Official Health Care Thread

[Machu505]

Discuss.

[Machu505]

Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) says the Democratic bill will pass (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/gop-lawmaker-admits-congr_n_235357.html).

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

the bill in the House hopefully

[thespearkid]

i didn't have health insurance until i got to college. i have been to a dentist only once in my life. i've only had three checkups.

all that to say, fuck anyone who thinks it shouldn't be universally available.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/LEvsSpend2_75.gif

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

[J.C.]

Fox was doing one of their graphic things on healthcare today and one of the things they displaced as a 'FoxFact' was that a public option would hurt small businesses. How the hell does a cheaper insurance option hurt small businesses?

[Justin_stacy]

^ its tied to who they plan on making pay for it.

-------

Ross, D-Ark. Says he's got the votes to stop it in committee.

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

link (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowj onesdjonline000758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill)

[saysmydoctor]

The small businesses only have to contribute 5%, HOLY SHIT, THAT WILL BE SUCH A STRUGGLE.

[My Broken Fever]

I can only say: What took you guys so long?

(Although I don't have much of a right to say anything, dutch healthcare is absolutely horrid right now. 4 Months to get to a neurologist is just fail.)

[saysmydoctor]

Article Krugman linked to concerning Dutch/French healthcare.

[My Broken Fever]

Article Krugman linked to concerning Dutch/French healthcare. Yeah, it's not that bad. I was simply venting some personal frustrations.

[saysmydoctor]

I forgot the link, what a fail I am: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/05/healthy_examples_plenty_of_countrie s_get_healthcare_right/?page=1

[shit stroll]

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/281590/Healthcare-Is-%22Not-a-Right%22-and-Obama%27s-Plan-Will-Cost-Way-Beyond-1T-Ron-Paul-Says?tickers=%5Edji,%5EGSPC,pph,jnj ,mrk,pfe,unh

fuck i hate ron paul so much.

[saysmydoctor]

The libertarian said, "Healthcare is not a right!"

And everyone nodded at this, as it made perfect sense.

[Machu505]

Fuck you Ron Paul. You couldn't even recognize Bruno, you dumbass.

[Cal Smith]

Ridiculous......we've seen how well the government can run large social efforts such Social Security, Welfare, etc..... We've also had the joy of watching the government already run a more of "government health care" with Medicaid and Medicare. Why assume this would be any different than any other large bureaucratic effort put forward?

For the past 8 years many have cried about the Bush administrations increasing the deficit & growing of the government. Now this has been increased two-fold and those same people (many on this board) are now praising the decisions.

The best question to ask yourself is why is it so important to have perhaps the most important legislation in the last 25 years passed 1 month from now? How utterly ridiculous is this? We've already seen from this administration a rush to pass legislation and in turn that legislation has turned out to be completely opposite of what we were told it would do (unemployment stops at 8%........Biden says "we miss judged" . And now many are on board with it again.

If you want a form of government ran health care that's fine. I personally believe if the government is going to get in the dance they should only look at catastrophic health care reforms. If you're going to the doctor for a check-up, cold, or allergy shots keep the government out of it.

Also whoever commented about "small business only facing a %5 increase and it not being a big deal" that's a pathetic statement. It's easy to ask other's to give up there income when it's not yours.

[loveisdead]

Good idea for a thread. I keep reading from almost every newspaper that small business are frightened of this getting passed.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Ridiculous......we've seen how well the government can run large social efforts such Social Security, Welfare, etc..... We've also had the joy of watching the government already run a more of "government health care" with Medicaid and Medicare. Why assume this would be any different than any other large bureaucratic effort put forward?

For the past 8 years many have cried about the Bush administrations increasing the deficit & growing of the government. Now this has been increased two-fold and those same people (many on this board) are now praising the decisions.

The best question to ask yourself is why is it so important to have perhaps the most important legislation in the last 25 years passed 1 month from now? How utterly ridiculous is this? We've already seen from this administration a rush to pass legislation and in turn that legislation has turned out to be completely opposite of what we were told it would do (unemployment stops at 8%........Biden says "we miss judged" . And now many are on board with it again.

If you want a form of government ran health care that's fine. I personally believe if the government is going to get in the dance they should only look at catastrophic health care reforms. If you're going to the doctor for a check-up, cold, or allergy shots keep the government out of it.

Also whoever commented about "small business only facing a %5 increase and it not being a big deal" that's a pathetic statement. It's easy to ask other's to give up there income when it's not yours.


the Hosue Bill is fully funded through tax increases and savings from medicare and medicaid and would NOT increase the deficit.


Remember, the surtax (http://www.ctj.org/payingforhealthcare/surchargeproposalwaysandmeans.pdf) would constitute a :
1 percent tax on households making between $350,000 and $500,000 per year,
a 1.5 percent tax on those making $500,000 to $1 million,
and a 5.4 percent tax on those making more than $1 million.

It would have no impact on 98.7 percent (http://www.ctj.org/payingforhealthcare/surchargeproposalwaysandmeans.pdf) of Americans.
But there is that one percent that would be affected, so let’s make some comparisons. Over the ten year window from 2001-2010, the Bush tax cuts gave the richest one percent of Americans about $715 billion in tax breaks (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf). This comes out to about $518,000 per household (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf) over ten years or about $51,800 per year (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/housetestimony030507.pdf).
The House bill, meanwhile, would raise $544 billion (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/healthcare-taxes-could-shift-to-deficit-reduction-2009-07-16.html) from those same households over ten years, which is decidedly less than the $715 billion. So we’re not even talking about a level of taxation that would make up for the breaks that Bush handed out. There’s a legitimate debate to have (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_case_for_funding_health-ca.html) regarding the surtax, but a simple knee-jerk reaction — particularly to an increase only affecting a group that’s done very well in terms of tax policy for eight years — is unproductive.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

As for small businesses, according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, only 4.1 percent of all small business owners will be affected by the health care surcharge. The remaining 95.9 percent of small business owners will be completely unaffected by the surcharge. Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-george-miller/gop-pushing-hidden-health_b_234259.html)

the JCoT need to release that study and sorry for using huffington its the only place i could find that.

[My Broken Fever]

Ridiculous......we've seen how well the government can run large social efforts such Social Security, Welfare, etc..... We've also had the joy of watching the government already run a more of "government health care" with Medicaid and Medicare. Why assume this would be any different than any other large bureaucratic effort put forward?

For the past 8 years many have cried about the Bush administrations increasing the deficit & growing of the government. Now this has been increased two-fold and those same people (many on this board) are now praising the decisions.

The best question to ask yourself is why is it so important to have perhaps the most important legislation in the last 25 years passed 1 month from now? How utterly ridiculous is this? We've already seen from this administration a rush to pass legislation and in turn that legislation has turned out to be completely opposite of what we were told it would do (unemployment stops at 8%........Biden says "we miss judged" . And now many are on board with it again.

If you want a form of government ran health care that's fine. I personally believe if the government is going to get in the dance they should only look at catastrophic health care reforms. If you're going to the doctor for a check-up, cold, or allergy shots keep the government out of it.

Also whoever commented about "small business only facing a %5 increase and it not being a big deal" that's a pathetic statement. It's easy to ask other's to give up there income when it's not yours. The next president might not have the political will to make health care available to virtually the entire population, so it might actually be a thing of now or never.

Also; a better health care system could actually free up a lot of money (although that does require it to be run properly) as the US actually spends more than a few countries with universal health care. And also save the state costs for having to do expensive procedures on people that are uninsured.

And the failure of the Obama administration to slow down unemployment rates is actually not big enough of a stimulus package, and now it's having trouble slowing it down mainly because people think it hasn't worked. Also the unemployment was always going to rise, regardless of policy.

[J.C.]

Ridiculous......we've seen how well the government can run large social efforts such Social Security, Welfare, etc..... We've also had the joy of watching the government already run a more of "government health care" with Medicaid and Medicare. Why assume this would be any different than any other large bureaucratic effort put forward?

For the past 8 years many have cried about the Bush administrations increasing the deficit & growing of the government. Now this has been increased two-fold and those same people (many on this board) are now praising the decisions.

The best question to ask yourself is why is it so important to have perhaps the most important legislation in the last 25 years passed 1 month from now? How utterly ridiculous is this? We've already seen from this administration a rush to pass legislation and in turn that legislation has turned out to be completely opposite of what we were told it would do (unemployment stops at 8%........Biden says "we miss judged" . And now many are on board with it again.

If you want a form of government ran health care that's fine. I personally believe if the government is going to get in the dance they should only look at catastrophic health care reforms. If you're going to the doctor for a check-up, cold, or allergy shots keep the government out of it.

Also whoever commented about "small business only facing a %5 increase and it not being a big deal" that's a pathetic statement. It's easy to ask other's to give up there income when it's not yours.

1. Nobody's forcing you to buy into the government plan.

2. Everyone in congress already belongs to a government insurance plan. It's called the FEHBP and I haven't heard of anyone who opposes a public option abandoning their plan for the sake of principle. That's probably because they get elite healthcare and would rather not have to subject themselves to finding private health insurance on the market. They're hypocrites.

3. Misjudged is one word.

http://www.september11news.com/Sept14BushFlagWTCBeck.jpg

[saysmydoctor]

Ridiculous......we've seen how well the government can run large social efforts such Social Security, Welfare, etc..... We've also had the joy of watching the government already run a more of "government health care" with Medicaid and Medicare. Why assume this would be any different than any other large bureaucratic effort put forward?

For the past 8 years many have cried about the Bush administrations increasing the deficit & growing of the government. Now this has been increased two-fold and those same people (many on this board) are now praising the decisions.

The best question to ask yourself is why is it so important to have perhaps the most important legislation in the last 25 years passed 1 month from now? How utterly ridiculous is this? We've already seen from this administration a rush to pass legislation and in turn that legislation has turned out to be completely opposite of what we were told it would do (unemployment stops at 8%........Biden says "we miss judged" . And now many are on board with it again.

If you want a form of government ran health care that's fine. I personally believe if the government is going to get in the dance they should only look at catastrophic health care reforms. If you're going to the doctor for a check-up, cold, or allergy shots keep the government out of it.

Also whoever commented about "small business only facing a %5 increase and it not being a big deal" that's a pathetic statement. It's easy to ask other's to give up there income when it's not yours.
Well, you have to consider that the current state of social security isn't the fault of the people who proposed it. Social Security was a dream piece of legislation that had to be torn apart in order to compromise with the right. Welfare is the same story.

Also, this has already been said by asmolitor in another thread, but you obviously need things to spoon-fed to you so let me break it down Barney style.

Obama: trillion dollar deficit in the midst of a fiscal Keynesian policy in response to the worst recession since the Great Depression

Bush: consecutively bigger budget deficits, destruction of the previous budget surplus under the 'tax and spend liberal' that was Bill Clinton in response to an economic boom

The rationale behind Obama's budget is crystal clear, no one has to explain to me why we were having massive budget deficits in the midst of huge economic growth.

The best question to ask ourselves is why have we continued to allow the infection that is healthcare, 16% of our GDP (if I remember correctly) to continue to metastasize, until it ultimately has crippled us. Biden misspoke, the stimulus has had six months and people like you are expecting instant results.

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/romer_stim.png

Give it a bit to actually do what it is meant to do. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/bruce-bartlett-misstates-the-problem/

[saysmydoctor]

the Hosue Bill is fully funded through tax increases and savings from medicare and medicaid and would NOT increase the deficit.

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-george-miller/gop-pushing-hidden-health_b_234259.html)

the JCoT need to release that study and sorry for using huffington its the only place i could find that.
Thank you.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Just out of curiosity, what are people's thoughts about the senate HELP plan ?

[saysmydoctor]

I haven't even finished reading the House one released.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Unfortunately, repeating talking points doesn’t make them true. Below is a fact check of Republican claims:
CLAIM: The bill will contribute trillions of dollars to the national deficit.
FACT: The budget framework requires a deficit-neutral health care reform bill, and the Democrats have pledged to fully finance coverage expansion from savings within the system and new sources of revenue. The Senate Finance Committee is responsible for financing the measure.
CLAIM: Force millions of Americans out of their current coverage.
FACT: According to CBO’s comprehensive analysis of the HELP committee bill, the legislation increases the number of Americans with private insurance and strengthens the employer-based system of coverage (as a result of the employer-mandate an extra 1 million Americans will have employer-sponsored coverage by 2017 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/CBO_HELP_Title_I_07-01.pdf)).
CLAIM: 34 million Americans will remain uninsured.
FACT: Since the HELP committee does not have jursidiction over Medicaid expansion, its bill officially covers an additional 20 million Americans. Republicans claim that 34 million would be left uninsured by subtracting that 20 million from the 54 million who are projected to be without coverage by 2019. However, if we assume Medicaid expansion — which the Senate Finance Committee will include in its health care bill — reform would expand coverage to 20 million additional Americans, covering nearly 97% of all legal Americans by 2019 (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/02/cbo-help-i/).
CLAIM: Employer mandate will tax employers and make people lose their jobs.
FACT: The bill exempts small businesses from the mandate and even offers them a credit to help make providing coverage more affordable. The madante for large employers will help pay for health care reform and, rather than resulting in “massive job losses” as Republicans claim, actually preserves the employer system of coverage (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/30/walmart-letter/). Real life experiences with employer mandates in Hawaii and Massachusetts have found no evidence of reduced employment (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/04/employer-mandate-nfib).


link (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/republicans-respond-to-help-bill-passage-by-lying-about-the-bill/)

[Love As Arson]

We should have a single-payer system.

[saysmydoctor]

We should have a single-payer system.
Dennis Kucinich has proposed an amendment that would allow states to start their own single-payer systems if the Congress fails to create a public option.

Basically, he is giving it the old Canadian attempt.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003168293
Looking for some thoughts on this article, it seems to contradict everything that has been reported

[saysmydoctor]

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/glenn-beck-screams-little-girl-when-c
Listen to Glenn Beck flip out.

[saysmydoctor]

^ its tied to who they plan on making pay for it.

-------

Ross, D-Ark. Says he's got the votes to stop it in committee.



link (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowj onesdjonline000758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill)
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/blue-dogs-surtax/
That explains it.

[shit stroll]

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/glenn-beck-screams-little-girl-when-c
Listen to Glenn Beck flip out.
yikes that scream was one of the worst things i've ever heard.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.tnr.com/images/HealthCareMap.JPG

[Machu505]

http://www.tnr.com/images/HealthCareMap.JPG
Clearly this is the most simple and efficient health care system in the world.

[Cal Smith]

the Hosue Bill is fully funded through tax increases and savings from medicare and medicaid and would NOT increase the deficit.

This exact philosophy is why so many Americans themselves have a negative savings. If you are willing to stake arguably the most significant legislation to impact Americans in my life time with the "assumed" return on savings there's no way I can possibly win the argument because you're working off the very best out come and assumptions. How do you argue with that?

I find it common sense to not "assume" savings and to spend based on those assumed savings. You don't take "assumed" savings and spend 1 or 1.5 trillion dollars on assumptions. I mean simply look at the housing and sub prime lending problem. People buy over there head based on assumptions and then it hits the fan and we're left with what we saw.

[Cal Smith]

We should have a single-payer system.

This makes more sense to me than the idea of a public option. At least it's an upfront approach.

[Cal Smith]

Obama: trillion dollar deficit in the midst of a fiscal Keynesian policy in response to the worst recession since the Great Depression

Bush: consecutively bigger budget deficits, destruction of the previous budget surplus under the 'tax and spend liberal' that was Bill Clinton in response to an economic boom

The rationale behind Obama's budget is crystal clear, no one has to explain to me why we were having massive budget deficits in the midst of huge economic growth.

The best question to ask ourselves is why have we continued to allow the infection that is healthcare, 16% of our GDP (if I remember correctly) to continue to metastasize, until it ultimately has crippled us. Biden misspoke, the stimulus has had six months and people like you are expecting instant results.

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/romer_stim.png

Give it a bit to actually do what it is meant to do. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/bruce-bartlett-misstates-the-problem/

I need to spoon feed my point better. My point in the stimulus and unemployment is not an attempt to find some correlation between President Obama's stimulus and the rise of unemployment. My point is that the American people were told that the stimulus had to be past post haste and that unemployment would remain at or below 8% for this year........now the spoon feeding........when it comes to spending a trillion dollars perhaps we should not always assume "best outcome". Would we not be better served to assume the worst and work off it?
Yo

[bung]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have universal health care. As it stands, I'm a bit on the fence about it.

However, should universal health care be adopted, what is going to prevent the government from legislating any behavior deemed "unhealthy" in the form of grossly increased taxation, more so than what is currently happening, in addition to instigating a tax on things like soda, fast-food, and candy?

Is the answer: "Those things should already be being taxed!"?

[Justin_stacy]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/blue-dogs-surtax/
That explains it.

good for them.

...All I care about is that there's someone with enough common sense to slow this disaster down before the public and the politicans have a chance to understand what is being voted on, and how much its really going to cost. It's inevitable that 'health-care reform' is gonna pass, but it doesn't need to be 'rahmed' though like the last two bills.

[The Summer Ends]

I don't care about politics or anything enough to read up on the proposed health-care plan. I just have a question.

My parents get insurance from their jobs. Will my health-care or their health-care change with this plan (i.e. increased co-pays, longer wait times, etc. etc.)?

In my opinion, the government should provide bare bones health care for everyone. It's enough help them out if something happens, but it's not enough to make them happy with it. They should strive to get a job that provides them with health-care or enough money so they can get health-care.

[Justin_stacy]

Clearly this is the most simple and efficient health care system in the world.

as opposed to the alternative being offered.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bj0fdAQOI98/Sl3sCElyDvI/AAAAAAAAA_w/Pvkf2EswMas/s400/ins.jpg


Colorfull!

[Cal Smith]

good for them.

...All I care about is that there's someone with enough common sense to slow this disaster down before the public and the politicans have a chance to understand what is being voted on, and how much its really going to cost. It's inevitable that 'health-care reform' is gonna pass, but it doesn't need to be 'rahmed' though like the last two bills.

It's good to see you and I completely agree. The fact it's being rammed through is that big elephant in the room that not enough people are asking why about. The other elephant being that if we are looking for health reform why is there absolutely zero talk about tort reform.

[asmolitor]

This exact philosophy is why so many Americans themselves have a negative savings. If you are willing to stake arguably the most significant legislation to impact Americans in my life time with the "assumed" return on savings there's no way I can possibly win the argument because you're working off the very best out come and assumptions. How do you argue with that?

you know, spending with the foresight of future potential earnings isn't exactly reckless. there's countless americans able to pay off credit card balances every month. and that's simply counting on incoming revenue to replace what's being used to pay out for previous purchases. just because something gets abused doesn't mean you can write the whole practice off.

and if you want to talk about savings, health care reform attempts, like the one currently going through congress - help with the long-term savings rate of the nation. by collectively bearing costs, the marginal cost increase to each individual on an increased tax basis is generally less the cost of paying overpriced premiums. and for those on the lower end of the income scale, those higher premiums represent quite a larger percentage of savings exhausted in even minor hospital visits.

I find it common sense to not "assume" savings and to spend based on those assumed savings. You don't take "assumed" savings and spend 1 or 1.5 trillion dollars on assumptions. I mean simply look at the housing and sub prime lending problem. People buy over there head based on assumptions and then it hits the fan and we're left with what we saw.

if you look at the housing market, it's completely predicated on assumptions. assumptions about future earnings potential, interest rate stability/volatility, appreciation/depreciation, etc.

essentially, it'd be like telling someone they can't buy a house, because they don't have $200,000 to put down right away - regardless of the assumption of assumed future earnings to pay off the mortgage in a predefined number of years.

you know, because all mortgages are bad now. and certainly not just option arm, balloon, and the like.

I need to spoon feed my point better. My point in the stimulus and unemployment is not an attempt to find some correlation between President Obama's stimulus and the rise of unemployment. My point is that the American people were told that the stimulus had to be past post haste and that unemployment would remain at or below 8% for this year........now the spoon feeding........when it comes to spending a trillion dollars perhaps we should not always assume "best outcome". Would we not be better served to assume the worst and work off it?
Yo

the stimulus was only projected to have a slight percentage impact on the projected unemployment rate, somewhere between .2-.7%. obviously the rate rose higher than expected - but did the stimulus still positively impact the unemployment rate? yep.

and with only 14% of the funds being spent so far (i would assume the purpose being to control inflation by not creating a money supply shock) - getting the stimulus passed immediately was the most appropriate course of action, given that the sooner it's passed, the sooner the spending timeline begins.

and if you assume the worst, you'd have to assume the greatest depression for the current climate, and that's not feasible in the slightest. nor would it help. and i'm not sure how forecasting for rising unemployment throughout 2009 represents the best outcome, but, semantics i guess.

[Cal Smith]

you know, spending with the foresight of future potential earnings isn't exactly reckless. there's countless americans able to pay off credit card balances every month. and that's simply counting on incoming revenue to replace what's being used to pay out for previous purchases. just because something gets abused doesn't mean you can write the whole practice off.

and if you want to talk about savings, health care reform attempts, like the one currently going through congress - help with the long-term savings rate of the nation. by collectively bearing costs, the marginal cost increase to each individual on an increased tax basis is generally less the cost of paying overpriced premiums. and for those on the lower end of the income scale, those higher premiums represent quite a larger percentage of savings exhausted in even minor hospital visits.

I might be wrong but when the average American has a negative savings rate and the US government continuously increase spending. Maybe we should rethink our spending based on assumed future income, especially when we talk upwards of 500 billion in savings.

I understand that there will always be some sort of "credit" spending based on assumed income. I'm not arguing black and white no assumed spending any time. My problem is every government project when it comes to money is grossly inaccurate. I would challenge anyone to find one significant government program,project, war, etc...... that was at or less than the initial cost projections? If you can't find one you should ask yourself why would this be any different.

[whataclush]

Fuck you Ron Paul. You couldn't even recognize Bruno, you dumbass.

goddam that scene was hilarious.

[joe has a cat]

Still blows my mind that America doesn't have uni-healthcare yet.

[asmolitor]

I might be wrong but when the average American has a negative savings rate and the US government continuously increase spending. Maybe we should rethink our spending based on assumed future income, especially when we talk upwards of 500 billion in savings.

show me how the average american could have a negative savings rate. and if you point to depleted 401k plans as the cause, show me how that takes direct consumer intervention to impact. and if you point to 2005 Q3, one quarter does not make a negative trend.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.gif
I understand that there will always be some sort of "credit" spending based on assumed income. I'm not arguing black and white no assumed spending any time. My problem is every government project when it comes to money is grossly inaccurate. I would challenge anyone to find one significant government program,project, war, etc...... that was at or less than the initial cost projections? If you can't find one you should ask yourself why would this be any different.

of course there's inaccuracies, government projections don't include a crystal ball. costs change regardless of the project, and regardless of the party who controls the project.

if a program is underfunded more than the projected allocation for the program, the government isn't doing enough. if a project is underfunded, it could be taken a step further. if a war is underfunded, you risk lives.

i would challenge you to justify the completion/end of a program as soon as the last penny from the initial allocation is spent, with no regards to the implications.

and honestly, with a george w bush picture in your signature, i find it incredibly naive that you deride health care spending in the face of massive budget deficits with a low personal savings rate - when... uh oh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improve ment,_and_Modernization_Act)...

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (Pub.L. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066, also called Medicare Modernization Act or MMA) is a law of the United States which was enacted in 2003.[1] It produced the largest overhaul of Medicare in the public health program's 38-year history.

The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.

One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it.[2] By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.[3]

Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this "...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s... because we promise way more than we can afford to keep." [4]
hmm, funny how we forget. if there's any chance in hell you can refute the current plan while supporting the medicare reform act, i think we'd all love to hear it.

[saysmydoctor]

as opposed to the alternative being offered.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bj0fdAQOI98/Sl3sCElyDvI/AAAAAAAAA_w/Pvkf2EswMas/s400/ins.jpg


Colorfull!
A graph which is in itself misleading because the healthcare proposal is already this complicated so to say the Democrats are proposing a complicated plan is false.

[saysmydoctor]

It's good to see you and I completely agree. The fact it's being rammed through is that big elephant in the room that not enough people are asking why about. The other elephant being that if we are looking for health reform why is there absolutely zero talk about tort reform.
Because it isn't a huge a drain on our economy as health care?
good for them.

...All I care about is that there's someone with enough common sense to slow this disaster down before the public and the politicans have a chance to understand what is being voted on, and how much its really going to cost. It's inevitable that 'health-care reform' is gonna pass, but it doesn't need to be 'rahmed' though like the last two bills.
Error: it's not inevitable. We've known about the health care system issues for 25 years and no one has done anything except let the issue get more complex.

[Justin_stacy]

Error: it's not inevitable. We've known about the health care system issues for 25 years and no one has done anything except let the issue get more complex.

actually I'd call that first part bordering on false. Democrats have the votes in both houses and a somewhat popular president's support. Its gonna pass, the question is over the form, the price, and whose going to be forced to pay for it.

The only way this stalls is if moderate Democrats hold it up long enough for Republican to capture enough seats in '10 to block the vote....and that is so unlikely that its not even worth viewing as a possiblity.

[Justin_stacy]

A graph which is in itself misleading because the healthcare proposal is already this complicated so to say the Democrats are proposing a [ ] complicated plan is false.

The word you're missing is 'more'. And you'd be a fool to believe it isn't true. Just as you'd be a fool to believe they're cost estimates or the way they propose to pay for it. Washington never works out as promised.

[asmolitor]

actually I'd call that first part bordering on false. Democrats have the votes in both houses and a somewhat popular president's support. Its gonna pass, the question is over the form, the price, and whose going to be forced to pay for it.

The only way this stalls is if moderate Democrats hold it up long enough for Republican to capture enough seats in '10 to block the vote....and that is so unlikely that its not even worth viewing as a possiblity.

i'd have to agree with sean on this, based solely on the clinton plan. regardless of the plan itself, democrats had similar congressional majorities in the senate (D-56% voting share in '93, D-60% in '09) and in the house (D-59.3% in '93, D-59% in '09). of course, there's much more cohesion with the white house and the democratic congress - but don't count out the blue dogs.

[Justin_stacy]

i'd have to agree with sean on this, based solely on the clinton plan. regardless of the plan itself, democrats had similar congressional majorities in the senate (D-56% voting share in '93, D-60% in '09) and in the house (D-59.3% in '93, D-59% in '09). of course, there's much more cohesion with the white house and the democratic congress - but don't count out the blue dogs.

I'd like to hope, but I still say its a forgone conclusion that 'something,' whatever it may be, is going to get passed. From what I've read Blue Dog Democrats are against portions of the cost, not the concept.

The Republican Revolution put a hamper on Hillarycare. There's no chance in hell of that in '10. Obama and Liberal Democrats have time on their side.

[saysmydoctor]

actually I'd call that first part bordering on false. Democrats have the votes in both houses and a somewhat popular president's support. Its gonna pass, the question is over the form, the price, and whose going to be forced to pay for it.

The only way this stalls is if moderate Democrats hold it up long enough for Republican to capture enough seats in '10 to block the vote....and that is so unlikely that its not even worth viewing as a possiblity.
Adam said what I wanted to say. What are there, 52 Blue Dogs? And the outspoken ones have said that they have the votes to nix it the bill and I wouldn't put it past them. A lot of them are freshmen representatives who are in for a tough reelection.
The word you're missing is 'more'. And you'd be a fool to believe it isn't true. Just as you'd be a fool to believe they're cost estimates or the way they propose to pay for it. Washington never works out as promised.
Undoubtedly. I don't agree with health care reform in its current form either because reform is pretty much synonymous with 'tweak.' I am much more prone to support health care restructuring or health care rebuilding over simple reforms. I don't think this will streamline the process or simplify it (though I think Boehner's graph is a gross overcomplication).

[peder458]

Still blows my mind that America doesn't have uni-healthcare yet.

i am completely ignorant on the matter, and am too lazy to look it up so i will just ask you! what is your system like, and do you think it works well?

[saysmydoctor]

6zfY3rpnQ6Q

:lol:

[Praetor]

wut

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/gang-of-six-centrist-sena_n_237750.html

[Praetor]

lol of course fucking Joe Lieberman is on this list.

[loveisdead]

Lieberman is one of my least favorite human beings.

[saysmydoctor]

The bill came out Tuesday. The bill isn't being introduced to the floor until sometime late next week. These senators all have a massive staff. Instead whining about not having time, go into your individual offices, cancel all interviews, and read the damn bill. DUH

[Codi23]

A public option = competition = everything gets better.

These guys on Fox News who have such a boner for capitalism should appreciate some healthy competition. What are they afraid of?

[saysmydoctor]

I almost would rather a public option not pass but instead the Kucinich Amendment be adopted.

[saysmydoctor]

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/markup/FC/HR3200-AmericasAffordableHealthChoicesActo f2009/KucinichERISA.pdf

SWEET it passed.

[Codi23]

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/markup/FC/HR3200-AmericasAffordableHealthChoicesActo f2009/KucinichERISA.pdf

SWEET it passed.

Can you sum up what this amendment does exactly? I don't really know much about it specifically.

[saysmydoctor]

Can you sum up what this amendment does exactly? I don't really know much about it specifically.
It allows the state to seek a waiver of ERISA Limitation to create a state single-payer option instead of the public option.

[asmolitor]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-to-Congress-Dont-lose-apf-2467471749.html?x=0&.v=17

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama, insistent that health care legislation still will clear Congress, urged lawmakers strongly on Friday to write stiffer cost-cutting provisions into the bills taking shape slowly in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

"What we want to do is force the Congress to make sure that they are acting" on recommendations lawmakers receive to hold down Medicare and Medicaid spending, the president said, rather than allowing reports to sit unused on a shelf.


blue dogs have quite the traction after all.

[asmolitor]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/the-six-deadly-hypocrites/

making a comparison with the same legislation that i did earlier in the thread (this time on the blue dogs' ability to defeat health care legislation):

Case in point: the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which denied Medicare the right to bargain for lower drug prices, locked in overpayments to private insurance companies, and did nothing, nothing at all, to pay for its proposed outlays. How many of these six self-proclaimed defenders of solvency voted no on the crucial procedural vote? One. (Joe Lieberman, to my surprise.)

[paper halo]

A public option = competition = everything gets better.

These guys on Fox News who have such a boner for capitalism should appreciate some healthy competition. What are they afraid of?

Progress.

[Justin_stacy]

Adam said what I wanted to say. What are there, 52 Blue Dogs? And the outspoken ones have said that they have the votes to nix it the bill and I wouldn't put it past them. A lot of them are freshmen representatives who are in for a tough reelection.

Way to much stock is put in to the supposed 'conservative' slant of the Blue Dogs. 44% voted in favor of rat-face waxman's awful energy bill. No one who voted for that joke can really call themselves moderates, or fiscal conservatives or in favor of accountability. The three labels that tend to get thrown around by the Blue Dogs.

From first hand experience my representative Dennis Moore is one of the Blue Dogs. He voted in favor of the energy bill, supports the falsely titled Employee Free Choice Act (even though his district doesn't), has a horrible record on gun-rights and posts an A rating with far left groups like NARAL. He also has 98% matching voting record with Nancy Pelosi over the last two congresses. So I guess you'll have to excuse me if I don't think the Blue Dogs are really going to stand up to Obama and Liberal Democrats on the issue. Obama's already got one contriversal bill through the House.

If freshmen politicans are so worried about their job by supporting this thing, if might go far to show how much public support is really behind it.

I still think its way more likely than not, that something gets passed, but I'll yield the ievitable remark.

[Justin_stacy]

Democrat and Republican governors fear unfunded healthcare mandates. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/07/20/governors_balk_over_what_healthcare _bill_will_cost_states/)

Governor Phil Bredesen, a Tennessee Democrat, said he feared Congress was about to bestow “the mother of all unfunded mandates.’’

[saysmydoctor]

CBO said it was deficit neutral within 10 years and withholds a surplus of $2 billion after that. Not to mention, when you invest in the health of your population...they are healthy! Funny how that works out.

0ewBIWqJY8w&feature=player_embedded

[peder458]

CBO said it was deficit neutral within 10 years and withholds a surplus of $2 billion after that. Not to mention, when you invest in the health of your population...they are healthy! Funny how that works out.

0ewBIWqJY8w&feature=player_embedded

i will be the first to admit that i don't know a huge amount about this issue (i have been trying my best to understand all of the aspects of it...). but seriously? WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT??? so much gibberish... i don't even know what else to say.

[paper halo]

That man is insane. Most of that rant made absolutely no sense.

[loveisdead]

my facebook status is dedicated to him.

[fortythieves]

In my opinion, the government should provide bare bones health care for everyone. It's enough help them out if something happens, but it's not enough to make them happy with it. They should strive to get a job that provides them with health-care or enough money so they can get health-care.

Before I read that I was completely opposed to universal health care because I was thinking that no one would strive to better themselves or their situations resulting in absolutely no progress
but what you suggest is actually a very good idea. It isn't leaving those who can't afford it out to dry but it's not giving them everything they want, nullifying their incentive to improve.

[My Broken Fever]

Before I read that I was completely opposed to universal health care because I was thinking that no one would strive to better themselves or their situations resulting in absolutely no progress
but what you suggest is actually a very good idea. It isn't leaving those who can't afford it out to dry but it's not giving them everything they want, nullifying their incentive to improve. Yes, because if you don't have enough money you shouldn't get more than basic health care! Universal health care has nothing to do with incentive to better yourself: It's a right for all people and should have nothing to do with how much you earn or where you work.

Your entire argument is absurd, as if people will stop doing anything the second they get complete health care. It's a disgrace that there still has to be a discussion about the matter, there isn't a good argument to not provide universal health care.

[fortythieves]

Yes, because if you don't have enough money you shouldn't get more than basic health care! Universal health care has nothing to do with incentive to better yourself: It's a right for all people and should have nothing to do with how much you earn or where you work.

Your entire argument is absurd, as if people will stop doing anything the second they get complete health care. It's a disgrace that there still has to be a discussion about the matter, there isn't a good argument to not provide universal health care.

I still disagree with you. I don't think it should be a right.
And if the government provides everything for you and the person who works hard and the person who doesn't get the same quality what's the hard worker's incentive to work so hard? After all, he'll get the same coverage [in this case] even if he slacks off and gets fired. So there goes incentive.
Health care is just the first step.

[Animalhill]

I still disagree with you. I don't think it should be a right.
And if the government provides everything for you and the person who works hard and the person who doesn't get the same quality what's the hard worker's incentive to work so hard? After all, he'll get the same coverage [in this case] even if he slacks off and gets fired. So there goes incentive.
Health care is just the first step.
How should it not be a right? I work my 60 hours a week- yet I have no healthcare so my schizophrenia is currently untreated. Is it not my right as a TAX PAYING American to receive medical help?

[derekmoyer4]

I still disagree with you. I don't think it should be a right.
And if the government provides everything for you and the person who works hard and the person who doesn't get the same quality what's the hard worker's incentive to work so hard? After all, he'll get the same coverage [in this case] even if he slacks off and gets fired. So there goes incentive.
Health care is just the first step.
should health care be an incentive? it is my belief that health care is not an incentive but rather a necessity. therefore everyone should be subjected to health care. would i be wrong to make that claim? is my opinion in anyway audacious?

[My Broken Fever]

I still disagree with you. I don't think it should be a right.
And if the government provides everything for you and the person who works hard and the person who doesn't get the same quality what's the hard worker's incentive to work so hard? After all, he'll get the same coverage [in this case] even if he slacks off and gets fired. So there goes incentive.
Health care is just the first step. Once again, health care has nothing to do with incentive; and it shouldn't. The idea that people will lose incentive to work hard as soon as they get full health care is unfounded and ridiculous, there is only evidence against what you say. By your logic the right to a fair trial should also be scrapped until someone earns a certain amount of money, and anyone who doesn't just gets thrown off a building. That's incentive to work harder!

And health care is the first step, of what? A country where every person can get the health care he/she needs regardless of social position or pay? What a horrible thing.

[fortythieves]

How should it not be a right? I work my 60 hours a week- yet I have no healthcare so my schizophrenia is currently untreated. Is it not my right as a TAX PAYING American to receive medical help?

Get health care and pay for it like I do. Then you can't complain about not having health care.

[Animalhill]

Get health care and pay for it like I do. Then you can't complain about not having health care.
I have NO money to spend on healthcare. How long have you been completely financially independent?

[fortythieves]

Once again, health care has nothing to do with incentive; and it shouldn't. The idea that people will lose incentive to work hard as soon as they get full health care is unfounded and ridiculous, there is only evidence against what you say. By your logic the right to a fair trial should also be scrapped until someone earns a certain amount of money, and anyone who doesn't just gets thrown off a building. That's incentive to work harder!

And health care is the first step, of what? A country where every person can get the health care he/she needs regardless of social position or pay? What a horrible thing.

You want something better than what you have, you work for it, you earn it. What is so absurd about that? Yeah, everyone gets the basics, but if you want more than that pay for it. I don't understand why you think that's crazy.
And I'd like to see this "evidence against what [I] say" that you speak of. A link would be good.

[fortythieves]

I have NO money to spend on healthcare. How long have you been completely financially independent?

a little over a year. What does that have to do with it?

[derekmoyer4]

You want something better than what you have, you work for it, you earn it. What is so absurd about that? Yeah, everyone gets the basics, but if you want more than that pay for it. I don't understand why you think that's crazy.
And I'd like to see this "evidence against what [I] say" that you speak of. A link would be good.
i am failing to see the justification of your claim.

[fortythieves]

i am failing to see the justification of your claim.

?
You don't think everyone should earn what they get? I don't understand what you mean.

[Animalhill]

a little over a year. What does that have to do with it?
A whole lot. As a self-sufficient citizen working 60+ hours a week, paying taxes to the government, I should have the RIGHT of free health care. No one should be making money off of people being sick. Can you not see that is disgusting?

[derekmoyer4]

?
You don't think everyone should earn what they get? I don't understand what you mean.
i agree with you that people should have to earn what they get. but being a human being, especially in a country that is "developed" all individuals should be given an equal opportunity to live healthy lives in order to be more productive for society. would it not be safe and logical to argue that a healthy society would be a productive society?

[Animalhill]

i agree with you that people should have to earn what they get. but being a human being, especially in a country that is "developed" all individuals should be given an equal opportunity to live healthy lives in order to be more productive for society. would it not be safe and logical to argue that a healthy society would be a productive society?
TRUTH

[My Broken Fever]

You want something better than what you have, you work for it, you earn it. What is so absurd about that? Yeah, everyone gets the basics, but if you want more than that pay for it. I don't understand why you think that's crazy.
And I'd like to see this "evidence against what [i] say" that you speak of. A link would be good. By your logic there is no incentive to work harder if you have full health care, so where do you place countries like Sweden, France, the UK, the Netherlands and other countries with universal health care? Again by your logic all rights should be scrapped simply to increase 'incentive'.

[derekmoyer4]

also, if people must "work harder" to be blessed with full health care, please define what is "working hard". there are many people you work upwards of 70 hours per week who still cannot afford health care. are you honestly going to make the incoherent and fallible statement that they are not "working hard enough" to achieve full health care? and if you are, there is no use in arguing with you because you do not understand life. period.

[fortythieves]

A whole lot. As a self-sufficient citizen working 60+ hours a week, paying taxes to the government, I should have the RIGHT of free health care. No one should be making money off of people being sick. Can you not see that is disgusting?

Okay. I understand you now. But you can't expect them to do it for free either.
But at the same time food, shelter, clothing, most "necessities" I can think of someone is making money off of. You can't really expect any of this for free.

[Praetor]

We should only give free speech/the right to vote to those with jobs. Now THERE'S an incentive.

[fortythieves]

i agree with you that people should have to earn what they get. but being a human being, especially in a country that is "developed" all individuals should be given an equal opportunity to live healthy lives in order to be more productive for society. would it not be safe and logical to argue that a healthy society would be a productive society?

If you look at my original post I agreed with someone who said we should all get the basics, the coverage we need so we can still function, but if we want more we have to pay for extra.

[Animalhill]

Okay. I understand you now. But you can't expect them to do it for free either.
But at the same time food, shelter, clothing, most "necessities" I can think of someone is making money off of. You can't really expect any of this for free.
However food, shelter, and clothing are things that are attainable to the general public at a fair price. When some prick tells me I need to pay $400 a MONTH on medication to stay sane, I feel justified in being angry. The average person can't brew up morphine for a cancer-stricken family member- you know?

[derekmoyer4]

If you look at my original post I agreed with someone who said we should all get the basics, the coverage we need so we can still function, but if we want more we have to pay for extra.
i understand and i agree with you to a point. but what do you consider "the basics"?

[derekmoyer4]

However food, shelter, and clothing are things that are attainable to the general public at a fair price. When some prick tells me I need to pay $400 a MONTH on medication to stay sane, I feel justified in being angry. The average person can't brew up morphine for a cancer-stricken family member- you know?
point well made. the health care system here literally can destroy an entire life's savings. it is ridiculous. and we all know that almost all doctors do not want universal health care for fear of making less money. (as if they have to actually worry about paying for the needs in life, ha)

[Animalhill]

point well made. the health care system here literally can destroy an entire life's savings. it is ridiculous. and we all know that almost all doctors do not want universal health care for fear of making less money. (as if they have to actually worry about paying for the needs in life, ha)
And if that person dies in debt- it goes to their family. So fucked up.

[fortythieves]

By your logic there is no incentive to work harder if you have full health care, so where do you place countries like Sweden, France, the UK, the Netherlands and other countries with universal health care? Again by your logic all rights should be scrapped simply to increase 'incentive'.

As of right now, health care is not a right because you either pay for it and have it or don't pay for it and don't have it.
I'm not saying all rights should be "scraped." You have the right to free speech but you're doing all the talking. You have the right to bear arms but if you want a gun you have to get it yourself.
Everyone can have health care. No one is preventing that. But if you want great fantastic coverage, get it for yourself. You can't really expect the government to just hand the high quality product of another business over to you for free.

[fortythieves]

i understand and i agree with you to a point. but what do you consider "the basics"?

That... is a good question.
One that I don't have the answer to. I haven't thought about it long enough.

[derekmoyer4]

As of right now, health care is not a right because you either pay for it and have it or don't pay for it and don't have it.
I'm not saying all rights should be "scraped." You have the right to free speech but you're doing all the talking. You have the right to bear arms but if you want a gun you have to get it yourself.
Everyone can have health care. No one is preventing that. But if you want great fantastic coverage, get it for yourself. You can't really expect the government to just hand the high quality product of another business over to you for free.
true, but those are more along the lines of inalienable rights. which is different than the right to have health care. you also do not need a gun to live a healthy and productive life.

and i do not think we are desiring free health care, per say. we pay taxes, right?

[fortythieves]

However food, shelter, and clothing are things that are attainable to the general public at a fair price. When some prick tells me I need to pay $400 a MONTH on medication to stay sane, I feel justified in being angry. The average person can't brew up morphine for a cancer-stricken family member- you know?

Good insurance?
My mother's meds alone would cost over $3000 per month but they only pay about $45 because my parents have good insurance.

[Animalhill]

Good insurance?
My mother's meds alone would cost over $3000 per month but they only pay about $45 because my parents have good insurance.
Not everyone has good insurance. You can't base opinions on public policy based on subjective experience.

[derekmoyer4]

Not everyone has good insurance. You can't base opinions on public policy based on subjective experience.
you are correct sir.

[fortythieves]

true, but those are more along the lines of inalienable rights. which is different than the right to have health care. you also do not need a gun to live a healthy and productive life.

and i do not think we are desiring free health care, per say. we pay taxes, right?

True on the taxes part. This is why I was thinking free [tax funded, rather] basics. Like preventive health care so you don't end up and the point of needing a really expensive procedure or what have you. But if you want that extra coverage just in case some freak accident happens or you didn't listen to the doctor when he told you to stop doing something or start doing something, you have to pay more for that. And if you can't afford that extra special crap be careful, or listen to the doc when he tells you to stop smoking so you don't get cancer.
Or something along those lines. I haven't really gotten that far with this idea yet.

[fortythieves]

Not everyone has good insurance. You can't base opinions on public policy based on subjective experience.

You're right but is it not available?

[derekmoyer4]

True on the taxes part. This is why I was thinking free [tax funded, rather] basics. Like preventive health care so you don't end up and the point of needing a really expensive procedure or what have you. But if you want that extra coverage just in case some freak accident happens or you didn't listen to the doctor when he told you to stop doing something or start doing something, you have to pay more for that. And if you can't afford that extra special crap be careful, or listen to the doc when he tells you to stop smoking so you don't get cancer.
Or something along those lines. I haven't really gotten that far with this idea yet.
i gotcha. i think we are all coming to similar (though not same) conclusions.

[Animalhill]

You're right but is it not available?
To those within a certain economic bracket it is, but to those that are legit poor, like me, healthcare is out of reach.

[My Broken Fever]

You're right but is it not available? You're not claiming that the current health care system in the US works properly right? It spends a greater amount of money than most other countries, and yet a lot of people cannot get good health care and the life expectancy is lower than that of countries that spend half on health care.

[derekmoyer4]

To those within a certain economic bracket it is, but to those that are legit poor, like me, healthcare is out of reach.
aint that the truth.

You're not claiming that the current health care system in the US works properly right? It spends a greater amount of money than most other countries, and yet a lot of people cannot get good health care and the life expectancy is lower than that of countries that spend half on health care.
right you are.

[fortythieves]

You're not claiming that the current health care system in the US works properly right? It spends a greater amount of money than most other countries, and yet a lot of people cannot get good health care and the life expectancy is lower than that of countries that spend half on health care.

No, I never said that. I asked if health care was available. I'm not sure where you're getting all of this from.
And all sarcasm aside, would you mind providing some proof for all of these statements you're making?

[My Broken Fever]

No, I never said that. I asked if health care was available. I'm not sure where you're getting all of this from.
And all sarcasm aside, would you mind providing some proof for all of these statements you're making? Read the entire thread.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

No, I never said that. I asked if health care was available. I'm not sure where you're getting all of this from.
And all sarcasm aside, would you mind providing some proof for all of these statements you're making?

read the first page

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/LEvsSpend2_75.gif

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

[fortythieves]

read the first page

alright.

[derekmoyer4]

read the first page
these graphs speak loudly.

[Animalhill]

these graphs speak loudly.
Incredibly so.

[saysmydoctor]

Big news conference tonight. I think this is pretty much the make or break for the bill, in all honesty.

This on top of news that 5 million adults have lost insurance coverage since Sept '08.

[peder458]

Big news conference tonight. I think this is pretty much the make or break for the bill, in all honesty.

This on top of news that 5 million adults have lost insurance coverage since Sept '08.

how does everyone think it went?

EDIT: it has it's own thread.

[Love As Arson]

It seems to me that Obama lost the debate tonight. The democrats' mistake in 2006 was going after republicans by getting pseudo-republicans in office.

[Justin_stacy]

I'm starting to wonder if this dispute over health care reform will get to the point of spliting the party? The liberal wing and the moderate wing seem to be taking this rather personally, and mending fences doesn't seem to be a top priority of the obama administration.

Could this be the starting point of the multi-party system in America? The moderate members of congress joining forces, to counter the hardliners of the Republican and Democratic parties? Its probably a long ways off, but Democrats only captured the House by going after more conservative constituents with more moderate to conservative nominees, and these people aren't likely to tuck in their tails and cower to the likes of rat faced- Waxman and Pelosi. especially once they get a couple election cycles under their belts. The fault lines only going to get bigger with time. How much effort will really be wasted in keeping the party together?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-healthcare-talks-break-down-in-anger-2009-07-24.html

[xshady121]

I'm starting to wonder if this dispute over health care reform will get to the point of spliting the party? The liberal wing and the moderate wing seem to be taking this rather personally, and mending fences doesn't seem to be a top priority of the obama administration.

Could this be the starting point of the multi-party system in America? With Republicans on one side, the moderate Democrats on another, and Liberal Democrats on yet another? Its probably a long ways off, but Democrats only captured the House by going after more conservative constituents with more moderate to conservative nominees, and these people aren't likely to tuck in their tails and cower to the likes of rat faced- Waxman and Pelosi. especially once they get a couple election cycles under their belts. The fault lines only going to get bigger with time.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-healthcare-talks-break-down-in-anger-2009-07-24.html

A multi party system seems unlikely. What is going on now is similar to the Repub problem in 92. Ross Perot sure took a lot of votes (and possibly even the election) away from Bush in 92. It was more of a referendum on the republican party than a vote for Clinton at the time. What matters is how the Democrats react to this now. I find it hard to believe they won't react appropriately-- they have smart leadership and have made all the right moves in the past.

[saysmydoctor]

The real question is not matter of when but rather who will suffer more? The Republicans or the Democrats?

[Justin_stacy]

I think the Republicans would suffer the most in the long run, as they will likely turn into the weaker of the three. But the democrats will suffer alot in the short term as its their majorities that will vanish and their opportunity (turn) to push their agenda that's going to be lost.

[GuitarR0cker1]

This whole party splitting thing is pretty stupid imo. The Democrats have always had this fucking annoying conservative wing of the party. Nowdays it is not near as conservative as it was and I don't see any issues that are big enough to make it run against the more liberal wing. Do you guys really think these moderates would risk it all based on health care and the budget? I bet that in 2010 lots of these moderates will be wiped out anyways.

[xshady121]

This whole party splitting thing is pretty stupid imo. The Democrats have always had this fucking annoying conservative wing of the party. Nowdays it is not near as conservative as it was and I don't see any issues that are big enough to make it run against the more liberal wing. Do you guys really think these moderates would risk it all based on health care and the budget? I bet that in 2010 lots of these moderates will be wiped out anyways.

Are you crazy? Do you understand politics at all? You don't see any issue big enough to rebel against the more liberal wing? Really? Really?

[Justin_stacy]

I find it hard to believe they won't react appropriately-- they have smart leadership and have made all the right moves in the past.

Its the lack of 'smart leadership' that is causing this divide. Which is why I think the dispute is only going to get bigger with time. This is number 2, now, where the moderates and liberals have split. If Nancy pushes the so-called blue dogs to align and vote with the Republicans over Obama's bill, which they have the votes to do, I'm not sure a true unity could every be reformed.

Its a hypothetical arguments, but a worthy one.

[saysmydoctor]

I made an umbrella topic for this, so we can keep talking about healthcare here.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Are you crazy? Do you understand politics at all? You don't see any issue big enough to rebel against the more liberal wing? Really? Really?
No I don't, the Democrats have been having this issue of the moderate wing rebelling for years and years. They have just gotten to the point where they are pretty decently sized. What could happen is an exodus of southern Democrats to the Republicans, but I don't see them forming their own party. There really isn't much of a difference between blue dog Democrats and rural southern Republicans.

The real question is do you know anything about electoral history? Do you know how the boll weevils are? They have always been in my party. They have almost always went against things the progressive part of my party tried to do. Yet in the long run they kept on existing as big part of the party. Maybe that will change but like I said there is no chance of them forming another party.

[Justin_stacy]

. Do you guys really think these moderates would risk it all based on health care and the budget? I bet that in 2010 lots of these moderates will be wiped out anyways.

What exactly would they be risking? You really think a hard-on liberal is going to come into these moderate to conservative locals, many of which voted in a democrat for the first time in decades, if ever, and win? You'd bascially be handing the seat to the Republicans.

The 'risk' is in supporting a bloated healthcare bill. They know it would mean their seat, and that's why you see so many of them standing up to party leadership. Freshman rarely have the balls to speak out as many have.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/internal-rnc-poll-urged-r_n_244507.html
Interesting.

[Justin_stacy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/internal-rnc-poll-urged-r_n_244507.html
Interesting.

Gallup just released poll numbers that support this.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121883/Most-U.S.-Want-Healthcare-Reform-Vary-Urgency.aspx

[GuitarR0cker1]

What exactly would they be risking? You really think a hard-on liberal is going to come into these moderate to conservative locals, many of which voted in a democrat for the first time in decades, if ever, and win? You'd bascially be handing the seat to the Republicans.

The 'risk' is in supporting a bloated healthcare bill. They know it would mean their seat, and that's why you see so many of them standing up to party leadership. Freshman rarely have the balls to speak out as many have.
What the hell are you talking about? These southern areas have been voting for Democrats for ages. The blue dog Democratic base is oddly enough extremely liberal blacks, and if they were ever to split off they would loose their biggest voting base. Sure I guess in a few places that are lily white they could win as indies but they would still have issues.

It wouldn't mean them loosing their seat, they are pandering to their donors. The truth is this bloated bill would do more to help their constituents that most other seats. Besides the Democrats won't run ads against them or kick them out for voting nay. Even if the bill passes they can campaign against it hard and chances are they would still be funded.

[Justin_stacy]

What the hell are you talking about? These southern areas have been voting for Democrats for ages. The blue dog Democratic base is oddly enough extremely liberal blacks, and if they were ever to split off they would loose their biggest voting base. Sure I guess in a few places that are lily white they could win as indies but they would still have issues.

It wouldn't mean them loosing their seat, they are pandering to their donors. The truth is this bloated bill would do more to help their constituents that most other seats. Besides the Democrats won't run ads against them or kick them out for voting nay. Even if the bill passes they can campaign against it hard and chances are they would still be funded.

The 'Democrat Revolution' of '06 took place in the north east and midwest, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. And it mostly came from white middle class, traditionally slighly conservative and Republican, suburban to rural areas.

And it absolutely could mean losing their seats. Alot of these congressional districts are going to be closely contested agian, in '10 and '12. You can beat any vote of support from the Congressmember of these districts will be highly campagined on by Republicans.

[GuitarR0cker1]

The 'Democrat Revolution' of '06 took place in the north east and midwest, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. And it mostly came from white middle class, traditionally slighly conservative and Republican, suburban to rural areas.

And it absolutely could mean losing their seats. Alot of these congressional districts are going to be closely contested agian, in '10 and '12. You can beat any vote of support from the Congressmember of these districts will be highly campagined on by Republicans.
Look at this map of Blue Dog Democrats, does it look like that many of them come from the North? I count around 20 that would be in significant danger if they ran as independents. Many seat gains in 2006 and 2008 came from liberals defeating more moderate Republicans in northern areas. I agree with your bottom paragraph, the Democrats are going to have huge issues keeping most of these seats. My congressman(Walt Minnick) is fucked under almost all circumstances. I think as of right now I will go some statistics to show how most Blue Dog congressmen would be screwed if they tried to form a new political party and made no agreements with either of the parties.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Blue_Dogs.svg/800px-Blue_Dogs.svg.png
Well anyways a good example of a seat a "Centrist" would lose would be NY-24. It was a close seat that has a big traditional Republican base. I highly doubt that Mike Arcuri would ever run as a "Centrist" considering that he has an F from the Taxpayer's Union, has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and 83% rating from the ACLU. His problem could be if the Democrats ran against him with their candidate he could lose just based on the fact that that Democratic candidate was just taking 10 to 12 or 13 percent of the vote. He only won with 54% of the vote in 2006 in an open seat during a very favorable year for him. Now of course this opens up the question of the Democrats endorsing candidates like Arcuri and the Republicans possibly endorsing a few very conservative ones(super unlikely). That would basically defeat the purpose of having a moderate third party wouldn't it?

[saysmydoctor]

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republican-10-point-plan-health-care
Now, this is interesting.

[Justin_stacy]

More bad (good?) news from the CBO (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html).

[saysmydoctor]

Not related to reform, but disgusting regardless:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/23/doctors.attitude.race.weight/index.html

[Machu505]

My fucking God I am going to punch an infant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/senate-group-dropping-dem_n_245839.html

[saysmydoctor]

Careful, it's probably not covered

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Max Baucus is utterly useless. This whole thing has made me hate the concept of "bipartisanship".

[macabre]

I hope I'm wrong but I predict that the public option will be dropped from the final bill

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/senate-group-dropping-dem_n_245839.html

Why vote for progressives anymore? They are just lying.

[Justin_stacy]

There goes the democrats hollywood money.

Face-lifts, tummy tucks and hair transplants could be hit with a new tax to help finance the trillion-dollar healthcare overhaul plan, according to sources familiar with the Senate talks.

The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes. The idea was broached in a meeting with OMB Director Orszag in mid-July, after which Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told reporters he had heard some "interesting," "creative," and "kind of fun" ideas.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hcp_20090727_8213.php

[macabre]

One of the senators involved in the talks, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, confirmed that co-ops are the preferred approach. "The co-op is certainly one of the prominent options that is on the table," Snowe told reporters after the group met Monday. "It's safe to say that'll probably remain in the final document."

M-(

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

DO NOT WANT

Senate Finance Committee Bill Lacks Public Option And Employer Mandate

(http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/sfc-first/)

The Senate Finance Committee may be closer to a deal on health care reform (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/28/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html?_r=1) legislation. According to the New York Times, three Democrats and three Republicans have crafted an agreement (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/28/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html?_r=1) that replaces the employer mandate with a free rider provision, establishes a cooperative in place of the public option, and partly funds reform by taxing ‘Cadillac’ health care benefits (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/27/gold-plated-cadillac/).

[Praetor]

Wait, so there will probably be no public option? Are you fucking kidding me? Fuck everybody. This fucking sucks. Goddammit.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Wait, so there will probably be no public option? Are you fucking kidding me? Fuck everybody. This fucking sucks. Goddammit.

There are 2 plans in Congress right now. the one above and the House version which has a public option.

[Praetor]

There are 2 plans in Congress right now. the one above and the House version which has a public option.
Yeah but I think we both know that it's quite likely that Blue Dogs are going to jump on the Senate plan.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Yeah but I think we both know that it's quite likely that Blue Dogs are going to jump on the Senate plan.

unfortunately yes they are.

Honestly i'd rather have no "reform" than "reform" without a public option

[saysmydoctor]

The Kucinich Amendment passed. So, I hope the bill still passes, honestly.

[Praetor]

The Kucinich Amendment passed. So, I hope the bill still passes, honestly.
But would any states really vote in favor of a single-payer system? I know a few blue states are trying but I can't see those efforts succeeding.

[saysmydoctor]

I think some would.

[Praetor]

I dunno, I'm a little more cynical.

[Machu505]

I fucking hate Shelley Moore Capito. It's good to know that when she votes against the health care bill, she's telling her constituents that she cares more about her pocketbook than she does them.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

According to this (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/smallbuzhealthsurcharge.pdf) Citzens For Tax Justice study, only 4 -5% of small business owners would be affected by the House plan

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/no-deal-yet-on-house-heal_n_246182.html

Fuck them allllllllll so much

[macabre]

Interesting read on how co-ops might not be a bad idea, if Democrats play their cards right.

http://www.slate.com/id/2222744/

[Justin_stacy]

what a douche. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao)

Its pretty simple. If you're voting on something that's gonna fundamentally, and controversially, change the country, you find the time to read the bill (maybe over the August recess?) and if you're to stupid to understand it get help or refrain from voting.

One of the authors arguing against reading, this is exactly why we need term limits.

[saysmydoctor]

What a dumb fucking retort on his part, jesus motherfucking christ. What the hell, dammit, of course we can't get a good, intelligently composed piece of legislation from these people. They are all fucking idiots.

[GuitarR0cker1]

what a douche. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao)

Its pretty simple. If you're voting on something that's gonna fundamentally, and controversially, change the country, you find the time to read the bill (maybe over the August recess?) and if you're to stupid to understand it get help or refrain from voting.

One of the authors arguing against reading, this is exactly why we need term limits.
What a fucking idiot, we need new leadership in the Democratic Party asap.

[Praetor]

Wow.

[Machu505]

Susan Collins is laying shit down (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/gop-senator-undercuts-republican-claim-that-dem-health-care-bill-will-cause-government-euthanasia/) over these "health care will murder old people" claims.

[blinkingfoo]

If the members of Congress will accept the same health care plan and not keep their PRIVATE health care that is incredible compared to anything we would get...then I am all for it. But, why would Congress think health care for the rest of the country is not good enough for them? Doesn't seem like it is the best choice if they will vote on it for the rest of us.

[Mercy Medical]

I fear that the rehashing over this bill over and over and over again in Congress and efforts made a bi-partisanship might put a serious crutch in it. I dunno, maybe I've been listening to too much Dan Carlin.

[Machu505]

Rep. Weiner (D-NY) has some balls (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/weiner-medicare/).

No pun intended.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Rep. Weiner (D-NY) has some balls (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/weiner-medicare/).

No pun intended.

holy shit . love this .more Dems should just call people out on stuff like this.

[Machu505]

Fuck yeah health care bill with public option passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In other awesome news, apparently there will also be a floor vote on a single-payer health care system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/house-health-bill-clears_n_249150.html

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/rep-king-health-care-refo_n_250140.html
FUCK. YOU. KING. FUCK YOU.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joesph Stiglitz on Health Care Reform (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/08/stiglitz-on-health-care-reform/)

[blinkingfoo]

Funny that the bill both Kennedy and Dodd are pushing for...would not cover their illnesses for non politicians at their age under the public option. I guess when you are a politician you can get what you want while others will not.

[Machu505]

MOTHERFUCKER YES. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/white-house-reconciliatio_n_253069.html)

[Praetor]

MOTHERFUCKER YES. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/white-house-reconciliatio_n_253069.html)
I heard that under reconciliation, some portions of the bill would expire a few years down the road. Does anybody know how long will it take for them to expire and what parts would expire?

[saysmydoctor]

Progressives: Willing to Sacrifice Progress, the Platform they were elected on:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/another-blow-to-public-op_n_254961.html

[open mind]

Progressives: Willing to Sacrifice Progress, the Platform they were elected on:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/another-blow-to-public-op_n_254961.html

the dems are doing a pretty good job of screwing things up but we'll still end up with more progress then the republicans would have supplied.

[loveisdead]

Progressives: Willing to Sacrifice Progress, the Platform they were elected on:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/09/another-blow-to-public-op_n_254961.html
Ain't that the truth. Such bullshit.

[macabre]

Does anyone know if the triggered public option idea is still on the table?

[Machu505]

I'm open to hearing alternatives too, but it doesn't mean I still won't support the public option.

Also, Huffington Post commenters are fucking morons. Do they really think the GOP in power would be producing the same results?

[Love As Arson]

So now we know why the president wants everyone to make nice in the healthcare debate. His White House has cut a deal with Big Pharma that smells like the same old rotten politics that candidate Obama regularly denounced and promised to end. The drug industry agrees to deliver $80 billion in future savings and the president promises the government will not use its awesome purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141856/obama%27s_%2480_billion_deal_with_p harma_is_a_very_bad_deal_for_us/

Goddamn.

[Praetor]

Does anyone know if the triggered public option idea is still on the table?
The Senate bill is without a public option, but it's still in the House bill. Hopefully it stays intact through the negotiation between the two houses.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141856/obama%27s_%2480_billion_deal_with_p harma_is_a_very_bad_deal_for_us/

Goddamn.
...well, shit.

[Machu505]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/gabrielle-giffords-town-h_n_255656.html

And we're the fascists.

[saysmydoctor]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/10/obama-canadian-health-care-model-wont-work-in-u-s/
Seriously, can you please stab me more times in the back?

[Machu505]

I <3 Nate Silver

This is Canada:

http://www.accessniagara.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/20070831_map_puzzle_canada.jpg

It's a big, pretty country to our north where they like hockey and talk like that weird uncle of yours from Minnesota.

This is the United Kingdom:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoEJJ-2CmqI/AAAAAAAABTY/tzMlsifjgVk/s400/ukmap.PNG (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoEJJ-2CmqI/AAAAAAAABTY/tzMlsifjgVk/s1600-h/ukmap.PNG)

It's a small, crowded country to our east where they have wizards and giant clocks.

Some (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/harvard-professor-says-some-stupid.html) people (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/10/government_health_care_in_stealth_m ode_97826.html) are having trouble keeping these countries straight!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoDx7s0KpWI/AAAAAAAABSQ/r0Mp5baMCms/s400/canbrit.PNG (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoDx7s0KpWI/AAAAAAAABSQ/r0Mp5baMCms/s1600-h/canbrit.PNG)
I can't say I really blame them. Canada was once, in fact, a British colony. They both have red in their flags. They both have lots of really gross food!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD1UuSIi1I/AAAAAAAABSY/b08YDydGZi8/s400/poutie.PNG (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD1UuSIi1I/AAAAAAAABSY/b08YDydGZi8/s1600-h/poutie.PNG)

One area where Canada and the United Kingdom don't have so much in common, though, is in health care. In Canada, they have a system called "single-payer". This is where the government pays for your health care. Need your tonsils removed? Some chemotherapy? Viagra refill? Great news! Johnny Canuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Canuck) is footing the bill! Just make sure to bring some reading material for those long waits in line!

http://www.hhof.com/graphics/acquisit4.jpg

The really weird thing about Canada is, even though the government is paying the bill, they aren't actually providing the health care itself. Instead, they have private doctors for that, just like we do here.

I know this might be confusing for some of you, so let's try an analogy. This is a VISA card:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD4w3Mx_9I/AAAAAAAABSg/-Gy7m3_zN54/s400/visa.PNG (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD4w3Mx_9I/AAAAAAAABSg/-Gy7m3_zN54/s1600-h/visa.PNG)

This is how you pay for things!

These are some things:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD6jZvpUYI/AAAAAAAABSo/o2b-RQoGHzc/s400/things.PNG (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD6jZvpUYI/AAAAAAAABSo/o2b-RQoGHzc/s1600-h/things.PNG)

This is what you buy with your VISA card!

In Canada, the government is like the VISA card, and the health care is like the things. Kinda crazy, eh? ('Eh' is the Canadian word for 'huh'). We'd never do something like that in this country, except for old people who don't know any better (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/get-your-goddamn-governme_b_252326.html).

But that's not what they do in Britain! Instead, they do something a whole lot crazier! Not only does the government pay for the things, they also make the things!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD9VwJztQI/AAAAAAAABSw/NEU0sL30ETQ/s400/britthings.PNG (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoD9VwJztQI/AAAAAAAABSw/NEU0sL30ETQ/s1600-h/britthings.PNG)

This is what they call "socialized medicine". If you're in Britain, your doctor is probably a socialist. Just kidding! But he does work for the government. The government pays his salary and buys all his tongue depressors and urine cups. Even old people wouldn't fall for that one over on this side of the "pond", so we only do it to our veterans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration).

Let's review:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoECl89_SDI/AAAAAAAABTA/IGmxyAymVp8/s400/canuk.PNG (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoECl89_SDI/AAAAAAAABTA/IGmxyAymVp8/s1600-h/canuk.PNG)

See? They're actually pretty different!

It turn out that when you take a poll, most Americans don't want (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/august_2009/toplines_health_care_august_7_8_200 9) the government to provide health care coverage. But the idea of goverment providing health care insurance: a lot of folks think that's a pretty swell idea (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7943.pdf)!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoELmMa8eUI/AAAAAAAABTg/Jr5Gfa5pnuw/s400/pollhc.PNG (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SoELmMa8eUI/AAAAAAAABTg/Jr5Gfa5pnuw/s1600-h/pollhc.PNG)

When someone confuses these two things, you can be pretty sure they're just ... well, confused. Just like this woman (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=114912353434&ref=mf) or these people (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/10/it-doesnt-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/). Nobody would ever, not in a million bajillion infinity years, ever mix these things up on purpose! Just send 'em over here and we'll get 'em straighted out! And if they're crossing through Canada, have 'em pick me up some poutine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine) along the way. Eh?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/not-all-socialist-countries-are-alike.html

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

haha I saw that this morning and smiled

[WarpSpeedChewy]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/10/obama-canadian-health-care-model-wont-work-in-u-s/
Seriously, can you please stab me more times in the back?
He has always said that though. That's not exactly new news.

I <3 Nate Silver

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/not-all-socialist-countries-are-alike.html
That was brilliant. I don't know why I don't visit that site as much as Huff post.

[NonOperational]

5XTi-WdOu2s

[Machu505]

One of the protesters had a sign that read "Obama, you're starting to scare George Orwell."

I bet Orwell would hate this person.

[shit stroll]

One of the protesters had a sign that read "Obama, you're starting to scare George Orwell."

I bet Orwell would hate this person.
yeah, because Orwell wouldn't have supported universal health care or anything. what a moron.

[Machu505]

Grassley is still the worst grandpa ever. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/12/grassley-scare-mongers/)

Stephen Hawking essentially ends the health care debate by supporting the UK's system. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-enters-us_n_257343.html)

[GeeBee]

In the UK's system, Hawking would have long ago been sent to the furnaces by the British death panel squads.
/mocking of right-wing nonsense-talkers

[Machu505]

yeah, because Orwell wouldn't have supported universal health care or anything. what a moron.
Here's part of the sign:

http://i26.tinypic.com/1zyjy1e.jpg

[WarpSpeedChewy]

Here's part of the sign:

http://i26.tinypic.com/1zyjy1e.jpg
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha @ Arrested Development sign. Probably the smartest guy there. That gave me a good laugh.

[paper halo]

Grassley is still the worst grandpa ever. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/12/grassley-scare-mongers/)

Stephen Hawking essentially ends the health care debate by supporting the UK's system. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-enters-us_n_257343.html)

Oh, is the NHS being targeted as an example of one of these awfiul socialist healthcare deathpanel things then? That's hilarious.

[Praetor]

hahahaha I got a kick out of the Arrested Development sign too.

[Mercy Medical]

Here's part of the sign:

http://i26.tinypic.com/1zyjy1e.jpg
Hahahahahaahahaha, I love the Arrested Development sign. I love when people go to protests and do this kind of thing.

[Zeran]

In the UK's system, Hawking would have long ago been sent to the furnaces by the British death panel squads.
/mocking of right-wing nonsense-talkers

this made me laugh so hard.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Are The Health Care Protests Working? And are Liberals Helping Them?

(http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/are-health-care-protests-working-and.html)
At the end of the day, health care reform is liable to succeed or fail based on the extent to which Americans -- and the Congressmen they elect -- are informed about the true nature of the bills pending before the House and Senate. We're in a somewhat peculiar situation in that the idea of health care reform overall remains popular, and moreover, the views toward most of the particular elements that are actually contained within the health care packages (like the public option or the surtax on the wealthy) are also pretty popular. And yet, when you ask people about the "plan" being contemplated by the Congress and/or the President, it is not very popular. There are a lot of reasons for this, many of which are the Democrats' fault -- they haven't settled on a particular plan, and the President's messaging, although better of late, has not been terribly effective (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/obama-democrats-flunking-health-care.html).

But the real upside to the protests is that they perpetuate misinformation about the Democrats' bills. Forget the birthers (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/760087/-Birthers-are-mostly-Republican-and-Southern) -- I want to know how many Americans believe in the "death panels" (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434). (I also want to know whether Chuck Grassley, since he seems to be one of them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/grassley-endorses-death-p_n_257677.html), would accept the following trade: Democrats will drop the "death panels" if you'll drop your opposition to the public option.)

Ultimately, the message that Democrats need to be getting across is not that the protesters are protesting in the wrong way or for the wrong reasons, but that they're protesting, in some substantial measure, about the wrong things: that what they seem to think is contained in the health care package doesn't necessarily match the reality.

[Praetor]

Stephen Hawking essentially ends the health care debate by supporting the UK's system. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-enters-us_n_257343.html)
haha Rachel Maddow called the claims that Hawking wouldn't survive in the UK a "tremendous avalanche of fail".

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

for it before she was against it


However, on April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:_qjXL_3J08EJ:www.eeo .state.ak.us/archive-50122.html+%22HEALTHCARE+DECISIONS+ DAY%22+palin&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a),” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options:
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. [...]
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.

[rollerman4221]

I dont know whats really goin on with this whole healthcare stuff, but when FOX news says enough dumb shit to fill a whole episode of the daily show, it probably isn't going to well

[GeeBee]

for it before she was against it

Starting to see a pattern here...

Sarah on bridge to nowhere: Fer it, then aggin' it.

Sarah's daughter on abstinence-only: Aggin' it, then fer it.

This family is the most famous trailer-trash ever.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Starting to see a pattern here...

Sarah on bridge to nowhere: Fer it, then aggin' it.

Sarah's daughter on abstinence-only: Aggin' it, then fer it.

This family is the most famous trailer-trash ever.

they are in a neck and neck battle with britney spears for that title.

[GeeBee]

they are in a neck and neck battle with britney spears for that title.

If Sarah shaves her head...she wins.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

If Sarah shaves her head...she wins.

haha i think we all would win in some matter ha

[Justin_stacy]

The hippies are taking their shopping needs elsewhere. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1)

Here's Mackey's op-ed piece.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1

He also did a 2020 segment that was pretty interesting a few months ago.

[shit stroll]

The hippies are taking their shopping needs elsewhere. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1)

Here's Mackey's op-ed piece.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1

He also did a 2020 segment that was pretty interesting a few months ago.
lol i shop at whole foods but will probably be going elsewhere now.

[MyWorldEntire]

My Grandma: "did you know that under Obama's plan, people over 80 will not have health care?!?!"
:hitself:

[Justin_stacy]

lol i shop at whole foods but will probably be going elsewhere now.

seriously?

:gunhead:

[mattmatumbo]

My Grandma: "did you know that under Obama's plan, people over 80 will not have health care?!?!"
:hitself:

Yeah, i think my mom told my Grandma the same thing, and she's racist so she'll never drop it.

Lol at Investor's Business Daily calling someone like Hawking into an argument.. THAT HE DISAGREES WITH THEM ON!

By far, this thread has informed me of the health care plan and i like it. But i think single-payer (or whatever) is the better option imo for the US.

[Justin_stacy]

Sebelius Says Government Insurance Plan Not Essential

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

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRqy6w7DFAB0

[coryatlarge]

The hippies are taking their shopping needs elsewhere. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1)

Here's Mackey's op-ed piece.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1

He also did a 2020 segment that was pretty interesting a few months ago.
interesting. i dont shop there now anyways. theres a local chain called vitamin cottage that has the same food but at a better price.

[asmolitor]

not only does dropping the public option irk me, but the quotes in this interview might as well be glenn beck talking points:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/16/conservative-democrat-gets-the-last-word/

“I will not force government-run health care on anyone; if there ever is government-run health care, the first ones to sign up should be the president and every member of Congress, including myself; You should be able to keep the insurance you’ve got today if you like it and always choose your own doctor; no federal funding for illegal immigrants or for abortion; and no rationing of health care."


In an apparent reference to a controversial — and sometimes misinterpreted –provision providing Medicare reimbursement for end-of-life counseling in a House version of health care reform legislation, Ross also said, “I will never vote for a bill to kill old people. Period.”

[saysmydoctor]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/Sok7wHRW61I/AAAAAAAADzI/GSGv4yV1v-g/s1600-h/obamaretreat.jpg

[Josh Weinstein]

I don't know if this was discussed earlier in the thread, but has there been any media coverage about the opinions of the millions of americans without health insurance that would actually benefit from this reform bill?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/) (Factcheck.org)

[Machu505]

Seven Falsehoods About Health Care (http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/) (Factcheck.org)
LIAR!

x

[Zeran]

do opponents of healthcare really think that you can reform the system without any government involvement? what do they think, that the insurance industry is going to reform itself? that will never happen. the whole situation is ridiculous. this country is insane with a lot of things.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3831797463_861b0baaf7_o.png

http://www.donkeylicious.com/2009/08/flowchart.html

During the FDR 2.0 panel, an audience member asked Chris Hayes to give the condensed version of what the health care bills current under debate would actually do. He started his description by saying something like 'are you guys all familiar with flowcharts? ... right, we're all geeks here'. His description ended up being pretty useful

[Machu505]

do opponents of healthcare really think that you can reform the system without any government involvement? what do they think, that the insurance industry is going to reform itself? that will never happen. the whole situation is ridiculous. this country is insane with a lot of things.
That is exactly what they think.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3831797463_861b0baaf7_o.png

http://www.donkeylicious.com/2009/08/flowchart.html
This was actually very, very helpful. Thanks.

[perceptrons]

The last diamond of the flowchart could use some work, but overall, I think it might help. I'll test it on a few morons I know.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

ya the last diamond is a little confusing.

[Mitch]

Wish Democrats had some fucking balls. What is this I hear about Obama stepping away from pushing a public option? Meh.

[Machu505]

Wish Democrats had some fucking balls. What is this I hear about Obama stepping away from pushing a public option? Meh.
It's called media exaggeration. Obama said in Colorado that it was just part of it and Sebelius said it wasn't essential. This has been construed as the Obama Administration abandoning the public option, even though Robert Gibbs said they still wanted it in there.

[Mitch]

It's called media exaggeration. Obama said in Colorado that it was just part of it and Sebelius said it wasn't essential. This has been construed as the Obama Administration abandoning the public option, even though Robert Gibbs said they still wanted it in there.

Media exaggeration maybe, but it does imply that they're willing to abandon it.

[boxingwithstars]

It's called media exaggeration. Obama said in Colorado that it was just part of it and Sebelius said it wasn't essential. This has been construed as the Obama Administration abandoning the public option, even though Robert Gibbs said they still wanted it in there.

it still makes it seem like it's not as big of a priority to them as they lead us to believe it was. of course public option is only a piece of the puzzle, but to many American's it is the most important piece.

i highly doubt he is going to abandon it all together. i think this is just their way of trying to downplay their support for the public option in light of all the people speaking out against it and crying socialism.

[Justin_stacy]

Gibbs, in his own belligerent way, is trying to retract the statement right now. Sebelius sounds like she might have spoken out of turn.

[Zeran]

obama just needs to say "fuck bipartisanship" and shoehorn this shit through congress because the democrats have a majority in both houses. they should use it, because you know damn sure the republicans would do the same thing in their shoes.

[Zeran]

it still makes it seem like it's not as big of a priority to them as they lead us to believe it was. of course public option is only a piece of the puzzle, but to many American's it is the most important piece.

i highly doubt he is going to abandon it all together. i think this is just their way of trying to downplay their support for the public option in light of all the people speaking out against it and crying socialism.

i love everyone crying about socialism. they're such hypocrites and i feel like they're still in the years of the whole "red scare" or whatever. every single other industrialized nation has universal healthcare except the united states. are they all communist hellholes now? no, FFS. the most maligned system, the nhs in the uk, is in the motherland of democracy, but the republicans would have you believe that they're communist russia themselves. also, don't these people realize that social security, medicare and medicaid are all "socialism"? hypocrites. they say they want to bring back the way our founding fathers would have wanted it, but then that would mean having slavery and segregation and everything else. seriously, what is wrong with this country?

[Justin_stacy]

NYT is going to report that the dems intend to go it alone tommorrow, according to drudge. Republicans are probably salivating at the news.

[Zeran]

NYT is going to report that the dems intend to go it alone tommorrow, according to drudge. Republicans are probably salivating at the news.

finally.

[Machu505]

Now what the centrists need is a good ol fashioned LBJ-esque treatment.

[Justin_stacy]

dems get anymore so-called representatives like that buffoon Massa and 2010 should be a good year for republicans.

[Justin_stacy]

finally.

I'll believe it (and worry) when I see it.

[Mercy Medical]

dems get anymore so-called representatives like that buffoon Massa and 2010 should be a good year for republicans.
Does everything need to be red vs. blue, my team vs. your team? This isn't the fucking NFL...

[Justin_stacy]

Does everything need to be red vs. blue, my team vs. your team? This isn't the fucking NFL...

I thought that was the forum rule nowadays?

[Mercy Medical]

I thought that was the forum rule nowadays?
It's fucking obnoxious...I'm sorry, but this is an epic pet peev of mine and it goes for all sides because it's that kind of shit that is the cause of all the bullshit in politics and the inability for this country and this government to actually do anything good.

/rant

[Justin_stacy]

It's fucking obnoxious...I'm sorry, but this is an epic pet peev of mine and it goes for all sides because it's that kind of shit that is the cause of all the bullshit in politics and the inability for this country and this government to actually do anything good.

/rant

I don't know how you can post in the general thread then.

The party first mentalty of Massa and his like, is why shit doesn't get done, not the calling him out for it. And I don't apology for hoping it cost him his seat.

[Mercy Medical]

I don't know how you can post in the general thread then.

The party first mentalty of Massa and his like, is why shit doesn't get done, not the calling him out for it. And I don't apology for hoping it cost him his seat.
The party first mentality of ANYONE, red, blue, green, purple, whatever is why shit doesn't get done. Both sides are guilty of this behavior...BOTH sides are the problem.

The calling him out for it for specifically being a democrat is just obnoxious and turns any sort of political discussion into an equivalent of a Manning vs. Romo discussion between bros.

If you want to call someone out on something, call them out on it...the party has nothing to do with it and shouldn't be part of the equation because as I previously stated, both sides are guilty of such behavior and to point it out for one and not the other is hypocrisy.

[everybodywakeup]

Can someone answer this for me? It's probably a stupid question, but...how does this work with certain doctors only accepting certain insurances? I have a PPO, so I can go to pretty much any doctor, and if I go to someone out of my network I just have to pay more money...but would the people getting national health insurance be able to go to any doctor that a person with a PPO can go to? My mom is on MediCal (California's version of Medicare, but doesn't count as that with doctors who only accept Medicare...) and if she gets real health insurance via Obama's plan, would she be able to go to the doctors I go to? I just can't imagine that all the low-income people would finally be able to go to any of the high profile doctors in LA or Orange County if they so choose. I mean, they should be able to, but as of right now my mom is limited to going to shitty urgent care offices.

[Machu505]

39% of Americans are stupid. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/americans-poll-out-medicare/)

[paper halo]

39% of Americans are stupid. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/americans-poll-out-medicare/)

The poll also finds that only 62 percent (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html) of respondents believe that President Obama was born in America. Of the 38 percent who either don't believe or are unsure, some think he was born in Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines, or France. Six percent of the total poll respondents also don't think Hawaii is a U.S. state.

What the fuck?

[Machu505]

When the fuck did France and the Philippines come into this?

[GeeBee]

Probably because of something Rush Limpblow said...

[saysmydoctor]

What Massa said was a stupid remark on his part.

[Machu505]

What did Massa say?

[TheFaceOfZach]

Has anyone here besides me tried reading the bill?


I'm trying to read it right now. So far, I can understand now that there is a tax. That's 'bout it...

[vodyanoj]

39% of Americans are stupid. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/americans-poll-out-medicare/)

Actually, 50% of people anywhere are stupider than average, by definition. And 50% of Americans are stupider than an average American, which could be one of the most horrifying sentences I have ever constructed.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Myths and falsehoods about health care reform (http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/Xdx_5WG6Czs/200908200002) (MediaMatters.org aka "commie pinko liberals")

EDIT: The only "myth" i disagree with is the "not going to raise your taxes" one. it is going to raise taxes on the top % points so ya kinda dumb to include that

[open mind]

sometimes i just don't understand the priorities of this country.

we don't bat an eye at the yearly trillion dollar budgets for offense or locking up drug "criminals" but somehow it's wrong to spend that much over 5-10 years on taking care of our sick?

[Zeran]

a lot of people are undereducated and narrow-minded?