Jump to content

Gotta pass healthcare, I gotta, I gotta, I gotta


flaps15

Recommended Posts

Like a muthafuking drunk sailor getting a tatoo in the Jakarta, as long as it's got his name on it he'll be happier than two dogs in a phone booth.

 

What a fricken tool this guy has already become. Methinks it's time for him to do a Sarah and just get the fuck out now before it gets any worse for him------and history will still give him the 50% Black Prezzy trophy, which up 'til now has never been awarded, though infinitely much better than coming in 4th at the Special Olympics............

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

seriously, why pass it if its shit legislation though? does nothing to address structural issues and real cost drivers, there's just no way around that. beyond which its so bastardized to accomodate every special interest out there it's not worth much more than using the 2000 pages as a years supply of butt-wipe....

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

seriously, why pass it if its shit legislation though? does nothing to address structural issues and real cost drivers, there's just no way around that. beyond which its so bastardized to accomodate every special interest out there it's not worth much more than using the 2000 pages as a years supply of butt-wipe....

 

I am not in favor of passing any "shit legislation". I find it hilarious that he has Plan B ready and it is now public.

 

I made mention that there are those that will gleefully derail ANYTHING that Obama promotes simply because, well.......it's Obama we're talking about.

 

The Dems tried that shit with W and it was equally wrong then. They were the Party of NO back then. There is a new Party of NO now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

seriously, why pass it if its shit legislation though? does nothing to address structural issues and real cost drivers, there's just no way around that. beyond which its so bastardized to accomodate every special interest out there it's not worth much more than using the 2000 pages as a years supply of butt-wipe....

 

I am not in favor of passing any "shit legislation". I find it hilarious that he has Plan B ready and it is now public.

 

I made mention that there are those that will gleefully derail ANYTHING that Obama promotes simply because, well.......it's Obama we're talking about.

 

The Dems tried that shit with W and it was equally wrong then. They were the Party of NO back then. There is a new Party of NO now.

 

its simply not realistic to expect either of the mainstream parties to produce anything other than shit legislation at this point. both are utterly and completely co-opted/corrupted by their respective special interest constituencies.

 

it actually would probably be better at this point if they passed absolutely no legislation at all. of any kind. all they do is fuck things up...

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

seriously, why pass it if its shit legislation though? does nothing to address structural issues and real cost drivers, there's just no way around that. beyond which its so bastardized to accomodate every special interest out there it's not worth much more than using the 2000 pages as a years supply of butt-wipe....

 

I am not in favor of passing any "shit legislation". I find it hilarious that he has Plan B ready and it is now public.

 

I made mention that there are those that will gleefully derail ANYTHING that Obama promotes simply because, well.......it's Obama we're talking about.

 

The Dems tried that shit with W and it was equally wrong then. They were the Party of NO back then. There is a new Party of NO now.

 

I truly believe that if he comes up with something cohesive, simple, inexpensive, beneficial to America and workable, then he'll be looking good in the history books in 2035.

 

If not though, then he's just jacking off while wearing a straight jacket, and he'll merely go down in history as a simplistic, single-goaled, myopic 1/2 white guy that tried to make history...but phailed. Kinda sad if the latter ends up being engraved on his tombstone...........

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

seriously, why pass it if its shit legislation though? does nothing to address structural issues and real cost drivers, there's just no way around that. beyond which its so bastardized to accomodate every special interest out there it's not worth much more than using the 2000 pages as a years supply of butt-wipe....

 

I am not in favor of passing any "shit legislation". I find it hilarious that he has Plan B ready and it is now public.

 

I made mention that there are those that will gleefully derail ANYTHING that Obama promotes simply because, well.......it's Obama we're talking about.

 

The Dems tried that shit with W and it was equally wrong then. They were the Party of NO back then. There is a new Party of NO now.

 

 

That is pretty funny, considering he could have put that "Plan B" on the forefront on Monday instead of expanding on the current Senate bill and making it even worse. Any more, when it is Obama we're talking about, he and his record are proving to be just about disastrous.

Booth is correct, If he came up with something that anyone outside of his personal staff could believe in, while not making it mandatory, expanding bureaucracy and proving it won't bankrupt your grandchildren, of course people would back him. I surly would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting for Barry Soweto's crap sandwich is going to be a career-ending move for a lot of Democrats, and they know it. Stupac and Cantor said this am that Pelosi's at least 15 votes short. The only problem is that if enough of them realize they're screwed in November no matter what they do, some may just decide to stick it to the public as hard as they can, and to hell with the consequences. On the other hand, if they do push it through the public will be out for blood and banish the Democrat party from a seat at the table for a decade, and rightfully so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

 

Ya know, it's just possible that some people really do think all three of the democrat health plans truly suck. Maybe we don't buy that it will lower costs, improve care and grow balls on Gaytor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

 

Ya know, it's just possible that some people really do think all three of the democrat health plans truly suck. Maybe we don't buy that it will lower costs, improve care and grow balls on Gaytor.

 

 

 

Or, it could be, that the Republicans never ever intended to negotiate anything and were more than willing to throw the public under the bus to score political points -

 

Republican Senator Jim De Mint proclaimed: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

 

There may be some people in the republican party that wanted a good heath care reform bill. Those people are not in charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

Which is it Chuck, are they offering meaningful reform ideas or being obstructionist? When finally offered a seat at the table do they show up? And if you think the public is going to punish Republicans for obstructing legislation they don’t want, well you probably thought a Republican couldn’t win Kennedy’s seat either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

Which is it Chuck, are they offering meaningful reform ideas or being obstructionist? When finally offered a seat at the table do they show up? And if you think the public is going to punish Republicans for obstructing legislation they don’t want, well you probably thought a Republican couldn’t win Kennedy’s seat either.

 

Republicans are (as usual) coming in with a 'my way or highway' 'tude, and while that might work in the authoritarian world of what passes for conservatism today, it doesn't work so well outside of those rarefied confines, and (demonstrably) hasn't led to anything but obstructionism in the House and Senate.

 

Sure, there are plenty of people who don't like anything that Congress and Obama have come up with so far. They'll do their best to 'punish' regardless of what Dems do or don't do. There are also plenty of people who want meaningful reform now, myself included.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

 

give me a break. the D's and Obama could give a fuck less about solving the problems. If they actually cared they wouldn't have cut back room deals and opted out every special interest constituency. there is no negotiation necessary here. these are structural and process driven deficiencies and they don't just go away as the result of a "negotiation".

 

this is all total bull shit, bull shit legislation foisted upon the public by two groups of people who's sole desire is to prove their dick is bigger than the other guys...

 

edit to add: and yes I think Nacny Pelosi has a penis.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
I truly believe that if he comes up with something cohesive, simple, inexpensive, beneficial to America and workable, then he'll be looking good in the history books in 2035.

The status quo is terribly expensive and merely hides its costs by borrowing. This is good enough to fool most people. Real reform will cost people money and/or services in the short run, but might prevent catastrophe if we're lucky. It doesn't have a chance, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I truly believe that if he comes up with something cohesive, simple, inexpensive, beneficial to America and workable, then he'll be looking good in the history books in 2035.

The status quo is terribly expensive and merely hides its costs by borrowing. This is good enough to fool most people. Real reform will cost people money and/or services in the short run, but might prevent catastrophe if we're lucky. It doesn't have a chance, in my opinion.

 

word....

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

See that's not true. Non-comprehensive. Free-market solutions without 2000 pages of government controls. Somethin' like this?

 

Sounds like a good partial solution, doesn't it? Have you priced the difference in policy premiums with an HSA and without one? The insurance companies charge significantly higher premiums for policies (same coverage) with an HSA - significantly more for the privilege. Check it out and tell us how they get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

Which is it Chuck, are they offering meaningful reform ideas or being obstructionist? When finally offered a seat at the table do they show up? And if you think the public is going to punish Republicans for obstructing legislation they don’t want, well you probably thought a Republican couldn’t win Kennedy’s seat either.

 

I'm not so sure Mr. Brown would have the tea party vote this week if he ran against a competent Democratic politician. Aren't they calling him a RINO this week?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

 

Interesting, you say Republicans are not willing nor ready to negotiate on health care reform and that as such, THEY are obstructionists.

 

Chuck, would you give me one single example of how the Democrats even offered to negotiate on Republican HC reform ideas in the last 365 days and when you cannot how this does not lable Democrats as obstructionists?

 

Anxiously waiting your example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

See that's not true. Non-comprehensive. Free-market solutions without 2000 pages of government controls. Somethin' like this?

 

Sounds like a good partial solution, doesn't it? Have you priced the difference in policy premiums with and HSA and without one? The insurance companies charge significantly higher premiums for policies with an HSA - significantly more for the privilege. Check it out.

 

Health saving plans are a good idea. Maybe not for everybody, still a good idea. This is what choice is about. The powers that be don't want you to have choices. I don't have to check it out, already have one (actually two and have posted this before) and have for many years. The or your present concept of health insurance changes w/HSP. You are paying for catastrophic insurance, as it should be. Isn't that what insurance is for? Check ups, minor maintenance, colds/flu and the like are dealt with by the individual, as it should be. My biggest problem with Democare is that I will have to give it up due to the rules and "exchanges". This is not choice. If you want Obama care, I could care less, go for it. But I shouldn't be forced into something I don't want because of a politician's ideals of "common good". (sounds like comm-u-nist) Obama care is telling me how to take care of myself. I don't want that, neither does my neighbor, my family, my friends and most the people I know, period. So I reiterate:

KILL the BILL! Start from Scratch!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, it could be, that the Republicans never ever intended to negotiate anything and were more than willing to throw the public under the bus to score political points -

 

Republican Senator Jim De Mint proclaimed: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

 

There may be some people in the republican party that wanted a good heath care reform bill. Those people are not in charge.

 

Look at the past year and you will find that it is in fact the Democrats who "never ever intended to negotiate anything" - except with members of their own party and unions who they bribed with our money for support.

 

The Waterloo comment has been assumed by simple minded politicos to be a main reason Republicans oppose HCR. One might want to consider that there are non-political reasons for opposing the massive legislation and that the Waterloo comparison is simply a probable political outcome of doing the right thing by the American people.

 

There are still Republicans that want "a good health care reform bill", and I'm sure they'll support one if one can be negotiated, but I don't think that's too likely at this point. The Democrats have show repeatedly that they have no interest whatever in negotiating with Republicans and Obama putting lipstick on a pig and calling it his own version proves the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This pretty much nails it. How the White House lost its message.

 

Interesting comments from McCurry about how message management was much easier when it was done through a few networks and newspapers...

 

Mike McCurry, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton, said Obama’s press team has faced the most difficult media environment in 40 years.

 

 

McCurry argued that the diminishing influence of daily newspapers and network television, combined with the raw, chaotic power of cable news, talk radio and the Internet, has made it very difficult for White House advisers to manage the message.

 

 

“They’re adjusting to the new history they’re in,” McCurry said of Obama’s press team. “They’re utterly encumbered by the historic transformation of the media itself.”

 

 

McCurry noted that when Clinton served as president, two-thirds of Americans got their news from nightly television broadcasts. A 2008 Pew Research Center poll showed that only 32 percent of the public regularly learned of political news from nightly network broadcasts.

 

That's progress!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

Which is it Chuck, are they offering meaningful reform ideas or being obstructionist? When finally offered a seat at the table do they show up? And if you think the public is going to punish Republicans for obstructing legislation they don’t want, well you probably thought a Republican couldn’t win Kennedy’s seat either.

 

Republicans are (as usual) coming in with a 'my way or highway' 'tude, and while that might work in the authoritarian world of what passes for conservatism today, it doesn't work so well outside of those rarefied confines, and (demonstrably) hasn't led to anything but obstructionism in the House and Senate.

 

Sure, there are plenty of people who don't like anything that Congress and Obama have come up with so far. They'll do their best to 'punish' regardless of what Dems do or don't do. There are also plenty of people who want meaningful reform now, myself included.

 

 

Real reform that included such things as legal reform , reducing costs by every means possible FIRST {not a ficticious latter on } free market solutions that are being applied in several states to reduce costs among them {see stated list of reforms} .

 

Obama still has the the 60 billion exemption for unions on their cadillac care plans --all others pay for it . The bribes ,payoffs and very corrupt basics and false premise that ONE party {actually just a few very corrupted old politicians that have FUd the nation for decades } wrote is an abortion and the worst piece of extremist partison legislation the nation has ever seen .

 

Little wonder millions are rising up against it and them .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in chuckies real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people".

 

CNN

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

See that's not true. Non-comprehensive. Free-market solutions without 2000 pages of government controls. Somethin' like this?

 

Sounds like a good partial solution, doesn't it? Have you priced the difference in policy premiums with and HSA and without one? The insurance companies charge significantly higher premiums for policies with an HSA - significantly more for the privilege. Check it out.

 

Health saving plans are a good idea. Maybe not for everybody, still a good idea. This is what choice is about. The powers that be don't want you to have choices. I don't have to check it out, already have one (actually two and have posted this before) and have for many years. The or your present concept of health insurance changes w/HSP. You are paying for catastrophic insurance, as it should be. Isn't that what insurance is for? Check ups, minor maintenance, colds/flu and the like are dealt with by the individual, as it should be. My biggest problem with Democare is that I will have to give it up due to the rules and "exchanges". This is not choice. If you want Obama care, I could care less, go for it. But I shouldn't be forced into something I don't want because of a politician's ideals of "common good". (sounds like comm-u-nist) Obama care is telling me how to take care of myself. I don't want that, neither does my neighbor, my family, my friends and most the people I know, period. So I reiterate:

KILL the BILL! Start from Scratch!

 

Where would you start? How about ending anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies? Would you support that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those who gotta stop anything from being passed, they gotta, they gotta, they gotta.

 

See that's not true. Non-comprehensive. Free-market solutions without 2000 pages of government controls. Somethin' like this?

 

Sounds like a good partial solution, doesn't it? Have you priced the difference in policy premiums with and HSA and without one? The insurance companies charge significantly higher premiums for policies with an HSA - significantly more for the privilege. Check it out.

 

Health saving plans are a good idea. Maybe not for everybody, still a good idea. This is what choice is about. The powers that be don't want you to have choices. I don't have to check it out, already have one (actually two and have posted this before) and have for many years. The or your present concept of health insurance changes w/HSP. You are paying for catastrophic insurance, as it should be. Isn't that what insurance is for? Check ups, minor maintenance, colds/flu and the like are dealt with by the individual, as it should be. My biggest problem with Democare is that I will have to give it up due to the rules and "exchanges". This is not choice. If you want Obama care, I could care less, go for it. But I shouldn't be forced into something I don't want because of a politician's ideals of "common good". (sounds like comm-u-nist) Obama care is telling me how to take care of myself. I don't want that, neither does my neighbor, my family, my friends and most the people I know, period. So I reiterate:

KILL the BILL! Start from Scratch!

 

Where would you start? How about ending anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies? Would you support that?

 

I don't think anyone in this forum disagrees with ending anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats' scheme needs to be fought every step of the way until the Democrats drop their plan to usurp one-sixth of the economy. We don't need a dead end of government expansion paid for with borrowed money and developed through a process in which Democrats have refused to consider alternatives to bigger government.

 

I posted this on another thread in response to some other lib whining about healthcare premiums. Here's what will work.

 

Consumers of healthcare, like any other service or product, are best protected by competition. If you don't like the kinds of monopolistic prices these insurance giants are able to foist on the public, then endorse reforms which eliminate their ability to do so and which re-introduce the discipline of a competitive marketplace in medical care. It's not all that complicated.

 

1. Remove the anti-trust exemption insurers currently enjoy.

 

2. Let individuals control their health care dollars, and free them to choose from a wide variety of health plans and providers.

 

3. Move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. Health insurance should be personal and portable, controlled by individuals themselves rather than government or an employer. Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of health care to consumers, thereby encouraging over-consumption and fraud. It also limits consumer choice, since employers get final say over what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means people who don’t receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured as well.

 

4. Changing from employer to individual insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or, better still, large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.

 

5. People should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines.

 

6. Give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and sick to ensure they could afford coverage.

 

7. Let states experiment with high risk pools to ensure coverage for those with high cost medical conditions.

 

8. Medical malpractice reform will, or course, save billions. But that means taking on the trial lawyers. It's about time.

 

9. Eliminate mandated coverages. Why should a single man be required to purchase a policy which covers pregnancy, much less acupuncture or aroma therapy.

 

10. Allow small businesses to band together into purchasing groups to pool risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, it could be, that the Republicans never ever intended to negotiate anything and were more than willing to throw the public under the bus to score political points -

 

Republican Senator Jim De Mint proclaimed: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

 

There may be some people in the republican party that wanted a good heath care reform bill. Those people are not in charge.

 

Look at the past year and you will find that it is in fact the Democrats who "never ever intended to negotiate anything" - except with members of their own party and unions who they bribed with our money for support.

 

There are still Republicans that want "a good health care reform bill", and I'm sure they'll support one if one can be negotiated, but I don't think that's too likely at this point. The Democrats have show repeatedly that they have no interest whatever in negotiating with Republicans and Obama putting lipstick on a pig and calling it his own version proves the point.

 

 

That's a nice idea but simply isn't born out by the facts. The republicans were involved in ALL the negotiations in the subcommittees. Many of their ideas ARE IN THE PLAN.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...health_car.html

 

It's simply not true that the Republican leadership is interested in 'compromise'. They GOT WHAT THEY WANTED and they're still claiming it's terribad.

 

Look at the vote in the House yesterday removing the anti-trust exemption on insurance companies. The republican leadership in the house tried ALL DAY to kill the bill with ammendments and procedural calls. At the end - once the bill cleared the proceedural votes - it was passed by a majority of 416-19! Are you telling me that in less than an hour, the entire republican party was SWAYED by the amazing oratory powers of Anthony Weiner?

 

This is all posturing. The republican leadership is trying to damage Obama's credibility so they can get in power in the fall. They don't give a rats ass about their constituents. Their arguements are just talking points - they just want to fire up their base. They care about power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Democrats' scheme needs to be fought every step of the way until the Democrats drop their plan to usurp one-sixth of the economy. We don't need a dead end of government expansion paid for with borrowed money and developed through a process in which Democrats have refused to consider alternatives to bigger government.

 

I posted this on another thread in response to some other lib whining about healthcare premiums. Here's what will work.

 

You'll here plenty of that from Obama and pals today. Vilify insurance companies who are more efficient than the US Gov't in HC administration and who's profits are all but meaningless when compared to overall health care spending. They'll do this while ignoring the real causes of increasing HC costs.

 

Obama's plan apparently will allow the Fed to exert control over premium increases. How so? If my cost of doing business increases by 15% and the Fed says I can't raise my rates to reflect that, then what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in chuckies real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people".

 

CNN

 

Its not evident to me that anything in your link serves to refute anything that I wrote. The HC cost increases became news after this poll closed. It would be interesting to see whats happened since folks got their rate increase notices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in chuckies real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people".

 

CNN

 

Its not evident to me that anything in your link serves to refute anything that I wrote. The HC cost increases became news after this poll closed. It would be interesting to see whats happened since folks got their rate increase notices.

 

You just going to ignore my question to you?

 

How have the democrats offered to negotiate with republicans on their HC reform ideas in the last 365 days? And since they have not, are they not obstructionists Chuck?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, it could be, that the Republicans never ever intended to negotiate anything and were more than willing to throw the public under the bus to score political points -

 

Republican Senator Jim De Mint proclaimed: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

 

There may be some people in the republican party that wanted a good heath care reform bill. Those people are not in charge.

 

Look at the past year and you will find that it is in fact the Democrats who "never ever intended to negotiate anything" - except with members of their own party and unions who they bribed with our money for support.

 

There are still Republicans that want "a good health care reform bill", and I'm sure they'll support one if one can be negotiated, but I don't think that's too likely at this point. The Democrats have show repeatedly that they have no interest whatever in negotiating with Republicans and Obama putting lipstick on a pig and calling it his own version proves the point.

 

 

That's a nice idea but simply isn't born out by the facts. The republicans were involved in ALL the negotiations in the subcommittees. Many of their ideas ARE IN THE PLAN.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klei...health_car.html

 

It's simply not true that the Republican leadership is interested in 'compromise'. They GOT WHAT THEY WANTED and they're still claiming it's terribad.

 

Look at the vote in the House yesterday removing the anti-trust exemption on insurance companies. The republican leadership in the house tried ALL DAY to kill the bill with ammendments and procedural calls. At the end - once the bill cleared the proceedural votes - it was passed by a majority of 416-19! Are you telling me that in less than an hour, the entire republican party was SWAYED by the amazing oratory powers of Anthony Weiner?

 

This is all posturing. The republican leadership is trying to damage Obama's credibility so they can get in power in the fall. They don't give a rats ass about their constituents. Their arguements are just talking points - they just want to fire up their base. They care about power.

 

What the fuck are you whining about? 416-19 is a fantastic example of bi-partisanship, but you still need to bitch about how they got there? You completely contradicted yourself. If they didn't care about their constituents, you think they would have voted overwhelmingly in favor of repealing the anti-trust exemption?

 

You can't have it both ways. WTF?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in chuckies real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people".

 

CNN

 

Its not evident to me that anything in your link serves to refute anything that I wrote. The HC cost increases became news after this poll closed. It would be interesting to see whats happened since folks got their rate increase notices.

 

That was not an increase in HC costs. It was an increase in HC premiums. There's a major difference that I'm not sure even Obama understands. Controlling premiums will do absolutely nothing to control the increasing cost of HC services.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Democrats' scheme needs to be fought every step of the way until the Democrats drop their plan to usurp one-sixth of the economy. We don't need a dead end of government expansion paid for with borrowed money and developed through a process in which Democrats have refused to consider alternatives to bigger government.

 

I posted this on another thread in response to some other lib whining about healthcare premiums. Here's what will work.

 

You'll here plenty of that from Obama and pals today. Vilify insurance companies who are more efficient than the US Gov't in HC administration and who's profits are all but meaningless when compared to overall health care spending. They'll do this while ignoring the real causes of increasing HC costs.

 

Obama's plan apparently will allow the Fed to exert control over premium increases. How so? If my cost of doing business increases by 15% and the Fed says I can't raise my rates to reflect that, then what?

 

It's called cueing, rationing, and black markets, as certain as night follows day.

 

But don't worry, part of the Democrat plan is to simultaneously repeal the law of supply and demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people". Sure, there are potentially meaningful reform ideas being spouted by Republicans, but unless and until they're willing and ready to negotiate for them, I believe that their obstructionism on the issue is what is going to stick. We favor those who have the courage to try, not those who let their fear of failure prevent them from trying.

Which is it Chuck, are they offering meaningful reform ideas or being obstructionist? When finally offered a seat at the table do they show up? And if you think the public is going to punish Republicans for obstructing legislation they don't want, well you probably thought a Republican couldn't win Kennedy's seat either.

 

Republicans are (as usual) coming in with a 'my way or highway' 'tude, and while that might work in the authoritarian world of what passes for conservatism today, it doesn't work so well outside of those rarefied confines, and (demonstrably) hasn't led to anything but obstructionism in the House and Senate.

 

Sure, there are plenty of people who don't like anything that Congress and Obama have come up with so far. They'll do their best to 'punish' regardless of what Dems do or don't do. There are also plenty of people who want meaningful reform now, myself included.

 

My way or the highway" sounds more like the ObamaPelosireid cabal than the republicans.

 

And democrats have the White House combined with the biggest majorities in BOTH houses of congress since....since I can't even remember.... and yet when they can't make some of their own democrats obey their leaders they blame it on the opposition party.

 

Makes me laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What the fuck are you whining about? 416-19 is a fantastic example of bi-partisanship, but you still need to bitch about how they got there? You completely contradicted yourself. If they didn't care about their constituents, you think they would have voted overwhelmingly in favor of repealing the anti-trust exemption?

 

You can't have it both ways. WTF?

 

 

The Republican leadership spent ALL DAY trying to kill the bill using every mechanism available to them. They voted NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO until the final moment then voted Yes. This is POSTURING.

 

In the larger context of the Health Bill debate, the Republicans have been claiming NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO for a year despite being involved in it's crafting. They've claimed that the bill is terribad, that it's bad for their constituents, that it's 'socialism'. My thesis is that the republican objections are not on moral or ideological grounds - that their objection is a naked grab for power. The Republican leadership is saying whatever is necessary for their own aggrandizement and desperate need to cater to the rabid right. The "Waterloo" comment was accurate - they want to hurt Obama no matter the cost. To paraphrase Milton, it's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was not an increase in HC costs. It was an increase in HC premiums. There's a major difference that I'm not sure even Obama understands. Controlling premiums will do absolutely nothing to control the increasing cost of HC services.

 

Splitting hairs there, but true. Would you be happier if I said 'HC Insurance Costs'? Meanwhile, what is the party of 'No' proposing to control costs, as you define them? Tort Reform? Again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was not an increase in HC costs. It was an increase in HC premiums. There's a major difference that I'm not sure even Obama understands. Controlling premiums will do absolutely nothing to control the increasing cost of HC services.

 

Splitting hairs there, but true. Would you be happier if I said 'HC Insurance Costs'? Meanwhile, what is the party of 'No' proposing to control costs, as you define them? Tort Reform? Again?

 

Meanwhile where's Chuck on global warming these days?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What the fuck are you whining about? 416-19 is a fantastic example of bi-partisanship, but you still need to bitch about how they got there? You completely contradicted yourself. If they didn't care about their constituents, you think they would have voted overwhelmingly in favor of repealing the anti-trust exemption?

 

You can't have it both ways. WTF?

 

 

The Republican leadership spent ALL DAY trying to kill the bill using every mechanism available to them. They voted NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO until the final moment then voted Yes. This is POSTURING.

 

In the larger context of the Health Bill debate, the Republicans have been claiming NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO for a year despite being involved in it's crafting. They've claimed that the bill is terribad, that it's bad for their constituents, that it's 'socialism'. My thesis is that the republican objections are not on moral or ideological grounds - that their objection is a naked grab for power. The Republican leadership is saying whatever is necessary for their own aggrandizement and desperate need to cater to the rabid right. The "Waterloo" comment was accurate - they want to hurt Obama no matter the cost. To paraphrase Milton, it's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

 

Stick with your thesis and whatever you do, don't leave the house without your tinfoil hat.

 

That was not an increase in HC costs. It was an increase in HC premiums. There's a major difference that I'm not sure even Obama understands. Controlling premiums will do absolutely nothing to control the increasing cost of HC services.

 

Splitting hairs there, but true. Would you be happier if I said 'HC Insurance Costs'? Meanwhile, what is the party of 'No' proposing to control costs, as you define them? Tort Reform? Again?

 

Tort reform would cut costs not just in malpractice insurance rates but also in overuse of medical testing. One has to wonder why Democrats oppose it. Let me ask you the same question - what are the Dem's proposing to control the actual costs of HC services?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was not an increase in HC costs. It was an increase in HC premiums. There's a major difference that I'm not sure even Obama understands. Controlling premiums will do absolutely nothing to control the increasing cost of HC services.

 

Splitting hairs there, but true. Would you be happier if I said 'HC Insurance Costs'? Meanwhile, what is the party of 'No' proposing to control costs, as you define them? Tort Reform? Again?

 

Meanwhile where's Chuck on global warming these days?

 

Same place as ever, asshat - staying informed on the state of the science, and keeping tabs on the crap spewage out of the denialist noise machine.

 

Why, do you have some nonsense you'd like to post?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was not an increase in HC costs. It was an increase in HC premiums. There's a major difference that I'm not sure even Obama understands. Controlling premiums will do absolutely nothing to control the increasing cost of HC services.

 

Splitting hairs there, but true. Would you be happier if I said 'HC Insurance Costs'? Meanwhile, what is the party of 'No' proposing to control costs, as you define them? Tort Reform? Again?

 

Meanwhile where's Chuck on global warming these days?

 

Same place as ever, asshat - staying informed on the state of the science, and keeping tabs on the crap spewage out of the denialist noise machine.

 

Why, do you have some nonsense you'd like to post?

 

 

"Keeping tabs" Is akaGP helping you with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in chuckies real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people".

 

CNN

 

Its not evident to me that anything in your link serves to refute anything that I wrote. The HC cost increases became news after this poll closed. It would be interesting to see whats happened since folks got their rate increase notices.

 

You just going to ignore my question to you?

 

How have the democrats offered to negotiate with republicans on their HC reform ideas in the last 365 days? And since they have not, are they not obstructionists Chuck?

 

Your silence speaks volumes...........in this entire HC reform debacle, it is the DEMOCRATS who are the obstructionists who have said ad nauseum to the Republicans, it is our way or the highway.

 

This is what the American People have seen and they are pissed. This is what is causing your POTUS to become less and less significant in his bid to be Saint HC.

 

He and the left fucked up this chance to bring change to a broken HC system all because they wanted it their way or nothing.

 

Well my friend, if I were a betting man, it will be nothing, and no one to blame except Obama and the Dems. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey KAG, we were just notified by our employer that our time's up. Our organization is no longer exempt from the misery the insurance-led whores of medicine are causing. We will see our bennies shrink and our costs increase. I also see the factors they identified were: Too many Xray docs, too many specialists, too many brand-name drugs. You should have heard to hue and cry from the crowd across the wires of email at that suggestion. All one has to do is look around, see the Xray-Doc-in-a-Box on every corner, the med schools graduating 90% specialists to know this fucked-up system isn't going to last, no matter HOW much $$ you pour into it. I imagine your public-financed Fireman's fund will be running out there soon in sunny Southern Cal, and you will be switching parties to DemocRATS soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile, back in chuckies real world, the public's perception on the issue is shifting again as double-digit HC rate increases (along with the stated goals of some HC providers to increase profitability by upwards of 50%) are getting everyone's attention and Obama's warning last spring that "doing nothing about this issue will be the worst possible outcome for the American people".

 

CNN

 

Its not evident to me that anything in your link serves to refute anything that I wrote. The HC cost increases became news after this poll closed. It would be interesting to see whats happened since folks got their rate increase notices.

 

You just going to ignore my question to you?

 

How have the democrats offered to negotiate with republicans on their HC reform ideas in the last 365 days? And since they have not, are they not obstructionists Chuck?

 

Your silence speaks volumes...........in this entire HC reform debacle, it is the DEMOCRATS who are the obstructionists who have said ad nauseum to the Republicans, it is our way or the highway.

 

This is what the American People have seen and they are pissed. This is what is causing your POTUS to become less and less significant in his bid to be Saint HC.

 

He and the left fucked up this chance to bring change to a broken HC system all because they wanted it their way or nothing.

 

Well my friend, if I were a betting man, it will be nothing, and no one to blame except Obama and the Dems. ;)

 

 

Jesus, get your shorts in a bunch, will ya? I didn't see your post.

 

In answer to your question, I'd refer you to all of the committee work that went on all summer long, to Harry Reid's statement to the Senate back in June, to the number of compromises offered by Dems only to be repeatedly rejected by Republicans, to statements by people like Grassley and Ensign indicating that a Public Option must be opposed because it would be likely to prove so popular as to put private insurers out of business. Doubt me? Fine, answer me this: why is there no Public Option in the Senate bill?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was not an increase in HC costs. It was an increase in HC premiums. There's a major difference that I'm not sure even Obama understands. Controlling premiums will do absolutely nothing to control the increasing cost of HC services.

 

Splitting hairs there, but true. Would you be happier if I said 'HC Insurance Costs'? Meanwhile, what is the party of 'No' proposing to control costs, as you define them? Tort Reform? Again?

 

Meanwhile where's Chuck on global warming these days?

 

Same place as ever, asshat - staying informed on the state of the junk science, and munching on the gore crap sandwich, as usual.

 

Why, do you have some nonsense you'd like to post?

 

Fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus, get your shorts in a bunch, will ya? I didn't see your post.

 

In answer to your question, I'd refer you to all of the committee work that went on all summer long, to Harry Reid's statement to the Senate back in June, to the number of compromises offered by Dems only to be repeatedly rejected by Republicans, to statements by people like Grassley and Ensign indicating that a Public Option must be opposed because it would be likely to prove so popular as to put private insurers out of business. Doubt me? Fine, answer me this: why is there no Public Option in the Senate bill?

 

Your funny hysterical

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...bid=VbHaOpoACR2

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey KAG, we were just notified by our employer that our time's up. Our organization is no longer exempt from the misery the insurance-led whores of medicine are causing. We will see our bennies shrink and our costs increase. I also see the factors they identified were: Too many Xray docs, too many specialists, too many brand-name drugs. You should have heard to hue and cry from the crowd across the wires of email at that suggestion. All one has to do is look around, see the Xray-Doc-in-a-Box on every corner, the med schools graduating 90% specialists to know this fucked-up system isn't going to last, no matter HOW much $$ you pour into it. I imagine your public-financed Fireman's fund will be running out there soon in sunny Southern Cal, and you will be switching parties to DemocRATS soon.

 

Hey Saylourbuttboy....get it through your thick fucking skull. You are sub-human. You are lower than pond scum. All things in life, good or bad are better than you.

 

You are irrelivant in all things, your opinion does not matter. Perhaps if you go over the hill and apologize to the Holloway family for desecrating thier brave sons memory by stealing his identity, you may rise to a level just below pond scum.

 

Fuck off....plain enough for you? <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, get your shorts in a bunch, will ya? I didn't see your post.

 

In answer to your question, I'd refer you to all of the committee work that went on all summer long, to Harry Reid's statement to the Senate back in June, to the number of compromises offered by Dems only to be repeatedly rejected by Republicans, to statements by people like Grassley and Ensign indicating that a Public Option must be opposed because it would be likely to prove so popular as to put private insurers out of business. Doubt me? Fine, answer me this: why is there no Public Option in the Senate bill?

 

The public option is dead because the American People do not want government in the HC business. They know how fucked up it would be. Senators on the left would like to keep their jobs, they heard the public loud and clear.

 

Nothing you cited has anything to do with listening to the rights health care proposals and negotiating with the right on them. In a tiny way, the first time both parties have sat down to discuss health care together, is today. I will wait for the outcome, but not stupid enough to hold my breath.

 

Just because a compromise is offered, it does not mean if the other party rejects it they are a party of no. They don't agree with the compromise. My way - Highway = Democrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, How about ending the practice of rescission except in the case of fraud? Would you support that?

 

Rescission in reference to what or who? Give me an example. I'm not a lawyer or a mind reader.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My way or the highway" sounds more like the ObamaPelosireid cabal than the republicans.

 

And democrats have the White House combined with the biggest majorities in BOTH houses of congress since....since I can't even remember.... and yet when they can't make some of their own democrats obey their leaders they blame it on the opposition party.

 

Makes me laugh.

 

I think that little gem is a big indicator of just what the f*ck is wrong with political parties. I prefer to have elected representatives who don't "obey their leaders". You?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My way or the highway" sounds more like the ObamaPelosireid cabal than the republicans.

 

And democrats have the White House combined with the biggest majorities in BOTH houses of congress since....since I can't even remember.... and yet when they can't make some of their own democrats obey their leaders they blame it on the opposition party.

 

Makes me laugh.

 

I think that little gem is a big indicator of just what the f*ck is wrong with political parties. I prefer to have elected representatives who don't "obey their leaders". You?

 

A while ago someone asked what the difference is between the two parties.

 

Here it is:

 

Democrats=cats

Republicans=sheep

Link to post
Share on other sites
My way or the highway" sounds more like the ObamaPelosireid cabal than the republicans.

 

And democrats have the White House combined with the biggest majorities in BOTH houses of congress since....since I can't even remember.... and yet when they can't make some of their own democrats obey their leaders they blame it on the opposition party.

 

Makes me laugh.

 

I think that little gem is a big indicator of just what the f*ck is wrong with political parties. I prefer to have elected representatives who don't "obey their leaders". You?

 

A while ago someone asked what the difference is between the two parties.

 

Here it is:

 

Democrats=cats

Republicans=sheep

I want my representative and Senators to represent ME, not their friggin party! I voted against my representative in the last two elections for that very reason (and the incumbent was booted in one of those, only to be replaced by a lackey for the other party, for whom I'll not be voting again).

Link to post
Share on other sites
My way or the highway" sounds more like the ObamaPelosireid cabal than the republicans.

 

And democrats have the White House combined with the biggest majorities in BOTH houses of congress since....since I can't even remember.... and yet when they can't make some of their own democrats obey their leaders they blame it on the opposition party.

 

Makes me laugh.

 

I think that little gem is a big indicator of just what the f*ck is wrong with political parties. I prefer to have elected representatives who don't "obey their leaders". You?

 

A while ago someone asked what the difference is between the two parties.

 

Here it is:

 

Democrats=cats

Republicans=sheep

 

I wouldn't call either of my senators cats (thou they can be catty), more like Democratic sheep. They didn't get any payoff to vote for this mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The insurance lobby will not be happy if it's investment produces no results.

Hey, they're satisfied with paper thin margins aren't they?

 

 

Yes they are

Screams shitty business model; sort of like passenger rail; blood from a goddamn stone.

 

Do they average the big not-for-profits, like Kaiser, into those numbers? Just wondering...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unions upset over Health Care to loby Congress"

 

 

 

 

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/11/afl-c...th-white-house/

 

How come hardly anybody bothers to display the

date when an article was written anymore?

 

The comments almost always have the date

they were written but not the article.

Strange.

11 Jan, innit?

 

Sometimes it's buried in the address, true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unions upset over Health Care to loby Congress"

 

 

 

 

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/11/afl-c...th-white-house/

 

How come hardly anybody bothers to display the

date when an article was written anymore?

 

The comments almost always have the date

they were written but not the article.

Strange.

11 Jan, innit?

 

Sometimes it's buried in the address, true.

 

And sometimes it's in plain sight right there at the top of the article with the author's name and the time of day it was filed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unions upset over Health Care to loby Congress"

 

 

 

 

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/11/afl-c...th-white-house/

 

How come hardly anybody bothers to display the

date when an article was written anymore?

 

The comments almost always have the date

they were written but not the article.

Strange.

11 Jan, innit?

 

Sometimes it's buried in the address, true.

 

And sometimes it's in plain sight right there at the top of the article with the author's name and the time of day it was filed.

 

I'm not seeing either a name or a date.

 

I wonder if AH is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Put in 3 hours extra per week. You will feel good that those 3 hours will pay for health care for those who feel entitled to it. Sweat off your back. Work. It is your obligation to support those who choose not to work.

You're already borrowing the money to pay for it (and your parents' Medicare, too). Why don't you man up and say you're for letting the poor, the old, and the stupid FOAD if they get sick? I certainly won't condemn you for it; I feel that way too, sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...