REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Of course they did...

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Monday, December 14, 2009 07:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2318
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 4:41 PM

SERGEANTX


Dems agree to drop gov't-run insurance option

But of course.

Any of you libruls wanna try to tell me this is anything more than a corporate bailout?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcY
E_ZHW-ywD9CFFM9O0

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation. No further details were immediately available.
But liberals and moderates have been discussing an alternative, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, talks centered on opening up Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.
Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa told reporters he didn't like the agreement but would support it to the hilt in an attempt to pass health care legislation.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping Senate health care legislation Tuesday, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the controversy wouldn't hinder the drive to pass President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The 54-45 vote over abortion took place as Democrats, in daylong private talks in the Capitol, appeared ready to scuttle plans for a government-run insurance option that liberals have long sought.
A potential alternative was taking shape, several officials said, including a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, Medicare would be opened up to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the over-65 population.
Taken together, the day's developments underscored the complexity that confronts the administration and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as they seek the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican opposition and pass a bill by Christmas.
Yet another controversy quickly followed, when Sen. Byron Dorgan., D-N.D, proposed legalizing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be "logistically challenging" to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.
Reid — the chief architect of the health care bill as well as an abortion opponent — played a prominent role in the debate over attempts by conservatives to toughen restrictions in the Senate measure. "No one should use the health care bill to expand or restrict abortion," he said, arguing that abortion foes were attempting to do just that. "And no one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care."
The current legislation would ban the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services under insurance plans expected to be offered in a new health care system, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy.
Individuals who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance under the plans would be permitted to use personal funds to pay for abortion services — the point on which the two sides in the dispute part company.
"Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., the chief Democratic supporter of tightened restrictions. "The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion."
Abortion rights supporters, Senate Democratic women most prominently, countered heatedly.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said abortion opponents were driven by ideology, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., called the proposed changes "a very far-reaching intrusion into the lives of women."
The amendment that Nelson, Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and numerous Republicans proposed would also have barred insurance plans from covering abortions except in the three categories if any of their policyholders received federal subsidies. It also would have required insurance companies that offer no-abortion plans to make available a policy that offers such services.
In all, 50 Democrats, two Republicans and two independents voted to kill the abortion proposal. Thirty-eight Republicans and seven Democrats favored it.
It was not clear whether the vote would mark the end of efforts by abortion opponents to change the health care bill before any final compromise talks with the House.
Nor was it clear how Nelson would respond to the defeat. He told reporters the result "makes it harder to be supportive" of the final legislation. But he wouldn't flatly rule out his support, adding, "We'll have to see if they can make it easier."
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, told reporters, "Now we hope that we can work with him to get a provision in this bill that he can accept."
Barring a change of heart by one of the Senate's Republicans, Democrats cannot afford any defections if they are to pass their bill. Nelson has also been one of the most outspoken Democrats in opposition to a government insurance option and was involved in the closed-door talks taking place in recent days.
The Nebraska Democrat already has won a major concession from Reid, who agreed earlier that the legislation would allow the insurance industry to retain its exemption from antitrust laws. Several Democrats favor ending the exemption — the Houses-passed version of the bill does so — and would presumably be emboldened to try to remove it if Nelson decides to oppose the bill.
Abandonment of a government-run insurance option would mark a significant defeat for Senate liberals, who have long demanded its inclusion in the legislation as a way to force private insurers to hold down costs. It also would set up a final struggle with the House, which passed a health care bill earlier this year that gives millions of consumers the option of buying government-run coverage.
In place of the public insurance option that Reid inserted into the bill earlier, Democrats are considering a plan for the Office of Personnel Management to oversee private insurance, much as it does for federal employees and lawmakers.
Details were sketchy, but it appeared to win support from moderates as well as a positive response from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who has vowed to oppose any government-run health care plan.
There were few details available of the proposed Medicare expansion, which would open the program to the uninsured beginning at age 55.
An attempt by liberals to expand Medicaid drew objections from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and other Democratic moderates, and seemed unlikely to survive. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whom Democrats are courting to support the bill, also criticized the idea.
In general, the legislation is designed to expand insurance coverage to millions who lack it, while banning insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and reining in the relentless growth of medical costs in general.
Most Americans would be required to carry insurance for the first time, and face penalties if they refused. At the same time, the bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help defray the cost of coverage for lower and middle income families.



SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:05 PM

BYTEMITE


No, I've been saying this for a while now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Yup, looks like the conservatives got exactly what they wanted - protection of profits for themselves, written into law. Congratulations!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:19 PM

HKCAVALIER


It's all fricken conjecture at this point. I hate this stuff. "Officials say Democrats have made a tentative agreement..." What kinda fricken news is that??? It means exactly nothing.

"Sources close to the President..."

"Top researchers say..."

I'm sick of this crap. The Public Option has been pronounced dead half a dozen times since last spring and it weren't. So...y'all may be right as summer rain, but until they kill the thing, I ain't gonna say it's dead.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:30 PM

HKCAVALIER


Well, that was quick, so the 10 folk on the commitee have indeed agreed to trade the Public Option for extending Medicare to folks 55 to 64. Well, fuck it.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 5:44 PM

BYTEMITE


Yep. Time to start contemplating running for the hills again. Wow. It's been... 4 years and 11 months since I last felt that way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:08 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Now Harry Reid says the public option ISN'T dead.

I don't think even he knows what the frak is going on...

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:11 PM

SERGEANTX


They'll keep insisting it's a possibility, to keep the true believers on board. Up until the point they sign our collective souls over to the insurance lobby. Muthafuckers every one.


SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:14 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Well, that was quick, so the 10 folk on the commitee have indeed agreed to trade the Public Option for extending Medicare to folks 55 to 64. Well, fuck it.


Welcome to the *free* world.

Also


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:47 PM

DREAMTROVE


I think it's curious how we brand ourselves. There are a couple of party loyalists on the forum, but outside of that, we place ourselves awkwardly. I dub myself a conservative, but lately I fit the british conservative party better. Mike barely passes for a liberal, if even, and Byte even less so. Ironically, I think John is probably left of center, except on one or two southerner-style issues. I'm not sure where to put the openly partisan people, they're even harder to pin down than the rest of us.

That said... the public option:

I've been expecting this see saw for a while, to go on for a while. It's not what it looks like, an epic battle between financial interests and govt., since the banks own the govt. It's an effort to rebrand Socialized medicine as a form of corporate welfare. (Excuse me while I exhibit no surprise)

It runs about like this:

Socialized Medicine. Never pass, so we'll rename it "The Public Option"

Now we have something new. It's a clever trick. Socialized medicine would never pass because we, the media, told you it wouldn't (I don't support the idea, but I would concede that yes, it could pass. Afterall, the New Deal did. Social Security.)

Once we have a new animal, "The Public Option," no one knows what it actually means. So we tell you. It means govt. healthcare.

But what is that? Does the govt. pay? Is it an overhaul of medicare? or do they buy insurance? Or make us buy insurance? We don't know. It's a Public Option. It means whatever the politician currently speaking means.

Now, there's the "corporate welfare" version. This is actually worse: It's the ability of a financial institution to tax the population at a flat rate by head count, IOW, a tax on the poor. A steep one too. And an end to the "opt out" option.

Where did this come from? Mitt Romney. He put it forth in Mass. Sure, he got it from the financial sector, but he comes from teh financial sector.

Next, Hillary created the plan. It was identical to Romneys.

Then, Obama created it. It was almost identical to Hillary's.

Then Obama was elected, and the Public Option resurfaced.

So did the Romney Plan, only now, it was created by Max Baucus.


Now comes the ritual song and dance whereby congress taked the Romney Plan and renames it "The Public Option." This is a magic trick, and the bulk of the audience will be fooled. Then it will pass, and everyone will feel victorious, knowing that they will now be required to pay into yet another failed system.


Of course, it's no accident that the big support for mandated health insurance coverage comes directly on the heels of two huge news stories:

1. The corruption in the financial sector is so severe that they're just making numbers up and taking the money and shuffling it off to the Cayman Islands.

2. That the UN has ranked the US healthcare system as "No net benefit" to human survival. Yes, people who seek medical attention, now have the same death rate as those who don't.

Well, if you're in a financial sector known to be crooked, and in a portion of that system which supports a medical industry that, as a product, has no reason for anyone to buy it, then there's absolutely no reason for anyone to buy your financial-medical insurance program. Unless you force them to.

