Another Bill? And this is big news? Bwhahaha.

All tricks and no treat. What a scary thing this is. i am going to dress up as a government insurance bureaucrat this Halloween.

lie #1
will not add one cent to the deficit

yeaH I know what the cbo says but they are looking at something that will be different in a very short time
anyone REALLY believe they will get savings from medicare cuts? please..

and MEDICARE...38 BILLLION in the hole
AMTRAK....billions in the hole
post office...need I go on?

lie#2

straight from the horse twat's mouth named pelosi

"we have listened to the american people"

another fuckin lie from the chief goddamn democrat.

lie #3
glad to see such a cross section of people here with me

uh no miss twat...I didnt see any hint of BIpartisanship either this morning or during the process

and for you ignoranat dupes about to recite the "COMPANY LINE" about republicans

rep paul ryan just went through most of the REPUBLICAN Ideas on health care reform such as
buying across state lines
portability of those policies
TORT REFORM

one more thing in the bill

"no federal funding for abortion except when allowed"

for those of you who are too blinded by your bias and bigotry against anything other than the OFFICIAL george soros policy

THAT means they can make up anything they want to fund abortion,

NOvember 2, 2010

NOvember 2, 2010

may be the day the republic is saved.

The Bill is 1990 pages. Anyone posting here saying this is good or bad has no clue what is in it.

Only 35 million? What about illegals? Nancy Pelosi is being "unamrican" not covering illegals, that's according to her own standards. Shame on her.

TORT REFORM = what a NON issue

Pay no ATTENTION to the afkababble behind the curtain.

Time to start harrassing the SHIT out of Liberman. Give that man NO REST!

"Another Bill? And this is big news? Bwhahaha."

Here's a real laugh for you, blinkie:

If it's that long, it can't be good.

Who needs to read the bill? Not me! -Rah Rah Sarvis.

The bill contains the word "shall" 3,425 times.

It only takes one paperclip somewhere in those 1990 pages to ruin everyone's day. Remember that.

It's happening. Reform of some kind is going to happen.

There is a tax on medical device manufactures.... cheaper healthcare.......*eye wink*

There is a tax on medical device manufactures

A tax on DME will only lead to less people accepting treatment or it is a push toward surgery over non-invasive treatments.

Politics never changes The opposition obstructs
with no benefit to the American people while all politicians are in the pockets of the special interests. SSSD

Where's the Long-Sought GOP Alternative Health Plan?

The American people have spoken. They oppose government-run health care. Republicans are on the side of the American people.

What Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problems. In the Republican address following President Obama's speech to a Joint Session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) outlined a series of such solutions:

■"We do need medical liability reform, and it needs to be real reform. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care."
■"Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance."
■"All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions."
■"Individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do."
■"We can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor."
■"[I]nsurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they'd simply made healthier choices earlier in life."

a majority of Americans - for the first time in the Obama presidency - says the U.S. is headed down the wrong track, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted Oct. 22-25.

No numbers again huh? That's a plan huh?

Hence why we still stay the GOP has no plan. That isn't a plan.

Time to start harrassing the SHIT out of Liberman. Give that man NO REST!

#7 | Posted by Monstman at

YES

AMEN BRO

ALL RIGHT.,..we HAVE TO make sure that all dissent is broken and anyone against the official george soros COMPANY POLICY is attacked and maimed and destroyed...

thats the way all of the marxist have done things.

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public."

Most 0f the 1990 pages are legalese. What's in it can be read in summary, and it'll be up for 72 hours.

Congrats to the much maligned, even by the Left, Majority Leader Pelosi, who never backed down from a public option and is responsible for getting this Bill done.

Paid for with a couple of points up in tax on the comparatively very wealthy instead of the Senate premium which would effect the middle class is a winner, and what Obama proposed initially.

Too bad the GNOP was more concerned about burning Obama than helping America.

The bill contains the word "shall" 3,425 times.

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris

there are some advance comments...and yeah okay,...have to see it for sure

say that the word abortion or is refered to FOURTEEN times
thats a lot for a subject that the dems say isnt there....

It's happening. Reform of some kind is going to happen.

#13 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009

as it should

but how much of the economy is being put out to dry by a handfull of people ALL OF which WILL NOT BE INVOLVED WITH THE REFORM

When President Obama gave his address to the joint session of Congress some Republicans were holding up something labeled Republican Plan....it was empty, nothing inside. That is what they held up as a plan, a cover with nothing inside. They haven't filled in that void in the weeks since.
The Party of No....No Ideas, No solutions, No compassion.

Politics never changes The opposition obstructs
with no benefit to the American people while all politicians are in the pockets of the special interests. SSSD

#16 | Posted by geehowdyfrommo

AH COME ON PARTY POOPER

this may be one of those treads that the 'shit goes flying a mile a minute' and you have to
hang on to keep up.......

pick a side and HAVE AT IT>.

LOL!!!!!!

What?! NO wobust pubwic option?! They lied to me!WaaaaaH! They pwomised!!

--Wittle Corky

"Congrats to the much maligned, even by the Left, Majority Leader Pelosi, who never backed down from a public option and is responsible for getting this Bill done."

Yep, she does deserve an apology from some of us (including me).

Hence why we still stay the GOP has no plan. That isn't a plan.

#19 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009

come on
you are smart enough to know that thats wrong.
how can you voice a plan when you are shut out
OH yeah..I heard someone last night on cnn saying that repubicans had a plan but not a policy...

or some other 1984 mispeak like that....

a majority of Americans - for the first time in the Obama presidency - says the U.S. is headed down the wrong track, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted Oct. 22-25.

Bullshit. It was 50/50 for a couple of days in June. Other than that, its been wrong over right direction since way back in the Bush era, or even longer. -10 is better than the -71 Bush left under.

Bwhahahahahahahaha!

#8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Why are you being so arrogant when you are standing on shaky ground! You do this over and over. Perhaps you are grouchy because you can't find a hat for your pointed head?

The Democrats are cramming this shit through and the Republicans are saying we need to slow down and find a good plan that the American people want.

What the fuck are you laughing at? You look like an ignorant arrogant fool.

One question, do you really believe that Pelosi is listening to the American people? Really?

that's funny, i thought they'd vote on it and pass it before it was actually released or read.

Only 35 million? What about illegals? Nancy Pelosi is being "unamrican" not covering illegals, that's according to her own standards. Shame on her.

We can just throw all the illegals in jail like the right wing wants. Then they'll be eligible for free health care at taxpayer expense.

Too bad the GNOP was more concerned about burning Obama than helping America.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10

see other posts

and then keep them handy so you can use them to whine about dems being locked out in the future.

but HOPEFULLY in the future I can get back to you and tell you..see THIS is how you run the republic..

but right now..

arg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Once again the Democrats have total control. If this fails it's because of Democrats. They own this.

Cookedfish tried to get rid of that impediment with a speech therapist, but to no avail. But then, hiring a speech therapist named Snagglepuss was prolly not to bright.

I'd say that I got a lot closer to what I want in this Bill, which is not the final Bill, than Cockfisher did, by any stretch of even his highly limited imagination.

Or are we blaming this on Lieberman now? LMAO.

If it ain't single payer, it ain't worth a bucket of warm piss.

The Party of No....No Ideas, No solutions, No compassion.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-29

OKAY

IM going to type this in big letters and spaces so all of you can read it REAL SLOW...

TORT REFORM

INTERSTATE PURCHASES

PORTABILITY OF THOSE PURCHASES

theres three ideas and possible solutions

so when can we expect you to come back and revise the word..."NO" in that little soliliqly (sp)of yours

arg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think BL2 speaks for the Tight as a whole on this.

Congrats to the much maligned, even by the Left, Majority Leader Pelosi, who never backed down from a public option and is responsible for getting this Bill done."

LOL. Never backed down?! She caved in and changed her tune when it finally dawned on her that she didn't have the votes:

Under pressure from moderate-to-conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to propose a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using prices set by the government, aides said Wednesday.
Ms. Pelosi said the public plan, which she prefers to call a "consumer option," would compete with private insurers. But the speaker was apparently unable to muster the votes needed for the "robust" liberal version of a public plan, which she has repeatedly said would save more money for consumers and the government.

It's now a "consumer option" per the uberbitch - whatever that is.

We can just throw all the illegals in jail like the right wing wants. Then they'll be eligible for free health care at taxpayer expense.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at

where have you been

the goddamn democrats with their chickenshit pussy president will just declare all of them citizens and then they will look in the camera and say

we didnt pay for illegals

and libs here and arond the country will say

HARRUMP>..(and get all pumped up in the chest while they sip on thier lattes) uh yes....that is correct....

It's happening. Reform of some kind is going to happen.

#13 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009

as it should

but how much of the economy is being put out to dry by a handfull of people ALL OF which WILL NOT BE INVOLVED WITH THE REFORM

#24 | Posted by afkabl2

AFK, I agree with ManyPath's statement that some kind of Reform is going to happen, but I also agree with you.

We are not even close and putting together a bill that contains crap is not an accomplishment.

Congress has not listened to the Patient nor the Doctor!!!

The bill should be centered around that relationship. It's not... It's Crap!!!

Does this mean we are all gay communists now?

Who needs to read the bill?
#10 | Posted by wisgod

I've been waiting for more than four months to read the GOP alternative that your boys promised. Any idea when that might be forthcoming?

think BL2 speaks for the Tight as a whole on this.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2009

DAMN SON...you are more clever than I ever gave you credit for

TIGHT AS A WHOLE....

tight whole

tight hole

RIGHT ass hole

nice one..

(bitch)

chickenshit pussy president will just declare all of them citizens

Right! Just like Reagan and McCain wanted to do.

"TORT REFORM
INTERSTATE PURCHASES
PORTABILITY OF THOSE PURCHASES"

How come you never include

taking away insurance industry's exemption from laws against collusion between companies?????

Why should they be exempt from anti-trust laws???

The Democrats are cramming this shit through and the Republicans are saying we need to slow down and find a good plan that the American people want.

What the fuck are you laughing at? You look like an ignorant arrogant fool.

One question, do you really believe that Pelosi is listening to the American people? Really?

Posted by Eddie at 2009-10-29 10:36 AM | Reply

To hell with them greedy Republicans and Conservative Democrats. They just want to keep status quo and that ain't working. It's a disgrace that they would rather line the wallets of the Insurance Industry than to help their fellow Countryfolk. It's time to either shit or get off of the pot. We can't wait forever.

Larry

It's now a "consumer option" per the uberbitch - whatever that is.

#42 | Posted by cookfish at 2009

paul ryan said it even better

this makes PUBLIC UTILITIES out of the insurance companies.

and then the left will still refuse to admit that the obama white house is taking over business and media and all of the other things that all marxists are required to take over to stay in power.

SEE CHAVEZ/CASTRO

Does this mean we are all gay communists now?

#45 | Posted by Sully at 2009-

uh ...well..you will have to speak for yourself

I'd say that I got a lot closer to what I want in this Bill, which is not the final Bill, than Cockfisher did, by any stretch of even his highly limited imagination.

Personally I preferred NOT tying the Exchange rates to Medicare rates.

The gamble (this for shills like Cookedfish who know nothing about policy but are only here to see what incredible shit they just typed) of tying these rates to often too low for doctors Medicare rates made it easy to explain, and was a possible platform to improve Medicare rates, but it alienated some doctors and can...... wait for it..... be changed later if necessary.

LOL!! Corky got nothing he wanted, but has now moved the goalposts so far back he's in the parking lot. Hahahaha! Post some more "we need robust public option threads" you lying piece of fluff, Corkles.

No more flat tax on individuals without health care coverage, now it is a 2.5% tax. There is a religious exemption, among others. I don't like the part in BOLD.

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) TAX IMPOSED.In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of
(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross in8
come for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in
section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer

Any idea when that might be forthcoming?

#46 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-29 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I believe they were talking about it from OUTSIDE the locked doors that this bullshit came out of.

cant wait for a republican congress again and have them do this so we can all read the hypocritical sanctamoney that will be surely there..

AND if next tuesday goes as we hope..
this will all be a moot point as the blue dogs would be too scared that they would end up like the two democrat governors and the dem in the new york district...IF those go according to our wishes.

IF that happens..this will only be good to wrap some DEAD FISH FOR THE ballet dancer RHOM to send

I am just so happy for this first step along the path to a real solution, Single Payer.

hahahhahahaha!!

When the bill finally passes with nothing like a public option, Corky will still find a way to claim victory. Kinda like the last guy standing in Hiroshima saying "we won!" LOL.

Devices just went up, old saying tax what you don't want....well we don't need no medical devices....

SEC. 4061. MEDICAL DEVICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.There is hereby imposed on the
first taxable sale of any medical device a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the price for which so sold.

Right! Just like Reagan and McCain wanted to do.

#48 | Posted by Lee_Atwater at

first of all,....mccain..damn straight and the american people and even many here of diverse and opposite affiliations stopped him..

reagan was another story........and do not forget that at that time...there was supposed to be OTHER REFORM coming that the dems NEVER DID so they wouldnt erode thier prospective voting base increase.

Only 35 million? What about illegals? Nancy Pelosi is being "unamrican" not covering illegals, that's according to her own standards. Shame on her.

We can just throw all the illegals in jail like the right wing wants. Then they'll be eligible for free health care at taxpayer expense.

#33 | Posted by snoofy

Hmmmmmm.

Snoofy, reality is plain and understandable, but if you have a "Stupid Filter" on, then you will interpret reality to the idea you just presented.

Keith Obberman will give you a "Stupid Filter". I advise you to stop it.

What is needed is for the Police in these Sancuary Cities to be able to enforce the law. When the Police arrest someone for drunk driving, for example, they let them go because ICE is supposed to come pick them up and deport them. Since ICE never shows up, the Police let them go and they drive drunk again and then kill someone.

These drunks give the other illegals (who only broke one law) a bad name.

-Corky got nothing he wanted

So now, kiddies, you know that most of what Minced Pieces posts is crap... if you didn't know it before.

Why should they be exempt from anti-trust laws???

#49 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-29 10:44

I have to honestly tell you that I dont know enough about that to have an opinion on..

but to speak on that condition..maybe thats another thing for them to look at..I just dont know at this moment..

hell sweety........there are only 24 hours in a day and YESTERDAY CORKY got onto me for not reading two or three books everyday..

geesh........

The economy is still in the tank, deficit spending through the roof, and now this pink elephant of a spending bill/tax increasing/job killing
/"where's my free shit" of a hand out bill!

These idiots-in-charge (i.e. the Democrats) in Washington have completely gone off the deep end this time.

Job one should be to get the economy going and get people back to work. Then you can worry about health care reform.

Economics 101

this makes PUBLIC UTILITIES out of the insurance companies.

Good, that's the way it should be. Regulated and de-profitized.

The alternative, where Enron rapes California, is what we have now.

When the bill finally passes with a public option, Cookie will still find a way to claim victory. Kinda like the last guy standing in Hiroshima saying "we won!" LOL.

You are so easy.

SEC. 4061. MEDICAL DEVICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.There is hereby imposed on the
first taxable sale of any medical device a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the price for which so sold.

#60 | Posted by AndreaMackris at

THATABABY

fire when ready

go get em....

Good, that's the way it should be. Regulated and de-profitized.

The alternative, where Enron rapes California, is what we have now.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at

YES

A JOE THE PLUMBER MOMENT

so insurance reform and helping people ISNT the agenda.,

its the 'deorifitizing" thats the real issue

that and federal control..

THANKS so much

hey maybe me and you can get on national tv with this one,....

"thats the way all of the marxist have done things."

#20 | Posted by afkabl2

Actually it is a Stalinist tactic not at all attributed to Marx.

But no one would expect the BABBLER behind the curtain to understand facts about communism. Communism is simply your boogie man that you throw out there like the troll you are.

I SAY AGAIN to hell with tort reform or any other right wing BS. March in the streets - bang drums - give Liberman HELL!!!

We WILL have our public option!!

oh yeah

about enron

maybe we should ask the popular ENRON ADVISOR
paul krugman...

WHEW

caught up finnaly

come on all of you

threads like this are what we wait for...

fast and furious.....

"reagan was another story........and do not forget that at that time...there was supposed to be OTHER REFORM coming that the dems NEVER DID so they wouldnt erode thier prospective voting base increase."

What??? The Democrats wouldn't blindly obey His Royal Highness Ronnie Raygun??? They wouldn't cut spending on programs that help Americans while Reagan increased spending on systems that never worked???
You can't have it both ways. You try to pretend Ronnie brought down the USSR by increasing military spending....
then you try to excuse his creation of 3 trillion of debt by blaming Democrats for not cutting spending...
Get your story straight.

You seem lonely Bush Lover. Maybe you should call someone you know and just talk to them.

ANOTHER JOE THE PLUMBER MOMENT

monsta admits its worthy of JOE STALIN...
so lets see..how many people did he kill???

WOW......this is great

wheres hannity and beck when you need them

When the bill finally passes with a public option, Cookie will still find a way to claim victory. Kinda like the last guy standing in Hiroshima saying "we won!" LOL.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-29 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag (X) Unoriginal plagiarism as per usual. Needs much work, and reality therapy.

"Spreading It Around
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: Friday, January 25, 2002

A bizarre thing happened to me over the past week: Conservative newspapers and columnists made a concerted effort to portray me as a guilty party in the Enron scandal. Why? Because in 1999, before coming to The New York Times , I was briefly paid to serve on an Enron advisory board.

Never mind that, scrupulously following the Times conflict of interest rules, I resigned from that board as soon as I agreed to write for this newspaper ? making me much more fastidious than, say, William Kristol, who served on that same board while editing The Weekly Standard. Never mind that I disclosed that past connection a year ago, the first time I wrote about Enron in this column ? and also disclosed it the one time I mentioned Enron before, in a Fortune column. Never mind that the compensation I received per day was actually somewhat less than other companies were paying me at the time for speeches on world economic issues."

"wheres hannity and beck when you need them"

Openly admitting he is running out of talking points.

I see a Health Care Plan by Christmas, possibly with a robust public plan, which is a substitute for strong regulation.

More on health care aspect of Poll

www.washingtonpost.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-20 08:32 AM | Reply | Flag (X)Now he says it's not what he wanted. LOL

It's happening. Reform of some kind is going to happen.

"Reform" for the sake of reform is not necessarily good. You can reform something and make it worse.

"You seem lonely Bush Lover. Maybe you should call someone you know and just talk to them."

Nobody in their right mind would spend more than 30 seconds talking with that nut.

Why do you think he posts here so much?

YES
A JOE THE PLUMBER MOMENT
so insurance reform and helping people ISNT the agenda.,
its the 'deorifitizing" thats the real issue
that and federal control..

It's about spending our money more effectively. 1/6th our GDP is too much to pay to stay healthy.

You make all these suggestions like TORT REFORM and BUYING ACROSS STATE LINES. Those might work, who knows? Here's a better idea: Just copy a system which is proven to work in every other modern country!

Who provides your health insurance, AFK? You're on Medicare or Medicaid, amirite?

I've been waiting for more than four months to read the GOP alternative that your boys promised. Any idea when that might be forthcoming?
#46 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-29 10:43 AM

Ever heard of the Empowering Patients First Act? How about the Patients Choice Act? The fact that you are too ignorant to realize that these bills exist does not mean that they aren't out there.

"Support for a public option runs high in opinion surveys. The latest Marist poll found that 60 percent believe it would prove beneficial, including 57 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans. Democrats overwhelmingly favor it."

Which might be the only way we get anything resembling a robust public plan.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-14 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag (X)But he 'got what he wanted' with this new bill. LOL

Openly admitting he is running out of talking points.

#78 | Posted by danni at 2009

nice try ...

The Bill Arrives

Wish at my house it matched the headline -- "The bill arrives."

In my mailbox it's always plural -- the bills arrive.

Good, that's the way it should be. Regulated and de-profitized.

The alternative, where Enron rapes California, is what we have now.

#66 | Posted by snoofy

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the agenda of the Left is to centralize and

Enron raping California is because the utilities are so regulated, that a player as big as Enron is the only entity that can handle it!

So, when something goes wrong, a very large number of people are affected.

If utilities were completely deregulated, then people would be able to produce energy and sell to anyone they like.

However, under the "Al Gore" plan (I call it this, because he's the bad guy), then all energy production will be centralized and controlled by the government!!!

How stupid is that?

we are coming up with technologies that will power a home for next to nothing with low investment.

Nobody in their right mind would spend more than 30 seconds talking with that nut.

Why do you think he posts here so much?

#81 | Posted by Dave at 2009-10-29 11:04 AM

because I am the opposition to the goddam democrats with thier chickenshit pussy president who is destroying this ONCE great republic and its up to us on the right as well as the moderates who are RUNNING LIKE DEER from this marxist administration to see that it is saved..

Wish at my house it matched the headline -- "The bill arrives."

In my mailbox it's always plural -- the bills arrive.

#86 | Posted by CalifChris

Funny Flag, Chris.

To me, both are bad news.

Who provides your health insurance, AFK? You're on Medicare or Medicaid, amirite?

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-

im not on medicare yet....thats why im afraid after YEARS AND YEARS of paying into it that the goddamn dmeocrats will have broken the bank on it

well shit

have to go..

damn these threads like this are fun

have fun boys

eddie

GO GET EM....

Who provides your health insurance, AFK? You're on Medicare or Medicaid, amirite?

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-

Snoofy,

Let's clear something up about Medicare. I had to beat Danni down over and over about this and finally she stopped using it.

But, you probably think Medicare is something "given" to the people.

It is not!

The perception AND the reality is that Medicare is an investment.

People put part of their paychecks into Medicare and "Social" Security for decades and they expect a Return on their Investment!!

How is this a GIFT from the government?

have fun boys

eddie

GO GET EM....

#91 | Posted by afkabl2

Looks like I've shut 'em down yet again.

"Who provides your health insurance, AFK? You're on Medicare or Medicaid, amirite?"

#82 | Posted by snoof

WOW the babbler sure got quiet all of a sudden!

MY chickenshit pussy president can beat up YOUR Joe the DUMBER any day of the week!

"because I am the opposition to the goddam democrats with thier chickenshit pussy president who is destroying this ONCE great republic and its up to us on the right as well as the moderates who are RUNNING LIKE DEER from this marxist administration to see that it is saved.."

Go git 'em, tiger.

"Let's clear something up about Medicare. I had to beat Danni down over and over about this and finally she stopped using it."

What the hell are you talking about???

Why do you think [AFKABL2] posts here so much.

#81 | Posted by Dave at 2009-10-29 11:04 AM

'Cause that librarian loving, Friday's "Happy Hour" margarita drinkin', crazy Texan has a special place in our ♥♥♥.

"because I am the opposition to the goddam democrats with thier chickenshit pussy president who is destroying this ONCE great republic and its up to us on the right as well as the moderates who are RUNNING LIKE DEER from this marxist administration to see that it is saved.."

Are AKAstupid and Pinochet Mao twins, or is this some Texan tard thing to drool like some lunatic John Bircher?

they are still ironing out what to do about illegal aliens.

"People put part of their paychecks into Medicare and "Social" Security for decades and they expect a Return on their Investment!!"

Ooooooo!

Tell us more, Mr. Wizzard!

AFK,
So you're on Medicare, is that the answer?

Medicare is indeed something given to people... by other people. It's a benefit provided to some members of the public by taxpayers, administered by the federal government and your state.

It is absolutely not an "investment." Money comes in from workers, benefits go out to recipients. There's no account with your name on it somewhere to which you have paid in all these years. Die before 65, you don't get anything!

Your eligibility is automatic provided you've lived here for five years. But you never invested. Your Medicare benefit is not proportional to the amount you paid in while earning, like a pension or 401(k).

People put part of their paychecks into Medicare and "Social" Security for decades and they expect a Return on their Investment!!

What about people who die before 65, do their families get their medicare premiums back? No.

It's not an investment. It's something we do so old people don't die in the street like dogs. And it's something we should do for all Americans.

Oh crap, that was Eddie. Sorry, you and Tweedle Dee write in a similar style.

Ooooooo!

Tell us more, Mr. Wizzard!

Like maybe telling you his name is spelled with one "z" not two? lol

"bar insurance companies from denying coverage based on health history"

IF THIS WORKS IT IS PROGRESS.

Seems like all the conservatives are posting on this thread, and without exception are against protecting millions of Americans with health care. This is reflected in the congress with conservatives universally aligned with denying care to millions of Americans while they enjoy the best health care money and priviledge can offer.

This split is consistent with every major decision to be made by government for over 40 years. Conservatives on one side, and liberals on the other---I don't see any unity in the two concepts at all---do you? The two sides are always at odds, and always have different views on the goals and future of the country. They are in conflict so much that they both get in each others way, and nothing is ever really accomplished, from war to health care.

It should be obvious that two countries is the only solution, just as it was in 1776---just as it should have been in 1861. The two sides are as different as the US and Mexico---as the US and Canada--and each side deserves to have their own country, and to plan their own future without obstruction from people diametrically opposed to their basic goals.

I am the opposition

Wow. I'd say you're bi-polar with a Napoleonic complex.

You are nuts.

#104 | Posted by nutcase

There are many aspects of the reform bill I like- mainly those dealing with regulating such as this. I have never agreed with an insurance company being able to take my money and then drop me when I need then, but they do that with home insurance and hurricane coverage too. It isn't healthcare that needs regulation; it is the entire insurance business.

It's not an investment. It's something we do so old people don't die in the street like dogs. And it's something we should do for all Americans.

#101 | Posted by snoofy
* * * *

That's how all Ponzi schemes end.

We get it Bob. You want two countries. Get to work on that.

As a kid I used to love watching Mr. Wizard on tv.

#103 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-10-29 11:41 AM |

Damn, I though you meant Mr. Wizard from Touche Turtle...Drizzle, Drazzle, Druzzle, Drome, ...

It should be obvious that two countries is the only solution

I'm fine with that Bob but we will need about six or ten countries.

The mini-countries without health insurance will ironically have taken better care of their people when they were property (slaves) than full citizens.

But of course, that's why slavery ended in the first place. It's costly to care for someone like they're precious, valuable property. Let them fend for themselves in a tenement. Untrained factory workers are a fungible commodity, heck even a child could work in a factory more productively than on a farm.

"That's how all Ponzi schemes end."

No some, like Bernie Madoff's, end with somone in jail. Pretending that Medicare is a Ponzi scheme is ridiculous.

I think they forgot to add a zero or two onto the end of the cost figure.

So is it really that easy? AFK disappears when you ask if he's on Medicare/Medicaid?

There must be a better explanation...

We get it Bob. You want two countries. Get to work on that.

#109 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag

You don't want two countries? Why not? What value do you see with liberals fucking up everything conservatives want to do? Can you answer, or are you the unthinking zombie I've always considered you to be?

The mini-countries without health insurance will ironically have taken better care of their people when they were property (slaves) than full citizens.

I dpoubt you would find much support for that comment from the people who were actual slaves of that time. If you want another slave, just breed them, or rape one of the women to create your own.

But of course, that's why slavery ended in the first place.

Actually slavery ended because we killed most of the people who thought slavery was a States Right.

It's costly to care for someone like they're precious, valuable property.

They weren't cared for at all, or treated as precious. They were beaten for the slightest infraction, worked from sun up to sundown, and mostly died at early ages.

Let them fend for themselves in a tenement.

Even tenement life was better than a dirt floor with one room shared by several families.

Untrained factory workers are a fungible commodity, heck even a child could work in a factory more productively than on a farm.

That's why we have laws against child labor now. Not all countries have such laws. I'm sure the conservative country would not have such protection. Another reason for two countries.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-29 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag

#73 Danni> You try to pretend Ronnie brought down the USSR by increasing military spending....then you try to excuse his creation of 3 trillion of debt by blaming Democrats for not cutting spending...

How many of Reagan's proposed budgets were actually exceeded by the amounts Congress actually passed?

Weren't some of his budgets declared DOA by Democrats upon arrival?

If Congress spent more than Reagan proposed, who do you blame for the debt? Choose one answer: a) Reagan alone, b) Congress alone, c) both Congress & Reagan

Also, how did the amount of federal income tax receipts almost DOUBLE during Reagan's two terms ... yet you blame the debt on his tax cuts?

Even though Clinton spent 8 years as President, why do you continue to blame current economic problems on Reaganomics?

#115 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-29 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd just as soon reduce the size of the federal government and provide more authority to the states. No need for two countries - just move to the state you want to live in. Easy enough for me.

I'd just as soon reduce the size of the federal government and provide more authority to the states. No need for two countries - just move to the state you want to live in. Easy enough for me.

#118 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag

You didn't answer the question.

What value do you see with liberals fucking up everything conservatives want to do?

To think the federal government will somehow shrink itself is unrealistic to the extreme.

The only effective way to shrink the Fed is to split it in two, by forming two countries, and in that way, you can choose which country you would like to live in.

Why are you allowing BoOB to hijack yet another thread with his "two country" nonsense? This thread is about the health care Bill. Screw BoOB and his pointless babble.

Why not borrow the Wheel from Pat Sajak and stick every one of these half-assed bills on it and let B.O. give it a spin?

"Also, how did the amount of federal income tax receipts almost DOUBLE during Reagan's two terms"

"I couldn't have asked for a better example of why it's important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it's less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000."

What value do you see with liberals fucking up everything conservatives want to do?

None.

To think the federal government will somehow shrink itself is unrealistic to the extreme.

Says the guy whose proposal is to split the United States into two countries.

Obscene medical costs drive obscene insurance costs.

Chicken and Egg actually. High medical costs are due to high insurance rates paid by doctors.

The only effective way to shrink the Fed is to split it in two, by forming two countries, and in that way, you can choose which country you would like to live in.

No. You could shrink the fed today by passing a bill removing their authority over various aspects of our lives, and signing it into law. States would then be forced to make up the difference as they deemed fit. You could move to whatever liberal utopia New York, Illinois, etc. decides to offer.

Why can't we nip the problem at the root?

#123 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-10-29 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag

The root of the problem is insurance companies---what do they do to earn their money? Nothing--they are just a middle man--a parasite that adds nothing to the health care of their customers. Eliminate insurance company health care programs, and health care costs drop dramatically. For further reduction, government regulations would apply. I have paid $2.00 for a pill in a prescription, and $57.00 for the same pill at the hospital.

No. You could shrink the fed today by passing a bill removing their authority over various aspects of our lives, and signing it into law. States would then be forced to make up the difference as they deemed fit. You could move to whatever liberal utopia New York, Illinois, etc. decides to offer.

#126 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag

Again, you faled to answer the question.

What value do you see with liberals fucking up everything conservatives want to do?

What aspects would you like to see the government removing their authority over? The ones liberals are against removing? This government will NEVER remove its authority over anything.

Again, you faled to answer the question.

What value do you see with liberals fucking up everything conservatives want to do?
#128 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-29 12:37 PM

What value do you see with liberals fucking up everything conservatives want to do?

None.

#124 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 12:29 PM

RIF.ORG

#125 | Posted by kanrei

Actually, malpractice insurance only counts for about 10% of the cost of most surgical procedures. Its considerably lower for the majority of non-invasive procedures. Frankly, I'm pretty ok paying the extra 10% in case the doctor screws up and removes my leg. But hey, that's just me. AFK wants you to get a big fat check for $10K when that happens and to go away. The real question for tort reform: How much is an arm or a leg worth when it could easily have been prevented by a doctor following procedure? (And yes, a patient plaintiff never wins when a doctor follows procedure. That's just how it works. sorry).

What value do you see with liberals fucking up everything conservatives want to do?

None.

Then why wouldn't you welcome a country without liberal influence? I can see no value to conservative influence. Why do you insist we stay together?

To think the federal government will somehow shrink itself is unrealistic to the extreme.

Says the guy whose proposal is to split the United States into two countries.

I see no conflict with that statement--what conflict do you see? With your new conservative country, you can have a government as small as you like, and leave the huge bloated government to liberals. Why do you oppose this concept?

#124 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

BeachBuzz, you're on the right track now!

To reduce medical costs you have to get rid of the tort lawyers.

Here's an example. My wife is an RN and works for an anesthesiologist. If his bill for the surgery is 1000 dollars, 600 of it goes to covering his liability insurance.

You want to reduce health care costs, reduce the number of lawyers and set caps on damages.

Or is that too hard for the pointy headed democrats to understand?

Actually, malpractice insurance only counts for about 10% of the cost of most surgical procedures. Its considerably lower for the majority of non-invasive procedures. Frankly, I'm pretty ok paying the extra 10% in case the doctor screws up and removes my leg. But hey, that's just me.

I am talking about what the doctor must pay in insurance to practice, not what you pay. The doctor I work for pays $50,000 a year in malpractice insurance alone and he doesn't see patients, just runs a lab. If he did, it would closer to 75. His old Neurologist partner, who is 48, paid %75,000 per year.

Again, you faled to answer the question.

#128 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-29 12:37 PM | Reply

No he didn't, stupid. Read #124 again, punk.

Posts 1-126 were read in like 4 minutes!

Skipping anything written by drivellover and his boyfriend Cock-fisher really makes this place more user friendly.

Welcome back LeeAt. #38 is POD.

I see no conflict with that statement

Then you are stupid. You are suggesting to split the United States into two countries, and then ripping someone else's suggestion of shrinking the fed as being "unrealistic." Your own plan is also unrealistic. There is the conflict.

No. You could shrink the fed today by passing a bill removing their authority over various aspects of our lives, and signing it into law. States would then be forced to make up the difference as they deemed fit. You could move to whatever liberal utopia New York, Illinois, etc. decides to offer.
#126 | Posted by JOE

Red states would never go for it, regardless of their small government rhetoric. Most take more in Federal Taxes than they pay out.

Or is that too hard for the pointy headed democrats to understand?

#132 | Posted by OUR_ZERO at 2009-10-29 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag

So what caps would you set on your mothers life or your wifes disfigurement? What cap would you set on brain damage to your child. What caps would you set on your arms and legs? Just curious.

"If he did, it would closer to 75. His old Neurologist partner, who is 48, paid %75,000 per year."

But how much does his practice take in per year???
How much does he take home? What is his practice worth?

Then you are stupid. You are suggesting to split the United States into two countries, and then ripping someone else's suggestion of shrinking the fed as being "unrealistic." Your own plan is also unrealistic. There is the conflict.

#136 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag

My concept is not unrealistic. The plan worked in 1776, and was fought by the States again in the 1860's. Many people thought both plans were very realistic. I would like to do it without the bloodshed is the only difference. It should be obvious that this is already two countries, fighting against each other in congress with no hope of unity ever again--even in war. Look at the hatred exhibited by conservatives--including yourself--toward all liberals. Why not have your own country and be happy? Have a government and countrymen you can respect instead of hate?

Your concept would--in effect--create 50 different countries with little central authority.

Why do you keep dodging questions, and focusing only on one small aspect of a post? Why do I have to keep repeating questions to you? Do you think that ignoring questions is answering them?

