1. "Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on 'fishy' claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan."
2. "The 'public option,' a new government insurance program akin to Medicare, has been a central component of Mr. Obama’s agenda for overhauling the health care system, but it has also emerged as a flashpoint for anger and opposition.... For Mr. Obama, giving up on the public plan would have risks and rewards. The reward is that he could punch a hole in Republican arguments that he wants a 'government takeover' of health care and possibly win some Republican votes." (Republican? If the anger was restricted to Republicans, would he care?)
१७ ऑगस्ट, २००९
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२९ टिप्पण्या:
229 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Ah, backtracking. It makes for great political theatre.
I suppose in an Orwellian sense, the Obama presidency should be refered to as "Little Brother". So, from here on out, I suggest we all drop the Dear Leader, The One, Super O, etc, and just refer to him by Little Brother.
You know, I don't think I've heard the term "orwellian" as much in my adult life as I have in the last six months and, frankly, Bush did some pretty scary shit all on his own.
He doesn't need Republicans nor does he care about getting the Republicans, unless he can't get his own party to go along with his agenda. Then he might care.
Obama is not retreating. He's simply redeploying over the horizon to Okinawa or someplace like that.
He will return!
WV- eccusne; punch line to that old gag that Steve Martin used to do.
They can start backtracking on their gee-look-at-Canada-and-other-nations-as-a-model rhetoric that they encourage liberals and Democrats to parrot:
This just in:
The incoming President of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Dr. Anne Doing warned: “the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize…
“We know that there must be change,” she said. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”
The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there’s a critical need to make Canada’s health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.
His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that “a health-care revolution has passed us by,” that it’s possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and “that competition should be welcomed, not feared.”
I agree with Maguro, this is kabuki.
Single payer will return in another guise when we least expect it.
I'm sure Marc Ambinder will be able to find an "administration source" to let us know that this was only a trial balloon.
WV: ovitiver "The eggs of a tiver."
Coming up next: Zero discovering decency in private doctors and private insurers.
wv - pringe: hitting her G spot.
What's funniest about this retreat is that the email you receive when it bounces contains a lie:
"We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck."
The only problem of course is that the "realitycheck" website contains no way to provide feedback.
As of now, you cannot give the White House feedback. You can ONLY receive their emails.
Why is a health insurance co-op a good idea? Is this yet another way of pissing about health insurance companies making a profit? Foolishness.
A co-op will need to meet the same standards of capital and reserves as any other insurer, and will have to make a profit in order to fund those reserves.
Think of the staggering capital investment required to form a health insurance co-op, nationwide, with tens of millions of people who want to become members overnight. The office buildings, the computers, the thousands of trained employees, the electronic infrastructure, the service contracts entered into with hospitals, clinics and doctors, not to mention pharmaceutical and equipment providers.
Now think of just how good the federal government is at setting up efficient business practices, rapidly and flawlessly.
What a mess.
Of course they know it's not just Republican opposition to the bill, but that's the talking point. Every sane Dem is against it. Nobody believes the "evil Republicans made made do it" anymore, do they?
Plus, the first millions of people into the co-op will be the ones who cannot get insurance elsewhere at a price they are willing or able to pay. Adverse selection will drive the co-op's premiums sky high.
And at the end of the year when the co-op assesses every member for a portion of the year's losses, then what?
Jeebers, what a dumb idea.
WV Consi. The name of Fonzie's mom.
So, it looks like President BarelyCare is an olympic level backpeddler. Whether he is doing this as a form of strategery to come back with another option will remain to be seen. However, his short term problem is that it will be viewed as weakness and if the conservatives don't pounce on this they will lose their momentum. It's a totally telegraphed stratagem.
WV = menspeo - You can pretty much come to your own conclusions on this one.
Political theater indeed. The White House/ media Axis are frantically having their stage hands jerking up one stage set and lowering back down another stage set to look as if nothing like Obama's crushing defeat at the hands of the Wasila Whack Job ever happened. We have been priviledged to watch the Cleaners in action since Sunday morning. I give them a well earned round of applause.
And as a bonus we can get the IRS to be the new health insurance cops.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/
Now that the public option is retreating, I think it should be safe to point out that, structurally, there was a reason for it. A reason beyond the Democrats' hopes for a slippery slope down to single payer.
