Most Americans want health care reform

[Scottbrown2012]

For those out there that take such high stock in "polls" here are some interesting stats for you.




It is ironic that Democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen felt "compelled" to "challenge the myths" about public attitudes on health care by simply restating one of the most commonly stated -- and patently wrong -- Republican myths [Washington Forum, March 12].

No pollster, including me, could look at the recent data and responsibly say anything other than that the American public is closely divided when it comes to supporting or opposing various health-care plans. The most recent Washington Post poll (from Feb. 10) shows a narrow gap between support and opposition: 46 percent favor; 49 percent oppose. This data is consistent with eight of the 12 most recent independent public polls reported on Pollster.com.

In light of this data, it is irresponsible, and wrong, for Schoen and Caddell to assert that a "solid majority of Americans oppose" health-care reform.

In fact, two recent polls, including one with the most negative ratings on health care, reveal through follow-up questions that a significant number of people who oppose current plans do so because they don't go far enough rather than because they go too far. Not only is it absurd to suggest that these people would rise up against Democrats for passing the president's plan, it is far more likely that they would join others who support the plan and punish those who tried to block reform or voted against it.

Let's take the CNN poll from early January -- the most negative independent poll on health care and one that predated President Obama's proposal. Only 40 percent supported the bills passed by Congress, while 57 percent opposed them. But in a crucial follow-up question, a net of 10 percent of all Americans opposed the bill because it was "not liberal enough." If one makes the reasonable assumption that these people are far more likely to side with supporters of the president's plan than with Republicans who are obstructing it, the results would show that 50 percent favor the plan or want a broader one, while only 45 percent oppose the plan.


Similarly, a more recent poll by Ipsos showed that among the 47 percent who initially said they "opposed health care," more than a third of opponents said they "favor" reform overall but think the current plan doesn't go "far enough." Shifting these people to the group in "favor of reform" would reduce opposition to current reforms to under 40 percent.

So what is really going on here, and what does this mean politically in 2010?

Health care and health-care reform are complex issues for policy experts, let alone for the rest of us. After a year of debate that has focused more on political process than policy, it is not surprising that Kaiser found in January that more than four in 10 Americans are not aware that the current plan includes elements such as tax credits to small business that want to offer coverage to employees or that it bans insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

The central components of the plan -- a ban on denying coverage of preexisting conditions, closing the Medicare "doughnut hole" on the drug coverage gap for seniors, creating an insurance exchange in which small business and those without coverage could buy private insurance at competitive rates -- are all supported by solid majorities, from 60 percent to 81 percent.

There's no question that a majority of Americans oppose a government-run health system. But there is no government-run health care in the plan, and not a single American would be forced into any government-run program.

In politics, new information is always the most potent. When it comes to health care and insurance, once reform passes, the tangible benefits Americans will realize will trump the fear-mongering rhetoric opponents are stoking today.

And when that reality kicks in, the political burden will shift from those who supported the plan to those who voted against banning insurance companies from denying coverage to those who are sick, against the tax credits for small businesses offering coverage, or against helping seniors on Medicare pay less for prescription drugs.

It is no accident that Republican leaders are warning Democrats of dire political consequences if health reform passes.

But there is every reason to believe that for Republicans, the negative consequences will be their own.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203719.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Boogie man]

"I [talked with House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman] yesterday. I said, 'You keep saying you want to keep current law. I gave him the language [that describes current law]. He said 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr Chairman, we don't do that now, we aren't going to start.' He said 'But we think we should.'
- Pro-life Rep. Stupak (D) on an encounter with Dem leaders.

http://www.lauraingraham.com/b/Charen:-Dems-Wont-Talk-About-This-Provision/622425223149694863.html

[Boogie man]

All you're doing is posting propaganda. If the American people wanted this bill then congress would have passed it long ago. By continually telling us that the American people want this bill, you are ignoring the truth. This is nothing more than media manipulation and outright lying.

[Scottbrown2012]

"I [talked with House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman] yesterday. I said, 'You keep saying you want to keep current law. I gave him the language [that describes current law]. He said 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr Chairman, we don't do that now, we aren't going to start.' He said 'But we think we should.'
- Pro-life Rep. Stupak (D) on an encounter with Dem leaders.

http://www.lauraingraham.com/b/Charen:-Dems-Wont-Talk-About-This-Provision/622425223149694863.html
nice myth there but sorry to say that NOTHING in the bill allows for federal funding of abortion bt you can do your best to show me where it does...and I want FACTS not stuff found in conservative pundit blogs.

[Boogie man]

nice myth there but sorry to say that NOTHING in the bill allows for federal funding of abortion bt you can do your best to show me where it does...and I want FACTS not stuff found in conservative pundit blogs.

Are you calling the quote a lie?

[MintJulep]

Right. That's why the MA voters resoundingly elected Scott Brown when he specifically ran on killing this bill. Keep drinking the koolaid. Reality will be a real sober-upper.

[Scottbrown2012]

Are you calling the quote a lie?
ding ding ding...give this man a cookie! why dont you show me some solid proof that there is federal funding for abortion in the current bill and like I said it better not come frome some slanted conservative pundit blog.

[Boogie man]

ding ding ding...give this man a cookie! why dont you show me some solid proof that there is federal funding for abortion in the current bill and like I said it better not come frome some slanted conservative pundit blog.

I gave you a direct quote from Stupak. You're calling Stupak a liar.

[Pat]

For those out there that take such high stock in "polls" here are some interesting stats for you.




It is ironic that Democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen felt "compelled" to "challenge the myths" about public attitudes on health care by simply restating one of the most commonly stated -- and patently wrong -- Republican myths [Washington Forum, March 12].

No pollster, including me, could look at the recent data and responsibly say anything other than that the American public is closely divided when it comes to supporting or opposing various health-care plans. The most recent Washington Post poll (from Feb. 10) shows a narrow gap between support and opposition: 46 percent favor; 49 percent oppose. This data is consistent with eight of the 12 most recent independent public polls reported on Pollster.com.

In light of this data, it is irresponsible, and wrong, for Schoen and Caddell to assert that a "solid majority of Americans oppose" health-care reform.

In fact, two recent polls, including one with the most negative ratings on health care, reveal through follow-up questions that a significant number of people who oppose current plans do so because they don't go far enough rather than because they go too far. Not only is it absurd to suggest that these people would rise up against Democrats for passing the president's plan, it is far more likely that they would join others who support the plan and punish those who tried to block reform or voted against it.

Let's take the CNN poll from early January -- the most negative independent poll on health care and one that predated President Obama's proposal. Only 40 percent supported the bills passed by Congress, while 57 percent opposed them. But in a crucial follow-up question, a net of 10 percent of all Americans opposed the bill because it was "not liberal enough." If one makes the reasonable assumption that these people are far more likely to side with supporters of the president's plan than with Republicans who are obstructing it, the results would show that 50 percent favor the plan or want a broader one, while only 45 percent oppose the plan.


Similarly, a more recent poll by Ipsos showed that among the 47 percent who initially said they "opposed health care," more than a third of opponents said they "favor" reform overall but think the current plan doesn't go "far enough." Shifting these people to the group in "favor of reform" would reduce opposition to current reforms to under 40 percent.

So what is really going on here, and what does this mean politically in 2010?

Health care and health-care reform are complex issues for policy experts, let alone for the rest of us. After a year of debate that has focused more on political process than policy, it is not surprising that Kaiser found in January that more than four in 10 Americans are not aware that the current plan includes elements such as tax credits to small business that want to offer coverage to employees or that it bans insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

The central components of the plan -- a ban on denying coverage of preexisting conditions, closing the Medicare "doughnut hole" on the drug coverage gap for seniors, creating an insurance exchange in which small business and those without coverage could buy private insurance at competitive rates -- are all supported by solid majorities, from 60 percent to 81 percent.

There's no question that a majority of Americans oppose a government-run health system. But there is no government-run health care in the plan, and not a single American would be forced into any government-run program.

In politics, new information is always the most potent. When it comes to health care and insurance, once reform passes, the tangible benefits Americans will realize will trump the fear-mongering rhetoric opponents are stoking today.

And when that reality kicks in, the political burden will shift from those who supported the plan to those who voted against banning insurance companies from denying coverage to those who are sick, against the tax credits for small businesses offering coverage, or against helping seniors on Medicare pay less for prescription drugs.

It is no accident that Republican leaders are warning Democrats of dire political consequences if health reform passes.

But there is every reason to believe that for Republicans, the negative consequences will be their own.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203719.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I asked it in your other thread (which you ignored), and I'll ask it again in this one,
Where is the health care reform?
What in the bills makes it more affordable, improves the quality or makes it more available?
Mostly what I see is insurance reform.
You are acting like a shill.

[Boogie man]

Lies, nothing but lies and media manipulation. I call that propaganda.

[Scottbrown2012]

Lies, nothing but lies and media manipulation. I call that propaganda.
Here is a direct qoute for you with the important text highlighted but of course I know YOUR gonna say its a lie as well seeing who it comes from:

MADDOW: Well, let me ask you about one member of your caucus who is -who is trying to make it heavier. It‘s Congressman Stupak from Michigan. It‘s somebody who we‘ve talked about a lot on my program. When he says that the Senate bill as currently written spends federal money on abortion is he telling the truth?

PELOSI: Well, let me say that I have the highest regard for Congressman Stupak. He‘s a valued member of the Congress and of the energy and commerce committee on which he serves.

The facts are these: First of all, there is no federal funding of abortion in the legislation. It is the law of the land that we are prohibited from spending federal funds on abortion, and that is consistent in this bill. There are—one, no federal funding of abortion in the legislation.

Secondly of that, if you agree that that‘s important and secondly, that it‘s important not to have increase or diminishment of the right to choose, that‘s—it‘s neutral in that respect. No federal funding, no change in the woman‘s right to choose more or less.

And third, that you want to pass a health care bill then we have the opportunity for you to do that. There‘s no federal funding on abortion.

MADDOW: So, he‘s wrong when he says that there is.

PELOSI: Well—yes. But let me say this, if he wants to read certain things into it, then you could say there‘s federal funding on abortion if there—if there‘s a tax deduction for a woman to have a health insurance plan that allows for reproductive health services in it. So, in any event, the—no federal funding, no change in status of a right a woman‘s right to choose. You want to—you want to pass health care reform, you can do it here.MADDOW: One of the—one of the ways that Congressman Stupak has made such a splash with this allegation, which, again, you say is not based in fact, that the idea—his allegation that there is federal funding for abortion in the Senate language, one of the ways that he‘s made a splash is by saying that he speaks for a dozen members of Congress who will not vote for health reform unless his language is added to the bill.

Have those supposed dozen members come and addressed those issues with you or with their office? Have you dealt directly with Congressman Stupak on this?

PELOSI: But, you know, let me say this—and with all due respect to your question, Rachel.

MADDOW: Sure.

PELOSI: This bill is not about abortion. This is about health care for all Americans. And those who want the bill to fail hijacked the good intentions of others who have concerns about federal funding of abortion and should turn it into a conversation about that.

But the more we talk about that, the less we talk about innovation and prevention and wellness; about affordability for America‘s middle income families; about access to those who have not been able to access health care before; about holding insurance companies accountable; ending any denial of access to health care because of preexisting condition; capping of the—of premiums but not capping the benefits either annually or on a life time basis, about what it does for children and young people to stay on their parents‘ policy until they are 26 years old; what it does for seniors in terms of closing the donut hole.

If you are not a senior, which you are not, but which I am, you know, don‘t (INAUDIBLE) all means—but it makes purchasing pharmaceutical drugs -- prescription drugs more affordable for them. And if you are a woman, women have so much to gain from this bill.

Right up until now, being a woman is a preexisting medical condition. If you are a woman, if you are in child-bearing age and you have children, it‘s a preexisting condition. If you can‘t have children, it‘s a preexisting condition. If you have a C-section, it‘s a preexisting condition. If you are a victim of domestic abuse, it is a preexisting condition.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35835370/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

[Hawkeye2j]

Right. That's why the MA voters resoundingly elected Scott Brown when he specifically ran on killing this bill. Keep drinking the koolaid. Reality will be a real sober-upper.

You know nothing about Massachusetts voters. The vote in Massachusetts was an anti-Coakley vote and that is all. The voters are angry over the Fells Daycare center case.

[Boogie man]

Here is a direct qoute for you with the important text highlighted but of course I know YOUR gonna say its a lie as well seeing who it comes from:

MADDOW: Well, let me ask you about one member of your caucus who is -who is trying to make it heavier. It‘s Congressman Stupak from Michigan. It‘s somebody who we‘ve talked about a lot on my program. When he says that the Senate bill as currently written spends federal money on abortion is he telling the truth?

PELOSI: Well, let me say that I have the highest regard for Congressman Stupak. He‘s a valued member of the Congress and of the energy and commerce committee on which he serves.

The facts are these: First of all, there is no federal funding of abortion in the legislation. It is the law of the land that we are prohibited from spending federal funds on abortion, and that is consistent in this bill. There are—one, no federal funding of abortion in the legislation.

Secondly of that, if you agree that that‘s important and secondly, that it‘s important not to have increase or diminishment of the right to choose, that‘s—it‘s neutral in that respect. No federal funding, no change in the woman‘s right to choose more or less.

And third, that you want to pass a health care bill then we have the opportunity for you to do that. There‘s no federal funding on abortion.

MADDOW: So, he‘s wrong when he says that there is.

PELOSI: Well—yes. But let me say this, if he wants to read certain things into it, then you could say there‘s federal funding on abortion if there—if there‘s a tax deduction for a woman to have a health insurance plan that allows for reproductive health services in it. So, in any event, the—no federal funding, no change in status of a right a woman‘s right to choose. You want to—you want to pass health care reform, you can do it here.MADDOW: One of the—one of the ways that Congressman Stupak has made such a splash with this allegation, which, again, you say is not based in fact, that the idea—his allegation that there is federal funding for abortion in the Senate language, one of the ways that he‘s made a splash is by saying that he speaks for a dozen members of Congress who will not vote for health reform unless his language is added to the bill.

Have those supposed dozen members come and addressed those issues with you or with their office? Have you dealt directly with Congressman Stupak on this?

PELOSI: But, you know, let me say this—and with all due respect to your question, Rachel.

MADDOW: Sure.

PELOSI: This bill is not about abortion. This is about health care for all Americans. And those who want the bill to fail hijacked the good intentions of others who have concerns about federal funding of abortion and should turn it into a conversation about that.

But the more we talk about that, the less we talk about innovation and prevention and wellness; about affordability for America‘s middle income families; about access to those who have not been able to access health care before; about holding insurance companies accountable; ending any denial of access to health care because of preexisting condition; capping of the—of premiums but not capping the benefits either annually or on a life time basis, about what it does for children and young people to stay on their parents‘ policy until they are 26 years old; what it does for seniors in terms of closing the donut hole.

If you are not a senior, which you are not, but which I am, you know, don‘t (INAUDIBLE) all means—but it makes purchasing pharmaceutical drugs -- prescription drugs more affordable for them. And if you are a woman, women have so much to gain from this bill.

Right up until now, being a woman is a preexisting medical condition. If you are a woman, if you are in child-bearing age and you have children, it‘s a preexisting condition. If you can‘t have children, it‘s a preexisting condition. If you have a C-section, it‘s a preexisting condition. If you are a victim of domestic abuse, it is a preexisting condition.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35835370/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

You still haven't answered my question. I gave you a direct quote from Stupak. Are you or are you not calling him a liar?

[Hawkeye2j]

You still haven't answered my question. I gave you a direct quote from Stupak. Are you or are you not calling him a liar?

I will call him a liar.

[MintJulep]

You know nothing about Massachusetts voters. The vote in Massachusetts was an anti-Coakley vote and that is all. The voters are angry over the Fells Daycare center case.I guess we'll see what the message was come this November, won't we?

[Scottbrown2012]

You still haven't answered my question. I gave you a direct quote from Stupak. Are you or are you not calling him a liar?
He may not be an outright liar but as Pelosi says in her interview with Maddow if you actually read it....he and others can be ill informed and read into it things that are not there simply based on the wording of it.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Where is the health care reform?
What in the bills makes it more affordable, improves the quality or makes it more available?
Mostly what I see is insurance reform.


It is exactly insurance reform, sans the reform mostly. This was always nothing more than a please-everyone so please-nobody piece of crap that was never UHC.
Having said that, anti-UHC folks are sure getting twisted-up trying to marry the lack of support for the Dems plan as a lack of support for UHC and polls shows that to be garbage.

Arguing semantics is a waste of energy, unless there was to be sweeping change of the health-care industry at its most basic then any health-care reform is a misnomer. Utter BS as an agreement.

As to what specifics that insurance reform can do for making health-care better I'll limit my examples to your specific questions:

1) Where is health-care reform?
a) Remember the computer information sharing systems funding? Not to mention that inserting 50 million subscribers without pre-qualifying means earlier diagnosis and thus cheaper and more effective treatments. That would be a reform.

2) What in the bills makes it more affordable,
a) Just the insertion of 50 million more payers combined with better/cheaper health-care with early prognoses, no non-qualifying tenets means more time at health-care providers is actually spent on health and not re-submitting claims and thus cheaper per patient. Also, since acute/life threatening conditions as well as indigent coverage is already covered now, that would then become cheaper with universal insurance coverage.

3) improves the quality,
a)Hard to extrapolate realistically and honestly, but for 50 million American citizens the simple ability to HAVE insurance is an improvement of quality not to mention all those people previously denied individual treatments/procedures that now have that improvement as well.

4) or makes it more available
a)Kinda self-explanatory with the addition of 50 million citizens.

SP UHC would've been a real and workable solution for all, too bad neither the Dems nor the Reps wish to join the modern world.

[Boogie man]

I will call him a liar.

I believe him. Why? Because if there was no government funded abortion then it would have already passed. Pelosi is a liar. She is a proven liar. She has a history of lying to the American people. Stupak doesn't.

That's why I believe Stupak.

[Boogie man]

He may not be an outright liar but as Pelosi says in her interview with Maddow if you actually read it....he and others can be ill informed and read into it things that are not there simply based on the wording of it.

No kidding!! That is by design. The dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths for political reasons. If Pelosi told you to shit your drawers, I suppose you'd go ahead and do it.

[Boogie man]

The Michigan Democrat's vitriol for House leaders shines a bright light on the normally secret negotiations. "They're ignoring me," Stupak asserts while concluding that the final bill will not have the stronger abortion-related language that he's long supported and was able to force in the first bill the House passed late last year.

"[E]ven if they don't have the votes, it's been made clear to us that they won't insert our language on the abortion issue," Stupak says. "I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance. Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered."http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/13/house-democrat-takes-on-party-leaders/

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Stupak? We're actually discussing a minor player who has a minor position in his own party complaining that his minor position is being treated as a minor position? LOL

The bestest part is watching the righties foaming at the mouth and rushing to support anything anybody says that's anti-anything democratic party or anti-anything Obama even if that person is a Democratic nut.

Glad to see somebody new wasting their time, even the GOP figured out that abortion is a dead issue and political suicide.

[MintJulep]

The bestest part is watching the righties foaming at the mouth and rushing to support anything anybody says that's anti-anything democratic party or anti-anything Obama even if that person is a Democratic nut.Pretty reminiscent of the behavior of the past eight years, isn't it?

[Scottbrown2012]

Pretty reminiscent of the behavior of the past eight years, isn't it?
you soooo love living in the past dont you minty?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Pretty reminiscent of the behavior of the past eight years, isn't it?

Pretty reminiscent of the behavior of the last 43 years, all my life.

Its the usual weak party apologist that can only see those instances of their precious party's opposing party.

Glad I've the ability to see past party politics.

[Pat]

It is exactly insurance reform, sans the reform mostly. This was always nothing more than a please-everyone so please-nobody piece of crap that was never UHC.
Having said that, anti-UHC folks are sure getting twisted-up trying to marry the lack of support for the Dems plan as a lack of support for UHC and polls shows that to be garbage.

Arguing semantics is a waste of energy, unless there was to be sweeping change of the health-care industry at its most basic then any health-care reform is a misnomer. Utter BS as an agreement.

As to what specifics that insurance reform can do for making health-care better I'll limit my examples to your specific questions:

1) Where is health-care reform?
a) Remember the computer information sharing systems funding? Not to mention that inserting 50 million subscribers without pre-qualifying means earlier diagnosis and thus cheaper and more effective treatments. That would be a reform.

2) What in the bills makes it more affordable,
a) Just the insertion of 50 million more payers combined with better/cheaper health-care with early prognoses, no non-qualifying tenets means more time at health-care providers is actually spent on health and not re-submitting claims and thus cheaper per patient. Also, since acute/life threatening conditions as well as indigent coverage is already covered now, that would then become cheaper with universal insurance coverage.

3) improves the quality,
a)Hard to extrapolate realistically and honestly, but for 50 million American citizens the simple ability to HAVE insurance is an improvement of quality not to mention all those people previously denied individual treatments/procedures that now have that improvement as well.

4) or makes it more available
a)Kinda self-explanatory with the addition of 50 million citizens.

SP UHC would've been a real and workable solution for all, too bad neither the Dems nor the Reps wish to join the modern world.
Every answer you gave is about health insurance, not health care.
You can say I'm arguing semantics all you want, but the truth is that health care is not being addressed in the bill.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Every answer you gave is about health insurance, not health care.
You can say I'm arguing semantics all you want, but the truth is that health care is not being addressed in the bill.

Re-read those answers then.

But I do agree, health care isn't the focus and the benefits health care receives is mostly as a by-product.

[Pat]

Re-read those answers then.

But I do agree, health care isn't the focus and the benefits health care receives is mostly as a by-product.
Sigh.
OK, I'll address your non-valid points. I'll save the 50 million part for last.

a) Remember the computer information sharing systems funding?
That isn't health care reform, it's use of technology that is already well on it's way.

a)Also, since acute/life threatening conditions as well as indigent coverage is already covered now, that would then become cheaper with universal insurance coverage
As you point out, it's already covered, so it does nothing to make health care cheaper, better or more available.

a)Hard to extrapolate realistically and honestly
Impossible to extrapolate and it still does nothing to improve the quality of health care (that was what you were addressing).

And the 50 million,
4) or makes it more available
a)Kinda self-explanatory with the addition of 50 million citizens

Not to mention that inserting 50 million subscribers without pre-qualifying means earlier diagnosis and thus cheaper and more effective treatments. That would be a reform.

Just the insertion of 50 million more payers combined with better/cheaper health-care with early prognoses, no non-qualifying tenets means more time at health-care providers is actually spent on health and not re-submitting claims and thus cheaper per patient.

but for 50 million American citizens the simple ability to HAVE insurance is an improvement of quality not to mention all those people previously denied individual treatments/procedures that now have that improvement as well.

First of all, the 50 million number is suspect, and keeps changing.
Second of all, the bill does not actually address all of them, in fact, the congress has admitted that 13-15 million will still fall through the cracks.
Third, there is no proof that adding those people to insurance will make health care better, cheaper or more available. In fact, common sense tells us that the laws of supply and demand will have the opposite effect. If you made 50 million more people drive automobiles, do you think the price of gasoline would go down? Do you think the roads would be less congested with 50 million more drivers? Do you think that with 50 million more automobiles on the roads that the quality of the roads would magically improve?

[Boogie man]

Stupak? We're actually discussing a minor player who has a minor position in his own party complaining that his minor position is being treated as a minor position? LOL

The bestest part is watching the righties foaming at the mouth and rushing to support anything anybody says that's anti-anything democratic party or anti-anything Obama even if that person is a Democratic nut.

Glad to see somebody new wasting their time, even the GOP figured out that abortion is a dead issue and political suicide.

His "minor position" is going to keep some from voting for the bill and his "minor position" is held by a lot of Americans.

"bestest"???? That's cute. Does your it make your mommy smile when you say that?

[MintJulep]

Pretty reminiscent of the behavior of the last 43 years, all my life. The case can be made that the last eight years lowered the bar for vileness and disrepect.

Its the usual weak party apologist that can only see those instances of their precious party's opposing party.

Glad I've the ability to see past party politics.Didn't you vote for Obama?

[Scottbrown2012]

His "minor position" is going to keep some from voting for the bill and his "minor position" is held by a lot of Americans.

"bestest"???? That's cute. Does your it make your mommy smile when you say that?
AN ABUNDANCE OF PRO-LIFE COVER.... In order for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to succeed in helping kill health care reform over abortion, he needs to convince a bloc of his fellow pro-life Democrats that the already-tough restrictions in the Senate bill just aren't strong enough.

But for those pro-life Dems, mostly Roman Catholics from the Midwest, who want to vote for health care reform, they've been offered an abundance of cover. For example, Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Organization, supports the Democratic plan. In a newly-published piece, Keehan writes:

CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.

There is a requirement that the insurance companies be audited annually to assure that the payment for abortion coverage fully covers the administrative and clinical costs, that the payment is held in a separate account from other premiums, and that there are no federal dollars used.

In addition, there is a wonderful provision in the bill that provides $250 million over 10 years to pay for counseling, education, job training and housing for vulnerable women who are pregnant or parenting. Another provision provides a substantial increase in the adoption tax credit and funding for adoption assistance programs.



Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has also endorsed the Democratic proposal, and told lawmakers on Friday that the Senate restrictions on abortion are sufficient. This week, 25 evangelical and Catholic leaders wrote to lawmakers with the same message.

And, of course, the Senate language has also been written and endorsed by prominent pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

Given all of this, plus the fact that Bart Stupak doesn't really have his facts straight anyway, perhaps it's time for members of his bloc to put some distance between themselves and Stupak's misguided efforts. Some already have.

—Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[kres24GT]

I think everyone wants reform,. I want less government, that is reform from what we have now.

[Boogie man]

I would like health care to be less expensive, but this bill doesn't do that. Scrap it.

[GetAClue]

The title of the thread is correct, most Americans DO want healthcare reform. However, the current bill being considered by the House does nothing of the such. It is nothing more than another unfunded entitlement meant to do nothing but give the government even more control in your life. The same people that run the post office, Amtrack, the IRS, welfare, Medicare, Medicade, etc, now want to tell you what medical procedures you can and cannot have. This is a travesty.

[Citizen]

"MOSTAMERICANSWANTREFORMANDTHEREPUBLICANSHAVENOPLAN SOTHEONLYREFORMISTHEDEMOCRATS!
*plugs ears NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING! HUMMMMMMM!!!!!"

[slowhand]

The title of the thread is correct, most Americans DO want healthcare reform. However, the current bill being considered by the House does nothing of the such. It is nothing more than another unfunded entitlement meant to do nothing but give the government even more control in your life. The same people that run the post office, Amtrack, the IRS, welfare, Medicare, Medicade, etc, now want to tell you what medical procedures you can and cannot have. This is a travesty.

Cut the fuckin bullshit!!..Ive been on Medicare for 5 years, and they have never denied me one procedure yet..Not one!!..They have no told me what Drs I can or cannot see, ever!!!!..They have never refused to pay a claim..And unlike private insurance, they will not drop me, deny me coverage, or raise my premiums because I am sick, and I have not one, but three pre-existing conditions..Try and pick up private insurance with that, and let me know how you make out

If anything, "Obamacare" w/o single payer/public option, will benefit private insurance companies

All this is, is more Republican, the-sky-is-falling-bullshit..Bunch of fucking cry babies

[Boogie man]

Don't forget....we need health care reform for "the children". Here come the human shields.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/humanshield004.jpg

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/15/nanny-nancy-lines-up-the-kiddie-human-shields/

[slowhand]

Don't forget....we need health care reform for "the children". Here come the human shields.

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/humanshield004.jpg

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/15/nanny-nancy-lines-up-the-kiddie-human-shields/


More propaganda from the village idiot

[Boogie man]

Cut the fuckin bullshit!!..Ive been on Medicare for 5 years, and they have never denied me one procedure yet..Not one!!..They have no told me what Drs I can or cannot see, ever!!!!..They have never refused to pay a claim..And unlike private insurance, they will not drop me, deny me coverage, or raise my premiums because I am sick, and I have not one, but three pre-existing conditions..Try and pick up private insurance with that, and let me know how you make out

If anything, "Obamacare" w/o single payer/public option, will benefit private insurance companies

All this is, is more Republican, the-sky-is-falling-bullshit..Bunch of fucking cry babies

You don't get it. Medicare is fine for people like you. No problem. The problem is a lot of Americans do not want it for everyone else.

[slowhand]

You don't get it. Medicare is fine for people like you. No problem. The problem is a lot of Americans do not want it for everyone else.

And alot of Americans do..So if you dont want it, then dont get it

[Citizen]

Cut the fuckin bullshit!!..Ive been on Medicare for 5 years, and they have never denied me one procedure yet..Not one!!..They have no told me what Drs I can or cannot see, ever!!!!..They have never refused to pay a claim..And unlike private insurance, they will not drop me, deny me coverage, or raise my premiums because I am sick, and I have not one, but three pre-existing conditions..Try and pick up private insurance with that, and let me know how you make out

If anything, "Obamacare" w/o single payer/public option, will benefit private insurance companies

All this is, is more Republican, the-sky-is-falling-bullshit..Bunch of fucking cry babies

Do you really think the "but it works for me" or "I'm living proof" really holds any water? This mean nothing. You are not representative of an entire nation or public policy. Actually by saying this it only proves how shallow your views are. You should be grateful that we in this nation has a powerful enough a private sector to support people like you. But no, you want to bring it down.

[slowhand]

Do you really think the "but it works for me" or "I'm living proof" really holds any water? This mean nothing. You are not representative of an entire nation or public policy. Actually by saying this it only proves how shallow your views are.

Go fuck yourself

[Citizen]

Go fuck yourself

haahahahahahaaa!!!!!

[slowhand]

Who you bozo's dont fucking get, is the govt is not gonna decide what procedures you can or cannot have..They dont do it with Medicare..I just got fucking done explaining that, but no, you fools gotta change the subject and twist it up into something its not

[MintJulep]

Who you bozo's dont fucking get, is the govt is not gonna decide what procedures you can or cannot have..They dont do it with Medicare..I just got fucking done explaining that, but no, you fools gotta change the subject and twist it up into something its notNo, it is you who doesn't "get" it.

You don't "get" at all.

[slowhand]

No, it is you who doesn't "get" it.

You don't "get" at all.

The one thing I do get, is that you are the one who makes the most noise because you are employed in healthcare insurance business..You are looking out for you own interests..You dont give a flying fuck about who has, or hasnt got insurance, who can afford it, and who cant..You could care less who gets dropped from their insurance when they need it the most..when they get sick..or they raise their premiums through the fucking roof untill ppl cant afford it

All you care about is the fate of the hoodlum insurance companies

[foxbaron]

I would like health care to be less expensive, but this bill doesn't do that. Scrap it.


Wait a minute..............what bill? Didn't Nancy Piglosy just recently say something to the effect that if you want to see whats in it they have to pass it first?

Exactly which version are they voting on,.......... er ah..........I mean passing without a vote (assumming that it was passed/or deeming that it was passed, without actually voting for it to be passed) and voting on the assumption that it was deemed to be passed. And when they vote on the assumption that they deemed it to have been passed will they also deem it to have been voted on in their favor if the votes that were cast on the vote for the bill they deemed to have been passed doesn't coincide with the deemed vote that never occurred.

Now I have a headache.

[doctordog]

My wife just got her bill for an emergency room visit. We were there less than 2 hours. The physician said she had an anxiety attack. His bill was $641 and my insurance paid $435 of it. Inusrance is not the problem, physicians, hospitals, and other medical service providers are.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

That isn't health care reform, it's use of technology that is already well on it's way.

Double sigh.
It wasn't the technology, it was the sharing of the information something that was creating multiple identical tests and thus a major increase in cost. This change in procedure would then, by definition, be a reform. You can't just disallow something you don't agree with and pretend it isn't something it is and by definition:

Webster
Reform:
1 a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses
2 : to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
3 : to induce or cause to abandon evil ways <reform a drunkard>

So while I don't agree with the insurance reform angle, as often stated, and I only support SP UHC I still cannot abide by broadbrush attacks that are incorrect in their basic disagreement. Attacks against the Dem plan aren't really attacks against the plan as it stands but not very subtle direct attacks against all things UHC.

As you point out, it's already covered, so it does nothing to make health care cheaper, better or more available.

Impossible to extrapolate and it still does nothing to improve the quality of health care (that was what you were addressing).

Hard, not impossible which is why I used that to describe it. Its not impossible as we have the entire rest of the industrial nations to observe their working UHC models and even the Dems BS plan comes much closer to this ideal than anything we've ever used with our current system.

And the 50 million,


First of all, the 50 million number is suspect, and keeps changing.
Second of all, the bill does not actually address all of them, in fact, the congress has admitted that 13-15 million will still fall through the cracks.
Third, there is no proof that adding those people to insurance will make health care better, cheaper or more available. In fact, common sense tells us that the laws of supply and demand will have the opposite effect. If you made 50 million more people drive automobiles, do you think the price of gasoline would go down? Do you think the roads would be less congested with 50 million more drivers? Do you think that with 50 million more automobiles on the roads that the quality of the roads would magically improve?

Like the holocaust, does it matter if you're off by a million or so if you look at the bigger whole picture. 30 - 50 million if it makes it easier for folks to get their head around is fine with me.

I haven't seen anything to make me think anyone could so precisely guess what percentage will 'fall thru the cracks' so I question that number as well as that statement (not yours, them).]

Your car analogy is not useable. It would be useable if we were adding 50 million sick people but we're not. We're adding citizens. So we're adding 50 million people, not sick people, and since we're retaining the insurance companies that means we're adding payers to a system that they can already deduct from in emergency/acute and thus expensive scenarios now. Money in to counter money out. That lowers the cost for those who were paying in before.

[Boogie man]

And alot of Americans do..So if you dont want it, then dont get it

No. You do understand "no", don't you? I know it must be hard since you're used to getting taken care of and having your hand filled every time you stick it out. But, please, let's allow other people take care of themselves if they are able to and keep their pride by paying their own bills and insurance premiums. They'll feel much better about themselves and we'll be a much stronger nation.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

My wife just got her bill for an emergency room visit. We were there less than 2 hours. The physician said she had an anxiety attack. His bill was $641 and my insurance paid $435 of it. Inusrance is not the problem, physicians, hospitals, and other medical service providers are.

You paid $200. That would be about what it should cost in a sane system.

The $435 is a combination of things:
1) BS inflated number that is the part where the insurance company is paying itself in the form of your bill to cover the doctor's malpractice insurance.
2) Indigent UHC, those who can''t pay have their bill absorbed probono, which is latin for screwing YOU. Your $20 aspirin isn't getting the doctor rich, its the absorption of indigent care.

[Boogie man]

You paid $200. That would be about what it should cost in a sane system.

The $435 is a combination of things:
1) BS inflated number that is the part where the insurance company is paying itself in the form of your bill to cover the doctor's malpractice insurance.
2) Indigent UHC, those who can''t pay have their bill absorbed probono, which is latin for screwing YOU. Your $20 aspirin isn't getting the doctor rich, its the absorption of indigent care.

Who is paying for the $20 aspirin?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

His "minor position" is going to keep some from voting for the bill and his "minor position" is held by a lot of Americans.

"bestest"???? That's cute. Does your it make your mommy smile when you say that?

More importantly, according to polls, his minor position will have minor impact on voting as it is a minor position held by only a minor lot of Americans.

Glad you approve of my verbage, tho unlike you I don't live with my mom and haven't since college 20 years ago so I can't help you.
How's your mom?

[doctordog]

You paid $200. That would be about what it should cost in a sane system.

The $435 is a combination of things:
1) BS inflated number that is the part where the insurance company is paying itself in the form of your bill to cover the doctor's malpractice insurance.
2) Indigent UHC, those who can''t pay have their bill absorbed probono, which is latin for screwing YOU. Your $20 aspirin isn't getting the doctor rich, its the absorption of indigent care.

That doesn't include the hospital bill, and the cat scan bill.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Who is paying for the $20 aspirin?

You've been giving us your two cents worth and you don't even know how your beloved current system works?

[MintJulep]

The one thing I do get, is that you are the one who makes the most noise because you are employed in healthcare insurance business..You are looking out for you own interests..You dont give a flying fuck about who has, or hasnt got insurance, who can afford it, and who cant..You could care less who gets dropped from their insurance when they need it the most..when they get sick..or they raise their premiums through the fucking roof untill ppl cant afford it

All you care about is the fate of the hoodlum insurance companiesActually, you don't know where I'm employed so perhaps you should get your info straight before throwing shit around and hoping it sticks.

You don't understand Medicare, how very little it pays providers and that it stays afloat only on the backs of those who pay full-freight for private insurance.

Take a look at your Explanation of Benefits of your services. It will show the actual cost of services, Medicare's contracted rate and the paltry amount it actually pays. Why do you think some providers no longer take Medicare? Providers couldn't stay in business on what Medicare pays.

You just don't "get" it. If you add 30 million new patients and the doctor population contracts or stays static, there will be rationing. There is simply NO way around it. Since you are retired and not paying any taxes, you would be one of the first to go. You see, it's not "cost effective" to drain that miniscule pool of taxpayer money for someone who has no "return" --read that-- remaining taxpaying years.

Wake the fuck up already.

[Boogie man]

More importantly, according to polls, his minor position will have minor impact on voting as it is a minor position held by only a minor lot of Americans.

Glad you approve of my verbage, tho unlike you I don't live with my mom and haven't since college 20 years ago so I can't help you.
How's your mom?

Pro life is not a minor lot of Americans. You are either lying or just guessing. Here is a poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

The case can be made that the last eight years lowered the bar for vileness and disrepect.

Didn't you vote for Obama?

Bush didn't get half the shit Obama's gotten in his first year. Bush's first year was, by comparison, a honeymoon throughout.

Yes I did vote for Obama. Obama, not Democratic Presidential Candidate. Obama was the best choice for my philosophies. Last two elections it was Nader.

Allows me to hold the man accountable without screening myself with party allegience.

[Boogie man]

Bush didn't get half the shit Obama's gotten in his first year. Bush's first year was, by comparison, a honeymoon throughout.

Yes I did vote for Obama. Obama, not Democratic Presidential Candidate. Obama was the best choice for my philosophies. Last two elections it was Nader.

Allows me to hold the man accountable without screening myself with party allegience.

Okay, you voted for Obama. Why should anyone treat Obama any differently than the way the left treated Bush?

[Boogie man]

You've been giving us your two cents worth and you don't even know how your beloved current system works?

Oh, I know how it works. I work in the medical field. I want to hear your version. Explain it to me.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Pro life is not a minor lot of Americans. You are either lying or just guessing. Here is a poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

Every pro-lifer candidate has gotten their ass handed to them.
EVERY ONE.

Even the GOP read the writing on the wall, hence the exodus to the Libertarian party of pro-lifers.

BTW, the Gallup is not a very useful poll IMO never has been. Its too targeted, I prefer exit polls during elections and they are quite clear. And this cherry-picked poll is 51% and that's a first and the timing tells me everything with the TP in the news.
It will not be reflected in the elections, as usual.

[MintJulep]

Bush didn't get half the shit Obama's gotten in his first year. Bush's first year was, by comparison, a honeymoon throughout. Now THAT'S hilarious.

Were you comatose for the past eight years? There were protests on election day, 2001 with the moonbats bleating "stolen 'election!!" and that was just the beginning. The rule was "anything goes" during Bush's term and that rule transcends through today. When you lower that bar, you must always remember it will come back and bite you in the ass.

Yes I did vote for Obama. Obama, not Democratic Presidential Candidate. Obama was the best choice for my philosophies. Last two elections it was Nader. Then you are of the far-left ideology, not "non-partisan" as you pretend to be.

So howz that "hope N chains" bit working out for ya?

Allows me to hold the man accountable without screening myself with party allegience. Your ideology is in line with a party. You're no "centrist" or "moderate", not that such a thing even exists.

[MintJulep]

Okay, you voted for Obama. Why should anyone treat Obama any differently than the way the left treated Bush?They shouldn't, LOL. And they're not. :thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Oh, I know how it works. I work in the medical field. I want to hear your version. Explain it to me.

It is what it is, not up to interpretation. This ploy was tried by you when you pulled it on the defintion of living document and won't work any better for you now than then.

Sticking to topic, indigent provisions and dual-payment insurace hedging creates that expensive aspirin. Like I exampled.

[Pat]

Double sigh.
It wasn't the technology, it was the sharing of the information something that was creating multiple identical tests and thus a major increase in cost. This change in procedure would then, by definition, be a reform. You can't just disallow something you don't agree with and pretend it isn't something it is and by definition:

Webster
Reform:
1 a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses
2 : to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
3 : to induce or cause to abandon evil ways <reform a drunkard>

So while I don't agree with the insurance reform angle, as often stated, and I only support SP UHC I still cannot abide by broadbrush attacks that are incorrect in their basic disagreement. Attacks against the Dem plan aren't really attacks against the plan as it stands but not very subtle direct attacks against all things UHC.



Hard, not impossible which is why I used that to describe it. Its not impossible as we have the entire rest of the industrial nations to observe their working UHC models and even the Dems BS plan comes much closer to this ideal than anything we've ever used with our current system.



Like the holocaust, does it matter if you're off by a million or so if you look at the bigger whole picture. 30 - 50 million if it makes it easier for folks to get their head around is fine with me.

I haven't seen anything to make me think anyone could so precisely guess what percentage will 'fall thru the cracks' so I question that number as well as that statement (not yours, them).]

Your car analogy is not useable. It would be useable if we were adding 50 million sick people but we're not. We're adding citizens. So we're adding 50 million people, not sick people, and since we're retaining the insurance companies that means we're adding payers to a system that they can already deduct from in emergency/acute and thus expensive scenarios now. Money in to counter money out. That lowers the cost for those who were paying in before.
Lots of verbiage, and still slim on facts and sense.
Tell me, what in the bill makes health care more affordable, more available and improves quality? How many times are you going to respond to the question without answering it? Site the parts of the bill that do that.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Now THAT'S hilarious.

Were you comatose for the past eight years? There were protests on election day, 2001 with the moonbats bleating "stolen 'election!!" and that was just the beginning. The rule was "anything goes" during Bush's term and that rule transcends through today. When you lower that bar, you must always remember it will come back and bite you in the ass.

Then you are of the far-left ideology, not "non-partisan" as you pretend to be.

So howz that "hope N chains" bit working out for ya?

Your ideology is in line with a party. You're no "centrist" or "moderate", not that such a thing even exists.

For those of us who don't give our allegience to party but to country did and do have major problems with that election. Any patriot would, even a rabid Republican loving the outcome should've given pause to what precedence that was created and thus could be used against their beloved party in the future.
Doesn't count as bashing especially Bush Bashing. And I remember quite well that first year and it wasn't shit compared the racist, anti-Dem, anti-Obama rhetoric crap I've heard during Obama's first year. Not even close, but you party apologists aren't expected to admit that.

So I figured the best guy for the job out of those running was Obama and that makes me in-line and on-board with the Democratic Party?
You are a loon.
BTW, I'm not a centrist or moderate. I'm an individualist.

[Boogie man]

Every pro-lifer candidate has gotten their ass handed to them.
EVERY ONE.

Even the GOP read the writing on the wall, hence the exodus to the Libertarian party of pro-lifers.

BTW, the Gallup is not a very useful poll IMO never has been. Its too targeted, I prefer exit polls during elections and they are quite clear. And this cherry-picked poll is 51% and that's a first and the timing tells me everything with the TP in the news.
It will not be reflected in the elections, as usual.

Okay. So Gallup is a liar. I understand, believe me.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Lots of verbiage, and still slim on facts and sense.
Tell me, what in the bill makes health care more affordable, more available and improves quality? How many times are you going to respond to the question without answering it? Site the parts of the bill that do that.

I did give you everything you're asking for. You don't wish to see it as it isn't in-line with your POV.
You can keep asking the same question and ignore the answers all you want, but it is what it is and it's above in B&W for all to see.

[Boogie man]

It is what it is, not up to interpretation. This ploy was tried by you when you pulled it on the defintion of living document and won't work any better for you now than then.

Sticking to topic, indigent provisions and dual-payment insurace hedging creates that expensive aspirin. Like I exampled.

You just can't allow yourself to give an honest explanation, can you! My insurance pays for that $20 aspirin and I pay my insurance premiums as do all the other poicy holders. Not one cent from government.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

You just can't allow yourself to give an honest explanation, can you! My insurance pays for that $20 aspirin and I pay my insurance premiums as do all the other poicy holders. Not one cent from government.

Really, that's interesting.
Odd you brought it up since nobody said anything to the contrary......I was commenting on Dogs bill and how it got that size.

but hey, any chance to slam UHC right?

[Boogie man]

Really, that's interesting.
Odd you brought it up since nobody said anything to the contrary......I was commenting on Dogs bill and how it got that size.

but hey, any chance to slam UHC right?

I told the truth. If that is a "slam" to you then so be it. I'll take the truth every time. How about you?

[slowhand]

No. You do understand "no", don't you? I know it must be hard since you're used to getting taken care of and having your hand filled every time you stick it out. But, please, let's allow other people take care of themselves if they are able to and keep their pride by paying their own bills and insurance premiums. They'll feel much better about themselves and we'll be a much stronger nation.

Look you motherfucking jerk off..I worked my ass off for 36 years before I got Parkinsons..I paid my share into the system, and you bet you hillbilly ass Im gonna stick my fucikng hand out

[doctordog]

Really, that's interesting.
Odd you brought it up since nobody said anything to the contrary......I was commenting on Dogs bill and how it got that size.

but hey, any chance to slam UHC right?

Since this bill does not address service providers and not regulates one of the largest employers in the country, farnkly, it is a bad bill.:thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

I told the truth. If that is a "slam" to you then so be it. I'll take the truth every time. How about you?

Celtics Suck.

Doesn't have anything to do with anything we're discussing but it's your rule.

You can't handle the truth!:p

[Boogie man]

Look you motherfucking jerk off..I worked my ass off for 36 years before I got Parkinsons..I paid my share into the system, and you bet you hillbilly ass Im gonna stick my fucikng hand out

Oooooo, you evil little thing you. LOL. Cool it. I said that's fine for you, but why should we give the same benefits to people who are not sick and haven't paid anything into the system? Why?

[Pat]

I did give you everything you're asking for. You don't wish to see it as it isn't in-line with your POV.
You can keep asking the same question and ignore the answers all you want, but it is what it is and it's above in B&W for all to see.
So, what page numbers of the bill are your supposed answers from?

[MintJulep]

For those of us who don't give our allegience to party but to country did and do have major problems with that election. Any patriot would, even a rabid Republican loving the outcome should've given pause to what precedence that was created and thus could be used against their beloved party in the future.
Doesn't count as bashing especially Bush Bashing. And I remember quite well that first year and it wasn't shit compared the racist, anti-Dem, anti-Obama rhetoric crap I've heard during Obama's first year. Not even close, but you party apologists aren't expected to admit that. Oh please. The only one with selective amnesia here is you. Yep. The moonbats were ridin' high in the ChimpyBusHitlerMurderingRetardO'Halliburton days, but those days have ended.

Now, you are reaping what you have sown.

So I figured the best guy for the job out of those running was Obama and that makes me in-line and on-board with the Democratic Party?
You are a loon. You are the loon if you thought Obama was the "best guy for the job" as he isn't qualified to run a lemonade stand.

Which is quite evident at this point.

BTW, I'm not a centrist or moderate. I'm an individualist.Nope. If you were an individualist, you'd want to preserve individual rights instead of shilling for the Nanny state. The more govt controls your life, the less freedom you have.

[Boogie man]

Celtics Suck.

Doesn't have anything to do with anything we're discussing but it's your rule.

You can't handle the truth!:p

My rule? Do you think telling the truth is "my rule"?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Since this bill does not address service providers and not regulates one of the largest employers in the country, farnkly, it is a bad bill.:thumbsup:

Agreed. It also doesn't address the Universal aspects and it doesn't address Rx corporations. Of course, its a bill that the GOP wanted so they could defeat it because this isn't really about the bill its about destroying any and all UHC.

[Pat]

Agreed. It also doesn't address the Universal aspects and it doesn't address Rx corporations. Of course, its a bill that the GOP wanted so they could defeat it because this isn't really about the bill its about destroying any and all UHC.
Just how the heck do you think the minority party that couldn't stop it actually destroyed it?
Yer funny. :lmao2:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

So, what page numbers of the bill are your supposed answers from?


You won't even acknowledge the summation, nor the 'talking-points' that are general.

Until you can line by line give up something else than across-the-board denials then I'm not interested in doing all the work here.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Just how the heck do you think the minority party that couldn't stop it actually destroyed it?
Yer funny. :lmao2:
Now you're just playing stupid.

I hope you're playing.....

[doctordog]

Agreed. It also doesn't address the Universal aspects and it doesn't address Rx corporations. Of course, its a bill that the GOP wanted so they could defeat it because this isn't really about the bill its about destroying any and all UHC.

Any bill that forces respnsible people to pay more than irresponsible people is the wrong bill. It should be defeated.:thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Oh please. The only one with selective amnesia here is you. Yep. The moonbats were ridin' high in the ChimpyBusHitlerMurderingRetardO'Halliburton days, but those days have ended.

Now, you are reaping what you have sown.

You are the loon if you thought Obama was the "best guy for the job" as he isn't qualified to run a lemonade stand.

Which is quite evident at this point.

Nope. If you were an individualist, you'd want to preserve individual rights instead of shilling for the Nanny state. The more govt controls your life, the less freedom you have.


Rhetoric galore, pointless Minty strikes again! Aren't you getting tired, typing for two and all.............
sock alert

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Any bill that forces respnsible people to pay more than irresponsible people is the wrong bill. It should be defeated.:thumbsup:

I agree. To have UHC you can't forget the U while focusing on the C.

But that's not what is generating the backlash IMO, it's an anti-UHC movement that has very little to do longterm than with just this bill.

[Pat]

You won't even acknowledge the summation, nor the 'talking-points' that are general.

Until you can line by line give up something else than across-the-board denials then I'm not interested in doing all the work here.
In other words,
you can't answer the question.

[doctordog]

I agree. To have UHC you can't forget the U while focusing on the C.

But that's not what is generating the backlash IMO, it's an anti-UHC movement that has very little to do longterm than with just this bill.

I think below addresses it pretty well:

_THE SELF-EMPLOYED

Starting in 2014, self-employed people and those whose employers don't offer coverage would be able to pick a plan through a health insurance exchange, like a supermarket. It's modeled on the federal employee health program available to members of Congress, with a range of private plans. Small businesses could also join.

About 25 million people would buy coverage through state exchanges, and nearly 6 in 10 would be eligible for help with their premiums. The new tax credits would be computed according to income and other household characteristics. The money would go straight to the insurer. To consumers it would look like a discount — generous for lower-income families, less so for those solidly in the middle class.

For example, a family of four making $44,000 would pay $2,763 in premiums _about 6 percent of its income_ for a policy worth $9,435.

But a similar family making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That may be less than a mortgage, but it's more than a car payment.

Once the exchanges open, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance or pay a fine. Medicaid would be expanded to cover childless adults living near poverty, bringing the total who'd gain coverage to more than 30 million.

People with employer-provided insurance would not see major changes. But if they lost their job, they'd be able to get coverage through the exchange.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_primer

Using those figures Senators should be paying about 22% of their income for the same coverage.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

In other words,
you can't answer the question.

No, I just won't do all the work.
We started with what will be achieved by the bill. We agree overall as to this bill being undesirable.
However, we digress as to certain positives this POS bill would give. Your blanket statement of 'nothing' is in error and quite simply and clearly showed how that was incorrect.
You refuse to acknowledge the facts I presented. Fine.
But since that is your stance in this discussion I'm not interested in going line by line of a POS bill I can't stand in order to show you where the good will come from when you've already shown a propensity for dismissive blanket statements.

So, yes I can and yes I did and no I won't again nor will I go deeper into it until you engage.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

I think below addresses it pretty well:

_THE SELF-EMPLOYED

Starting in 2014, self-employed people and those whose employers don't offer coverage would be able to pick a plan through a health insurance exchange, like a supermarket. It's modeled on the federal employee health program available to members of Congress, with a range of private plans. Small businesses could also join.

About 25 million people would buy coverage through state exchanges, and nearly 6 in 10 would be eligible for help with their premiums. The new tax credits would be computed according to income and other household characteristics. The money would go straight to the insurer. To consumers it would look like a discount — generous for lower-income families, less so for those solidly in the middle class.

For example, a family of four making $44,000 would pay $2,763 in premiums _about 6 percent of its income_ for a policy worth $9,435.

But a similar family making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That may be less than a mortgage, but it's more than a car payment.

Once the exchanges open, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance or pay a fine. Medicaid would be expanded to cover childless adults living near poverty, bringing the total who'd gain coverage to more than 30 million.

People with employer-provided insurance would not see major changes. But if they lost their job, they'd be able to get coverage through the exchange.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_primer

Using those figures Senators should be paying about 22% of their income for the same coverage.

Yeah, it's crap.
It's not UHC.
The arguments against it, however, tend to lean towards anti-UHC as opposed to anti-bill arguments.

[MintJulep]

Rhetoric galore, pointless Minty strikes again! The point is, you've always pretended to be "non-partisan", yet you bought into the whole "hope and change" garbage. Just because you don't "admit" you have a political slant doesn't mean you don't have one.

Funny.......

Aren't you getting tired, typing for two and all.............sock alert Pardon me? Is this some kind of PG bootlicker lingo?

[MintJulep]

Yeah, it's crap.
It's not UHC.
The arguments against it, however, tend to lean towards anti-UHC as opposed to anti-bill arguments.That will be the end result, by design.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

The point is, you've always pretended to be "non-partisan", yet you bought into the whole "hope and change" garbage. Just because you don't "admit" you have a political slant doesn't mean you don't have one.

Funny.......

Pardon me? Is this some kind of PG bootlicker lingo?

No, just not getting my information and POV from emails and party pundits.
Show me just one, ONE instance of me buying into 'hope and change'.

You can't because you've got nothing.

Being a supporter of SP UHC isn't buying into any political garbage of any kind. But you knew that, you little Rovian robot.

[Boogie man]

I heard this President say "health care is a right". Bullshit. Some of you don't want to hear the truth. Bullshit. Health care is not a right. The President is a liar.

[doctordog]

Yeah, it's crap.
It's not UHC.
The arguments against it, however, tend to lean towards anti-UHC as opposed to anti-bill arguments.

Because of those reasons and others, it is not just for the hell of it:thumbsup:

The people do not want this bill.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

That will be the end result, by design.

You'll have to expand on that, I have no idea what you're getting at or going.

[slowhand]

Actually, you don't know where I'm employed so perhaps you should get your info straight before throwing shit around and hoping it sticks.

You don't understand Medicare, how very little it pays providers and that it stays afloat only on the backs of those who pay full-freight for private insurance.

Take a look at your Explanation of Benefits of your services. It will show the actual cost of services, Medicare's contracted rate and the paltry amount it actually pays. Why do you think some providers no longer take Medicare? Providers couldn't stay in business on what Medicare pays.

You just don't "get" it. If you add 30 million new patients and the doctor population contracts or stays static, there will be rationing. There is simply NO way around it. Since you are retired and not paying any taxes, you would be one of the first to go. You see, it's not "cost effective" to drain that miniscule pool of taxpayer money for someone who has no "return" --read that-- remaining taxpaying years.

Wake the fuck up already.

And theres plenty of private insurance that dont pay shit either..and others that pay nothing..You just pay premiums, and the Dr's bill on top of it

Blue Cross..39% increase in premiums in California..Double digit increases else where..How many links do you want?

Meanwhile healthcare stocks are healthy and holding their own..You must like to get ripped off

You wake the fuck up

[Boogie man]

And theres plenty of private insurance that dont pay shit either..and others that pay nothing..You just pay premiums, and the Dr's bill on top of it

Blue Cross..39% increase in premiums in California..Double digit increases else where..How many links do you want?

Meanwhile healthcare stocks are healthy and holding their own..You must like to get ripped off

You wake the fuck up

We are awake. We do not want the government telling us what to do with our health care. We want to deal with the doctor and the insurance company without any government inteference. You don't get it.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Because of those reasons and others, it is not just for the hell of it:thumbsup:

The people do not want this bill.

They don't want this bill but they want true UHC without insurace companies. 37% do NOT want insurance companies involved.
So the disigenious hiding of anti-UHC designs as anti-bill will bite the GOP on the ass in the future IMO.

[slowhand]

Oooooo, you evil little thing you. LOL. Cool it. I said that's fine for you, but why should we give the same benefits to people who are not sick and haven't paid anything into the system? Why?

Like who?..People born disabled?..People that get disabled between 0-18 years of age?..The homeless?..Career bank robbers?..Tax evaders?

Anyone who has had a job has paid into the system

[doctordog]

They don't want this bill but they want true UHC without insurace companies. 37% do NOT want insurance companies involved.
So the disigenious hiding of anti-UHC designs as anti-bill will bite the GOP on the ass in the future IMO.

We do not want:

Higher taxes to pay for those that will not help themselves

Longer waits to see the same doctor we have seen all our lives

Watching relatives get worse or die because of a logjam of more people going to the same number of doctors.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

We do not want:

Higher taxes to pay for those that will not help themselves

Longer waits to see the same doctor we have seen all our lives

Watching relatives get worse or die because of a logjam of more people going to the same number of doctors.

Ma.ybe higher taxes, but taxes that are in lieu of more expensive private insurance premiums.

Shorter waits to see the same doctor who isn't wasting half his own time and half his staff on submitting, resubmitting, and reresubmiting claims.

No shortage of doctors and equiptment means no logjam. No qualifying, no disqualifying, no insurance needed means quicker access to doctors.

Remember, we're adding 50 million into the system. Not 50 million sick people so the increase at the doctor will be minor considering that we're admiting these people now when they're acute. The doctors will have a doubling of their patient face time without the need for all those submissions and resubmissions of claims.

I'm not a fan of polls, but every poll I've seen on real UHC has born out that American's do in-fact want UHC.
Doing it earlier will mean its cheaper, faster, and more effective.

[Pat]

No, I just won't do all the work.
We started with what will be achieved by the bill. We agree overall as to this bill being undesirable.
However, we digress as to certain positives this POS bill would give. Your blanket statement of 'nothing' is in error and quite simply and clearly showed how that was incorrect.
You refuse to acknowledge the facts I presented. Fine.
But since that is your stance in this discussion I'm not interested in going line by line of a POS bill I can't stand in order to show you where the good will come from when you've already shown a propensity for dismissive blanket statements.

So, yes I can and yes I did and no I won't again nor will I go deeper into it until you engage.
In other words,
you can't answer the question

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

In other words,
you can't answer the question

No, in other words you can't listen to the answer.

[doctordog]

Ma.ybe higher taxes, but taxes that are in lieu of more expensive private insurance premiums.

Shorter waits to see the same doctor who isn't wasting half his own time and half his staff on submitting, resubmitting, and reresubmiting claims.

No shortage of doctors and equiptment means no logjam. No qualifying, no disqualifying, no insurance needed means quicker access to doctors.

Remember, we're adding 50 million into the system. Not 50 million sick people so the increase at the doctor will be minor considering that we're admiting these people now when they're acute. The doctors will have a doubling of their patient face time without the need for all those submissions and resubmissions of claims.

I'm not a fan of polls, but every poll I've seen on real UHC has born out that American's do in-fact want UHC.
Doing it earlier will mean its cheaper, faster, and more effective.

I disagree, I have Canadian counterparts and they all detest that system and bid on any job they qualify for after one tour in that country especially if they have kids.

[slowhand]

We are awake. We do not want the government telling us what to do with our health care. We want to deal with the doctor and the insurance company without any government inteference. You don't get it.

You already have insurance..Who says the govt is gonna tell you what to do?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

I disagree, I have Canadian counterparts and they all detest that system and bid on any job they qualify for after one tour in that country especially if they have kids.

I still have Canadian friends from my days in Fla. Their stories coincide with any I've found online (including my favorite FactCheck.Org) and I find zero who agree with you and your friends. Zero.

[doctordog]

I still have Canadian friends from my days in Fla. Their stories coincide with any I've found online (including my favorite FactCheck.Org) and I find zero who agree with you and your friends. Zero.

If your friends are liberal minded that could have something do with it.:thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

If your friends are liberal minded that could have something do with it.:thumbsup:

Not particularly. But their stories reflect stories from FactCheck.Org and are in line with WHO findings.
Most of them were snowbirds who either bought American Insurance while they were here or those who didn't were scared to death something would happen to them here.
All of them think our expensive crappy for profit system as being archaic.
The Canadian system covers more people at a better price. They're cost is way less than ours per patient and they rank higher in outcome (customer satisfaction in any other industry).

[doctordog]

Not particularly. But their stories reflect stories from FactCheck.Org and are in line with WHO findings.
Most of them were snowbirds who either bought American Insurance while they were here or those who didn't were scared to death something would happen to them here.
All of them think our expensive crappy for profit system as being archaic.
The Canadian system covers more people at a better price. They're cost is way less than ours per patient and they rank higher in outcome (customer satisfaction in any other industry).

Their cost is much more for my associates that our company option. My exact grade counterpart and I make with $200 salary of each other. His take home after taxes is less than mine after taxes, health, life, dental, vision, disability. He was born in Montreal and will probably not leave but he lost his mother a few years ago as she was waiting on surgery that she could have had here within 2 weeks of being diagnosed.

I would rather pay my own way, there is something to be said for dignity.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Their cost is much more for my associates that our company option. My exact grade counterpart and I make with $200 salary of each other. His take home after taxes is less than mine after taxes, health, life, dental, vision, disability. He was born in Montreal and will probably not leave but he lost his mother a few years ago as she was waiting on surgery that she could have had here within 2 weeks of being diagnosed.

I would rather pay my own way, there is something to be said for dignity.

Then you and your friends are way off from the norm.

So you'd rather pay an insurance company more than you would pay the governmnent for care all the while knowing they're going to put lawyers and house doctors on your claim to try to deny you and dealing with caps? That's not dignity that's foolishness.

[doctordog]

Then you and your friends are way off from the norm.

So you'd rather pay an insurance company more than you would pay the governmnent for care all the while knowing they're going to put lawyers and house doctors on your claim to try to deny you and dealing with caps? That's not dignity that's foolishness.

See you are making an "assumption" I would pay less not knowing for sure. I would rather stick with the known versus the projected estimates of the CBO which is always low.

[Boogie man]

Like who?..People born disabled?..People that get disabled between 0-18 years of age?..The homeless?..Career bank robbers?..Tax evaders?

Anyone who has had a job has paid into the system

Bullshit. You're a liar.

[Scottbrown2012]

Bullshit. You're a liar.
hey boogie...its been breaking that Pelosi IS considering a "Deem and Pass" method to pass healthcare without a true vote...its not the Slaughter rule or is it? either way it may actually happen!

[GetAClue]

hey boogie...its been breaking that Pelosi IS considering a "Deem and Pass" method to pass healthcare without a true vote...its not the Slaughter rule or is it? either way it may actually happen!
Just a way of by-passing the Constitution and ramming this bill down the throats of the American People. Gotta love our elected reps. :thumbsup:

[Boogie man]

hey boogie...its been breaking that Pelosi IS considering a "Deem and Pass" method to pass healthcare without a true vote...its not the Slaughter rule or is it? either way it may actually happen!

You told us that you couldn't believe your government could do this? Do you believe now?

[Krome]

I think you are insane not to want what the rest of the developed world have in universal health care.

It is cheaper and you never get denied.

I love the NHS! We pay less than you in taxes, dont pay property tax and our system is rated over 20 places above yours in the world rankings.

[kres24GT]

I think you are insane not to want what the rest of the developed world have in universal health care.

It is cheaper and you never get denied.

I love the NHS! We pay less than you in taxes, dont pay property tax and our system is rated over 20 places above yours in the world rankings.


Why not let those who don't want it opt out and not pay for it for those who do? Why force everyone?

[Tommy]

I wonder if those people that oppose health care would still feel that way if they werent scared with lies about death panels, rationing and abortions

[Krome]

I wonder if those people that oppose health care would still feel that way if they werent scared with lies about death panels, rationing and abortions

That is why I am saying that I would be scared by it.

Sarah Palin has said that we have death panels in the UK and that are system is Orwellian. Longest I have had to wait for an operation is 4 weeks. That was a non emergency procedure in which I was not at risk. I know 3 people who have had cancer and they were seen by a specialist the next day.

[Boogie man]

I think you are insane not to want what the rest of the developed world have in universal health care.

It is cheaper and you never get denied.

I love the NHS! We pay less than you in taxes, dont pay property tax and our system is rated over 20 places above yours in the world rankings.

Bullshit. You pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than Americans do. How much does it cost you for a gallon of gas?

[Boogie man]

I wonder if those people that oppose health care would still feel that way if they werent scared with lies about death panels, rationing and abortions

you don't believe there will be rationing? You tell me how over 30 million people are going to find doctors all of a sudden? They aren't.

[Krome]

Bullshit. You pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than Americans do. How much does it cost you for a gallon of gas?

Gas is not expensive because of tax it is the same reason it is expensive in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

Just check out how much you pay as a percent of GDP incomparison to the UK and we get a much better service.

USA is 37 in the world and the UK is 18 although we have massiviliy increased due to the new policy on waiting lists and the new drive by the government to sign people up to becoming organ donars.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Actually you seem to be one of these people that when presented with the facts you will keep on trying to argue to incorrect point.

[Tommy]

you don't believe there will be rationing? You tell me how over 30 million people are going to find doctors all of a sudden? They aren't.
maybe we should stop 18 yearolds from getting drivers licenses..
cause 10 million new drivers this year will cause a gas shortage or a shortage of cars ....

so those 30 million never see doctors ??.. never ..Even in the ER room.
and if they do see doctors how come there isnt a shortage right now

1) Your assuming that every doctor in this country is completely booked.. couldn't take anyone new ....
and anyone that runs a business or has any common sense knows that cant be true

2) If there is a shortage of doctors the free market will fix that

3) a boom of new business has never been a bad thing for any industry in history

4) you would with hold health care from 30 million people cause you might end up waiting a little longer .. your immoral

[MintJulep]

maybe we should stop 18 yearolds from getting drivers licenses..
cause 10 million new drivers this year will cause a gas shortage or a shortage of cars ....

so those 30 million never see doctors ??.. never ..Even in the ER room.
and if they do see doctors how come there isnt a shortage right now

1) Your assuming that every doctor in this country is completely booked.. couldn't take anyone new ....
and anyone that runs a business or has any common sense knows that cant be true

2) If there is a shortage of doctors the free market will fix that

3) a boom of new business has never been a bad thing for any industry in history

4) you would with hold health care from 30 million people cause you might end up waiting a little longer .. your immoralHealth care will be rationed. When you add 30 million people and the number of doctors contracts or stays the same, there will be rationing. There is no other way.

The "free market" is going to fix it? Do you realize only 2% of medical school students are even pursuing the profession of GP anymore? They simply can't make ends meet. If CommieCare is installed, you will see a bigger drop in medical students and the good doctors will retire. Why would anyone want to go to school for 12 years only to have the gubmint cap their salary? You'd have to be dumb to do that. In fact, I wouldn't want someone that stupid giving me medical advice.

[Krome]

Health care will be rationed. When you add 30 million people and the number of doctors contracts or stays the same, there will be rationing. There is no other way.

The "free market" is going to fix it? Do you realize only 2% of medical school students are even pursuing the profession of GP anymore? They simply can't make ends meet. If CommieCare is installed, you will see a bigger drop in medical students and the good doctors will retire. Why would anyone want to go to school for 12 years only to have the gubmint cap their salary? You'd have to be dumb to do that. In fact, I wouldn't want someone that stupid giving me medical advice.


Doctors earn big money in the UK and have total freedom to operate. They dont have to wait for an inusrance company to authorise the payment. They also make more money the healthier they make their patients.

[Tommy]

Health care will be rationed. When you add 30 million people and the number of doctors contracts or stays the same, there will be rationing. There is no other way.

The "free market" is going to fix it? Do you realize only 2% of medical school students are even pursuing the profession of GP anymore? They simply can't make ends meet. If CommieCare is installed, you will see a bigger drop in medical students and the good doctors will retire. Why would anyone want to go to school for 12 years only to have the gubmint cap their salary? You'd have to be dumb to do that. In fact, I wouldn't want someone that stupid giving me medical advice.
1) why are the good doctors gonna retire when they have so many new patients or customers

2) how is the gubmint capping their salaries. How does the government cap a salary of a doctor in private practice .. I am sorry I thought the more patents a doctor saw the more money the doctor made ..

3) students cant make ends meet ?? you mean under the system we have now .. right ???..

4) Again I am sorry Is it just students in the medical field that have trouble making ends meet.. what about students in other feilds.. I always hear about students that money is so tight for.. but your post seems to imply they were all in medical school

5) maybe college costs is what makes money tight for students. not a future health care plan thats gonna take effect in 5 years

6) if anyone is a commie its you...

[GetAClue]

I wonder if those people that oppose health care would still feel that way if they werent scared with lies about death panels, rationing and abortions
Show me someone here that opposes healthcare? And by that I assume you are talking about healthcare reform. I don't think anyone here opposes healthcare reform, they just oppose this bill and the attempted takeover of our healthcare system by the government.

[kres24GT]

1) why are the good doctors gonna retire when they have so many new patients or customers

2) how is the gubmint capping their salaries. How does the government cap a salary of a doctor in private practice .. I am sorry I thought the more patents a doctor saw the more money the doctor made ..

3) students cant make ends meet ?? you mean under the system we have now .. right ???..

4) Again I am sorry Is it just students in the medicial feild that have trouble making ends meet.. what about students in other feilds.. I always hear about students that money is so tight for.. but your post seems to imply they were all in medical school

5) maybe college costs is what makes money tight for students. not a future health care plan thats gonna take effect in 5 years



It is common sense we will have fewer doctors. As Bill pointed out to me when I said it was unamerican to tell a doctor how much they can charge for their services, "They can go get other jobs."


Very scary we as Americans support the governmetn telling a person how much they can charge for their goods or services. Very sad as well.

[Tommy]

Very scary we as Americans support the governmetn telling a person how much they can charge for their goods or services. Very sad as well.

exactly how is this bill telling doctors how much they can charge ???
your statement is a lie

doctors are still free to charge whatever they want

heath insurance companies do that now.. dont they tell doctors we only pay 50 for an xray.... 80 dollars for a well visit

[Tommy]

most of you against health care are Republicans
most Republicans are Christians BUT Jesus healed the sick

its funny how the followers of Christ are never very Christ like
(But thats because it might cause a shortage)

[Tommy]

Show me someone here that opposes healthcare? And by that I assume you are talking about healthcare reform. I don't think anyone here opposes healthcare reform, they just oppose this bill and the attempted takeover of our healthcare system by the government.
sure.... umm.. look at the board ... anyone thats using the shortage thing as their argument ..

They dont want 30 million people to have healthcare cause it will cause a shortage of doctors .. so if the shortage thing is their reason for opposing, they will oppose any plan that covers the uninsured

government takeover of healthcare??
like last year you guys claimed the government was taking over the banking industry
like last year the government was taking over the auto industry

[GetAClue]

sure.... umm.. look at the board ... anyone thats using the shortage thing as their argument ..

They dont want 30 million people to have healthcare cause it will cause a shortage of doctors .. so if the shortage thing is their reason for opposing, they will oppose any plan that covers the uninsured

government takeover of healthcare??
like last year you guys claimed the government was taking over the banking industry
like last year the government was taking over the auto industry
Hmmm, lets see. Government is telling banks how much they can pay officers? Check!
Government fired CEO of GM and currently owns a majority share of GM and Chrysler? Check

What was your argument again?

[slowhand]

Bullshit. You're a liar.

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

[Tommy]

Hmmm, lets see. Government is telling banks how much they can pay officers? Check!
Government fired CEO of GM and currently owns a majority share of GM and Chrysler? Check

What was your argument again?
is that really true ??? Is It .. Cmon be honest

did the government tell banks how much they can pay their executives ?? NO they didnt.. That's a Lie

Did the government fire Henderson ??
NO the GM board did .. Another Lie
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2009/12/gm_fires_ceo_he.html


The stock the government has contains no rights to make any decisions in running GM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-on-Obama-Administration-Auto-Restructuring-Initiative-for-General-Motors/

another LIE and you knew those were Lie's when ya posted that stuff

[slowhand]

exactly how is this bill telling doctors how much they can charge ???
your statement is a lie

doctors are still free to charge whatever they want

heath insurance companies do that now.. dont they tell doctors we only pay 50 for an xray.... 80 dollars for a well visit


That is absolutely correct..When I went for MRI's a few years ago, I got a statement from Blue Cross outlining what the facility charged, and what Blue Cross was going to pay

[Tommy]

That is absolutely correct..When I went for MRI's a few years ago, I got a statement from Blue Cross outlining what the facility charged, and what Blue Cross was going to pay

and when that doctor signed up with Blue cross he agreed to accpt that amount of money... mostly because of all the new customers he would be getting ... hundreds or thousands of customers that doctor got because of Blue Cross

thats the power of the free market system

[GetAClue]

is that really true ??? Is It .. Cmon be honest

did the government tell banks how much they can pay their executives ?? NO they didnt.. That's a Lie
According to this article, they did.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/04/obama-caps-executive-salaries-bailed-firms-g/

Did the government fire Henderson ??
NO the GM board did .. Another Lie
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2009/12/gm_fires_ceo_he.html


The stock the government has contains no rights to make any decisions in running GM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-on-Obama-Administration-Auto-Restructuring-Initiative-for-General-Motors/

another LIE and you knew those were Lie's when ya posted that stuff
Call it what you want, but the administration had him fired. Yea, the board officially did the firing, but don't think for a minute that Obama and his ilk were not behind it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/04/obama-caps-executive-salaries-bailed-firms-g/

[Tommy]

According to this article, they did.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/04/obama-caps-executive-salaries-bailed-firms-g/


Call it what you want, but the administration had him fired. Yea, the board officially did the firing, but don't think for a minute that Obama and his ilk were not behind it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/04/obama-caps-executive-salaries-bailed-firms-g/
I would love to argue that with ya but the fox news page you posted is a blank white page it just says
This system is currently starting up.
Please be patient. This process may take a few minutes.

Be reasonable ..... The GM board is gonna do whatever makes them more money ... I cant believe you or anyone would think otherwise
and it almost sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory..... Company Boards do whatever makes them more money and they seem to always look out for their own.. no if and or butts about it

[Boogie man]

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

Here is your post:

Originally Posted by slowhand
"Like who?..People born disabled?..People that get disabled between 0-18 years of age?..The homeless?..Career bank robbers?..Tax evaders? Anyone who has had a job has paid into the system".


I say bullshit and you're a liar.

[slowhand]

Here is your post:

Originally Posted by slowhand
"Like who?..People born disabled?..People that get disabled between 0-18 years of age?..The homeless?..Career bank robbers?..Tax evaders? Anyone who has had a job has paid into the system".


I say bullshit and you're a liar.

I dont give a fuck what you think

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

See you are making an "assumption" I would pay less not knowing for sure. I would rather stick with the known versus the projected estimates of the CBO which is always low.

CBO combined with Doctors statements and polls combined with WHO data and working example world-wide..............the only assumption I made was if you didn't you'd be foolish.
Looks like prophecy fulfilled.

[doctordog]

CBO combined with Doctors statements and polls combined with WHO data and working example world-wide..............the only assumption I made was if you didn't you'd be foolish.
Looks like prophecy fulfilled.

The CBO always estimates low when it comes to cost. Doctors statements when you agree with them:lmao2: you have no argument, but we already knew that.:thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

The CBO always estimates low when it comes to cost. Doctors statements when you agree with them:lmao2: you have no argument, but we already knew that.:thumbsup:

That would be why I used them in conjunction with other sources. Tends to weed out the pick-n-choose type of information gathering so popular around here.

Show me those implied doctor statements I didn't agree with before you show your ignorance my Padawan.

[doctordog]

That would be why I used them in conjunction with other sources. Tends to weed out the pick-n-choose type of information gathering so popular around here.

Show me those implied doctor statements I didn't agree with before you show your ignorance my Padawan.

When you were arguing with Minty about doctors earlier tonight, I will not research your post for you.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

When you were arguing with Minty about doctors earlier tonight, I will not research your post for you.

Epic fail, I agreed with and actually used part of her post as supportive.

Try again, Mr. Iwillnotresearchyourpostforyoucauseitsafigmentofmy imagination

[doctordog]

Epic fail, I agreed with and actually used part of her post as supportive.

Try again, Mr. Iwillnotresearchyourpostforyoucauseitsafigmentofmy imagination

Atually you used imagination to make it appear supportive, failed again:thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Atually you used imagination to make it appear supportive, failed again:thumbsup:

The bestest part was I actually had the part I copied (not the body) hanging on my cut/paste.

I don't have to use shit, since the quote is obviously supportive of my posts.

•3.6% of physicians prefer the “status quo” and feel that the U.S. health care system is best “as is.

:lmao2:
Epic fail worthy of YouTube, my padawan

[doctordog]

The bestest part was I actually had the part I copied (not the body) hanging on my cut/paste.

I don't have to use shit, since the quote is obviously supportive of my posts.

•3.6% of physicians prefer the “status quo” and feel that the U.S. health care system is best “as is.

:lmao2:
Epic fail worthy of YouTube, my padawan

62.4 % want reform just not this piece of shit bill:p

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

62.4 % want reform just not this piece of shit bill:p

And, Mr. Shorttermmemory, so do I. Consistently throughout ALL my posts.

[doctordog]

And, Mr. Shorttermmemory, so do I. Consistently throughout ALL my posts.

SO UHC is wrong based on what we have so far:thumbsup: Thanks for proving my point, grasshopper.:D

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

SO UHC is wrong based on what we have so far:thumbsup: Thanks for proving my point, grasshopper.:D

Who lied and said we had UHC, so far or any other far?
Once again you've missed a point and made no point, my Padawan.

[doctordog]

Who lied and said we had UHC, so far or any other far?
Once again you've missed a point and made no point, my Padawan.

You have been pushing for UHC since arriving, now are you for it or not. You must be convicted when pushing your cause young grasshopper:D

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

You have been pushing for UHC since arriving, now are you for it or not. You must be convicted when pushing your cause young grasshopper:D

I am pushing for UHC.

We don't have UHC.
The bill in discussion isn't UHC.

Should I use smaller words, my Padawan?

[doctordog]

I am pushing for UHC.

We don't have UHC.
The bill in discussion isn't UHC.

Should I use smaller words, my Padawan?

But yet you are pushing it, grasshopper,

Status quo beats the hell out I don't know.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

But yet you are pushing it, grasshopper,

Status quo beats the hell out I don't know.

Care to submit a sample of same?
Can't do it.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xAd_EqyG94"]4xAd_EqyG94

Like all these other UHC opponents you can't (won't) differentiate between UHC and what the Dems Bill is all about.


Status quo? Like in 1776? Like elections?:taunt:

[doctordog]

Care to submit a sample of same?
Can't do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xAd_EqyG94

Like all these other UHC opponents you can't (won't) differentiate between UHC and what the Dems Bill is all about.


Status quo? Like in 1776? Like elections?:taunt:

It is the beginning, so by eliminating the beginning there can be no end:thumbsup: