She is nothing more than a corporate shill.

She is pushing this knowing that it will be defeated and then she can say "Hey I tried".

another... "let the federal gov. take care of you" idea.. bad idea, anytime you get the federal gov involved they screw up stuff and the cost goes up and the quality goes down.. just look at history...

plus she is an idiot!

Not again! This didn't work the first time she was president.

EXACTLY, KC101.
We should only allow corporations to charge outrageous fees for health care and give poor service and with no oversight. Those damn Canadians hate their system so much, right?

She wants to force everyone to buy insurance, she doesn't want to actually take on the insurance companies who want to be guaranteed their cut of our health insurance dollars. A big waste of money. A single payer system would be cheaper and more efficient. Political expediency is Hillary's mantra on this. But then, some plan is better than no plan which is what the Republicans offer.

SAMBARBER. they hate it so much most of them come here for quality care. but thats another story... they have those that work for a living paying for the free-loaders.. like you.. sorry, but its not a RIGHT and its not my job nor responsibility to pay for YOUR health care. deal with it or move in with your beloved Canadians.. there all losers anyway..

SAMBARBER. they hate it so much most of them come here for quality care. ..

Posted by kc101 at 2007-09-17 10:20 AM | Reply

If they are looking for QUALITY care why do they come here?

The US pays the most for health care per capita and our satsifaction is near the bottom.

Danni,

But if she were to take on the health insurance companies who would donate to her campaign?

KC101 please keep providing your opinion on health care. Your arguments give the supporters of national health care the best endorsement possible....all idiots like you hate the idea....therefore, logically, it must be a great idea.

For primary care -- sore throats and achy back -- Canadian medical care is adequate. But where it really counts, in specialty care like orthopedics and cancer, forget it.

Two years ago the Canadian government finally allowed Canucks to buy private insurance for use in the U.S. There was too much popular pressure to resist it. Go to any border city in the U.S., from Maine to Washington, and you'll find clinics and hospitals chock full of Canucks.

Canada even pays for emergency care in the U.S. because there are not enough facilities or staff in the Great White North.

Canadian hospitals have a limit on how many imaging procedures they may do each week -- on humans. They generate extra cash with CT scans and MRIs on dogs.

the only reason Canada's single-payer (not true by the way) system creaks along is because they share a long border with the U.S. Otherwise, it would be worse than England. Meanwhile, DanniDrivel(tm) from Florida continues to share her wisdom and deep insights about life in Nova Scotia.

"deal with it or move in with your beloved Canadians.. there all losers anyway..

KC101, is this just your opinion about Canadians or would you extend this sentiment to those who are not American?

Funny, many Canadians, and much of the rest of the world, consider Americans just a bunch of losers. And considering the manner in which the US has been comporting itself over the last few years, I can't say that they are entirely wrong.

I would assume that you are sitting fat, dumb, and happy on either some corporate provided health care plan or are on Tri-Care. So you can afford to make the petty statements that you do. Many of the working folk in the US simply cannot afford the additional cost of health insurance.

I buy my own health insurance at this time. I am indeed most fortunate that I make enough I can afford it. But it is re-up time for my health insurance. For basically same plan, it is increasing $660 a year, which represents a 20% increase. In fact, deductibles and patient percentages have been increased. What changed? What justifies a 20% increase?

Am I for a national health care plan at some level? I don't know.

I suppose it comes down to this: Is the US merely composed of individuals who once a person gets his/hers, the rest be damned? Or is the US a nation, that, as a People, bears some responsibility to one another for the general health and well-being of the nation?

I would love a single payer system.

But then, there is the reality that any health care reform MUST have votes from both Parties or it WILL NOT PASS.

Pragmatism when facing a rock wall is no vice.

Who can resist the lure of something for nothing as if Government has a bottomless pit of money to draw from at no cost to taxpayers.
As PT Barnum famously said "There's a sucker born every minute."

BTW and don't think Hillary won't continue the fabulously extravagant and wasteful "war on terror."

The US pays the most for health care per capita and our satsifaction is near the bottom.


Posted by JimmyWallback

"satisfaction" is not a number....it is an emotion. To be fair, Americans usually have unrealistic expectations of how they should be served and how they should be treated.

the fact that the "satisfaction" is low doesn't directly compare our health care system to others. I'm not shilling for the status quo but rather pointing this reality out.

The righties will bash Canada from now til the Congress finally passes a national health care system. Then they will be first in line to sign up and get every benefit they and qualify for. But it's fun for them to pretend to be "rugged individualists" in the mean time.
I think every Congressman or Senator opposed to national health care ought to give up the medical benefits they receive on our dime.

""To be fair, Americans usually have unrealistic expectations of how they should be served and how they should be treated.""

Yes, we are unrealistic about how much we can waste in Iraq. Somehow, Republicans think we can waste 10 billion a month over there.
You know, the fiscally responsible adults.
Though Greenspan seems to think Clinton was much more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.

""But then, there is the reality that any health care reform MUST have votes from both Parties or it WILL NOT PASS.""

Not necessarily considering there is a very good possibility (a liklihood) that the Dems will control both houses and the presidency after Jan. 2009. So, very likely Republicans will be irrelevant with nothing except fillibuster to prevent progress.

"Who can resist the lure of something for nothing as if Government has a bottomless pit of money to draw from at no cost to taxpayers.

There are already costs at many levels. Most people pay out X number of dollars each month whether it is in the form of a payroll deduction or direct pay to an insurer. Also look at the deduction on your payroll check each and every month for Medicair.

Those who are uninsured/poor/unable to pay tend to use ERs as the Primary Care Physician, and the ERs used are more often than not publically owned facilities; private hospitals tend to shunt non-emergency cases to the tax-supported facility. thus there is an increase in costs to cover those who cannot pay, sometimes covered by the taxpayer.

We are already paying. Who would we be paying to in the future would be the question.

What would be the diff between paying out through payroll deductions to an insurance carrier or through tax levies to the guvmint as long as we get the health care we require? (Just a question, not an endorsement.)

Will Hillary be covered by the same system?

Yes, we are unrealistic about how much we can waste in Iraq. Somehow, Republicans think we can waste 10 billion a month over there.
You know, the fiscally responsible adults.

No, I was talking about national health care actually. But since you brought it up....I think there is a real disconnect on the money spent in Iraq with regard to how Americans feel about it. Most Americans, IMHO, don't see Iraq as a money or cost issue. Certainly they should but I don't think they do.

Healthcare is all about our dollars (meaning each American). We automatically shift into a cost control mode regarding this issue. To me, dollars wasted are dollars wasted.

The proportional share we all incur is the same regardless of where we waste it.

Not necessarily considering there is a very good possibility (a liklihood) that the Dems will control both houses and the presidency after Jan. 2009. So, very likely Republicans will be irrelevant with nothing except fillibuster to prevent progress

come on danni!!! Do you think the healthcare industry will take their billions and go home because you don't think the dems can't be bought??

"the fact that the "satisfaction" is low doesn't directly compare our health care system to others."

eberly:

You should know better than to take anything Jimmy posts as being accurate. Most patient (and family) satisfaction surveys find that people are quite happy with their quality of care.

Those same surveys also show that most people think they lucked out, and care stinks for the other guy.

A great myth of health care is that insurance companies are making big profits. Health insurance is a commodity and gives marginal returns of about 4%-6%.

That's why there are only a few companies in the business: you always get consolidation when profits are marginal. It's also why you don't see speculators buying health insurance stocks.

Plus, half the private insurance is through Blue Cross, which is a not-for-profit.

Now, it's time for Danni to find some outrageous story about a CEO who got a huge bonus. This is the rare anomaly. And even if you took his extra $10 million and spread it out among 30 million customers, it turns into 34-cents each.

-nothing except fillibuster to prevent progress.

Even if Dems do so well as to control all of Congress, it will be by a small enough majority to require Repub votes to pass significant healthcare reform.

One reason I think Hil will be President is that even if Dennis the K was in office, we still would not get most of his policies, or any really, because the other side would block every progressive thing he did.

Half a loaf. It is better than none when you are starving.

Will Hillary be covered by the same system?

Posted by HanoverFist

Not only no, but HELL NO! You know congress has their own perks that we don't get.

-CEO who got a huge bonus. This is the rare anomaly.

Vern has his calculator out again.

One supposes he neglected to figure in the historic multiples that CEO's now make over their employees. What is it now 300, 400 percent?

What would be the diff between paying out through payroll deductions to an insurance carrier or through tax levies to the guvmint as long as we get the health care we require? (Just a question, not an endorsement.)

Because you won't get the health care you "require." Take away the price system and demand has to be balanced by government rationing. That's what we see wherever it's been tried. To keep socialized medicine popular, bureaucrats have to fund the majority of easy cases and restrict the minority of severe cases. You don't want to be old under such a system.

There are already costs at many levels. Most people pay out X number of dollars each month whether it is in the form of a payroll deduction or direct pay to an insurer. Also look at the deduction on your payroll check each and every month for Medicair.

I did. Coincidentally I got my annual social security statement in the mail yesterday. I figured that if I live a normal lifespan, I'll get back about half of what I've paid into it.

To add, such "health insurance" is not really insurance; it's funded as a welfare system. I remember well when Medicare was debated during the Johnson administration, estimates were low balled by several orders. Hillary is doing the same bait and switch that worked so often before.

I did. Coincidentally I got my annual social security statement in the mail yesterday. I figured that if I live a normal lifespan, I'll get back about half of what I've paid into it.

Posted by goatman

That's about where I'm at too. Ain't no way I'll get my 200K+ out of SS let alone any intrest on it.

"That's what we see wherever it's been tried."

Posted by Ray

Hmmmmm... I point to the western European countries as a good model for nationalized health care (UK not included). My family and friends over there seem to obtain what they need, and in some cases, more. I have heard no complaints from them as to access, treatment, and long-term care for a variety of conditions, young to old.

I remember when staying at my uncle's place (in Belgium) a couple of years back. His grandkids were also spending the weekend. I awoke about 8:30 in the morning (jet lag) and heard voices, one I did not recognize. The grandkids were suffering from whatever flavor of flue that was floating around. My aunt was concerned, called the doctor. A bonified, real-life doctor made a house call. On a Saturday morning. At 8 o'clock. Yikes!! Co-pay was 25 Euros because it was a weekend. During the week, it would have been 15 Euros.

When was the last time you heard of a doctor in the US making a house call?

" Ain't no way I'll get my 200K+ out of SS..."

Posted by Sniper

200K??? What, you've been working and paying in about 200 years?

I don't think so.

Every Mexiamericanadian will be covered. This is a fabulous idea.

Only problem is, Georgie is spending all of the Billions you will need to fund your little feel good pet project to get you through to the elections.

Socialized medicine does not work. Why should I have to pay for Pedro, but I am doing that already anyway.

The outlaws have better odds than mom and pop slaving away for w2 wages.

You want to fix health care, Hillary? You better make friends at Pfizer and the like and tell them you really do not want to harm their profit structure, coz they ain't gonna be to happy 'bout you meddling in their bidness.

Healthcare is a sham. We need to make it affordable, but not socialized medicine. The Canadian system is not all great either. You only hear the good stories. With Baby Boomers coming of age, the best thing you can do is make a lot of money so you do not have to play by the give me a hand out rules. It comes down to the have$ and the have not$.

CASH IS KING, BABY!

Zot
You are ignoring what I also said about how bureaucrats keep the system popular. Until the advent of Medicare, doctors used to make house calls and medical attention wasn't overly expensive.

Basic economic theory should tell you that when a service is "free," demand will outstrip supply by a wider margin than if customers had to pay out of their pockets. When a third party pays, why should anyone care what the costs are? That is the problem we face today.

Danni
The error in your logic is that private health insurance companies are already being subsided by company and government health insurance. What you propose is to get them deeply in more control when the system is already out of wack. Be careful for what you wish.

great, move away, and become a Belgium . or what ever UK country you want to join? I don't care if they make house calls, fact... most of them come here for quality health care, cost is high? yes, but so is income, its just the loser free loaders who want to make those high achievers pay for there lack of achievement... and they can just ship themselves back across the water or up north and keep there liberal hands out of my pockets... its not my Job or responsibility to pay for their health care or anything... get a job, for once actually work for a living for goodness sake... !

200K??? What, you've been working and paying in about 200 years? I don't think so.

Posted by ZOT

Do you ever read that damn sheet SS sends out before your birthday every year? My piece + my employers piece is that much. Go back to your corner and suck your thumb again.

SNIPER.. lol. "go back to your corner and suck your thumb again".. thats great!.. lol

One supposes he neglected to figure in the historic multiples that CEO's now make over their employees. What is it now 300, 400 percent?

On non-profit organizations?

""great, move away, and become a Belgium .""

And after the US has finally instituted a system you will be free to move wherever you choose, fact is a MAJORITY of Americans want a national health care plan. AFter we get it we won't miss y'all if you choose to leave.

One supposes he neglected to figure in the historic multiples that CEO's now make over their employees. What is it now 300, 400 percent?

Posted by Corky at 2007-09-17 11:52 AM | Reply

One supposes that you neglected to think. Salary multiples have NOTHING to do with the overall topic, nor my previous post. It's just some random dribble from your brain.

SS was never meant to be an investment portfolio. If you died early in your career it provides for your dependents, it provides disability for injured employees and then it also provides a small pension until you die to prevent the nation from having millions of elderly with no income.
If you purchased private insurance to do all of those things I wonder how much it would cost.
Some may not like the mandatory nature of SS and I can understand their argument but I just don't think most people would choose to be as responsible as they need to be and SS does fill a need.

""Salary multiples have NOTHING to do with the overall topic, nor my previous post. It's just some random dribble from your brain.""

When salaries are not tied to performance or efficiencies then the ridiculous amounts many CEOs and other executives at HMOs do relate to the topic.

Aides said Clinton believes that an individual mandate is the only way to achieve health care for all. A key component of her plan would be a federal tax subsidy to help individuals pay for coverage.

Yes, sounds great. Let's force people to write a check to a health insurance company and we will reimburse them if they qualify. Either way the insurance company gets more premium.

If I were an insurance company (I work for one) then I would be in favor of this. Afterall, I would have more money to purchase more politicians to support MY growth and profits.

Sound like a solution to anybody?????

SNIPER.. lol. "go back to your corner and suck your thumb again".. thats great!.. lol

Posted by kc101


The kids in my 7th period class think so, too.

Keep up the good work!!!!!

Require everyone to buy health insurance and provide government subsidies to allow people to afford it.

Isn't this a variation of what Bush proposed in his State of the Union speech?

And after the US has finally instituted a system you will be free to move wherever you choose, fact is a MAJORITY of Americans want a national health care plan. AFter we get it we won't miss y'all if you choose to leave.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-17 12:55 PM

Some may not like the mandatory nature of SS and I can understand their argument but I just don't think most people would choose to be as responsible as they need to be and SS does fill a need.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-17 01:00 PM

Danni, regarding your claim about a majority of Americans wanting national health care, please source any evidence to support this ridiculous claim. If what you say is true, why did Americans overwhelmingly reject Hillary Care back in the early 90's? What has changed since then?

Secondly, Danni is proof positive that many liberals don't believe people are responsible enough to provide for their own well-being.

""If what you say is true, why did Americans overwhelmingly reject Hillary Care back in the early 90's? What has changed since then?""

1. You can go look at the polls yourself.
2. Millions of dollars spent by health care industry on stupid ads that convinced Americans we would lose our "choice" of doctors, etc. If you are that uninformed why do you pretend to have an opinion???

""Yes, sounds great. Let's force people to write a check to a health insurance company and we will reimburse them if they qualify. Either way the insurance company gets more premium.

If I were an insurance company (I work for one) then I would be in favor of this. Afterall, I would have more money to purchase more politicians to support MY growth and profits.""

I couldn't agree with you more. This is a stupid way to achieve national health care and only demonstrates that Hillary is still afraid of the health care industry and thier billions.

I guess since she is a liberal, Danni doesn't know what it means to be a conservative. Heck, she probably doesn't even know any conservatives. Therefore, she probably only witnesses her liberal friends not being able to plan for the future, and then falsely believes everyone is of the same nature. I, for one, do not expect SS to be there for me in my retirement years. If it is, then great. If not, no harm done, because I have been consistently investing in a retirement portfolio that I started over 20 years ago.

Vern has his calculator out again.

One supposes he neglected to figure in the historic multiples that CEO's now make over their employees. What is it now 300, 400 percent?

300-400 TIMES the average worker

30,000-40,000%

has anybody on the left given thought as to who will pay for this debacle? i do not relish the thought of one more social program - there a couple of hundred or thousand too many already.

the fact that the "satisfaction" is low doesn't directly compare our health care system to others. I'm not shilling for the status quo but rather pointing this reality out.

Posted by eberly at 2007-09-17 11:32 AM | Reply

Alright then,

How about....

Highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation.

Lowest life expectancy of any industrialized nation.

Both speak oooodles of sunshine about our wonderful for profit health care system.

How does that make you "feel"?

has anybody on the left given thought as to who will pay for this debacle? i do not relish the thought of one more social program - there a couple of hundred or thousand too many already.


Posted by nanc at 2007-09-17 02:02 PM

Our grandchildren. Just like for the war on terrawr.

Actually Hillary's plan is to repeal the tax cuts for the high incomers to pay for it.

But it will never pass but she has to say she "tried" although proposing a system that neither liberals nor conservatives want is not putting forth the best effort in my book.

This is a stupid way to achieve national health care and only demonstrates that Hillary is still afraid of the health care industry and thier billions.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-17 01:34 PM | Reply

Danni, I don't beleive that she is so much afraid of the health care industry, but is more a fan of the status quo and keep taking the wads of cash they throw her way.

In the end it comes down to the only real way to take back our country is to eliminate private money from campaigns.

great, move away, and become a Belgium . or what ever UK country you want to join? I don't care if they make house calls, fact... most of them come here for quality health care, cost is high? yes, but so is income, its just the loser free loaders who want to make those high achievers pay for there lack of achievement... and they can just ship themselves back across the water or up north and keep there liberal hands out of my pockets... its not my Job or responsibility to pay for their health care or anything... get a job, for once actually work for a living for goodness sake... !

Posted by kc101 at 2007-09-17 12:35 PM | Reply |


In short jesus would of disagreed.


Isaiah 56:11, "Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter."

If what you say is true, why did Americans overwhelmingly reject Hillary Care back in the early 90's?

Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-09-17 01:30 PM | Reply

Perhaps you can provide some facts to support this grandiose claim.

I don't ever recall being asked to vote on it. I mean other than electing Clinton.

How about....

Highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation.

Lowest life expectancy of any industrialized nation.

Both speak oooodles of sunshine about our wonderful for profit health care system.

How does that make you "feel"?

Not good. Not my point though.

not my Job or responsibility to pay for their health care or anything... get a job, for once actually work for a living for goodness sake... !

Posted by kc101 at 2007-09-17 12:35 PM

Try not paying your taxes and see where that arguement gets you.

I mean... it is not your job to live in a society and pay for the costs of such.

How about not using the internet, not having the police patrol your neighborhood, not having the fire department come to put out the fire at your house. Not having the SEC protect the investments in your retirement funds. Not having the FDIC protect your bank accounts.

Try overseeing the utility companies by yourself.

Don't drive on public roads.

Don't drink the public water.

Don't eat any food inspected by the FDA.

Buy your prescriptions from third world countries without safety measures.

Typical neoconservative, enjoying the benefits of society without wanting to pay for it.

""has anybody on the left given thought as to who will pay for this debacle?""

Yes. We already do pay for it. We just allow greedy insurance companies to take the profits without providing the services. We pay twice what any other industrialized country pays. That should easily be able to pay for a system that insures all.

funny the taxes i pay for now cover these things, but the loser who will not work, cause "i dont want THAT job" or "ill wait for something like a VP job to come around", sorry i dont want to pay for them, those are who im talking about, the loser who wont and generally not worked cause its too easy to just sit and drink it away...

""In the end it comes down to the only real way to take back our country is to eliminate private money from campaigns.""

No argument from me. ABsolutely right, nothing major ever will change until corporations are not able to influence legislators. They will fight hard to keep us from ever taking their power away. Blackwater troops coming home.....hmmmm???

""the loser who wont and generally not worked cause its too easy to just sit and drink it away...""

Never mind that 70% of the uninsured are employed.
Just fact, righties don't consider facts.

How about we fix the immigration problem before we roll out another Federal program?

Nice, KNIGHTHAWK, ... you said.. "in short Jesus would of disagreed" I think someplace it also talks about if a man will not work he does not EAT!.. and for your information, don't assume you know what Jesus would or wouldn't do, also please quote a book closer to when he was around and not Isaiah? that a bit before he walked the earth, , please lookup 2 Thessalonians 3 11-13, I think is talks about someone not working... Hmmmmm

We already do pay for it. We just allow greedy insurance companies to take the profits without providing the services.

What services are insurance companies not providing?

47 million americans are not working an insurance company right now. I thought we were talking about them.

thats "working WITH an insurance..."

We pay enough to cover everyone if you add up all the money paid to insurance companies, that government already pays out, etc. If it were all in one big pot we could insure everyone, but insurance company profits might be unaffordable.
I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep worrying about insurance company profits.

Typical neoconservative, enjoying the benefits of society without wanting to pay for it.

Don't mind paying, but not when I'm paying ten or more times for what I'm getting. We're also paying for a massive military and welfare system, and to finance a corrupt political system. The waste is phenomenal.

We pay enough to cover everyone if you add up all the money paid to insurance companies, that government already pays out, etc

Prove it.

I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep worrying about insurance company profits.

You would Danni, if you realized that the cost of government waste and corruption is fucking you ten times over. Maybe some day, you'll wake up and realize what a fool you are.

Become a Belgium????

Why do I want to become a country? The term is "Belgian."

"what ever UK country you want to join?"

Last I heard, the UK, United Kingdom, is a country all to its lonesome. Perhaps you meant the EU, European Union.

kc101, I was responding to a comment made, you respond with typical chest-beating 'murican drivel when faced with the possibility that other countries/cultures may simply perform better in some areas. S'okay. Xenophobics are allowed opinions also.

"Go back to your corner and suck your thumb again."

Posted by Sniper

Ah. Yet another poignant, intelligent retort by the snipe.

You really got me with that one, you did.

Those who are uninsured/poor/unable to pay tend to use ERs as the Primary Care Physician, and the ERs used are more often than not publically owned facilities; private hospitals tend to shunt non-emergency cases to the tax-supported facility. thus there is an increase in costs to cover those who cannot pay, sometimes covered by the taxpayer. -- Zot

Have you ever seen numbers on this? I'm really curious about whether making preventive medicine available will cut health care costs. ER bills add up quickly.

And does anyone understand the implications of mandatory health insurance for illegal immigrants? Both the Clinton and Edwards proposals include "mandatory insurance," and I'm wondering if it's a backdoor way to keep illegals out. (I have mixed feelings there. I figure adults who choose to come here illegally know the risks, but can't see turning away a child.)

Have you ever seen numbers on this? I'm really curious about whether making preventive medicine available will cut health care costs. ER bills add up quickly.

This is the crux of the issue for me. If this doesn't add up then I would be very apprehensive in supporting any kind of national plan.

""You would Danni, if you realized that the cost of government waste and corruption is fucking you ten times over.""

Oh, and we never get screwed by insurance companies. What a joke. My daughter works for a company that does health insurance re-billing. The insurance companies reject virtually every charge, then companies like the one she works for have to go back and force them to pay even normal charges for typical procedures. You sheep whine "oh the government" while the insurance companies laugh their asses off at you. I am sure the execs at some of these companies just love knowing they have an army of little right wingers ready to defend their right to steal. I'm sure they think of you when they fly over in their private jets.
Baaaaaaah.

I think we should take our leadership on health care from the same folks who were so sure invading Iraq was a great idea.

REally, most of you ought to swear off voting forever. Do the nation a favor, burn your voter's registration card.

We are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to "Protect us" but not a fucking dime if you happen to get sick.

Where is the justification for that asshat mentality?

Fighting illness is cheaper than fighting Habib, but there are those who will have none of that shit. They need to see dead bodies if America is going to spend any money.

"I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had, cause I love you. And you feel it. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead -- just play with this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world -- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded -- we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace. Thank you very much. You've been great, I hope you enjoyed it."

We are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to "Protect us" but not a fucking dime if you happen to get sick

Where do you get "not a fucking dime"?

I'm not defending status quo but between medicaid, CHiPs, etc.... we have a lot of people being provided health care who don't have money for it.

Danni
The insurance companies get away with it because they are protected and subsided by government. And you think universal insurance is going to solve anything. Just wait. They'll be even more entrenched. What a fool!

Half of what you earn goes to pay taxes. Where is your perspective?

I stopped voting a long time ago. The system has too many people like you who vote to license politicians to steal for you. I don't even have health "insurance' because I refuse to pay into a welfare system euphemistically called "insurance."

You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead -- just play with this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world -- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded -- .... -- Manypaths

... we wouldn't need so much money for defense?

Nice, KNIGHTHAWK, ... you said.. "in short Jesus would of disagreed" I think someplace it also talks about if a man will not work he does not EAT!.. and for your information, don't assume you know what Jesus would or wouldn't do, also please quote a book closer to when he was around and not Isaiah? that a bit before he walked the earth, , please lookup 2 Thessalonians 3 11-13, I think is talks about someone not working... Hmmmmm

Posted by kc101 at 2007-09-17 02:37 PM | Reply |

I wouldn't trounce assumption too soon, given that your own posts make some pretty big ones. Attack the man all you like, the message still stands. Its ok to not help those who could not be bothered to help themselves, its another thing to assume they are all in the same means. Thats greed at work right there for ya, or the lack of empathy.


(Luke 12:15, "And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth"). God does not reward us by the amount of material goods we accumulate during our lifetime. God judges us by our relationship to Jesus Christ, our love of God, and our love of our fellowman.

""Half of what you earn goes to pay taxes. Where is your perspective?""

At least I can vote to change my government, I have no power whatever in regards to my health care insurer.
So you don't have health insurance, do you own a home, do you have kids???

SS was never meant to be an investment portfolio. If you died early in your career it provides for your dependents, it provides disability for injured employees and then it also provides a small pension until you die to prevent the nation from having millions of elderly with no income.
If you purchased private insurance to do all of those things I wonder how much it would cost.
Some may not like the mandatory nature of SS and I can understand their argument but I just don't think most people would choose to be as responsible as they need to be and SS does fill a need.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-17 01:00 PM | Reply

---

I hold a $750,000 life policy w/State Farm. Locked in for 20 yrs @ $29.80/mo. Assuming the policy goes full term, that's $7152.00.


According to my last pay stub:

Social Security removed $188.69

... So who's losing on this deal? I'd say me.

Social Security and universal healthcare can bite me, my investments and insurance are better.

Further, let's pretend I had that $188.69 (bi-monthly) back. Thats $4528.56 extra a year I could put into my IRA's/401k's/whatever you like.

I could seriously be able to retire about 10 years earlier than I'm currently hoping for with that money.

"At least I can vote to change my government"

Yeah, I tried that. I still got Bush 1, Clinton x 2, and Bush x 2. Looking like it's gonna be Clinton Version 2 in 2009 x 2. With my luck, yet another Bush will be waiting in the wings to take over in 2017. Possibly even a tag team presidency with the Bush twins, Jen and Barb, rotating between jaunts to South America.

Clinton Unveils Healthcare Plan


Let's see:

1) Provides healthcare for all Americans as is done in all other major industrialized countries
CHECK!
2) Increases the tax burden on the top 5%
CHECK!
3) Pisses off the righties
CHECK!
4) Screws over the health insurance industry
BIG X!

This proposal only gets 75% of my support. I guess Hillary must be getting a lot of money from the health insurance industry.

-I guess Hillary must be getting a lot of money from the health insurance industry.

Oh yeah! They are her favs. She especially liked the slick ads they produced in the 90's with the couple discussing how she was going to take away their health benefits.

Or, could it possibly be that this is a good first step that actually has some small chance of at least passing in a bipartisan Congress where plans such as I prefer, like single payer, wouldn't have a snowball's chance?

But you are prolly correct. Insinuating that she has been paid off by the same industry she has fought so long is prolly the best approach to take.

At least I can vote to change my government, I have no power whatever in regards to my health care insurer.
So you don't have health insurance, do you own a home, do you have kids???

Posted by danni at 2007-09-17 03:47 PM

Are you dreaming Danni? Both parties are just as corrupt. The last election should have proved that. You don't see the Democrats doing a thing to stop Bush.

I rent and my kids are grown up and on their own. I'm 65 and I turned down Medicare Plan B. I do put a lot of effort into staying healthy by exercise and diet. I have no health issues.

"Clinton, the only Democrat to be in the top five in total donations from the sector, is also the No. 1 senator in terms of donations from nurses and health professionals, and the No. 2 recipient of donations from employees of hospitals and nursing homes, as well as insurance companies."

Ahha!

Paid off by those evil health care workers!

Big Biz gives money to both Parties, more to the one they think will be in power. They are just putting their money on the horse they think will win.

Whether that buys them any more than access depends on the candidate. In this case, I think they are trying to make nice to someone they know they screwed over in the past and who isn't really likely to be supportive of their agenda no matter their speculative support.

So now it will be a federal law that everyone has to have insurance. DOes that mean that people that do not will be committing a crime? Can we throw them in jail? If they are illegal aliens will that be cause to deport their ass? I can't imagine the Hildebeast checking all of the mexicans working at a construction site for their health insurance instead of their green card.

The sad part is you can see the people lining up demanding their right to health care. You folks that say that this is part of living in a society are comparing apples and oranges. First, I can't build my own road that goes from my house to the store, to work , etc. I can't pay for my private military to pursue my international objectives...however I can pay for my own medical care. That is the responsibility of the individual, not the country and certainly not the tax payers like me. Part of freedom is responsibility.

Contrary to what the Hildebeast and her followers may believe, you don't have a right to my money for your benefit. I earned it. If you want my lifestyle, go earn your own money.

Finally, I noticed that some here think those who oppose this plan are sheep. I believe Danni said "bah, bah". Let me ask you this, who is standing in line to get fed by the government? Why are they willing to blindly accept that this works regardless of the facts? Simple. They are hoping that someone gets sheared to pay for their food.

Contrary to what the Hildebeast and her followers may believe, you don't have a right to my money for your benefit

Posted by A_Citizen


Stranger to the concept of taxation, I see.

You're lucky your money is all she's taking, at least you'll keep your head!
muahahahahahaha!

How stupid can this be, required health insurance.

Reminds of the commercial with "Jack my price up!"

Clinton is right direct in line with Bush, run the price up so the corporates can get huge profits.

Why would anyone even consider her. A Corporate Troll to the max.

Contrary to what the Hildebeast and her followers may believe, you don't have a right to my money for your benefit

Posted by A_Citizen

LOL! This one has brains, can't seem to even address the issue.

Worried about his money but would rather the government spend way more. He still hasn't figured out if the government spends more than he is going to lose more of his money.....Oops, I forgot, he is rich so he is stealin from the poor and at the same time wanting them to all get sick.

The neocons now are WOBS. Nothing of any smarts in any of their posts.

I think these quotes by Thomas Jefferson sum up why we should not have a national health care system.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread."

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

"The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits."

Our government was never supposed to take care of us from cradle to grave. With freedom we have the responsibility to take care of ourselves and each other. People no longer take care of each other (or even themselves) because they want mommy and daddy government to do it for them. There are solutions to our healthcare problems, but creating a bigger and more oppressive government is not the answer.

if you want a great example of a hospital run by affirmative action government workers, go to MLK in Los Angeles....you'd be better off praying.....1/2 of the people w/o medical facilities to go to are illegal aliens..........so fuck them anyway

The quotes do not apply.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."


People who work are unable to afford medical insurance and even those who can find that it is not a guarantee that they will get the medical attention they need.


"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, when to reap, we should soon want bread."


Without proper context this statement is too general to apply to anything.


"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."


This statement applies to government protection of CEOs and/or the landowner class of old and the investor class of today and so is irrelevant here.


"The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits."


Again, this statement is too general to mean anything without context and can apply to many things.

I suggest you be a bit more picky about the sites you cut and paste from in the future.

@JSPRAGUE...Poetry! Well said, and absolutely correct!

I wonder if moneywar will say that Thomas Jefferson was only looking out for his money or perhaps he was merely stealing from the poor in hopes that they would get sick.

Fellas, the bottom line is this: it is not the government's job to give out health care. It is the responsibility of each of us to provide the things we want and need as individuals.

The theory that this kind of system saves money could only be assured if you had a plan like Edwards is supporting where you are REQUIRED to go to the doctor. (Imagine being told BY THE GOVERNMENT that you HAVE to go to the doctor and WHEN.) Even then, some things would be excluded...for example the fruits of risky behavior. I believe he was talking about lung cancer if you are a smoker or perhaps liver problems if you drink alcohol. Wonder if he will exclude the gunshot wounds suffered by inner city youth who are involved in gangs or AIDS patients, since either of these ailments could also be contracted through "risky activities".

I suggest you be a bit more picky about the sites you cut and paste from in the future.

I would suggest that you understand very little about the intended role of government in our country. You can dismiss the quotes anyway you want, but I find your dismissals to be irrelevant.

I would suggest that you understand very little about the intended role of government in our country. You can dismiss the quotes anyway you want, but I find your dismissals to be irrelevant.

Posted by jsprague


Your feeble attempt to paint Jefferson as a "government is the problem" conservative by quoting him out of context tells me you have no idea of the intended role of government in our country. Further, the obvious fact that you just cut and paste the quotes tells me that you are told what to believe and thus didn't even bother to try to understand the intended role of government in our country.

Darth, you never cease to amaze me with your stupidity.

""Fellas, the bottom line is this: it is not the government's job to give out health care. It is the responsibility of each of us to provide the things we want and need as individuals.""

As if the job of government hasn't evolved and won't continue to evolve. As if you can make pompous statements and believe they will stop progress. You can try to sensationalize the issue, make those who support nationalized health care out to be some kind of health Nazis, whatever you want....but the population of America recognizes you represent the past, not the future. It's coming, I don't quite know what it will look like, but it's coming.

Progress? That is hilarious.. Fascism is not progress. Progress is not needed when a people are truly free.

Your feeble attempt to paint Jefferson as a "government is the problem" conservative by quoting him out of context tells me you have no idea of the intended role of government in our country. Further, the obvious fact that you just cut and paste the quotes tells me that you are told what to believe and thus didn't even bother to try to understand the intended role of government in our country.

Wow.. that is in the top 10 of dumbest posts I have read.. I have spent an extensive amount of time reading the constitution, the federalist papers, declaration of independence, etc. I believe I have an excellent grasp on our forefathers' intentions.

As for the quotes.. Let's see how many you can type up with 100% accuracy off the top of your head? I have read those quotes many times, but do not know them verbatim. I do happen to know they exist and where to find the ones I want. Bringing up the obvious fact that I cut and pasted them is really quite stupid.. Incredibly stupid, actually.

Well the only benifit I see to this plan for me is that if every one has to have insurance then hospitals will not be passing on the free services they provide to me. Maybe that means my health care costs might stablize.

Danni lay off the insurance companies. They make a combined 11 billion per your post. There are 300 million Americans which means if you forbid all insurance company profits then every man woman and child in America will save 36 bucks so for my family of 5 I will save 180 so my 10k a year in health care cost will drop to 9820, umm yippie?

The problem is rising medical costs. I have a doctors bill from 1912 for surgery and a 2 week recovery period total cost $26. Now if you figure that a 1912 dollar will buy about what 35 dollars today will that hospital cost should be $910, but wait there is more we have more advanced tech today so figure that is worth doubling it $1820. Tell you what next time you need surgery gather up $1820 go to the hospital and see how far that gets you.

Every country whines about universal healthcare when it is first introduced. A few years after its installed it's recognized as a good thing. Fucking righty tighty crybaby whiners lack imagination and are afraid to try anything that would level the playing field.

Bastards sold the nation's soul for a $200 tax rebate to some asshole wannabe cowboy that will piss away what universal coverage will cost many times over. Cut off their fucking noses to spite their faces. Guess what the next thing you know they will use Iraqs universal health care as an example of why it shouldn't be done here. You righty tighty fuckers will buy it hook line and sinker too.

Every country whines about universal healthcare when it is first introduced. A few years after its installed it's recognized as a good thing.

People whine whine about tax increases, illegal wars, human rights violations, infringements on our freedoms, etc when they first happen. Given enough time, Americans seemed to get used to just about anything and will eventually even defend it. This is why we are on the path to our undoing.

""Danni lay off the insurance companies. They make a combined 11 billion per your post.""

Ok, if you want the profit motive to be the criteria which determines what services are paid for by the health care plan why should I object.
Oh wait, I DON'T want the profit motive to be the criteria for such decisions. And, if you read more carefully you realize that profit is on a cost plus basis due to the nature of health care insurance so there is no incentive to reduce administrative costs which are far higher than Medicare.

"" hold a $750,000 life policy w/State Farm. Locked in for 20 yrs @ $29.80/mo. Assuming the policy goes full term, that's $7152.00.""

OK, if you die you collect. How much do you collect if you are injured. How much do your dependents collect if you are injured. How much pension does it pay you at age 65. And lastly, most importantly, how many millions of Americans don't have a retirement policy except for SS???
SS isn't perfect but the nation would be far worse off without it or something like it.

Danni you don't really need to argue me on the cost of health care. It is out of controll but I have also been the victim of government health care and would not willingly go back on it. Although I may have no choice in the long run. Part of the problem with all governmnet programs is their impact on cost which is what Ray was saying and what I would agree is the problem. Listen often times the government does not even pay enough to cover the cost of service. I know I dealt with it. Every case we had that was government provided was a loosing case. We took them because we cared. One day we were investigated for over billing because we had 10 claims still in process when the billing rules changed, they delayed payment for over 2 years and did not pay until after the grandfather window closed, so they fined us. We paid the fine and appealed since the claims were filed pre change. We won the appeal. We finaly got paid for our service 4 years after it was provided, of course the cost of fines and appeals had put us out of buisness 1 year before that. The ultimate irony to this story is we were providing more than twice the service we billed for because the paitiens needed it and the government would not aprove it.

Any way the point of the story was to point out that government will not be a good steward of health in this country.

I promise you that in Government Health care I would come out WAY ahead however the cost would be to the nation and my childrens future. I can not support that.

Danni,

I must admit, I gave you more credit for your abilities than that. I would have thought you could come up with something more than name calling. In my posts, I have never said that those who support socialized medicine are Nazi's. I have said that they are giving up a great deal of their freedom...which is easily supported by the words of those who support programs that REQUIRE citizens to do something - be it carry insurance or go to the doctor for check ups.

As to what is coming, I am sure that socialized medicine is coming. I am sure totalitarinism is coming. People in this country have figured out they can TAKE property and wealth from others using the power of the vote. People are willing to take marching orders from the government for their own benefit (normally while calling others sheep - see your 3:16 post). Soon they will figure that they can use that same power to create a utopia by merely using that power to tell people what to do...for their own good (to borrow a phrase from the Hildebeast.)

Oh .. and the MoveOn Democrats just love to yammer endlessly about the uninsured.

The truth about the uninsured? Most are only uninsured for a period of less than a year. Many simply have made a choice not to buy health insurance.
Some have so much wealth that they essentially self-insure. The truth is far from the scenario they paint. Oh .. and wouldn't you know it?
Hillary's plan includes increasing taxes. She doesn't call it a tax increase .. .she used the MoveOn approved code phrase of
"repealing the Bush tax cuts." Remember. This is not about making you more healthy.
This is not about improving the delivery of health care services in this country. This is ONLY about increasing the power of government and politicians.

Cool!

And objective critique free of cynicism and uber-snarkiness.

Thanks, TR!

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has offered an initial look at her plan for health care reform. It's not likely to change anyone's mind about her candidacy, or about health care reform, but at the overview level it's well-designed and thorough. Her plan is solidly in the center of Democratic proposals. It emphasizes mandated coverage, cost reduction measures, and the elimination of predatory insurance underwriting. At first review, it reinforces the sense that she and her staff are knowledgeable, highly competent, and incrementalist in their approach.

We'll look at the plan's details, and then quickly touch on the Republicans' (predictable) responses.

Sen. Clinton has abandoned the regional health alliances that were a hallmark of her 1994 proposal. That makes the Edwards plan, with its regionally-based Health Markets, more traditionally 'Clintonian' than Sen. Clinton's new proposal.

Here are the highlights of the Clinton plan, based on an initial review:

Like the Edwards plan and Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan, mandates are the centerpiece of the Clinton program. Every American will be required to have health insurance. To offset this new requirement, the Clinton plan promises future cost savings to ensure affordability.

I'm not a fan of mandates, for reasons discussed here, although I understand the thought process behind them. There are fundamental issues of fairness that are easy to address in theory, using subsidies -- but most policymakers so far have failed handle premium and copayment structures in a way that does so effectively. I also suspect that Republicans will have a field day running against the mandate concept.

The Clinton plan -- like those of Edwards and Obama -- apparently offers a public insurance alternative, although details are sketchy at this point. The long-term impact of a public/private competitive model is potentially very significant: If private insurance companies can't compete on price and value, and if they're policed effectively enough to avoid their use of unfair underwriting advantages, they could potentially wither and die. That would leave the country with a de facto single-payer system -- one created by market forces. Yet there are many potential hurdles between a mixed system and a fair outcome.

Sen. Clinton's program is administered through the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). She takes a page from John Kerry's playbook (and Ron Wyden's) by saying that this will provide "benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage." There will also apparently be also a public Medicare-like system, although details on that are sketchy at this point."

more

Would you care to comment upon the issues raised in the critique?

Naw, anyone with that snarky an attitude has ruined any real critique they might have.

If private insurance companies can't compete on price and value, and if they're policed effectively enough to avoid their use of unfair underwriting advantages, they could potentially wither and die.

If she plans to use private insurance companies then there is NO getting around the market.

Naw, anyone with that snarky an attitude has ruined any real critique they might have.

"Shoot The Messenger", Corky always says, but can NEVER support anything on its merits or answer detractors upon the relevance of their pointed criticisms.

Sorry, but people don't write just to please your sensibilities. They write so that their points have effect based upon their validity, not their classiness.

Some people are under the illusion that whoever wins the Pres can just take whatever plan they want before Congress and get it passed.

If that were the case, I would prefer Dennis the K's version of single-payer.

But since it most definitely is not the case, since it takes votes from both Parties to make changes, her compromise plan is one of several workable ones from Dem candidates.

Of course, some here will want a fight to the death
between Dems over the particulars of plans that will never be enacted whole anyway.

- They write so that their points have effect based upon their validity, not their classiness.


Good thing, 'cause that was about as classless an act as I have seen in a while.

Some people are under the illusion that whoever wins the Pres can just take whatever plan they want before Congress and get it passed.

Who?

If that is really from Obama's team, they sound more like "perception is reality" Rovites than pragmatic Dems.

No, they sound like people that remember just how much Hillary's failed plan in the 90s cost the Democratic Party, which only achieved its first Congressional majorities after over a decade in 2006.

Why trust the same person whose previous work in this area torpedoed Democrats for 5 election cycles?

Hardly Rovian, and extremely pragmatic: Don't make the same fatal mistakes again particularly when the plan benefits the insurance and healthcare delivers more richly than it does the millions needing access to affordable healthcare services.

-What more does one need to know?

Yes, that does indicate the plan has a chance of passing a bipartisan vote.

-she cannot see more than a few inches in front of her face

- Democrats really can't trust Clinton at the end of the day

-suggesting that she's a follower, rather than a leader

Really an important new direction opposite to the "politics of destruction", brought to us by the "change candidate", eh?

Laughable.

A_Citizen, JSprague, what are you guys?

Libertarians?

Yes, if I had to be labeled, that would be it..

Yes, that does indicate the plan has a chance of passing a bipartisan vote.


This coming from the same person who penned this just weeks ago:

...these insinuations are something one might expect to find originating at the WSJ editorial board.

Oh, so if "insinuations" are positive toward Hillary, then it indicates she's on the right track, but when they're accusatory on facts, the WSJ is part of the VRWC?

Which is it Corky? Stop spinning so that we can discern where your hypocrisy begins and where it ends.

Coincidentally I got my annual social security statement in the mail yesterday. I figured that if I live a normal lifespan, I'll get back about half of what I've paid into it.

Posted by goatman

hmmm... a few moments ago I requested a social security statement. I worked for 40 years and really have had no clue as to how much I nor my employers contributed.

I have collected approximately $145,000. in Social Security checks over the past 12 years... and rightly or wrong assume that I'm ahead of the game.

Thanks for the incentive to find out my actual participation in the SS fund.

What a guppie it takes to actually believe something like this.


"It's single payer health care provided free of charge"

And the " BEAST" continues to rear its ugly head.

Pssst. I'm not referring to the Hildabeast, she's just a self serving ignorantly willing sophist accomplice....

Always remember, we're all gonna die. Prepare for it properly and you won't worry yourselves to DEATH.

I just came from the pharmacy...

Pharmacist.... Do you have insurance..

Me. Yes sir but I have a two thousand dollar deduct, I'll pay cash....

Price for meds with insurance = 192.00 Price for meds with no insurance =82.00

Paying cash for your own stuff ALWAYS gets the best price when it comes to most any purchase. That's something that people who expect or attempt to get something for little or nothing will never understand.

some sage political advice, TR

AC-CENT-TCHU-ATE THE POSITIVE (Mister In-Between)
(Johnny Mercer / Harold Arlen)

as sung by Bing Crosby

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

(To illustrate his last remark
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they do
Just when everything looked so dark)

Man, they said we better
Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
No, do not mess with Mister In-Between
Do you hear me, hmm?

(Oh, listen to me children and-a you will hear
About the elininatin' of the negative
And the accent on the positive)
And gather 'round me children if you're willin'
And sit tight while I start reviewin'
The attitude of doin' right

(You've gotta accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between)

You've got to spread joy (up to the maximum)
Bring gloom (down) down to the minimum
Otherwise (otherwise) pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

To illustrate (well illustrate) my last remark (you got the floor)
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they say (what did they say)
Say when everything looked so dark

Man, they said we better
Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
No! Don't mess with Mister In-Between

So Corky is saying it is ok to be intellectually dishonest so long as it serves your political agenda - very Clinton-esque.

So Corky is saying it is ok to be intellectually dishonest so long as it serves your political agenda - very Clinton-esque.

You have the hiccups?

Try holding your breath and repeating, "Washington outsider, candidate of change.", 12 times fast.

So, Taxman is creating a Strawman to argue with instead of quoting me.

Typical.

My wife and I are retired wage earners. Together we pay $560 a month for medical insurance. And it is very good coverage that I am confident we will have for the duration of our lives.

Interesting methinks that Romney can trash a concept similar to the one he signed into law in Massachusetts.

Is it a true and fair axiom that Republicans=me and Democrats=we ?

Corky your "quote" basically says to ignore the bad stuff, is that something a responsible voter should do? I am not misquoting you nor am I creating a strawman. You are inferring that one should ignore the negatives rather than deal with them and that is intellectually dishonest.

"Washington outsider, candidate of change."

Better than more of the same from a pro big business pro lobbyist candidate.

some sage political advice, TR

And for you as well...

Really an important new direction opposite to the "politics of destruction", brought to us by the "change candidate", eh?

Laughable.


Naw, anyone with that snarky an attitude has ruined any real critique they might have.

He will be demonized as the Islamic candidate, he will be trashed as an inexperienced black man with a Muslim name that has no business being the CinC in a time of war with Islamic terrorists..... and I'm sure he'll be said to have an illegitimate white baby somewhere.

And that's just for starters.


Personally, I think you should take your diatribes over to LGF.

You could prolly get a Premium Lifetime Membership.


So Jest,

What do you expect Obama's negatives will be when your rightwing buddies get done Swift-Boating him?


And, when do you think the claim would surface that he is an Islamic spy with a white baby somewhere?


Tell me what Obama has done in this campaign to overcome Hil's lead of 15 to 20 percent across the country, showing that he was some clue as how to beat anyone, much less the GOP nominee?


ALSO, if you think that the GOP is afraid of running against someone they can slander as an inexperienced black man with a Muslim name who doesn't belong in the WH in a time of war, some sort of Muslim Madrassa Manchurian Candidate who prolly has a white baby somewhere, then you are sadly mistaken.

Again, descending into negative attacks instead of positively promoting your candidate is a telling strategy, one that many losing campaigns use.-----All posted by Corky

Shouldn't you listen to your own advice before suggesting that others do? You do nothing but hold others to a standard you find it impossible to keep yourself.

Clinton Unveils Healthcare Plan

The scariest thing about her plan is how politically cynical it is, and it might just work in duping much of the public into going along with it.

She is saavy that's for sure -- and she dresses her plan up just enough with the trappings of choice and continuing privatized care that at first glance it doesn't look like socialized medicine. And yet, that is exactly what it is.

The funny thing is that because of the facade of choice and continued privatized care, I think a lot of people on the Left are going to condemn her for this plan.

It just keeps getting worse..

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

So poor people who need jobs the most may struggle to get one if they still can't afford the health insurance. Not to mention the fact that we will need government approval in order to get a job.. This reeks...

Price for meds with insurance = 192.00 Price for meds with no insurance =82.00

Paying cash for your own stuff ALWAYS gets the best price when it comes to most any purchase. That's something that people who expect or attempt to get something for little or nothing will never understand.


Posted by Incubus_Con at 2007-09-18 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag


You should seriously look into ordering your prescriptions from Canada. For a Tier 3 prescription that I use every month, at a US pharmacy it costs $45 for my copay (vs. approx $85 if I paid cash), but only $25 if I import from Canada.

Just out of curiosity, what pharmacy do you go to that gives a discount for paying cash? If anything, I've noticed the opposite trend, with drugs being cheaper w/insurance because the insurance company negotiates lower rates for themselves. The same goes w/doctor visits, where my doctor charges $105 for an office visit if paying cash, but only charges my insurance co. $65.

Katie: Serious question. If I have a high blood presure prescription that has a limited number of refills, how is that handled if I order from Canada?

Just take the Medicare plan which is already in place, give it to U.S. citizen -- not just those over 65 on Social Security -- and get rid of the insurance companies who are the middle men.
Problem solved.

"citizen" should have been plural