So, sure, there are people on the left supporting the idea of a national health plan. But then, there always have been. Now there are two dying industries, like walmart, they're losing their grip on the service and technology, but also like walmart, they have more cash than they've ever had. So, with 4 trillion to spend, they plan to buy policy.

This is of course how our govt. is really run.

I'm sorry, was there a partisan debate somewhere?




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 6:55 PM

SERGEANTX


DT,

The plan is thus:

Socialized medicine won't sell, whether we call it 'public option' or 'state-run healthcare'.

So, we push the 'individual mandate', which a compliant press will sell as a 'universal coverage'. This will chain everyone to the insurance corps. Thus chained, the public will begin to "bitch and complain". Eventually they'll tire of being anally raped by their insurance companies and demand the government take over. Whallah! Socialized medicine.

Goddamn I hate Obama. And every other fucking Democrat and Rebpulican complicit in this charade.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 7:08 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I dub myself a conservative

I am a Liberal Conservative.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:05 AM

SERGEANTX


I'm a scofflaw.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:27 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Supporting an individual mandate, Obama said, "I've been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down." ~ wikpedia


Um... Cause they're not established enough to afford it?

Quote:

Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2001. Nearly 72 percent of this age group had coverage.


http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/universal_health.shtml

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#page=167

Quote:

More than two-thirds (67.4 percent) of full-year un-insured young adults had no ambulatory doctor visits in 2006.


http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st246/stat246
.pdf


I call bullshit. This says pretty plainly that healthy young adults don't NEED health insurance, and even still a high number of young adults DO have insurance. The reasoning for an individual mandate is faulty.

As if we didn't already know. The whole point is to catch 'em young for the enslavement process. Let's see how much money we can make these little bastards owe the system, so we can put them in corporate cubicles and make them work their whole lives to pay it off. Oh, let's raise taxes too, and have ourselves a nice war so we can throw the REALLY poor ones into a meatgrinder.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:06 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
As if we didn't already know. The whole point is to catch 'em young for the enslavement process. Let's see how much money we can make these little bastards owe the system, so we can put them in corporate cubicles and make them work their whole lives to pay it off. Oh, let's raise taxes too, and have ourselves a nice war so we can throw the REALLY poor ones into a meatgrinder.



That sums it up pretty well.

What I find a little hard to believe is that they're trying to justify this shit with the commerce clause. That bit of text has already been stretched far, far beyond it's original intent. But now they're telling us that it implies the power to regulate those specifically NOT participating in commerce. The inside-out logic of this position baffles me and I'm honestly disturbed that so many of my fellow citizens consider it reasonable.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:09 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


For SergeantX...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Come on, Wulfie - if you're going to post the video, at least credit the man who wrote the damn song! :)





Although I think his "The Future" sums it up better...

Give me back my broken night
my mirrored room, my secret life
it's lonely here,
there's no one left to torture
Give me absolute control
over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby,
that's an order!
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
and stuff it up the hole
in your culture
Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


It feels better than watching the charade.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 8:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree with Cavalier...I've stopped watching entirely lately. It's such a back-and-forth ping-pong game, why bother? What will be, will be in the end.

And yes, of COURSE it's an insurance-company giveaway without the public option, OR with the "public options" proposed by the right and the damned blue dogs. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

What frustrates me is that, despite all the fuss about public option or no public option, NOBODY talks about the individual mandate and how without a public option alongside it, it's nothing but a giveaway to the insurance companies. Repubs say "let people buy across state lines"...how does that help if the few ins. co.s around already have a lock nationwide??

I don't even want to think about it, it's all a fucking joke.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 4:16 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
And yes, of COURSE it's an insurance-company giveaway without the public option, OR with the "public options" proposed by the right and the damned blue dogs. Anyone with half a brain knows that.



Yeah. The press is failing us once again. Just like they did when Bush walked all over the constitution. They're nothing more than corporate whores.

And the kicker is that the Senate deal expanding Medicare coverage to those 55 and over alleviates some of the most expensive liabilities of the insurance companies, even as the individual mandate pushes the most profitable customers into their gaping maw. I sincerely hope this whole thing will revive some of America's rebellious spirit. It's long overdue.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 5:15 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yet another controversy quickly followed, when Sen. Byron Dorgan., D-N.D, proposed legalizing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.
The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be "logistically challenging" to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.