With your new conservative country, you can have a government as small as you like, and leave the huge bloated government to liberals. Why do you oppose this concept?

can't belive no one saw it sooner

The Bill is 1990 pages.

shouldn't that be 1984 pages? Come on someone cut 6 pages so it can be symbolicly important.

But how much does his practice take in per year???
How much does he take home? What is his practice worth?

None of that is a factor into malpractice rates. It is not based on how much you make, but on how much the company will have to pay if you get sued and lose. You can complain all day long, but when you look at having to pay for medical equipment, rent on the office, a staff of qualified medical professionals, and then at least $75,000 a year in Malpractice insurance, you can begin to understand why they change what they do.

Malpractice fears also drive doctors to perform more more test than they want to because they have to be able to prove everything when sued.

"you can begin to understand why they change what they do."

I agree. I don't necessarily think they charge too much. I don't really want bargain basement health care, especially not surgery.

You can complain all day long, but when you look at having to pay for medical equipment, rent on the office, a staff of qualified medical professionals, and then at least $75,000 a year in Malpractice insurance, you can begin to understand why they cha[r]ge what they do.
#142 | Posted by kanrei

No mention of the costs of dealing with various insurance companies?

I have been flipping through it, and have not found the part that says because it is such a good plan, the dems in congress will be using it for themselves. It is a lot of pages, I could have missed it. If you could just link me the page, I would apperciate it.

I don't really want bargain basement health care, especially not surgery.

Awwww Danni now who really needs an autoclave for surgical equipent? And really an operating theater naw my bedroom would work fine just spray the room down with lysol and your good to go savings of thousands.

I bet single payer savings could pay for the insurance on its own.

So... Has the CBO seen these yet? Or are the dems waiting to see what the votes and public opinion are going to be, before they give it to them to analyze?

TAOWARRIOR should be brought to Washington to help devise ways to cut medical costs. We'll save billions.

Free,
Exactly. When our employees, the Congress and the Senate, are getting the same health insurance as we are, then I'll start to believe there was some thought put in to what they're proposing.

My concept is not unrealistic. The plan worked in 1776, and was fought by the States again in the 1860's.

Not everything that worked in 1776 is realistic today. Slavery is not realistic today just because it worked in 1776.

Your concept would--in effect--create 50 different countries with little central authority.

So? Fifty choices are better than two.

Do you think that ignoring questions is answering them?

I have answered all of your questions.

Why do you oppose this concept?

Because neither of the two countries would provide an option for people who actually want a small government.

No mention of the costs of dealing with various insurance companies?

We have a billing person that does that, but we would need her regardless of if private companies paid or the government paid.

The major cost doctors face are:

1) Malpractice insurance rates
2) Continuing Educaction credits (good thing)
3) Medical equipment that changes yearly
4) Staff
5) Rent of office space
6) Since medical records MUST be kept safe and for at least 7 years, most doctors use private warehousing companies for this purpose.

Your concept would--in effect--create 50 different countries with little central authority.

So? Fifty choices are better than two.

That is called AMERICA. The founders never wanted Strong Central Authority and your calling for it only shows you are clueless as to this country and what it was founded for.

have been flipping through it, and have not found the part that says because it is such a good plan, the dems in congress will be using it for themselves.

#146 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-10-29 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag

Or the republicans who oppose it. I would say it would be a great idea if the congress had to live with the plan they pass. Of course, you seem to see only one side of the coin---only the dems in congress should have to live with it---the reps would still have their gold plated health care.

#153 | Posted by kanrei
And not to mention the cost, blood, sweat, and tears/years getting their MD, residency, and the risk of starting up a practice all on debt. But other people belive they have a right to all that effort on someone else part.

Democrats issued a statement saying their 1,990-page measure "lowers costs for every patient" and would not add to federal deficits.

yet...

Has not yet been "scored" or given a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, so its cost is still unknown.

----

Can we get a political false advertising law?

Can we get a political false advertising law?

Posted by Pirate at 2009-10-29 01:12 PM

It has been tried many times, but the people who must vote it into law are the same ones profiting from there not being a law and they therefore vote it down on Free Speech grounds every time.

#155 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
In the end, i agree that everyone should have to live with it. But your blindness does not reconize that only the dems are pushing for it, so that is the only group I want to hear from. If a repub (maybe Snow) was pushing for it, I would want to hear from them too.

The real Bill arrives when Obama's spending kicks off inflation and all of us lose a nice chunk of whatever we've saved as a result.

So where does it cut medicare?

That is called AMERICA. The founders never wanted Strong Central Authority and your calling for it only shows you are clueless as to this country and what it was founded for.

Posted by kanrei

I wonder if the founding fathers could have imagined the population density we have today and the challenges it presents us. We are a long way from each town or city being a couple hours carriage ride from one another. We're not a collection of geographically isolated "states" anymore. For all intents and purposes, we are a contiguous nation.

My concept is not unrealistic. The plan worked in 1776, and was fought by the States again in the 1860's.

Not everything that worked in 1776 is realistic today. Slavery is not realistic today just because it worked in 1776.

That wasn't the point. The point was that splitting one country into two worked in 1776.

Your concept would--in effect--create 50 different countries with little central authority.

So? Fifty choices are better than two.

In unity there is strength. If it goes to fifty countries in some future date, fine. However, initially the split would be two countries--liberal and dem. Europe was as you envision with 50 countries, and they are unifying and finding greater strength. America can not unify with dems and reps tearing each other down with every concept proposed being opposed by the other. A country needs to be unified to have progress. Cons need to have liberals out of their country for cons to make the country and future they envision---same for liberals.

Do you think that ignoring questions is answering them?

I have answered all of your questions.

Only after having to ask more than once.

Why do you oppose this concept?

Because neither of the two countries would provide an option for people who actually want a small government.

How can you say that? Conservatives stand for small government. How could a government formed by conservatives not be small, and not have your support?

Yes--those are more questions--will I have to ask them again?

#152 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag

I wonder if the founding fathers could have imagined the population density we have today and the challenges it presents us.

I think, if you look at the plan they had, it did cover it. Every state was free to do what it had to do to. Now, even if Kansas needs something, they cannot do it if it will hurt California and I doubt the founders ever intended for that to happen.

Republicans are on the side of the American people.

You have misspoke.

Let me fix it....

Republicans are on the side of SOME of the American people.*

* - paid for by Health Care Inc. Denying good health care for generations.

That wasn't the point. The point was that splitting one country into two worked in 1776.

And the response to that is that not everything that worked in 1776 would work today, slavery being one example.

In unity there is strength

Says the guy who wants to cut his country in half.

How can you say that? Conservatives stand for small government. How could a government formed by conservatives not be small, and not have your support?

Most of the "conservatives" currently in power do not stand for small government. Republicans expand government just as much as any liberal does, just in different ways. Shrinking the fed and giving more power to the states would increase the chances that at least one of those states would actually support small government. Most "conservatives" do not.

You should support the notion of fifty states. You elected liberals to run everything in this country and most of them still don't support things like gay marriage, etc. With fifty states, at least a few of them would be as liberal as you'd like them to be. With just one liberal state you'd have to compromise with gay-haters like Barack Obama.

"I think, if you look at the plan they had, it did cover it."

I think that statement deserves more than a two sentence defense. I'm not convinced.

No mention of the fact that the taxes start as soon as the bill becomes law and that no one gets their Gubment "where's my free sh!t" card for at least three years.

FTW!

Hag,
Not sure I understand. They were opposed to a strong central government and repeatedly said so. They arranged for as many states to join the Union as wanted to so long as they adopted the Constitution which allowed greater state's rights than we see today. Whether it is 13 or 50, the system remains the same. Where is your confusion exactly in my statement?

#155 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
In the end, i agree that everyone should have to live with it. But your blindness does not reconize that only the dems are pushing for it, so that is the only group I want to hear from. If a repub (maybe Snow) was pushing for it, I would want to hear from them too.

#159 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-10-29 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag

It would seem the blindness is on your side. Republicans are against health care for all Americans while they enjoy gold plated health care themselves. Dems are at least trying to get health care to millions. Which is the more hypocritical to you? Those who have gold plated health care and would deny it to others, or those who have gold plated health care and are trying to get health care to others?

Which is the more hypocritical to you?

Not sure it is hypocrisy... But it is ironic there are still more than 10 million left out of this reform.

Where is your confusion exactly in my statement?
#169 | Posted by kanrei

That they were able to conceive of the problems that our present population would present to a government that had such an emphasis on states rights above all else.

I don't think that they could.

#162 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine
I wonder if the founding fathers could have imagined the population density we have today and the challenges it presents us. We are a long way from each town or city being a couple hours carriage ride from one another. We're not a collection of geographically isolated "states" anymore. For all intents and purposes, we are a contiguous nation.
------------------
Actually they did; England had very dense population and what they saw and experienced there with a centralized authority they didn't like.

That they were able to conceive of the problems that our present population would present to a government that had such an emphasis on states rights above all else.

Again, whether it is 13 or 50, the system remains the same. They created a system that limited the powers of a central government to the absolute minimum to allow the states to better represent their citizens. They knew a local government is better to address local problems and did all they could to make it happen.

The Founders, who did not like England's control over their states when England did not face the same problems they did, felt that there is no way Maine could ever really address the problems Georgia may face and therefore those problems are best left to Georgia to handle.

Finally, the Founders included an amendment process that required 75% of the States to sign to become law. That made it that those states were aware of the rights they were losing and they agreed to give those powers to the Central government.

But it is ironic there are still more than 10 million left out of this reform.

#171 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-10-29 01:37 PM | Reply

And republican "reform" would leave 35 million more out than that.

Again, whether it is 13 or 50, the system remains the same. They created a system that limited the powers of a central government to the absolute minimum to allow the states to better represent their citizens. They knew a local government is better to address local problems and did all they could to make it happen.

#174 | Posted by kanrei

The number of people, not the number of states. These aren't peculiar local problems, they're national issues. Maine has the same problems Georgia has.

Yeah --the Bill Arrives DOA...

Most of the "conservatives" currently in power do not stand for small government.

I disagree. Virtually every republican has made a statement about smaller government. With a new slate, the government would have to be smaller, since there would be no laws passed. The government would be founded on being smaller--it would be a basic tenet.

Republicans expand government just as much as any liberal does, just in different ways.

In the ways that you support---what ways have republicans expanded government that you don't support? They would shrink it in several ways you support also.

Shrinking the fed and giving more power to the states would increase the chances that at least one of those states would actually support small government. Most "conservatives" do not.

Most conservatives would disagree with you that they don't support smaller government. More power to the States was tried in the past. It didn't work. You end up with little fiefdoms with powerful overlords above the law.

You should support the notion of fifty states. You elected liberals to run everything in this country and most of them still don't support things like gay marriage, etc. With fifty states, at least a few of them would be as liberal as you'd like them to be.

Gay marriage is already legal in a few states, and more are likely to follow as people see that countries and states that allow it do not collapse or devourde by demons from hell.

With just one liberal state you'd have to compromise with gay-haters like Barack Obama.

Obama isn't a gay hater---he is just ignorant to human rights on a certain level. The hate cvomes from you toward Obama---another reason for you to support two countries---you could have a President you respect--McCain--Palin--
Schwarzenneger--Ron Paul--Chuck Norris---anybody would be better than Obama to a conservative. You think this is better than having a separate country with a President you respect and countrymen who are liberals?

#166 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-29 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also where does population density come in. There are on average only 84 people per square mile in the US. Or each of us could get 7.5 acres of our own. How is that dense?

The number of people, not the number of states. These aren't peculiar local problems, they're national issues. Maine has the same problems Georgia has.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-29 01:47 PM

Not really, no. They have some of the same, but most are different. The number of people is not a factor in the Constitution and does not matter. They created a system that limited the powers of a central government to the absolute minimum to allow the states to better represent their citizens. They knew a local government is better to address local problems and did all they could to make it happen.

You are saying the Founders never planned on a population of this size and I say they did, but they divided it based on states and not citizens.

Screw BoOB and his pointless babble.

#120 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-29 12:25 PM | Flag: Bipartisan Support

#183 | Posted by kanrei

The founders also designed our governmental system to be exported through out the world.

The legislation would be financed by a combination of cuts in planned Medicare spending and an income tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on individuals making at least $500,000 annually and couples making at least $1 million.

Liberals generally wanted the government to dictate the rates to be paid to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, with the fee levels linked to Medicare.

Moderates, fearing the impact on their local hospitals, held out for negotiated rates between the government and private insurers and won.

"The number of people is not a factor in the Constitution and does not matter."

I have to disagree. I think population density plays a huge role in the way government works and in what is necessary to keep a civilization functioning.

"They created a system that limited the powers of a central government to the absolute minimum to allow the states to better represent their citizens."

I understand what they did and what their goals where and I agree that based on the facts at the time of authorship, they were very good principles.

"They knew a local government is better to address local problems and did all they could to make it happen."

They believed this, and not without justification to be sure, but again, I think we are living in a very different world for which their concepts of what was best fall somewhat short in addressing our current problems.

We must agree to disagree Hag. We can keep repeating ourselves until we get frustrated or we can just accept how one another sees it and leave it at that. It is what makes horseracing.

We can keep repeating ourselves until we get frustrated or we can just accept how one another sees it and leave it at that. It is what makes horseracing.
#189 | Posted by kanrei

I thought you were the only one repeating yourself, but in the spirit of friendship, I'm willing to call a truce.

For the moment.

;)

Virtually every republican has made a statement about smaller government

Their statements do not coincide with their actions. Government expanded massively under every Republican administration in the last three decades.

what ways have republicans expanded government that you don't support?

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war. Wiretapping phones without warrants. Expansion of federal oversight of education. Taxpayer guarantees of trillions in loans to financial institutions. TSA screeners taking my gatorade before I get on a plane. The list goes on.

They would shrink it in several ways you support also.

They haven't. I judge their actions, not their words.

you could have a President you respect--McCain--Palin--
Schwarzenneger--Ron Paul--Chuck Norris---anybody would be better than Obama to a conservative.

I don't support any of those people, which is exactly why 50 states with their own rights would be better than only one conservative country. Any other strawmen?

I was repeating my exact words, but you were repeating your points using differnt words; still a repeat. Your point of "the problems that our present population would present to a government" is repeated =D.

On health insurance the founding fathers would probably have thought it needed to be locally operated because it would take far too long to process a bill for payment in those days but if they had our instantaneous communications, interactive computers, etc. it would have made them think in very different ways.
Much of the debate about "conservatives" gets muddied because conservative used to mean small government AND a virtually isolationist foreign policy. During the Cold War, when conservatives, in anti-Communist zeal, began a very imperialistic foreign policy the concept of "small government" got lost along the way. Today most conservatives mouth the words but really all they mean is they hate social programs. It is sort of ironic because most liberals today are in favor of a less adventurous foreign policy than the, so called, conservatives are.

I remember when McCain proposed cuts in Medicare, and the libbies went crazy.

Now, not so much. Amazing what happens when you just let Pelosi and Reid run wild--the libtards will rubber-stamp anything.

I for one will be screwwwwwed. As a totaly disabled (but lovable) man dependent on these programs, my ass will be in deep doo doo. Thanks McCsame. Oh, and by the way, Fuck off!

Posted by keith204 at 2008-10-06 10:04 PM

The Government owes it to the elderly to fund medicare and it owes it to those who can't afford health care medicaid. What a pile of shit He is.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-10-06 09:46 PM

I have a very good friend who is completely disabled due to MS. If she loses ANY of her Medicaid benefits, it will literally kill her. She lives solely on her SSD income and as it is, once she falls into the 'donut hole' every year, she goes without some of her badly needed meds. She can pretty much count on spending at least 3 months every year enduring terrible pain at night because she cannot afford her anti-spasmodic medication. Nice, Grampy Poopy Pants. Of course, you don't have to worry - your rich bitch wife will make sure you always have a full time nurse to change your diapers.

Posted by DawnGlo at 2008-10-07 09:28 AM

Tis funny those sad sacks that support the iraq War and subsequently the spending on it want Medicare and Medicaid cut. Funny how they will spend money killing people but rue the day that money is spent on HELPING people. Fucked up bullshit if You ask Me.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-10-07 11:44 AM |

Nice, RiR.

"Aide: McCain Plans to Cut Medicare, Medicaid"

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the same idiot who credited McCain with the Blackberry (manufactured in Canada).

I was watching Olbermann last night and he ran this story by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida's 20th Congressional District. I thought she was going to fall out of her chair. She absolutely could not believe that even the McCain "campaign" was stoopid enough to say something as crazy as this.

And here I thought McCain's gambling addicition was confined to craps. Whouldathunk he's a Russian Roulette freak as well?

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-10-07 12:39 PM

#193

Thank you, Danni.

It really is RICH that this troll turd RiR whines about possible cuts to Medicare whereas the decade old Republican wet dream has been to ELIMINATE MEDICARE ENTIRELY.

Is there no low to which these insurance company shills will not sink?

"still a repeat."

Ah, but a repeat of a higher order, my friend.

That's my philosophy education for you.

But with respect to you and me, this subject is squashed.

The signing will be closed to the public and attended by invite only. Expect your premiums to triple when it goes into effect.

I'm not complaining about cuts to Medicare. I'm finding funny dumbasses like yourself who thought it would be the end of the world when McCain proposed them, but now that it's ObamaPelosiReid, think it's responsible.

You're funny, Axe. People like you are why I come here. Gobama! Cut Medicare!

It really is RICH that this troll turd RiR whines about possible cuts to Medicare whereas the decade old Republican wet dream has been to ELIMINATE MEDICARE ENTIRELY.

#202 | Posted by axe at 2009-10-29 02:16 PM

#170 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
Nope, not blind about that either, but I belive in a much smaller govt. That includes all the BS percs all the pols get. You tried to stretch my comments beyond what they were about, simply if this is so great then why don't they use it? Then when we defeat them on this bloat, we can turn back to the other bloat that has already been pulled over the peoples eyes. I am sure you will join in with me...

Republicans presided over the largest expansion of Medicare ever.

#206 | Posted by LIVE_OR_
and that was terrible, so what, are the dems are trying to one up them?

Can't have them damn repubs out spending us! We are the kings of wasting Govt money!

---The Left

No some, like Bernie Madoff's, end with somone in jail. Pretending that Medicare is a Ponzi scheme is ridiculous.

#112 | Posted by danni
* * * *

Ummm . . . then why do you have to increase taxes/cut costs in order to save it?

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."

"Ummm . . . then why do you have to increase taxes/cut costs in order to save it?"

Because the number of people receiving benefits is growing faster than the number of tax payers supporting it, just like social security. And because the cost of medical care has gone up faster than the rate of inflation and much faster than wages which determine how much tax we pay in.

Right. Thanks.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned."

I understand what you're saying but I think Medicare would compare more to insurance than a Ponzi scheme.

Right. Except that we're supposed to be upset at insurance companies for making it work properly.

Ah well. The government-run Pon--I mean "insurance"--schemes of Social Security and Medicare have worked out so well, may as well turn over the rest of it.

RisR, which do you honestly delivers health care cheaper, private health insurance companies or Medicare?
I'm not waiting with a gotcha, I just want to know your opinion.
I'll say up front, I think Medicare.

" The government-run Pon--I mean "insurance"--schemes of Social Security and Medicare have worked out so well"

Actually, when you consider how things were before we had those programs, they have worked out very well.

RisR, which do you honestly delivers health care cheaper, private health insurance companies or Medicare?
I'm not waiting with a gotcha, I just want to know your opinion.
I'll say up front, I think Medicare.

#214 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-29 02:49 PM

In addition to having the most denials, Medicare doesn't pay the full cost of care.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-29 02:55 PM | Reply

I betcha they pay the ACTUAL cost not the inflated cost the Hospitals and Doctors charge.

Larry

I am sure you will join in with me...

#207 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-10-29 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag

Not at all. I am all for government run programs like social security--medicare, and Universal Health Care. I find it embarassing that all other industrialized nations on the planet have Universal Health Care except the United States.

The "every man for himself" position you seem to take is one step above anarchy in my opinion. To me, a nation takes care of their citizens protection from foreign invasion, gives them all the education they can handle with no costs at all, feeds and shelters the poor, and protects their health care needs. Just like a family---just like a team---just like a nation united. You obviously should be in another country composed of people with your concepts---just as I have proposed several times. You'll never be happy in this country---too many liberals.

I betcha they pay the ACTUAL cost not the inflated cost the Hospitals and Doctors charge.

No, they don't. They pick what they feel SHOULD be the cost of something, and then pay a percent of that if they pay at all. At least a private company denies the claim BEFORE anything is done. Medicare allows people to do the job, then declines to pay for it.

"In addition to having the most denials, Medicare doesn't pay the full cost of care."

Considering that most elderly people and disabled people would not be able to afford health insurance it is a hell of a lot better than no health care for them, that's what they had before Medicare began. If REagan and Bush hadn't cut taxes so much, started unnecessary wars, overbuilt the military all over the world, etc. we wouldn't have so much debt and we could afford to fund it better.
They refer to that as their "starve the beast" strategy.

If REagan and Bush hadn't cut taxes so much, started unnecessary wars, overbuilt the military all over the world, etc. we wouldn't have so much debt and we could afford to fund it better

But they DID and we CAN'T. The road to Hell is paved in good intentions and people are trying to drive us to Hell right now.

We obviously spend enough money on health care, more than any other nation per captita, we just don't use it efficiently and most of us think that a good part of the "waste" is going to greedy insurance companies.

I betcha they pay the ACTUAL cost not the inflated cost the Hospitals and Doctors charge.

Larry

#217 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-10-29 02:57 PM

Kanrei,

The insurance company shills keep trying to polish their turd but it ain't working.

When the insurance company pays too little or not at all, the poor CUSTOMER (that would be YOU) is left to pay the tab.

I would pay much more for Medicare coverage right now if I could buy it than I now pay for private health insurance. Too bad the insurance companies make that illegal!!!

"The road to Hell is paved in good intentions and people are trying to drive us to Hell right now."

I don't think so, I think they are trying to drive us back fiscal responsibility by passing health care reform now and then passing the tax increases necessary later.

Considering that most elderly people and disabled people would not be able to afford health insurance it is a hell of a lot better than no health care for them, that's what they had before Medicare began. If REagan and Bush hadn't cut taxes so much, started unnecessary wars, overbuilt the military all over the world, etc. we wouldn't have so much debt and we could afford to fund it better.
They refer to that as their "starve the beast" strategy.

#220 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-29 03:01 PM

I will admit that the "most denials" thing probably wasn't fair, since a lot of that may because Medicare is also the most attractive to fraud.

Uh excuse me I know what's in it, 1989 pages of BS and a cover sheet.

"I would pay much more for Medicare coverage right now if I could buy it than I now pay for private health insurance. Too bad the insurance companies make that illegal!!!"

If we all could do that Medicare would be completely solvent and we'd all have health care insurance cheaper too. We simply don't need a leech sucking up a percentage of our health care dollars but providing no health care services.

"Medicare is also the most attractive to fraud."

It also covers far more people than any of the insurance companies so it is going to have more denials, its going to pay for more procedures too.

When comparing Medicare to Health Care Insurance companies you also need to consider (most important) that Medicare only covers the elderly and the disabled who are the two groups most expensive to cover while the Health Insurance companies cover only the younger healther portions of teh population who are much cheaper to cover and then they drop coverage on sick people, rescind coverage, refuse to accept preexisting conditions which Medicare does not do.
Health Insurance Companies are just legal rackets.

We can just throw all the illegals in jail like the right wing wants. Then they'll be eligible for free health care at taxpayer expense.

#33 | Posted by snoofy

What's not illegal about illegals? Not jail, send 'em back or just go through the legal process like everyone else who had to get their green card first! It like nobody thinks we let foreigners become US citizens!

Perhaps if you wanted more people to accept illegals, you consider changing their represented name to "competitors" or something. :-)

#218 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
Yea, yea, your dumb ass 2 countries proposals. If you put it this way... all the people that want more traditional get the country as it was in the late 50's early 60's (as far as land mass) and everyone who wants to progress, move on from this old tired land (as you would refer to it) and progress to a new land. Great, 2 different countries. We agreee!

Rightisright just owned the lefties. Sometimes it's too easy. That shit was hilarious.

Actually,
Just the paperwork...the actual "bill" will arrive for generations to come, at least for those lucky enough to never get sick.....

Fucking Dems unveiled the Cash for Clunker program too. Final cost to the taxpayer? $24,000.00 per fucking deal. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of Washington regarding any policy is nuts.

"Rightisright just owned the lefties."

Joe is seeing a different thread cuz it sure as hell ain't this one.

RisR, which do you honestly delivers health care cheaper, private health insurance companies or Medicare?
I'm not waiting with a gotcha, I just want to know your opinion.
I'll say up front, I think Medicare.

#214 | Posted by danni
* * * *

Of course you do. Medicare Part B is what, like 90 bucks a month? To cover somebody over the age of 65, the most expensive time of a person's life for healthcare?

Sure. Go ahead and put everyone on Medicare. Let the seniors pay what their health care REALLY costs, instead of passing the bill on to the rest of us.

Gobama! Cut it all! I love it.

Uh excuse me I know what's in it, 1989 pages of BS and a cover sheet.

#227 | Posted by Colossus

I printed 3 copies. Our Toilet Paper Supplier is going to have a hard time hitting his quota next month.

#218 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
Yea, yea, your dumb ass 2 countries proposals. If you put it this way... all the people that want more traditional get the country as it was in the late 50's early 60's (as far as land mass) and everyone who wants to progress, move on from this old tired land (as you would refer to it) and progress to a new land. Great, 2 different countries. We agreee!

#232 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-10-29 03:34 PM | Reply | FlagPunk Boy post

No, we don't agree. This is already two countries. I propose splitting it along the lines of the States that wanted to secede from the union in 1860. The South never was part of America from the beginning. They always wanted slavery and States Rights from day one. Let them have it. They never grasped the concept of America and Freedom, and neither do you.

"Let the seniors pay what their health care REALLY costs, instead of passing the bill on to the rest of us."

ER...who passed the Medicare Part D????

Who made it illegal for the government to negotiate lower prices???

And then who had the nerve to say Democrats were going to kill Grandma....and you're saying we should just tell her to buy her own medications on her big SS check.

Personally, I prefer they pass the bill on to the rest of us, I'm funny that way. Both my parents are deceased but I still care about other people's parents.

By putting everyone on Medicare we could take care of the seniors and ourselves too for less than we now pay for both insurance and Medicare taxes.

It will be online for 45 minutes for everyone to read and debate.

People like AXE are why I come here also. His insights and comments are excellent.

Not sure I know what kind of point you are trying to make RightisWRONG with all the re posting of comments here. Not sure I want to know or give a damn.

I do have to say it is nice to see all the comments documented. It is truly a testament to how dedicated some people are to seeing the truth carry forward.

You are a testament to how many posts a troll can make and get some kind of reward points from your RightisWRONG websites.

Obama said he doesn't care if he wins another election - he is concerned about doing what is good for our nation.

GOBAMA baby!! We are going to get our health care and Liberman can't stop THIS train! whoo hoo!!

Looks like the old geezer is about to kick it anyways. Liberman might not be around for the final vote and then who would take his place do you think?

It will be online for 45 minutes for everyone to read and debate.

#242 | Posted by bph320

I guess Obama's promise of putting the hearings and debates on CSPAN didn't help.

require employers to offer coverage to their workers.

POSTED BY RCADE AT 09:58 AM |

Hahahaha!!! All you greedy business owners who don't offer insurance will now be forced to start offering coverage!!! Time for you all to stop living high on the hog and start taking care of the people who make you money.

Obama said he doesn't care if he wins another election - he is concerned about doing what is good for our nation.

If there were a few more Democratic senators willing to "do the right thing" even if it puts their next election at risk, we'd have 60 votes.

Obama should take those Senators to task. Turn on that charm and get them to throw themselves under the bus, for the good of the country. Or maybe offer them nice cushy Govt jobs if they lose their next election.

Our style of government is the real roadblock to reform. The national agenda is held back by just a few state Senators unwilling to do what's right for purely selfish reasons.

On the other side of the coin, this is why Olympia Snowe from fairly progressive Maine supports reform.

"Dems are blocking access to their press conference. There is a list, and if you're not on it, you can't get through."

According to my defense attorney friend, it is almost impossible to prosecute a doctor for malpractice because most doctors will not testify against their own. Much like cops who refuse to testify against other cops.

That being said, it seems insurance companies are making big profits on malpractice insurance to cover their bottom lines. But according to recent profit records, insurance companies are unable to eek out more than 5% profit margins.

So who is making all the money?

Hospitals. They are the 800lb unregulated gorilla producing huge profits on the backs of insurance companies and the federal government via, Medicare and Medicaid.

Case in point: I was in ICU for three days, had a heart cath and was dismissed after the third day. Total bill was $27,000. You can do the math on the per day cost.

Bottom line, hospitals are to blame for the current healthcare mess. They are the only unregulated entity in the mix. And a government run system will only continue to pay the hospitals for their unfair monopoly.

I don't have a problem with a doctor making $200k a year, but who made all the money during my three days in ICU? A sound healthcare bill should put limits on what Hospitals are able to charge. Maybe, dare say it, even a cap on Hospital profits. Or even further, the government establishing non-profit Hospitals. I don't have all the answers but I do see the problem.

The American people have spoken. They oppose government-run health care. Republicans are on the side of the American people.

What Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problems. In the Republican address following President Obama's speech to a Joint Session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, Dr. Charles Boustany (R-LA) outlined a series of such solutions:

■"We do need medical liability reform, and it needs to be real reform. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care."
■"Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance."
■"All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions."
■"Individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do."
■"We can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor."
■"[I]nsurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they'd simply made healthier choices earlier in life."

AMEN - PLUS: 1. INSTITUTE INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE NATIONWIDE FROM 1700 INSURANCE COMPANIES; 2. INSTITUTE GREATER TAX BREAKS FOR INCOME PUT TOWARD MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, PLUS ROLL OVER ABILITY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN PAY FOR ALL MEDICAL BILLS NOT COVERED BY THEIR INSURANCE PLANS; 3. ALLOW INDIVIDUAL TAX BREAKS FOR PURCHASING HEALTH INSURANCE; 4. ALLOW PORTABILITY OF PLANS FROM ONE JOB TO ANOTHER AND ONE STATE TO ANOTHER.

WE WANT MORE CHOICE, NOT SOME GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY THAT WILL LIMIT OUR CHOICES. THIS IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TOTALLY UNAMERICAN.

Most of the public options have the "benefits" kick in later but the taxes are upfront.

The most recent Pelosi proposal--- same nag different name.

This thing can be done right and be budget neutral-- the issue currently, "healthcare reform" is an oxymoron based on the current proposals-- this IS NOT healthcare reform. This is about increasing the cost of healthcare, increasing taxes, and more government control in our lives. Now, those who want this, "it is what it is." This thing can be beaten down and once it is then we can hold the repubs accountable for bringing up real "healthcare reform" legislation-- then they as well as the dems have no excuses come the 2010 elections. Heck, put me in a room with a few people with some common sense and background in different areas of healthcare expertise and we could get it done. In the 90s I was involved in a State of Michigan committee given the responsibility of reforming the workers compensation system which was out of control. We had representives from unions, corporations, medicine, and insurance companies. Everybody had their particular agenda. Previous committees put together by the state to solve the issues had failed. We all agreed at the beginning that when we would reach an issue that was particularly cantankerous and not liked by one group or another but supported by the others the groups were to answer the question: Can we live with it? It took about a year to accomplish our mission and the system has been place for about 15 years and from all appearances is working very well. It can be done but if success is to be accomplished this has to be bipartisan and the realization that there will be no sacred cows.

#249--- Beachbuzz, I would dare say that the vast majority of hospitals in this great land of ours are "non-profit."

#249 | Posted by Beachbuzz

Buzz--they have to make up for the all the free treatment they give to illegals and the uninsured.

As far as mandating businesses to get their employees insurance--the penalty is 8% of the employees earnings.

Not much there--pay the penalty.

And if you the individual do not get insurance --you will be fined 2.5% of something.

Prices will continue to rise.

People will continue to die.

Oh wait--this thing won't pass--they don't even have 50 votes let alone 60..

People will continue to die.
...
#256 | Posted by MURPHY

What do you care? You're a shill for the corporate healthcare industry.

You're a shill for the corporate healthcare industry.

#257 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah, well you are a shill for the marijuana industry.

Buzz--they have to make up for the all the free treatment they give to illegals and the uninsured.

#255 | Posted by MURPHY

Come on Murphy, you can't tell me, based on my $27,000 three day stay, the hospital isn't making more than their fare share.

Bullshit! Those 3 doctors worked no more than 1 hour to perfom a heart cath that generated $18,000 for the hospital.

My Math: 3 doctors times $500 per hour = $1500. The rest is hospital fees and profit.

#258 | Posted by AndreaMackris

That was weak. Get that shit out of here, rookie.

Yeah, well you are a shill for the marijuana industry.

#258 | Posted by AndreaMackris

I'm ready to burn one...me and my negro/mexican/jew/whap/polack/ redneck gardner. Who needs tulips?

Nullnuts is such a tough guy/girl.

What say you rookie?

Nullfuck: when did you become the DR guard dog?

#259 | POSTED BY BEACHBUZZ

#260 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

#261 | POSTED BY BEACHBUZZ
#262 | POSTED BY BEACHBUZZ
#263 | POSTED BY BEACHBUZZ

"when did you become the DR guard dog?"

Well, if Null indeed is the "guard dog", he sure isn't doing a very good job (lazy stoner!)...your sorry ass continues to spew cognitive diarrhea here, after all...

Just trying to open up minds Zarathustra. I see yours is closed. But if you want to defend Null, take this little brain teaser to heart:

One X democrat plus another dumb X democrat=3.

Solve for x.

Well, if Null indeed is the "guard dog", he sure isn't doing a very good job (lazy stoner!).

Being a lazy stoner is hard werk!

And the King is awake...

Democrats are trying to pass a health bill for America. What are your thoughts?

How you doing these days, Stir, you friggin' beachbum?

Awwww....

did you have to look up the word "cognitive", Stirsumup?

If you agree, why? If you disagree, why?

Should the government have a stake in ANYTHING you or I do?

Do you agree with common folk creating militias?

Are you in favor of the government paying for abortions?

How you doing these days, Stir, you friggin' beachbum?

#269 | Posted by nullifidian

How cute you are with words...You know my handle...answer the questions.

"Should the government have a stake in ANYTHING you or I do?"

Not at all.

Health regulations, public roads, the fire department, the police..........

Nahhh, that's all disposable.

"Are you in favor of the government paying for abortions?"

Yes...If one of your broodkin done gets knawk'd up, I would want said fetus to be exterminated as quickly as possible.

Are you comfortable with your POTUS being a known Marxis? AND surrounding himself with known Marxis?

Yes...If one of your broodkin done gets knawk'd up, I would want said fetus to be exterminated as quickly as possible.

#273 | Posted by Zarathustra at

Ohh, a tough guy....killing fetuses is your calling.

Killing fetuses (fetii) would actually be a really easy job!

As long as one knows how to properly operate a vacuum cleaner, that is.

Also, what is a "Marxis"? Are you missing a "t" at the end, perhaps?

Well, the burden of proof that the duly-elected President of the United States is a MarxisT...would be yours.

"Waiting on you :-)"

Are you comfortable with your POTUS being a known Marxis?

I have no problem with him being a Marxis. Whatever in the fuck that is.

If you know about the "T" in Marxist, then you know what I am talking about.

Obama is a Marxist. Plain and simple.

Once you come around to see the truth, you will see the future.

Whatever.

Stirly is in the process of getting "buzzed" along the coast...

How's Phantasy Phootball going, Stirsumup? LOL.

I have no problem with him being a Marxis. Whatever in the fuck that is.

#277 | Posted by nullifidian

Therein lies the problem. You have never fought for anything so you expect OTHERS to fight for you. Typical French mantor.

BTW - Null=dead as far as chess games go.

"Once you come around to see the truth, you will see the future" [Source Missing]

Of course, if you admit that the "source" is your own out-of-whack neurochemical fluctuations, we'll let you off the hook.

I've got better things to do with my time than toy with animals.

It's like poking at a rat in a trap who's nearly dead and yet still dying.

Stirly is in the process of getting "buzzed" along the coast...

How's Phantasy Phootball going, Stirsumup? LOL.

#279 | Posted by Zarathustra

Nice deflection. Game is back in your court. Unless you choose to deflect again. In this game you can only deflect ONCE.

BTW - I am NOT Stirsumup or any other coorelation of said name. Stirsumup can kiss my ass or said ass with my name attached.

Stirsumup can expect a legal suit against such name as legal matters are arranged.

It's like poking at a rat in a trap who's nearly dead and yet still dying.

#282 | Posted by Zarathustra

Ohhh...so damn funny...wish I had my dead uncle with alsheimers to kick you around.

Too god damn funny...ehh Kanri?

"Ohhh...so damn funny...wish I had my dead uncle with alsheimers[sic] to kick you around."

Flame ON, Internet Tough Guy!

I wish your uncle were around, too...I'd hand him a speculum and let him know that aliens have embedded a tesla coil in your rectum!

LOL!

And that's the Drudge Retort, folks...

...somehow the Democrats' heathcare bill has morphed into anally-embedded tesla coils...

...I do apologize for my role in this diversion...after all, I'm not sure that even the aforementioned qualifies for an "existing condition"...

...unless the Maya somehow prematurely contacted our Martian overlords, who have bet all their Grombulaks that ihomo sapiens will self-destruct before 2012...

WE WANT MORE CHOICE, NOT SOME GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY THAT WILL LIMIT OUR CHOICES. THIS IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TOTALLY UNAMERICAN.

That's not quite it.

What we want is more access, particularly access for the uninsured and those denied insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

And a little thing called continuity of care.

"Choice" is baked into medical ethics at this point. No health insurance scheme is going to deny the patient their right to get a second opinion. The primacy of the doctor-patient relationship is well established.

FEEL THE TEABAGGING RAGE:

Just imagine the YOU speaking out against the government and suddenly get hit by a car and then suddenly no medical surgery is available.....no, government doesn't do that!

The GOP, after promising an alternative health care plan more than four months ago, weighs in with its by now all-too-amiliar refrain: "Huh? Wha? No, not us. Uh-ugh."

#--- Wrong, Sarvis, it's the American people that want to see what's in the bill. If the dems were really "against" the insurance companies, why don't they push interstate competition? Also, and why did Obama originally meet in private early in this process with these folks and then say they supported the public option and later excoriated them. Yep, this was the guy (who's broken promose after promise) who also said he was going to be transparent and open up all these meetings and "negotiations" with the main players to the American people.

it's the American people that want to see what's in the bill
#291 | Posted by matsop

"Once the bits and pieces are in place it might be possible to carry the reforms even farther."

From your post to god's ears.

I made it through Chapters 1-8 last night. Hell of a Novel.

America, in my opinion, your health care is about to get worse.

Nothing you can do about it.

Soon you will have the government throwing you in jail if you don't have insurance

(In this bill, if you don't have insurance you must buy it by law. If you don't buy it you can get fined.
If you don't pay the fine you go to jail.

Have fun peeps.

Sarvis, thanks for the post-- the repubs have been vacuous. I have a feeling they're currently in the process of fashioning their own plan. The ultimate irony would be that we really do get a bipartisan plan which isn't just a "nibbling" around the edges but a plan that actually creates competition in the system and covers all our citizens and doesn't completely destroy our budget further. One thing to remember is that the longer this drags on, the closer to the 2010 elections-- the American people are finally waking up and becoming more informed and more "independent" and I think not just going to pull their usual "unthinking" straight party lines levers.

The ultimate irony would be that we really do get a bipartisan plan which isn't just a "nibbling" around the edges but a plan that actually creates competition in the system and covers all our citizens and doesn't completely destroy our budget further.

The ultimate irony would be if Republicans do the fiscally conservative thing and usher in single payer universal coverage.

The ultimate irony would be if Republicans do the fiscally conservative thing and usher in single payer universal coverage.
#298 | Posted by snoofy

From your post to god's ears.

From your post to god's ears.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-30 08:23 AM | Reply

Don't try bringing me into this now. I don't exist. Try that again and your bush will burst into flames and your donkey will sing A Nugent tune.

-God

#300 | Posted by The_Chapel

"Don't put words in my mouth, you vainglorious curmudgeon."

-God

A single payer universal system at this point in our economic system would be quite untenable for the average citizen that is working and trying to keep their head above water. A single payer system If it was to be budget neutral would require 2 things--- higher taxes and rationing of health care. It ain't going to happen at this time in history.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-30 08:32 AM | Reply THINKS BIG WORDS MAKES IT SEEM MORE "GODLY"

"If it was to be budget neutral would require 2 things--- higher taxes and rationing of health care. It ain't going to happen at this time in history."

For the price that we currently pay for healthcare we could insure everyone. Why is there a problem?

THINKS BIG WORDS MAKES IT SEEM MORE "GODLY"
#303 | Posted by The_Chapel

I love when people say things like that... usually means they have a limited vocabulary.

I just know the words I know. I don't stop before I type and ask myself, is this a big word?

#304--you're right but it's how we get there.

WOW the babbler sure got quiet all of a sudden!

MY chickenshit pussy president can beat up YOUR Joe the DUMBER any day of the week!

#94 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-10-29 11:20

uh yeah,....its called trying to have a life away from this place...

and I dont know about your challenge...joe seems to have a pretty stout looking upper body..NOT that I noticed or anything....using all those wrenches I guess..

'Cause that librarian loving, Friday's "Happy Hour" margarita drinkin', crazy Texan has a special place in our ♥♥♥.

#97 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-10-29 11

damn your sweet.
get in touch with me if you still want to move to a state where republicans know how to have 9 billion in reserve because I will gladly speak for you at the 'blackball' session for incoming "FOREIGNERS"

Are AKAstupid and Pinochet Mao twins, or is this some Texan tard thing to drool like some lunatic John Bircher?

#98 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10

when this shit kicks in ...JUST AFTER ELECTION OF 2012...and if you work for a small business and their percentage is phases out BY THIS bill on the amount of thier kickin on tax credited insurance payments I hope you are the first one to get your ass thrown out of the job.
make sure any kids are fed and you can stand in a fuckin bread line for all I care

Oh crap, that was Eddie. Sorry, you and Tweedle Dee write in a similar style.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2009

ah thats funny...well it was in the 6th grade anyhow..lol

So is it really that easy? AFK disappears when you ask if he's on Medicare/Medicaid?

There must be a better explanation...

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-

I answered your question and I had to go do something else..
geesh,...
corky thinks I should read all day long and you think I should stay here all day long while others get upset when I post whats REALLY happening here in this once great country...

the medicare argument you are using is a good one, cant deny that. but again, I have contriuted to that for years and its always the left that seems to think that I should tell them,,uh no thanks while they are more than good with giving care to any mezkin that can make it across the rio grande.

I'd hand him a speculum and let him know that aliens have embedded a tesla coil in your rectum!

You sober up yet?

#313

Oh look, another poster using the retort for free self promotion.

"the medicare argument you are using is a good one, cant deny that. but again, I have contriuted to that for years and its always the left that seems to think that I should tell them,,uh no thanks while they are more than good with giving care to any mezkin that can make it across the rio grande."

#311 | Posted by afkabl2

WOW your thought processes are working - good.

Now take it to the next level - The arguments you are using AGAINST health care reform are the VERY SAME arguments the GOP used against FDR before he signed MEDICARE into US Law.

If you can understand that argument I can understand why you don't want to help mexican citizens with your tax dollar. But what is the alternative? They ALREADY can show up at an emergency room and get FREE care now.

Every industrialized nation has health care for their citizens except the USA. Don't you think it is past time to get that here?

I will gladly speak for you at the 'blackball' session for incoming "FOREIGNERS"

#308 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-30 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

At that meeting, tell them the time is right for secession---the majority of "FOREIGNORS" support Texas becoming their own nation, just as the majority of Texans consider themselves to be Texans, and not Americans.

But what is the alternative? They ALREADY can show up at an emergency room and get FREE care now.
^^
This.

What's your fix, right-wing?

"Shopping across state lines" ain't gonna fix that.

"Pooling Small Business" ain't gonna fix that.

"Tort Reform" ain't gonna fix that.

One thing would fix it: We change the law to keep the uninsured and the indigent out of the ER. Not exactly what Jesus would do, but it would work.

The other thing that would fix it: Insure everybody.

What's it gonna be, right-wing?

"Pelosi's Bill Will Punish States Who Pass Tort Reform"

"The Pelosi Plan will punish states that limit trial lawyers' winnings."

"Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But] a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages."

"Tort reform could save the country $54 billion.
So it only makes sense that democrats would oppose it."

What ever happened to Joe Biden?

So much for any true form of reform!

#318 | Posted by KBM

Hey KBM, the country is getting a chance to see just how hateful the Libs can be. They want to punish ALL doctors!!!

I think it's great that they are moving fast and putting out so much of this garbage legislation.

2010 is just around the corner.

It's almost like they are planning their own demise. It's perfect!

Are you Libs embarrassed or what?

#319 | Posted by Eddie

You ought to be embarrassed at posting something so pathetically stupid. What a loser. I think I'm going to killfile you.

"Tort reform could save $54 Billion."

We spend $2.2 Trillion on health care.

Meaning "tort reform" would save us about 2%.

I'd say it's worth looking at, but you're not going to fix the system by saving 2-3%.

Also, if you cap damages, you run into a problem. Let's say the cost of doing it wrong is less than the damage cap... what do you think happens? They do what's less costly. Wall Street practically demands it. For that reason I think damage caps will lead to reduced quality of care.

It is a complex issue.

The reason I'm looking for damages after my injury (which was 100% the other guy's fault) is to pay the bills insurance didn't cover, pay for rehab, and who knows what sort of problems might come along in the future. If we had single payer universal coverage, I would be covered regardless and wouldn't need damages. I'm not such a sissy that I think I'm owed money for my boo-hoo pain and suffering. But I sure as hell can't cover a $75K hospital bill on my own.

So if you really want to reduce the negative impact of torts on health care, get rid of our "blame game" insurance model. Arguing over who pays my hospital bills isn't making me healthier, it just makes middlemen richer.

You ought to be embarrassed at posting something so pathetically stupid. What a loser. I think I'm going to killfile you.

#321 | Posted by nullifidian

I think you're passed embarrassed, Null.

LOL

Joe Biden is a nut isn't? What? NO!! He's the VPOTUS? OMG!!!!

Hey Null!!!

The Vil EE Gezz....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Meaning "tort reform" would save us about 2%
#322 | Posted by snoofy

Hey Snoofy, ever hear of Defensive Medicine?

"Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine. "

Eddie is just a dumbass like the rest of those Pro Tort reform assholes. They want tort reform until it affects one of their own then they change their tune. It always is this way with them and their kind.

Larry

Medicare Fraud is over $60 billion

Eddie is just a dumbass like the rest of those Pro Tort reform assholes. They want tort reform until it affects one of their own then they change their tune. It always is this way with them and their kind.

Larry

#326 | Posted by LarryMohr

It does affect one of my own, you idiot. I am in a family a doctor.

Doctors work very hard and are very concerned about getting sued.

Larry, research it before making an ass of yourself.

Most of the law suits are frivolous. That's a fact! Most of them are settled out of court.

It pays to sue your doctor for nothing.

IDIOT!

Then Eddie make sure they don't fuck up now how hard is that?? Oh and prove most lawsuits are frivolous???? I dare You Eddie.

Larry

Then Eddie make sure they don't fuck up now how hard is that?? Oh and prove most lawsuits are frivolous???? I dare You Eddie.

Larry

#329 | Posted by LarryMohr

Most are settled out of court.

Prove me wrong.

The reason for this is that the Patient can never be sued for legal expenses. It never costs the patient a dime to sue a doctor!!!

Doctors will most of the time settle out of court for $100,000 than go to court and win, costing $500,000.00.

OK? I'm very sure you can do the math.

Most Law suits do not go to court. Prove me wrong.

You're still an idiot for not knowing that Larry.

You're the one who claims most lawsuits are frivolous Eddie. PROVE IT and DON'T MAKE UP SOME BULLSHIT. Prove it. Show me the money hunny.

Larry

Larry, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about--- do I have to educate you again like I did the other night? Eddie has it right-- I haven't been utterly opposed to this bill but this does it-- these people have gone stark raving crazy.

Larry, answer me this--- why do the plaintiff lawyers fight to not have the English system instituted in the area of law suits-- that is, loser pays for the cost of the winner of suits-- you know why-- because they would think twice before bringing frivolous suits and running the scams and blackmail that's been present-- Larry, you're an ideologue that doesn't care anything about truth, morals, and doing right. I really feel sorry for you and others whether they reside on the left or the right.

Larry, heck if government wants to regulate the health care industry, please tell me why they shouldn't regulate the legal industry as well.

"f government wants to regulate the health care industry, please tell me why they shouldn't regulate the legal industry as well."

Simple: Government isn't on the hook to pay for 40% of the country's legal bills.

This "healthcare reform"is about taxes and rationing of care--this is about power-- the "benefits" don't take place until anywhere from 2013- 2019. Government and wallatreet got us into this mess and now the average person that works for a living (not danforth, Larry etal) is going to pay to try to get us out of this. Why do you think they want "cap and trade" too?---global warming?-- give me a break. Are you folks starting to see a picture here?--hello, anyone out there or in there?

Eddie,

Defensive medicine certainly drives up costs. But it's a symptom, not the cause.

"now the average person that works for a living (not danforth)"

Huh? I don't work for a living? Since when???

Snoof, please explain what you mean.

#338--Danforth, thanks for that info-- how high do you think taxes are going up with these various plans and do you really care--just wondering do you pay taxes since a large portion of Americans don't.

"just wondering do you pay taxes"

Fuck yes.

I also help others pay as little as legally allowable, and advise on investments. Along with another career.

Snoof, please explain what you mean.

I explained it in bold print in post #322

"how high do you think taxes are going up with these various plans and do you really care"

Oh, sure, I care. But I'm a macro guy. Over the last decade, inflation has risen 31.5% while health costs have risen 131%. I've served on health committees off and on for decades (since the mid-80s) and have been stunned with how much health outpaces inflation. I've been sounding the bell for years and years, and realize we need something to counterpoint the double-digit annual rises in health costs. A public option, or universal health care, would at least reign in the monopolistic insurance companies. Remember after 9/11, when the health insurance costs spiked? It wasn't because costs rose, or salaries jumped, or purchases went through the roof. It was because insurance companies couldn't get the guaranteed returns from the banks or markets to pay out their annuity contracts. With any counterpoint, the insurance companies would've had to take it on the chin, just like the American people had to. Instead, they stuck it to us...because they could. This way, it'll be tough for them to jack the prices up 13% if the public option only increases 3%.

And since the government is on the hook -- currently -- for 40% of the insured (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, gov't employees, and Indian Affairs), and that number will only rise as the baby boomers begin to move into Medicare (now a matter of months, not years), every little percentage point we can shave off the future costs will translate into big bucks.

So...how high will taxes go? Not as high as they would have to if we waited around another decade and watched health outpace inflation by 4-to-1. We're already in enough macro trouble going from a high of 6 payers-per-user to closer to 3 payers-per-user. Something needs to be done to stem medical inflation, and making the perfect the enemy of the good (or even the not-so-good) is economically suicidal.

"Something needs to be done to stem medical inflation,"

Sounds good, but I wonder what incremental increase has been due to lawsuits and the insurance premiums? and medical education? How would doctors accept lesser income?

#343-- Danforth, good, and I've been in healthcare for years; in fact, served on a committee in the state of Michigan where we worked to control an out of control workers' compensation system. Other committees failed but we got it done and brought costs under control. My problem with the current plans is that I feel that "reform" is a straw man and what is really behind this is taxes up front in order to help bail the government out of their deficit issues (created by the government/wallstreet --investment banking relationship that's gotten us here). the "benefits" don't kick in until later-- 2013. This is the beginning and as usual they aren't being straight with the American people and sometime in the future when Americans figure this thing out they're going to be mad as heck-- you think they're upset now you haven't seen anything yet. Thanks for your post-- I always like to have an idea of where some of the posters are coming from.

#344--- a lot of them have seen declining incomes over the last 6-8 years.

"How would doctors accept lesser income?"

They won't have to. Demand is about to spike; they'll charge whatever they want. Who needs 100 clients, when you can charge 60 of them double? And the fact many will be priced out of the market if we don't do something to stem medical inflation? BFD. A little more demand -- and make no mistake, the baby boomers will be A LOT more demand -- goes a long, long way.

"Sounds good, but I wonder what incremental increase has been due to lawsuits and the insurance premiums?"

Well, Texas tried tort reform, and it didn't do anywhere near what proponents promised. We should try it anyway...Reid suggested it would save $500 billion, and then shrugged that amount off. What a jagoff.

"a lot of them have seen declining incomes over the last 6-8 years."

Yet the insurance companies have seen their profits skyrocket.

Go figure.

Physicians are in my family as well as nurses and PAs--- in fact, we're a medical family and I can assure you wages have stagnated or gone down for physicians. Even if demand goes up, I feel physicians' salaries will be under pressure-- for instance, if you had insurance companies compete across state lines, you can bet they'll look at every line item including physician pay in order to maintain some semblance of a profit margin since their profits would be squeezed. One of the physicians in our family (e.r.) has seen a drop of 30% in his hourly rate over the last two years along with no pension contribution by his employer (most of us are now in that boat).

Danforth, I wouldn't be surprised if physicians ultimately were salaried which I wouldn't have a problem with--- that would help with over-utilization of care --- as long as there was malpractice reform which would also help over-utilization. Another answer would be to place the whole system under the RBRVS system of medicare.

"One of the physicians in our family (e.r.) has seen a drop of 30% in his hourly rate over the last two years along with no pension contribution by his employer (most of us are now in that boat)."

Yet the insurance companies have seen their profits skyrocket. Go figure. Somebody's making a bundle, and it isn't the workers.

I come from a long line as well...pharmacists & doctors, mostly. My older brother got out of OB/GYN a decade ago because of all the bullshit of the insurance companies.

Well, that, and I'm guessing he decided long ago he was going to retire before he turned 50.

Danforth, thanks for conversation.

"Even if demand goes up, I feel physicians' salaries will be under pressure"

True, but mainly because we've dug ourselves such a huge financial hole, and government is on the hook for so much of it.

"thanks for conversation."

Same to you. And good luck...we're going to need it.

"I wouldn't be surprised if physicians ultimately were salaried which I wouldn't have a problem with--- that would help with over-utilization of care --- as long as there was malpractice reform which would also help over-utilization."

Besides sounding the alarm on medical inflation, I've also been a huge proponent of wellness (one committee's group saw our costs flatten after instituting a free family wellness plan back in the early 90s), and -- something NO ONE talks about --I'm a big believer in greater responsibility for the citizenry. Nothing will help stem the coming onslaught more than getting in shape. My brother & I just went back & forth on what all was wrong about this 1900 page plan (not that either of us are intimately familiar with it, just the concepts), and besides guessing it was mostly bureaucracy, I bet him there's not a single dime for a bike path or nutritional education, despite the fact I'm sure every one in our families knows the truth: prevention is much cheaper than cure.

prevention is much cheaper than cure

Ay, there's the rub. That's the acorn the pigs in our for-profit system will never sniff out.

How do you build a system that rewards wellness? In a perfect world, nobody would ever set foot in a hospital and we wouldn't need doctors. Who gets rich off that? Bally's, perhaps. But things like nutrition, exercise, etc. are only now creeping into the picture under the guise of "behavioral health."

The cardiothoracic surgeon who performs the triple bypass gets the glory and is hugely compensated. But a much better outcome is obtained by the health coach who convinces a patient to stop smoking. We rewarded the wrong person.

Where is the medical home? Nowhere. Why? Because it's damn near impossible to create a medical home when the average worker changes jobs and health insurance companies every couple years.

(Why do I get new bite-wings every time I go to the dentist? Because it's always a new dentist and I'm a new patient and they'll get reimbursed for the x-rays. We'll just hope those x-rays don't give me cancer later on...)

The inefficiencies stemming from not having a single payer are the reason our costs are so out of whack. It also negatively impacts patient care. Prevention sure is cheaper than cure, but our patchwork, piecemeal system has a very hard time addressing health issues proactively. Especially for the 1/5th of Americans without insurance.

I don't buy for a second that doctors earning less will doom the system. Airline pilots have seen their pay deteriorate over the past few decades and air travel is safer now than ever. Cuban doctors make a pittance by our standards, yet their system delivers a 20% lower infant mortality rate (!) and only about a half-year less life expectancy.

Nice post, Snoofy. Kudos.

"things like nutrition, exercise, etc. are only now creeping into the picture under the guise of "behavioral health.""

A few years ago the bride & I were driving back from a beach vacation in South Carolina, and she read a Newsweek article that tattooed itself on my brain: it was written by an 80 yr old, who told of -- at 50 -- making the second best decision of his life (after choosing his wife, of course):

Exercising one hour a day.

He said his friends teased him to no end about it over the years, but that didn't deter him. And now, at 80, while his friends had to go repeatedly to one doctor after another, he had rarely seen one. He ended the article by saying he had to sign off: he was headed to a bike ride with his daughter.

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Thanks Danforth.

I feel like I always sort of "knew" single payer was the way to go.

Then I went to work for a health insurance company. Saw these systemic problems from the supply side. Realized our entire premise of care delivery is ass-backwards. And no amount of "tort reform" or "crossing state lines" will address that fundamental flaw.

(And I can't stop talking about it. I hope I'm not just preaching to the choir.)

Republicans will never back single payer. They believe that their fellow man is not their problem.

Republicans will never back single payer. They believe that their fellow man is not their problem.

Republicans could back it for purely economic reasons. That would be the "economic conservative" thing to do.

Sprinkle in some "Who Would Jesus Insure" and it seems like a slam-dunk to me.

Sigh. I missed my calling. I shoulda been in advertising.

"I feel like I always sort of "knew" single payer was the way to go."

Back in the early 90s, I was my city's representative for a national group, and we had two of our group's honchos meet with Ira Magaziner, who was Hillary's right-hand-man on health care. They're returning report still rings:

"We learned two things: one, single-payer is absolutely, positively the way to go. Two, it'll never happen."