go full on crazy with their agenda. they can't run SS or Medicare, and say they want to be given more, and we swear we will run it better this time. If you belive that you must be Danni

If there is no failure, there is no freedom.
So we need a health care system that fails to deliver health care, or else we're not free?

You're insane.

nice straw man, get real
How about you get real. You're posting on the Internet, guess who created that? DARPA and the Pentagon.

So what you are saying is that our founding fathers created this govt so that we all would be dependeant on the govt, and so the govt could control more and more of our lives?
The Constitution says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So yes, the Founders gave Congress the authority to provide for the "general welfare" i.e. health care.

#128 | Posted by Corky
They did of, by, for becasue back then people new that a big daddy govt was bad, now people are just to lazy and stupid to understand it for themselvss. It is the libs that aks for some more gubbiment chees, and suck on them there big olle gubberment teattes cause that ain't got nos good edumacations or any of them there will powers to dos any of them things for theyselfs.

So yes, the Founders gave Congress the authority to provide for the "general welfare" i.e. health care.

#130 | Posted by snoofy
And that is why they did it so quickly? All them corporations kept them from doing it in the beginning.

How about you get real. You're posting on the Internet, guess who created that? DARPA and the Pentagon.

Yea for defense reasons, then we all benifted from that. Good thing for the govt to do. Now if the govt mandated that everyone had to have the internet in their homes, and that you had to pay a tax if you did not, then it would be wrong.

#131 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-09-17 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Asininity accentuated.

Now if the govt mandated that everyone had to have the internet in their homes, and that you had to pay a tax if you did not, then it would be wrong.

Leaving aside right or wrong, single payer systems are a lot cheaper than what we have here in the USA.

Or are you so ruled by your sense of right and wrong that you're willing to pay more for a system you think is "right?" Despite the fact that it costs more than universal coverage, and doesn't even cover everyone?

#133 | Posted by Corky
Yea the stupid language is real funny when you are trying to tie someone as being a stupid redneck, but not so funny when it is used to describe a lazy worthless, on the govt dole, liberal.

#134 | Posted by snoofy
Once again if you think that this GOVT will do it better and for cheaper, you are as stupid as danni, and 69% of the country thinks you are dead wrong.

You know, I knew you wouldn't get that my retort was about you, not the colloquialisms, but I figured you'd have to Google half the words anyway.

The framers gave power to the people and the Law, not the King.

Your ilk has managed to give up on the entire concept of "good government", and prefer to run away and hide.

Once again if you think that this GOVT will do it better and for cheaper, you are as stupid as danni, and 69% of the country thinks you are dead wrong.

Name one thing that the private industry has taken over and it got cheaper...just one.

On top of it the private industry always gets more expensive and the service gets far far worse.

'crickets'

Once again if you think that this GOVT will do it better and for cheaper, you are as stupid as danni, and 69% of the country thinks you are dead wrong.

They do it better and for cheaper in every other modern country.

Heck they do it just as good in Cuba, and obviously for far, far cheaper.

Your arguments are based on vague morals and principles. Mine are based on harsh economic reality. Care to call me an idiot again?

Name one thing that the private industry has taken over and it got cheaper...just one.

#138 | Posted by roman
Computer industry

Your arguments are based on vague morals and principles. Mine are based on harsh economic reality. Care to call me an idiot again?

#141 | Posted by snoofy
Yes, Medicare, Social Security, hard cold facts

On top of it the private industry always gets more expensive and the service gets far far worse.

#139 | Posted by roman
Just making shit up

Your arguments are based on vague morals and principles. Mine are based on harsh economic reality. Care to call me an idiot again?

#141 | Posted by snoofy
Yes, Post Office, even your boy O agreas with that.

On top of it the private industry always gets more expensive and the service gets far far worse.

#139 | Posted by roman

UPS Fedex, any more stupid questions

Your arguments are based on vague morals and principles. Mine are based on harsh economic reality. Care to call me an idiot again?

#141 | Posted by snoofy

Oh and btw, you are an idiot.

Your ilk has managed to give up on the entire concept of "good government", and prefer to run away and hide.

#137 | Posted by Corky
Nope, states and local govt have the mandate for these types of endeavors. Local Govt is good govt.