Kind'a torn on this one. Cheaper drugs seems like a good idea, but I read an article in a recent National Geographic about the problem of counterfeit drugs in Asia. On some, the fake packaging is so good it takes analysis of the ingedients to tell. Fakes have even been found in hospitals. I'd as soon avoid that sort of problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 7:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
It feels better than watching the charade.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.



For a minute there, I thought you said "parade"...



Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 11, 2009 7:19 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I agree with Cavalier...I've stopped watching entirely lately. It's such a back-and-forth ping-pong game, why bother? What will be, will be in the end.

And yes, of COURSE it's an insurance-company giveaway without the public option, OR with the "public options" proposed by the right and the damned blue dogs. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

What frustrates me is that, despite all the fuss about public option or no public option, NOBODY talks about the individual mandate and how without a public option alongside it, it's nothing but a giveaway to the insurance companies. Repubs say "let people buy across state lines"...how does that help if the few ins. co.s around already have a lock nationwide??

I don't even want to think about it, it's all a fucking joke.







The "let people buy across state lines" bit is a ruse to hamstring any kind of regulation. Think of it this way: if you're allowed to sell your product, as is, in all 50 states, you're going to headquarter your company in a state with the LOOSEST rules and LEAST regulations, and then you're going to say, "Hey, we're complying with the law in OUR state, so we can sell this in the other 49 states."

In other words, the Republicans who are pushing for this are selling the rest of us to the insurance companies and pushing for MORE federal laws specifically aimed at taking away their hallowed "states rights" to decide what you can and can't sell in their state. It's the equivalent of using the federal government to say that California can't have its own (stricter) air standards than the rest of the country, and forcing California to take cars that spew more pollution.



Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:25 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
The "let people buy across state lines" bit is a ruse to hamstring any kind of regulation...



I wouldn't call it a "ruse" at all. Hamstringing overreaching federal government is the overt purpose of the tenth amendment and, applied equally and judiciously, it's a great thing. The problem is, the Republicans mostly just care about limiting government in ways that favor their corporate benefactors. In contrast, the Democrats want to expand the power of federal government in ways that favor their corporate benefactors. Choices, choices...

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 4:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
DT,

The plan is thus:

Socialized medicine won't sell, whether we call it 'public option' or 'state-run healthcare'.


Some truth to that, the American people are far more likely to accept a private shafting than a public service.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 4:59 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
... the American people are far more likely to accept a private shafting than a public service.



We have our Principles, damnit!

This absolutely sickens me. The latest I heard from an editor of Fortune magazine (who you'd assume would be with Big Ins/Pharma) was in complete agreement with what others are saying of the Medicare availability for 55-64 "What the F*CK good is that?" (I'm paraphrasing) "That doesn't make it affordable, it just makes it possible to get into an overpriced group that is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. Medicare makes the US budget deficit look tiny. It's the worst run gov agency we have."

This is clearly BEYOND Harry Reid & Nancy "I'll not have health care reform without a Public Option - unless it meets resistance - then I'll bail" Pelosi's skill set.

I'm also hearing about how thick the corridors are with lobbyists - f*cking hate that.

I haven't heard of any high profile group or individual that is for this on any side except, uh, the White House.

And for the "poor." They have ways to reduce their rates for buying into a nationwide plan. "Buying in." What don't they get about P-O-O-R?



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:43 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

And for the "poor." They have ways to reduce their rates for buying into a nationwide plan. "Buying in." What don't they get about P-O-O-R?


No shit, this has been my problem with ALL the proposed plans since the very goddamn beginning. NONE of them have addressed this.

You know, this is one issue I wouldn't mind serving some jail time in protest of. If this passes I am seriously considering canceling my insurance plan I'm getting through my employer. It's not like I use it anyway, and the less money put into the insurance company bastards the better.

If we start a national movement, we can starve them out. Then maybe we can get some intelligent reform with a single-payer system with USEFUL aid that doesn't bankrupt the country for people who can't afford insurance.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, I knew about that part, Mike. Again I say: You watch MSNBC too, eh? I didn't even have to research that one, it was so obvious...sigh. Bastards.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Okay.

Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to hate or distrust the government - or at least think they aren't very efficient, and are in bed with business to the benefit of both, and not the people.

Yet...

Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to want the government running anything from a good-sized chunk to pretty much all health-care, and having lots of regulatory control over the rest.

Disconnect?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 9:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No disconnect; Medicare WORKS...and in many cases better than private insurance companies. And while many of us are pissed at the government and don't trust them, I for one mistrust for-profit insurance companies FAR more, and the way they're behaving (denying claims, dropping people when they get really sick, exhorbidant premiums that have risen MANY times the amount anything else has, refusing people for stupid "previous conditions", the lobbying and dirty tricks they're using--sadly, effectively--to fatten their wallets and fight ANY kind of public option or (gawd forbid!) single payor).

They've bought and paid for our "representatives" and that's the only reason we're not getting any kind of competition to get them in hand. Social Security WORKS; Disability WORKS (I should know!), MediCare WORKS...none of them perfectly, but far, far better than private insurance at this time in history!

Answer your question: No disconnect here, merely recognizing the lesser of two evils. I HAVE MediCare, I can testify to it, and if those-who-shall-not-be-named hadn't bankrupted it and SSI both to pay for their wars and to line their own pockets (thanx Dumbya! Oops, I mentioned one), it'd be solvent!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:16 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to want the government running anything from a good-sized chunk to pretty much all health-care, and having lots of regulatory control over the rest.

Disconnect?



Ayup.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:33 AM

SERGEANTX


And that's really the object lesson in all of this. The reformers can't even get off the ground without being overwhelmed by swarms of "interested parties" intent on having their say in whatever consensus is going to get forced on all of us. That's just what happens when you try to centralize control. There are those who want badly to control things and they will do whatever they can to achieve that goal. Creating an infrastructure that coalesces the mechanism for controlling others only makes it easier for them.

The thing is, however much "economic" power the corporations may have in a free market, creating a nexus for power that is more immediate and violent (which is the nature of government) only provides them with the tools to vastly expand that power.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:19 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay.

Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to hate or distrust the government - or at least think they aren't very efficient, and are in bed with business to the benefit of both, and not the people.

Yet...

Pretty much everyone posting in this thread seems to want the government running anything from a good-sized chunk to pretty much all health-care, and having lots of regulatory control over the rest.

Disconnect?


I hope you're not including me in that. I don't think government is any more or less inefficient than private organisations, just has different constraints. In fact every time I see someone ranting about government inefficiency, it seems to track back to some private contractor that has screwed up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 2:15 PM

BYTEMITE


Over in the states, we have a saying: "Good enough for government work."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/close_enough_for_government_work

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
No disconnect; Medicare WORKS.



There are about 40 million Medicare recipients.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_tot_med_ben-health-total-medicare
-beneficiaries

13% of the current 300 million population, more or less.

Currently, Medicare comes to about 13% of the Federal budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

So if everyone was covered under Medicare, would it cost the entire Federal budget every year?





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 13, 2009 7:44 AM

BYTEMITE


Mmm... That's not quite.

I used to be for a government health care, but I'm fairly well convinced at this point that in America it wouldn't work because our system is just so goddamn screwed up. We can't trust our government at all, it's either incompetent, corrupt, or actively malicious.

But in the sense of your example with medicare and medicare, no, it wouldn't be the entire Federal budget, because not everyone needs healthcare every day of the year. You're talking about the 13% of the population that probably needs health care the most, which is why you're seeing that 1:1 ratio.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:51 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mmm... That's not quite.

I used to be for a government health care, but I'm fairly well convinced at this point that in America it wouldn't work because our system is just so goddamn screwed up. We can't trust our government at all, it's either incompetent, corrupt, or actively malicious.

But in the sense of your example with medicare and medicare, no, it wouldn't be the entire Federal budget, because not everyone needs healthcare every day of the year. You're talking about the 13% of the population that probably needs health care the most, which is why you're seeing that 1:1 ratio.


That and it's paying into a system that has already got inflated prices.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 13, 2009 9:48 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Why no debate on UN Codex Alimentarius banning all vitamins? Because you'll have to get a prescription from your govt doctor for inorganic vitamins at 1/10th minimum RDA, to keep you sick.

I'm sure govt insurance includes 100% malpractice immunity for govt doctors and govt drug companies, as currently exists with socialized medicine in the military. If you complain about bad medical care in the military, THEY KILL YOU.

Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion opponents failed to inject tougher restrictions into sweeping Senate health care legislation Tuesday, and Democratic leaders labored to make sure fallout from the controversy wouldn't hinder the drive to pass President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The 54-45 vote over abortion took place as Democrats, in daylong private talks in the Capitol, appeared ready to scuttle plans for a government-run insurance option that liberals have long sought.



Govt-paid abortion is required, because private abortions only kill 55% of all black Americans. Which tells you something about DC, since 90% of the residents are black. Ethnic cleansing.

Quote:

"It seems to me from my experience in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population , and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs."
—Margaret Sanger (1883-1966), founder of Planned Parenthood and editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938, letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., Planned Parenthood ® Federation of America, "Margaret Sanger - Sanger and Eugenics", 1939
www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html

"Eugenics is the science of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. In 1927, the eugenics movement reached the height of its popularity when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, held that it was constitutional to involuntarily sterilize the developmentally disabled, the insane, or the uncontrollably epileptic. Oliver Wendell Holmes, supported by Louis Brandeis and six other justices, wrote the opinion."
—Planned Parenthood ® Federation of America, "Margaret Sanger - Sanger and Eugenics"
www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html

"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, "Death by Medicine", March 2004 (plus 1-Million annual aborticides in USA)
www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm



Socialized Medicine = Public Option = Eugenics Genocide

Congressman Ron Paul MD mentioned "medical saving accounts" that are tax-free, but of course are illegal right now. That's his "public option", though if the sheeple were smart enough to elect him president he'd have already banned the IRS and ended all fed taxes (income tax, national sales tax), and eliminated the federal debt by nationalizing the private "Federal" Reserve Bank. As a doctor, he refused Medicare/Medicaid and just had cheap services for everybody. And he's seen more pussy than all other presidents combined.

It's the insurors who overpay doctors while denying coverage to SICK people. The average salary for insurance executives is $100,000 PER WEEK PER PERSON, with the owner of GEICO Govt Employees Insurance Co (CIA), Warren Buffett, paying HIMSELF an annual salary of $35-BILLION TAX FREE, without a peep from the shareholder slaves (CAFR govt "pension" funds).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 13, 2009 10:36 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

You're talking about the 13% of the population that probably needs health care the most


Yep, correct. I believe it is true in both the US and the UK that we cost the system more in last year of life than all the rest of our lives put together. So the graph of cost vs age is not flat, there's exponential growth in there, as this graph demonstrates.




Quote:

So if everyone was covered under Medicare, would it cost the entire Federal budget every year?


You could probably calculate a decent estimate from a similar graph to the one above (there would be a much smaller, decaying exponential at the other end of the graph for health costs in infanthood).


Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 14, 2009 4:28 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

You could probably calculate a decent estimate from a similar graph to the one above (there would be a much smaller, decaying exponential at the other end of the graph for health costs in infanthood).



http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n3/age.html

"Currently, about 12% of the population is 65 years or older. By the year 2030, that figure is expected to reach 21%. The fastest growing age group is the population aged 80 and over -- the very segment of the population that tends to require expensive and intensive medical care. The projected demands from a growing elderly population on a health care system that is already taxed to the breaking point, together with continual advances and availability of expensive life-extending technology, have led to troubling questions about society's ability to meet future health care demands, and to the increased tolerance of proposals for rationing."

I would love to see numbers on the average cost of care through the lifetime of an average American, how much a year, how much per person, etc. Obviously, most people have less to zero need for health care early on, one would think that (if we as a society are healthier now - the years of our youth would balance out the senior years. How much it balances I'm real curious about. There's so much money to be made in extending people's lives as long as possible.

So... my big idea... based on this "balance" I'd like to propose that we have a Gov run HSA program for everyone starting from birth. Everyone regardless of any extenuating circumstance gets $x deposited into their own HSA every month. Stay healthy and your account grows. Adjust deposits annually for inflation - the Gov can use the extra interest to cover more expensive care.
You pick the care you want - your Dr, or a less expensive National Health Care system.


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 14, 2009 6:48 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
Congressman Ron Paul MD mentioned "medical saving accounts" that are tax-free, but of course are illegal right now. That's his "public option", though if the sheeple were smart enough to elect him president he'd have already banned the IRS and ended all fed taxes (income tax, national sales tax), and eliminated the federal debt by nationalizing the private "Federal" Reserve Bank.


Amazing...and all without ever going to Congress for any legislation, Ron Paul without Congress is more powerful then Obama with Congress...somehow that does not ring true...then again, his election is a fantasy, so I guess it makes sense that everything he'd have done if elected is just as much a delusion.

As long as we're playing the 'if Ron Paul was President' game...if Ron Paul had been elected then the Browns would be 13-0 and on track for a Super Bowl win, if Ron Paul had been elected I'd have a new car, if Ron Paul had been elected then the laws of gravity would no longer apply to bovines and Global Warming would be replaced with subsurface freezing...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 14, 2009 6:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Obviously, most people have less to zero need for health care early on, one would think that (if we as a society are healthier now


This may not be a solid basis for your argument. Some states have a 30+% obesity rate, which I do not consider more healthy than any time frame.

Quote:

"Currently, about 12% of the population is 65 years or older. By the year 2030, that figure is expected to reach 21%. The fastest growing age group is the population aged 80 and over -- the very segment of the population that tends to require expensive and intensive medical care. The projected demands from a growing elderly population on a health care system that is already taxed to the breaking point, together with continual advances and availability of expensive life-extending technology, have led to troubling questions about society's ability to meet future health care demands, and to the increased tolerance of proposals for rationing."


...I'm not sure I'm comfortable with literature that seems to be blaming life extending technology for this problem and promoting "rationing." You may want to check other sources about the numbers here, this publication appears to have some unsettling biases.

Quote:

So... my big idea... based on this "balance" I'd like to propose that we have a Gov run HSA program for everyone starting from birth. Everyone regardless of any extenuating circumstance gets $x deposited into their own HSA every month. Stay healthy and your account grows. Adjust deposits annually for inflation - the Gov can use the extra interest to cover more expensive care.
You pick the care you want - your Dr, or a less expensive National Health Care system.



Well, gets rid of the insurance companies, but, problem. This proposed system still doesn't seem very fair. Poor people are the most likely to work the most dangerous jobs in our country, and therefore the most likely to get injured. Not only will they deduct more money from this personal pool, AND they have less money to subsidize the offset. There appears to still be enormous inequity between the rich and the poor in the proposed system.

...I think... Maybe... Health care maybe shouldn't be a for profit industry. The question is how you could enact this while still rewarding doctors for their skills, education, and trade, and without severely reducing the number of doctors and quality of service.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 14, 2009 7:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yes, I love how much power people give to "if Ron Paul..." To me it's a delusion; he's become the recipient of every dream they think would be good. None seem to recognize that if Obama had the power they think Ron Paul would have had, it's MY belief that he'd have done things a lot different and a lot better than he's been forced to, and things would be improved, too. Not the same things they dream Paul would do, but the fact remains that a President only has so much power, and as has been shown, the entire government can be brought to an essential halt by Congress. Slowly and poorly as it moves anyway, this "Party of No" thing has virtually destroyed ANY forward movement.

I remember early on when he was asked three questions about the Presidency, and the last one was what had amazed him most. He said he was amazed at both how much power the President has, and how LITTLE he has at the same time. That about says it all.

Ron Paul had some good ideas and some bad ones, just as every candidate does. But he couldn't magically make things happen any more than any other candidate could, either. And I've got news for Ron Paul supporters; the things he'd like to do would NEVER have happened, President or not. They wouldn't get off the ground...maybe in a "true" democracy (where the people voted on things specifically), but not in the "representative" one we actually have.

Why is this never mentioned? Is he the Messiah everyone says we thought Obama would be (which I'll bet 99% of us never thought he was anyway)?




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 14, 2009 7:49 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes, I love how much power people give to "if Ron Paul..." To me it's a delusion; he's become the recipient ...



"IF" Ron Paul were ever elected, it would be the result of a sea change in American politics, and there'd be radical change all around, including congress. But you're right to point out that that's very unlikely, to say the least, so the "If only Ron Paul" mantra is fairly pointless.

More to the point, "If only" we could get over our delusion that government can or should solve every problem we might quit falling into these traps where the corporates co-opt reform for their own gain.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL