Here's what we need to do:

Until anyone reaches the age of 35, they are indentured servants to the state. ALL of their wages are confiscated and given to the selfless baby-boomers.

We have to take care of our elderly. Even though it is expensive. If we don't who will?

Again, where was all this concern the last 8 years?

No credibility!!!!

We been worried 'bout them terrorists... they are more important than our elderly. If we weren't in Iraq... they would have killed them all!

Protecting the insurance companies profits makes real reform impossible. America won't see real health care reform until insurance companies are eliminated from the equation. There is just no room for their advertising budgets, high executive compensation and shareholder profits. Ideological arguments will slowly erode with time as more and more people are confronted with the unaffordability of health insurance. I doubt that the reform in the Senate will pass and if it does in some weakened form it will accomplish virtually nothing, may make things even worse.

I doubt that the reform in the Senate will pass and if it does in some weakened form it will accomplish virtually nothing, may make things even worse.

#5 | Posted by danni

May make things even worse?

Starting to warm up to the Teabagger movement Danni?

This has been their point all along...

...right?

The teabaggers are a creation of Dick Army and Pox News. There dialogue makes absolutely no sense, but it does follow a set of tested talking points, repeated ad nauseum. The tragedy of America is that the are so many rednecks that can sincerely regurgitate the nonsense. There are no similar moronic groups in South America, Central America, Canada, China, Russia or Europe. They all understand perfectly well whose fucking them over. This being the case, it means we are no longer capable of competing.

"Starting to warm up to the Teabagger movement Danni?"

Hardly. These clowns are part of the reason we can't have real reform, insurance companies manipulate those morons into believing God demands that we buy our health insurance through for-profit insurance companies. They believe all government involvement is bad except for themselves when they receive Medicare. On the one hand they want Medicare to be available to themselves but on the other hand they don't want anyone to do anything to make it solvent. In truth, they don't really know what they want.

What he seems to leave out of his thoughts is; Most of the old have paid into SS for their entire life and into medicare since it began. I would be a happy camper if SS wrote me a check for what I and my employer put in with interest at the same rate as inflation. I will never live long enough to get that back under their payment plan.

What he seems to leave out of his thoughts is; Most of the old have paid into SS for their entire life and into medicare since it began. I would be a happy camper if SS wrote me a check for what I and my employer put in with interest at the same rate as inflation. I will never live long enough to get that back under their payment plan.

#9 | Posted by Sniper

I couldn't agree more. I sat down about six months ago and figured that my age, 62, my lifetime contribution, adjusting for inflation, has been about $570,000. I'll be happy to accept a check for that in return for never claiming SS or Medicare.

In truth, they don't really know what they want.

I have a dog-park friend who is a Tea Partyer. She went to D.C. for the big march and everything.

We were talking about health care reform and she said to me, "It won't matter to me, I am only two years away from Medicare".

I gave up.

Logic has no power over emotional tribalism.

"It won't matter to me, I am only two years away from Medicare".

That didn't really happen, did it?

Please tell me that didn't really happen.

We were talking about health care reform and she said to me, "It won't matter to me, I am only two years away from Medicare".

Being in the same situation, what she may have meant was that regardless of the plan put in place, in two years she will be forced to be on Medicare. I'm sure it will matter to her when they take $500 billion out of Medicare spending at the same time the number of Medicare patients is significantly increasing.

Being in the same situation, what she may have meant was that regardless of the plan put in place, in two years she will be forced to be on Medicare. I'm sure it will matter to her when they take $500 billion out of Medicare spending at the same time the number of Medicare patients is significantly increasing.

#13 | Posted by Redman at 2009-11-23 12:34 PM | Reply |

My mom went thru this. Was on a private corporate paid plan for 30 years. The year she became eligible for medicare, the corporation managed to get her kicked off the plan. She was supposed to be covered for life.

"I'm sure it will matter to her when they take $500 billion out of Medicare spending at the same time the number of Medicare patients is significantly increasing."

Maybe it will matter enough that Congress will revisit Medicare Part D, you know the Republican give away to Big Pharma. A good portion of the 500B could be restored just by fixing that one thing.

I'd just like to know, who here favors the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by health insurance companies???

Who supports their right to collude with each other and divvy up markets???

Conservatives forced the Dems to take out the language from the bill which would have eliminated their exemption and the right to collude. Who are those conservatives really representing????

I'd just like to know, who here favors the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by health insurance companies???

#16 | Posted by danni

That is from government regulation. A free market would never have that problem.

"A free market would never have that problem."

Riiight. There is no such thing as a free market.
There is also no evidence that a free market would not just end up in total monopoly. There would be nothing to prevent it. The free market is really....just a meaningless right wing talking point.

BTW, you never said if you support them having that exemption from anti-trust laws???
No other industry gets it, why should they??

BTW, you never said if you support them having that exemption from anti-trust laws???
No other industry gets it, why should they??

#19 | Posted by danni

Danni, don't agree with a lot of your postings but you're right on about the healthcare insurance industry---both the dems and repubs are in bed with them-- as I've stated many times they shouldn't have exemptions from anti-trust and should be forced to compete across state lines-- there is not free enterprise present and it is a socialistic big government/big business relationship.

"there is not free enterprise present and it is a socialistic big government/big business relationship."

It is an oligarchic, corrupt partnership between government and big business but I don't see very much that is socialistic about it. Even Medicare isn't really, it's really a place for the private health care industry to dump the elderly and the disabled so that they profiteers don't have to pay for their care.

Again, where was all this concern the last 8 years?

No credibility!!!!

Just typical Republican sucking and blowing.

If aflac really loved America, he'd do himself in to save his grandkids his medicare and SS costs.

but I don't see very much that is socialistic about it.

#21 | Posted by danni

There are many forms of socialism and even though the insurance companies are oligarchies they depend on state control to maintain their position through anti-trust legislation resuting in a misallocation of capital. Some define any state control of capital within the framework of a market economy as a form of socialism.

but I don't see very much that is socialistic about it.

#21 | Posted by danni

There are many forms of socialism and even though the insurance companies are oligarchies they depend on state control to maintain their position through anti-trust legislation resuting in a misallocation of capital. Some define any state control of capital within the framework of a market economy as a form of socialism.

#23 | Posted by matsop

You don't necessarily need ownership of industries to be considered a socialistic system. The Chinese have a bastardized system as well---state planning with some government ownership of businesses along with the power to direct the allocation of capital where they feel the best benefits lie--then on the microcosm you have some free enterprise and capitalism occurring.

You don't necessarily need ownership of industries to be considered a socialistic system. The Chinese have a bastardized system as well---state planning with some government ownership of businesses along with the power to direct the allocation of capital where they feel the best benefits lie--then on the microcosm you have some free enterprise and capitalism occurring.

#24 | Posted by matsop

The irony is the Chinese are moving more toward capitalism and we're moving more deeply into socialism. We've never had a true capitalistic system e.q. not allowing the investment banks to fail--- they were capitalists within a socialistic system when they were making money and then became real socialists when there was a threat of demolition.

The only reason there is a so-called "attack" on the young by the old is that the system treats the health-care of citizens as a free market commodity. True universal health care would essentially remove this racketeering element from the system, making health care a natural born right as a US citizen. This is the difference between the proposed bill, which is in reality half-assed, and actual universal health care. But the Dems are working against the rtard logic that says anything other than free-market, NYSE ticker-tape health care is communism. And America has enough idiots to fall for BS.

America spends far more than other countries for health care, per capita, yet yields less health care. Even a run-of-the-mill rtard, who claims to be free market capitalist, should see through this failed investment...

they're making this too difficult and as a result we're going to have a disaster again. There are some basic changes that could decrease costs and yet cover almost all Americans

as a free market commodity.

#26 | Posted by Newyawker

There really is nothing about the current system that has a free market component to it--having been in it for a few years I can assure you of that.

Conservatives forced the Dems to take out the language from the bill which would have eliminated their exemption and the right to collude.

The problem is the "conservatives" you are referring to are not real conservatives just folks who managed to convince their constituents they were. I don't blame you for the wording though Danni, I blame myself and other "true" conservatives for allowing these shysters to masquerade as conservatives for so long the meaning of the word has become bastardized.

If we had some "true" conservatives in office we would not be in the mess we are now but "true" conservatives have no where to go the Republican party is not conservative, the democrats are not conservative. I suppose the libertarians are but not in a way that many people can embrace.

Oh and as far as the article goes this has been going on some time. I am not doing as well as my parents, and if something doesn't give there is no way that my kids will do as well as me.

If we had some "true" conservatives in office we would not be in the mess we are now but "true" conservatives have no where to go the Republican party is not conservative, the democrats are not conservative. I suppose the libertarians are but not in a way that many people can embrace.

#29 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Doggone it, Tao, I've read some of your postings and thought you were something you obviously aren't--nice posting.

You don't necessarily need ownership of industries to be considered a socialistic system.

I believe you do. Total government control of privately owned industries is called facism.

Matsop,

I have been politicaly blowing in the wind since I turned 18. I am liberal in many senses of the word but also conservative in many senses of the word. I am registered as an independant because there is no party I can embrace. I vote for the candidate not the party.

So you are probably right in much of what you think but would be suprised in other ways.

I have been politicaly blowing in the wind since I turned 18. I am liberal in many senses of the word but also conservative in many senses of the word. I am registered as an independant because there is no party I can embrace. I vote for the candidate not the party.

So you are probably right in much of what you think but would be suprised in other ways.

#33 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Good, I also am an independent but lean toward the conservative side.

Yep, this article is right on. If you want to control costs of health care, some things have to be put on the table. The Us spends TENS OF BILLIONS on end of life care. Basically medical technology is keeping people (mostly elderly) alive at the end of thier life.

Lots of these people on this end of like care have very little chance of meaningful recovery. For instance a 80 year old man who has heart failure and dementia, THEN has a stroke. What chance of a meaningful recovery does he have? But the family will INSIST that every measure be taken to keep this person alive.

Sorry, hard decisions should be made, but won't because people in charge are afraid of GREEDY GEEZERS.

This is why the boomers must pass quickly.. they have been a blight on society since WW2

If you two assholes want this old gent to take that long walk out on the ice flow, you're going to have to bring bigger guns.

Greedy geezers...boomer blight...it's telling that you teabag sociopaths are actually making jokes/comments about euthanizing the elderly. So, my little final-solutionistas...when is the age for Carousel?