"UPS Fedex, any more stupid questions"

Why do they charge a LOT more than USPS?

Your ilk will banckrupt the country in no time flat, the only thing worse than the way W spent money is the way O spends it.

Why do they charge a LOT more than USPS?

#148 | Posted by Zatoichi
Because they don't have the govt to make up for the 9.4 billion that they are short. If you add that 9.4 billion back in the charge is over 5 times the cost of UPS and Fedex. Nice try, but get some more of the Govt edumacation before you post again.

Also, ever try to get a guarantee on delivery from USPS. Next day mail is 1 to 3 days, or whenever the hell we get it done, cause we are govt employees, and you will like what you get. Ever try to track where a package is from USPS, it generally shows up a day late, and then another day later you can find a status of the package.

Yes, Medicare, Social Security, hard cold facts
Medicare and Social Security make payments to private health insurers.

Private insurers who line up at the government trough and shit out fat paydays for Wall Street.

That's why they're expensive. Not because providing care is expensive. Because profiteering drives up prices. Because there's no "moral hazard" when it comes to a private insurance company profiting from your and my tax dollars.

Name one thing that the private industry has taken over and it got cheaper...just one.
They took over airport security. That was cheaper... until one day in September when it wasn't.

15 pound package over night TX to NY:

USPS $68.73
UPS $148.60

#153 | Posted by Zatoichi
Actually trying to get it the next day with the USPS, priceless. Add in the 9.4Billion, you keep forgetting, and if you keep defending the USPS you will piss of the great O, you master and saviour. Even he said the USPS sucked.

#152 | Posted by snoofy
So what you are saying is that the GOVT really screwed things up when they created Medicare, but it is not really their fault because they had good intentions, it is the evil insurance companies that make money? A lib favorite, don't judge our ideas on reality, just judge us on what we meant to do. Fix what you have already broke the hell out of, then come back and ask for more.

I ship USPS overnight regularly. Works fine at half the price. Deal with it.

#156 | Posted by Zatoichi
Don't tell me, tell it to Obama, oh, and once again a lib doesn't care about the cost to the taxpayer as long as he gets his cheap.

And the post office opens at 0800. I was there this morning.

From their tracking link: "Your item was accepted at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2009 in AUSTIN, TX 78710. "

UPS opens at 0900. Last time I was there I saw a package fall out of one truck to be run over by the next truck.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#157 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-09-17 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag: Stupid enough to think I'm a 'lib."

Buy a brain, fuckwit. They're two-for-one at Costco all week.

#158 | Posted by Zatoichi
1 example, they must suck so bad. That is why even with USPS being GOVT subsadized they still make money, and a lot of it.

Buy a brain, fuckwit. They're two-for-one at Costco all week.

#159 | Posted by Zatoichi
Maybe with your IQ, govt edumacated sob.

"It is the libs that aks for some more gubbiment chees, and suck on them there big olle gubberment teattes cause that ain't got nos good edumacations or any of them there will powers to dos any of them things for theyselfs."

WRONG dumbfuck .... it's the RED states eatin all that "gubbiment chees, and suck on them there big olle gubberment teattes"

Read on : (if you can)

"Besides South Carolina, the welfare queens include the red or usually red states of Alaska (what, you let Sarah Palin convince you that the oil up there made that state self-reliantha!), Arizona (maybe John McCain should pay more taxes on his houses), Alabama, Arkansas, both Dakotas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
There also are a few Democratic states on the list, but then Democrats almost all favored the stimulus plan. It is true that the numbers are a few years old, so some of those states may now be paying their own waybut with the way the economy has slammed the states, it's more likely that they've become bigger bums than they were before. On the other hand, a minority of statesincluding Barack Obama's Illinois, Joe Biden's Delaware, New York and Californiaare subsidizing those conservative deadbeats elsewhere. "

www.yedda.com

"conservative deadbeats" lol

#114 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
We did start a new country, it is called the United States of America. We got rid of all the tax taking, govt loving wussies then. We just need to do it again.

#119 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-09-17 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think the word "WE" is appropriate unless you are about 250 years old and spent a winter at Valley Forge with George Washington.

As has been pointed out, the things that you and your ilk despise, are here to say, and at least half of America likes it. These things would be the foundation of your new country---No libs--no social security--no medicare--no universal Health care--strong States rights and a weak central government--no affirmative action--no gay rights--no abortion--no welfare--low low taxes on the rich and high taxes on the middle class and poor--no unions--never a lib President--never a lib in Congress--never a lib on the Supreme Court---unregulated banking--no people like me telling you what a moron you are.

You see---about half the country embraces those things---they are here to stay. There are only two ways to get rid of them---kill all the people who want those things---or start your own country. To kill all the people who want those things, would mean a rebellion against the United States---a country you seem to hate, but you wave the flag as you hate it. The other alternative is to start your own country with the millions upon millions who think just like you.

Why would you want to kill fellow Americans when there is an alternative? Why would you force your views on others---why not allow FREE CHOICE, and allow citizens to live in whichever country suits their disposition?

It is flag wavers like yourself who spout names like FreeChoice, who would deny such choices to others. Your name should be GiantDoucheHypocrite. Join your brothers in building a new nation, and quit thinking of killing other Americans. That way, everybody lives--everybody is happy with their government.

www.sonofthesouth.net

www.texasnationalist.com

images.google.com

You've already got several flags to choose from, and several States would join you---put it to a vote in each State---that's free choice.

"You see---about half the country embraces those things---they are here to stay. There are only two ways to get rid of them---kill all the people who want those things---or start your own country. To kill all the people who want those things, would mean a rebellion against the United States---a country you seem to hate, but you wave the flag as you hate it. The other alternative is to start your own country with the millions upon millions who think just like you.'

Wait,wait, wait... It gets better:

"Why would you want to kill fellow Americans when there is an alternative? Why would you force your views on others---why not allow FREE CHOICE,"

So as long as you think like me and see that as FREE CHOICE, you won't have to take the alternative path of killing me when you start your own country.

lol Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Buffalo Bob.

Damn, I did not even read that part the first time through, you are one crazy SOB. If you love America, you hate govt involvement in your life. That is what it was founded on, and what the constitution is for. I guess you don't understand the word freedom.

#121 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-09-17 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag

I guess one of us doesn't understand the word FREEDOM. Our understanding is completely different. In my country when the Preamble to the Constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

we believ it. All you see is the provide for the common defence part. There is no true freedom in poverty. There is no true freedom if you can't afford health insurance. There is no true freedom if you can't afford an education. If people need help with those things, that comes under the heading of promote the general welfare---the part you don't like. You won't have to include it in your new country. You won't have to have promote domestic tranquility either. You can keep the socialistic concept of a military to protect all.

How about this for the New Preamble to your Constitution:

We the People of the New United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, provide for the common defence, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Like I said---it would be your Constitution to tear apart as you see fit. All you need is the courage to join the millions upon millions who think just like you.

www.texasnationalist.com

www.sonofthesouth.net

images.google.com

lol Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Buffalo Bob.

#164 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-17 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks for the promo---but in the future, highlight either your words or mine so that people don't confuse me with your dUmB ass. Deal? I stand by those words---I see you have nothing is response except derision--try some logic sometime.

"Thanks for the promo---but in the future, highlight either your words or mine so that people don't confuse me with your dUmB ass. Deal? I stand by those words---I see you have nothing is response except derision--try some logic sometime"

Which logic is that Bob? Where I have to kill you to form a more perfect union? Or where your Country is free as long as they are like minded?

BTW BOB,
If that magical Country ever becomes a reality, and it fails because nobody wants to work and expects everyone else to take care of them, think about coming over to the other country. You could be like the jester of the king's court.

Which logic is that Bob? Where I have to kill you to form a more perfect union?

You really can't read can you. The killing was suggested by freechoice, where he advocates another rebellion, which would involve killing Americans My suggestion of two countries is a means to avoid the killings.

We got rid of all the tax taking, govt loving wussies then. We just need to do it again.

#119 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-09-17 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or where your Country is free as long as they are like minded?

Yes--that is correct. That would make us UNITED. We would be able to pursue our liberal agenda. It would also make YOUR country UNITED, where you could purue your conservative agenda unfettered by libtards. You wouldn't have to hate half your fellow Americans--they would have no effect on your life.

Why should people who oppose each other on every level be forced to endure the perceived stupidity of the other? How can either side be free when the other thwarts their every move? Let's see your brilliance--let's see your logic---let it shine. Or just throw more insults like the moron you are.

Waiting on you.

;-)

#167 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-17 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag

The problem is, once the nation were divided into two countries, the rightwinger country (being stupid and violent) would probably immediately invade the leftwing country. They would of course immediately get their asses kicked by the smarter, better organized, more technologically advanced leftwing nation, but the death toll would be regrettable.

BTW BOB,
If that magical Country ever becomes a reality, and it fails because nobody wants to work and expects everyone else to take care of them, think about coming over to the other country. You could be like the jester of the king's court.

#168 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-17 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag

My country is already in existence. We have the things I want. Things like lots of libs---social security---medicare-----weak States rights and a strong central government---affirmative action---gay rights---abortion rights---welfare--low low taxes on the poor and middle class and high taxes on the rich---unions---a lib President---a lib Congress---regulated banking.

It is your country that needs to be called into existence where you could create it the way you want.

Why do you insist on having libs in your country when you so obviouly hate everything liberal? Why do you balk at having a country that reflects your views? Lack of courage?

So what you are saying is that the GOVT really screwed things up when they created Medicare, but it is not really their fault because they had good intentions, it is the evil insurance companies that make money? A lib favorite, don't judge our ideas on reality, just judge us on what we meant to do. Fix what you have already broke the hell out of, then come back and ask for more.

It's not that the insurance companies or the pharmaceutical companies are evil. It's that they are being rewarded for the wrong thing. They're rewarded for bringing in money. Some of the ways they've figured out to bring in more money are: raising rates far beyond CPI or inflation, price gouging on medicines protected by patent, and denying pre-existing conditions.

Our health care really is the best in the world -- if you can afford it.

There are people with no money, with no health care at all, but who can legally go to the ER. We all pay for those ER visits with increased premiums and rising rates. They would be so much less of a drain on the system if we treated them before their illness became so severe it required a trip to the ER.

The problem is our health system does not have the goal or purpose of keeping all Americans healthy. Like any business, it is primarily concerned with making money. And it makes money because Americans -- directly, from their employers, and in FICA and Medicare taxes -- spend more and more to maintain health in America. Including the health of illegal immigrants who cannot legally be turned away from the ER.

The one place we deliver free care, at the ER, is just about the most expensive place we could be handing it out to the indigent. It would be cheaper for us to offer them the full spectrum of care. Not to mention, it would be more humane.

But we've been doing the wrong thing so long now, it's grown to be 17% of our economy. That's just too much. There is no way it should take 1/6th of our GDP to provide healthcare to everyone in this country, including illegal aliens.

People who can't see the problem never will.

"The problem is our health system does not have the goal or purpose of keeping all Americans healthy. Like any business, it is primarily concerned with making money."

How much has the Gov and health system spent encouraging Americans to eat right and exercise? Or the dangers of abusing tobacco, alcohol or any other unhealthy abuse. Does anyone think these people would suddenly change if they had free healthcare?

BTW... Has Obama quit smoking? Or does that not matter when he preaches about reform?

How much has the Gov and health system spent encouraging Americans to eat right and exercise? Or the dangers of abusing tobacco, alcohol or any other unhealthy abuse.

Ah. A "teachable moment", as Limbaugh is wont to say:

How much has McDonald's alone spent on convincing your children to eat a high salt high fat diet? How much has RJR spent on convincing people to smoke?

(And no...I'm not for restricting their right to do so, but compare the numbers and get a fucking coherent argument.)

"(And no...I'm not for restricting their right to do so, but compare the numbers and get a fucking coherent argument.)"

A coherent argument? It is a fucking rherotical argument. We ignore all the warnings. Which is why we are the fattest nation in the industrialized world. You couldn't be stupid enough to argue the fact proper diet and exercise leads to less medical costs in the future.

" It is a fucking rherotical argument."

Sounds dangerous.

How much has the Gov and health system spent encouraging Americans to eat right and exercise?

Nothing compared to what we pay in FICA.

HEALTHCARE REFORM ! Is that what there calling it LOL. The only reform is forcing people to fill the
coffers of insurance company's or fining us for not
buying their bullshit plans !!!

BTW... Has Obama quit smoking? Or does that not matter when he preaches about reform?

#173 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-17 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag Ignores #171

It doesn't matter to me--why does it matter to you? Obama has all the health care he needs for life--paid for by you. I'm not concerned with Obamas care--I'm concerned about the millions of Americans withour health care--you know--the ones you couldn't give a shit about---the ones that don't matter to you..

#175 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-17 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag Ignores #171

You are the deflection king.

#178 | Posted by wakeupfools at 2009-09-18 12:01 AM | Reply | Flag: Needs to wake up

Gee--you would think the insurance companies would be pushing for this plan if what you said had any basis in reality. It doesn't, and you don't either.

I think one reason they don't just expand Medicare, the easy and affordable thing to do, is that even now Seniors are worried about how their coverage might be effected.... Seniors being some of the easiest scare targets for Rethugism.
#87 | POSTED BY CORKY

It wouldn't affect the greedy boomers at all except expand the pool of recipients.

Medicare for all should be the solution not a new bill. It already is in place.

HEALTHCARE REFORM ! Is that what there calling it LOL. The only reform is forcing people to fill the
coffers of insurance company's or fining us for not
buying their bullshit plans !!!

#178 | POSTED BY WAKEUPFOOLS

yeah its mandated profits.

#175 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-17 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag Ignores #171

#171 is written by a senile, decrepit, old man who can barely remember to put on his Depends after his warm bath. You bet it was ignored.

good line this morning

he has FINNALY come up with a bipartisan bill

both sides hate it

WHY?

look at the hidden taxes.
and the taxes on the insurance people. does anyone here STILL think those wont be passed on to us?
and if they are WITH a government option. your employer will drop your coverage and pay the fine which is lower than most cost

its just stupid that we are risking 100% of peoples coverage for 5% who cant afford it.

#171 is written by a senile, decrepit, old man who can barely remember to put on his Depends after his warm bath. You bet it was ignored.

#184 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-18 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag: Uses Persoanl attack rather than rebuttal

Deflection king strikes agian. Wimpy Wimpy Wimpy.

Make a point--step up--make a statement--be a man--grow some balls.

Waiting on you.

;-)

look at the hidden taxes.
and the taxes on the insurance people. does anyone here STILL think those wont be passed on to us?

Let's take the insurance companies out ot the Health Care business. No insurance company ever cured anyone. They are the middle man--the man between you and health care--a parasite on society and the health care system--they add NOTHING, and take take take.

and if they are WITH a government option. your employer will drop your coverage and pay the fine which is lower than most cost

Let's get employers out of the health care field also--it will save them money, and that money COULD be passed on to the workers. Notice the word COULD---I doubt many employers would pass the savings on, but it would mean more money in their pockets---which republicans would prefer anyway.

its just stupid that we are risking 100% of peoples coverage for 5% who cant afford it.

40 million is 5% of 300 million? That republican education you recieved wasn't very good.

#186 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-09-18 11:04 AM | Reply | Flag

Which is worse? A bad bill or no bill. A bad bill you have to blame Obama and the dems. No bill and you can put all the blame on the repubs. Seems like you are in a quandry.
#81 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC

unfortunately you are correct..We need reform in order to reign in costs and improve the business clime in the United States. Healthcare costs are serously out of control.

How much has the Gov and health system spent encouraging Americans to eat right and exercise? Or the dangers of abusing tobacco, alcohol or any other unhealthy abuse. Does anyone think these people would suddenly change if they had free healthcare?
BTW... Has Obama quit smoking? Or does that not matter when he preaches about reform?

#173 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC

I would have to agree with the healthy living incentives or lack thereof.

It would behoove Obama to stop smoking and set an example for THE CHILDREN.

damnit CRISPEE.. I am agreeing with you too much today.

Baucus' so-called bi-partisan bill is an unpassable piece of shit.
---------------Spud

That is the reason it is bi-partisan--both parties hate it.

It would behoove Obama to stop smoking and set an example for THE CHILDREN.

#190 | Posted by Legio at 2009-09-18 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag

How about a video of Obama smoking? I don't think he flaunts his smoking, and I doubt his smoking has any effect on any child taking up smoking.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

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