The bill, as structured, has massive indirect subsidies (estimated at about $700 billion, over ten years) for the health insurance industry, by subsidising individual purchases of health insurance. And the bill, as currently designed, is going to penalize individuals, if they don't buy the health insurance industry's product, and will penalize businesses even more heavily, if they don't buy the health insurance industry's product.
So essentially, the bill, as currently structured, redirects a massive flow of cash towards health insurers. If we look at higher education, with student loans, we know what that leads to -- massive price increases. The same thing happened with real estate, actually. Make it easier for people to buy things by extending credit or a offering a subsidy, and the prices explode.
The obvious solution, here, would be to cut the subsidies, but that would make a mockery of the Democrats' pretense of helping the middle class -- some people would be stuck paying a penalty tax, but still not have enough spare to buy the health insurance. And that wouldn't be fair. You could cut out the penalty tax (and in fact, the penalty tax is softened somewhat for the very poor), but if you do that, you can't pretend your bill will expand coverage to everyone anymore. The "public option" was a kludge, intended to help prevent the cost of health insurance from exploding too fast by establishing a competitor with artificially low pricing.
The bill without the public option, but with its misguided subsidy and penalty tax provisions is arguably worse than the bill with the public option. Opponents of the bill should turn their focus towards targeting the subsidy provisions much more narrowly on the destitute, who really may need the subsidy, and eliminating the penalty taxes.
Trad guy:
If the stage hands are union, it could be an effort by Obama admin to create jobs:)
The Democrats can pass the health insurance bill all on their own if they want, but then they will get creamed in the next election. If they can make it seem like it's a bipartisan effort, then it won't hurt them so badly.
I don't see why they don't just make up a plan to cover all the uninsured and the illegals, and pay for it separately instead of making everybody change their health care and insurance policies.
I think about 80% of Americans have health insurance and are satisfied with it.
The illegals and some others don't have it. Obama should just pass a health care plan for illegals and the few other uninsured people, and make the government pay for that smaller plan. That way he'd get the illegals' votes, once he grants them citizenship, and yet he wouldn't have to dismantle the entire health care system to achieve it.
I don't see why they don't just make up a plan to cover all the uninsured and the illegals, and pay for it separately instead of making everybody change their health care and insurance policies.
Honestly, I don't see why they can't do it with current Medicaid funding. On a combined Federal and State basis, I think we spend more than we spend on Medicare annually -- something like $400 billion versus $350 billion for Medicare. How is that possible, given that the Medicaid requirements set a low bar on income, and don't even cover all the poor? My guess would be that there's a lot more elderly covered by Medicare than poor people overall, and even basic maintenance care for the elderly is probably cheaper than most care for the poor -- even the poor covered currently by Medicare (e.g. children, pregnant women, etc.) Childrens' care is also supplemented, I think, by SCHIP, which is like another $50 billion. This is a lot of money to be spending annually. Where is it all going?
Obama's left-wing policies are like a virus and the Tea Party movement is the nation's immune response.
Well, when will there be the photoshopped photo of Little Brother wading ashore during the invasion of the Red States?
Michael Hasenstab said...
Why is a health insurance co-op a good idea? Is this yet another way of pissing about health insurance companies making a profit? Foolishness.
A co-op will need to meet the same standards of capital and reserves as any other insurer, and will have to make a profit in order to fund those reserves.
Ihave done all my auto, home, and liability insurance business wth a Co-Op for 35 years. The isurance is cheaper, the management is a known quantity,and the customer service is excellent. BTW Moody's loves them. Each year I get dividends if costs are less than revenue.
Founded in 1922, to serve Mlitary Officers, USAA paid out $6.2 billion in dividends and rebates to its members in 2006.
Michael, if I were in the market for an individual policy, and they sold them, I'd go to USAA in a heart beat.
It's a great Co-Op. It just isnt in the health insurance business.
Florida: not quite true the realitycheck site doesn't allow feedback. There's a contact form allowing feedback on "what myths we should address next." The form asks for contact info.
I told them not to make me angry.
I told them "You're making me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry".
"I don't see why they don't just make up a plan..."
Because then the plan would just be about providing health care to those who do need it.
The goal now, however, is only secondarily about health plans, and more about power. The poor always suffer when the goal is power, especially when the poor are used in the pursuit of power.
No power is handed over, then the poor are told they will just have to wait, and suffer, and die until they have enough gumption to fight the greedy capitalists and make them hand over all the power to the wise leaders of hope and change.
The poor are tools.
And that's the saddest thing of all. Most everyone hates the poor. Watch out especially for the powerful who say they're for the poor, but won't give up power or position or perks for their supposed friends.
If Palin can cause all this havoc from her Facebook page, will she be next be directing Predator strikes from her Twitter feed?
Other than curtailing The One's plans for single payer gov't health care, abandoning the public option brings the disappointment of votes lost for Democrats.
Think of it. Employees of a giant bureaucracy controlling, eventually, 8-10% of the economy. Add them to the Teacher's Union, SEIU and other such and the Dems wouldn't even have to send ACORN into the prisons to register convicted felons anymore.
wv: dommies - dumb communists
Obama does not understand the health care system.
Obama truly believes that prescribing unnecessary care by private doctors is rampant.
Obama also believes (somewhat in contradiction) that it's a policy of insurance companies to deny coverage wrongfully in order to increase profit.
Obama does not understand how for profit competition leads to both efficiency and innovation. He has zero experience in the private sector and his attitude to profit ranges from indifference to hostility.
Obama never managed anything until he became President. He now manages, but badly.
Obama has clearly stated that he favors a single payer system.
Do not believe that they are giving up the "public option," which flows philosophically from these various limitations in his experience and false beliefs. However they dress it up, they want the federal government to control health care.
Michael, if I were in the market for an individual policy, and they sold them, I'd go to USAA in a heart beat.
I agree.
My comment was regarding the very high capital cost of starting a new health insurance co-op from scratch, and then expecting that it's premiums would be lower than conventional insurance.
USAA probably doesn't have to deal with adverse selection the way a gov't mandated co-op will have to do.
Obama doesn't have to give up on the public plan and he's not going to. Obama will say that the public plan was never essential, so it wont count as a defeat if one isn't included in health care reform legislation.
His opponents, and the press, simply haven't been buying into this story. THAT is the problem Obama is trying to deal with. He's trying to not take the hit when the public plan doesn't pass.
The really strange thing, probably a rookie mistake, is that he took ownership of HR3200. It is the House's bill, not his, but he keeps referring to "my plan" thereby claiming ownership of all of the crap that is in that bill.
A more experienced politician would have referred to it by it's name and deflected the blame for anything bad back onto the House, insulating himself from criticism.
I agree with Maguro, this is kabuki.
President1984
President Waffles
By the way, the original "fishy" comment email address does still work: alert@grassfire.net. So much for honesty and transparency. Can this administration ever play it straight?????????????????
I propose they instead spend their time on reducing the LITIGATION costs of health care- medical malpractice litigation is exploding. Egged on by greedy lawyers, plaintiffs sue at the drop of a hat which drives OVER TREATMENT.
One of my friends just dropped from medical school with 1 year to go- the reason? He began to see that he was learning very little about Medicine and a whole lot about "how to not be sued" that is a shame. Should doctors be held accountable when they mess up- you bet- should I have to pick up the bill on the chance that they MIGHT mess up or because they way over test to "be on the safe side"?
Doctors believe patients will be less likely to go to a lawyer if they think the doctor did everything possible—even when doing so doesn’t help the patient or causes harm. Statistics back this up. The top reason for malpractice payouts involves the failure on the doctor’s part to diagnose a disease.
Online and in person, doctors talk openly about this defensive medicine. “We practice defensive medicine so often, every day, all the time, we aren’t even aware we are doing it,” says Robert P. Lindeman, M.D., a Natick, Massachusetts, pediatrician.
REDUCE LITIGATION DIAHHREA- that is a big step in the right direction. Not the only step but a big one.
Republican arguments ...
Yet another lie.
Republicans have no power. Republicans are in the minority in the House of Representatives. Republicans have less than a veto-proof minority in the Senate. Obama pwns the Whitehouse.
He could have his health care tomorrow if he could get his troops to support it.
Obama is losing the argument, not to Republicans but to America.
Talk about paranoia. The Admin asks for arguments people hear against the legislation and con's start screaming that they're victimized.
Really, conservatives have gone start raving batshit. Carrying weapons to rallies, making up lies that Obama wants to kill old people, etc, etc.
People like this used to be ignored by the media but crazy is good for ratings so now we see all these dumb clucks all over the news.
In fact, only a small fraction of the American public is this crazy to believe this tripe.
Enough on what you're AGAINST. Please explain what is it about the current health care system in the US that con's like so much?
- Is it the private sector "Death Panels?" (Happens every day!)
- Is it the long waits for medical care?
- Is it the people dropped from insurance when they go from making payments to seeking care?
- Is the rationing of health care that has led over 45 million Americans without coverage?
- Maybe it's the highest administrative costs for any health care system in the industrialized world? (devoted to denying care, no less).
- Is it your fear that some non-Whites might get health care?
- Is it that you love subsidizing health care for the poor through emergency rooms - when it is most expensive and least effective?
Conservatives are defending the status quo against reform. Please share with us your love for the status quo in health care.
Protesters to Bush: You are going to bankrupt the country, you're passing debt to our grandchildren, you're spying on Americans, etc., etc. You CAN"T DO THAT!
Bush to protesters: Oh, yeah? Watch me!
Protesters to Obama: We don't want socialist medicine, you want to kill grandma, you are creating a spying program where neighbors can turn each other in, we don't want government-run healthcare!
Obama to protestors: OK, what do YOU want?--NOTHING!--OK, then...
This is the difference between Republican and Democratic administrations--Republicans don't give two shits about public opinion (or the public good, for that matter), no matter how insane their ideas are. Democrats crumble at any sign of opposition--no matter how insane (and it is insane).
Pox on both your houses!
And BTW there absolutely no benefit to the plan even if there is one extra Republican voting for it. NONE. It is completely irrelevant. The GOP has no interest in fixing the health-care system in the US--they've been fighting hard for the past 20 years to break it, why would they want to fix it? By the late 1970s, education and health care were the last two large swaths of government regulated (and, in part, operated) public service that was yet to be privatized--or, at least, open to significant profit-making. Health care was first, with first insurance going completely private and for profit, then hospitals turning to for-profit clinics and other services to squeeze profits for investors and directors. When this was tried with education, it became a miserable failure (Edison Schools?).
So, when the insurance companies refuse to switch you over to a new plan when your COBRA runs out (18 months after you've been laid off--and that's if you can afford to pay $1000 a month for the plan) or when you spouses insurance policy falls victim to recision, or when the insurance company decides that grandma's cancer treatment is experimental and is not covered, don't come crying to the Democrats--you're libertarian and you'd don't want the government telling insurance companies how to treat people as people and not statistics (never mind that COBRA was already a concession).
Idiots!
USAA paid out $6.2 billion in dividends
I looooove USAA. I couldn't believe my husband wasn't doing his banking with USAA, even though he had his auto ins with them. It was almost a condition of marriage that he move all his finances to them. :)
45 million Americans without coverage
They are not all Americans. Many are illegal aliens and no, I am not too concerned if they have health insurance. If they want medical care, they can pay cash or go home.
A lot to agree with there, ShadowFax. for example, the Senate Finance Committee working on health has had a 50/50 partisan split, despite the VOTERS sending up 60/40 split.
Baucus to voters: who care what you think?
So, class-factotum, by your "logic" you don't care about Americans not receiving health care if there are also illegal aliens not receiving health care.
That's really a dumb statement. You might be very bright, but your statement is idiotic.
It does reinforce my belief that conservatives do not give a rat's ass about this country's people, just their own power, party and ideology.
class-factotum, by your "logic" you don't care about Americans not receiving health care if there are also illegal aliens not receiving health care.
Not what I said. Just correcting a misstatement. I do not care to pay for medical care for illegal aliens (of course, we already do) BECAUSE they are illegal aliens. It does not follow that I wish to see my fellow Americans cut off.
How many AMERICANS are without health insurance or without access to medical care?
Also, the 45+ million Americans without health care refers to citizens of the United states of America, not illegal aliens.
Not that conservatives give a tinker's dam about such US citizens. When they were in power, they had a chance to deal with that problem and did not.
Republicans to uninsured: Drop dead.
Alpha - You're wrong as usual. The Senate Finance Committee has 13 Ds and 10 Rs.
Where do you get your facts from?
WV - polensia= That thing where the Poles have to eat fish for a month or something.
"Republicans to uninsured: Drop dead."
That's funny. Something The O & Republicans sorta agree on.
Obama to elderly or "unproductive young" needing expensive care under Obamacare: "Drop dead."
OK, after double-checking the uninsured numbers, I triple-cheked and found this statement:
"The Citizenship Factor
According to Census Bureau data, of the estimated 46 million "Americans" without health insurance, more than 10 million are non-U.S. citizens."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/insurancestats.htm
So, fuck those 36 million uninsured US citizens. Got it. More "compassionate conservatism."
---------------
Maguro, the US Senate stands at 60/40. Not 50/50.
Alpha - answer Althouse! She said how can Obama's agenda be blocked only if Republicans are outraged. Obviously a lot of independents are too, but you won't admit it.
Enough on what you're AGAINST. Please explain what is it about the current health care system in the US that con's like so much?
This is silly argument. We don't have to argue that the current situation is great or that we like it, just that it's better than the alternative on offer.
I'd be open to a reform that
(1) adopted the health insurance exchanges;
(2) mandated uniform disclosure standards for health insurance policy coverage (which may, for all I know, already exist), but not uniform coverage (contra the House bill);
(3) overruled some state regulations hobbling the development of a national market in health insurance;
(4) mandated disclosure of hospital pricing schedules, including the hospital's "base" or "list" price, the medicare price, and the pricing schedules negotiated by their largest private payor (to help with price discovery in the market for health care); and
(5) limited medical malpractice recovery.
That's not what's on offer, so the fact that I'm broadly in favour of that kind of a scheme (until I see the details, and the CBO tells me how insanely expensive it would be, I suppose), but that matters not a whit, since Obama has zero interest in hearing anything from outside.
Maguro, the US Senate stands at 60/40. Not 50/50.
I know that. What I'm telling you is that the Senate Finance Committee has 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on it. 13 is more than 10. Therefore, the Finance Committee is not 50/50 like you said it was.
Alpha,
Dude, I've come to respect you a bit over these last few months as I take a breath and read what you are trying to say. Mostly you are pissed at the "conservative" or "Republican" views and how sometimes everyone espousing them seems to be ignoring the inconvenient facts or problems of the conservative side.
What I'm asking though here is for you to tell us what you think should be done in the case of Health Care. What are the MAIN issues that you feel should be dealt with (uninsured?, public option? guaranteed portability?)? And what do you suggest might be a solution, even if you like someone else's.
I promise to not mock your answers even if I disagree with them. but I'll bet 2 things:
1)We probably agree on more issues then most people think.
2)You have some reasonable ideas that deserve serious consideration.
You're a bright person - that's not flattery - it comes through in your writing even when snarky.
So?
Maguro, I never said the SFC was 60/40. I said who the voters sent up there, referring to the US Senate, not any one committee (and this one appears to be exceeding their jurisdictional reach, BTW).
You can clarify my intent if you want, but I prefer you not lie about it.
It seems to me that Max Baucus is more concerned about his own bipartisan image than in the quality of the legislation. He has dragged this out for months while Chuck Grassley makes a fool of him.
The only problem of course is that the "realitycheck" website contains no way to provide feedback.
There is a feature there for JAC.
They provide an opportunity to "give others a healthy dose of reality" by sending an email via the website.
There is no disclaimer on that option, so there is no way to know if you are signing you or your friend up for Axlerod updates.
And Alpha--of the 36 million who are without health insurance, how many do so voluntarily? You just recycle 'troots talking point.
As to what I like about our current system? Two things: best health outcomes in the world, and two: CHOICE
See also the comments of the incoming head of the canadian health service, and finally Rep Eric Massa, D NY to his constituents: F**k you
Gee, thanks, Chase. Yeah, I'm getting pretty pissed at the abysmal level of debate in this country. And at seeing people go to rallies armed with weapons.
My priorities:
1) Cover the uninsured so they can have preventive care.
2) Regulate the health insurance companies so they must provide health care to those they cover (i.e. not have corporate bureaucrats "get between you and your doctor" or deny care because of some error on Form stroke-7-dash-yadda yadda)
3) Create a system where medical care is no longer the Number One cause for bankruptcy for the American people.
4) Create a system where seeking health care makes people better, not causing more stress and delayed treatment.
5) Create a system that takes focuses first and foremost on health care delivery, not making some executives richer.
6) It must have a national public option. In too many states there is monopoly control in health care "markets."
Stuff like that. I'm not ready to write up a manifesto and have to get back to work anyway.
Thanks for being rationale, though. Nice change of pace here.
Maguro, I never said the SFC was 60/40.
I know you didn't say it was 60/40. You said it was 50/50 right here:
A lot to agree with there, ShadowFax. for example, the Senate Finance Committee working on health has had a 50/50 partisan split, despite the VOTERS sending up 60/40 split.
But, as I said, the SFC's composition is 13 Ds and 10Rs for Democrat percentage of 56%. This is the part you don't seem to understand...you're bitching about a 50/50 partisan split on the SFC when your guys actually have a 3-vote majority that's perfectly consistent with your 60/40 Senate majority.
Basically, if the healthcare bill sucks, it is entirely on the Dems. There is no excuse.
Alpha,
Whoa! you have thought about it!
I also have to return to work, but tonight I'm going to try and digest your ideas a bit.
Thanks!
Balfegor:
This is silly argument. We don't have to argue that the current situation is great or that we like it, just that it's better than the alternative on offer. .
But conservatives are not arguing about the current proposal. They're just making shit up.
There is no serious proposal for a "government-run health care system."
There are no proposals for "death panels." etc..
Every criticism I have seen come from conservatives applies to the current system in spades. Republicans are making deeply dishonest arguments (which Althouse applauds).
------------
p.s. Ronald Reagan also predicted nearly 50 years ago that Medicare would end freedom in America. Those very talking points are being recycled, with no embarrassment, by con's today. Was Ronald Reagan right? did Medicare end freedom?
The meme that insurance companies routinely deny care is utter bullshit. I'm 47 and married. I've never been denied care. Nor has my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends. I've been struggling to remember anyone I know being denied medical care and can't. In the local news, the cases discussed are almost all about experimental procedures. Do some people get health care denied? Yes. But it isn't as common as many here and in the administration make it out to be.
Interestingly, I have declined medical care for myself and on behalf of a very premature child and know other people who have, including my grandmother in her waining years.
Furthermore, I fail to understand the logic of this assertion anyway. If you place no limits whatsoever on medical care, overall costs WILL rise. It is economically impossible for them to do otherwise.
Finally, why the assertion that if you don't have medical insurance (i.e. prepaid medical care) then you may as well drop dead? I've gone years without insurance and paid for my medical expenses out of pocket (including CAT scans, x-rays, stitches, emergency room visits and even a child birth.)
When I was in my late thirties, I added up the total cost of medical care for myself, my wife and children since we were married (I had no medical expenses from 18 to 23, so there was no need to go back that far.) I then added up what the total cost of my various prepaid plans were or would have been had I been fully covered the whole time (this means not only employee contributes, but the employer cost as well.) They were a wash (it included an ambulance ride, a premature birth, a c-section and several other non-trivial medical expenses.)
AL it is a concern.
But you do not ask WHO these people are very much (you had to go look up the number of illegals ...). Agaian -- some of those uninsured are young uninsured who chose NOT to be uninsured. Others are also uninsured by choice for other reasons, some economic, some not.
Some are uninsured as they are betwen jobs and elected not to use COBRA. (Idea: Now maybe unemployment also ought to include some kind of catastrophic / accident coverage?)
But the real pitch is -- if you are so concerned about 10 or 20 million (??) people who are uninsured, why not figure out what to do about that instead of trashing the whole healthcare and insurance industry so what -- the Won can put a feather in his hat and show how he community organized the United States of America (against many people's wills) into mutually shared mediocrity?
WV boonalas
Something that would make me blush
Single payer will return in another guise when we least expect it.
Hey, BJM! Care to show anywhere in the current proposals where "single payer" is ever mentioned (outside of Medicare)?
Opponents of the bill should turn their focus towards targeting the subsidy provisions much more narrowly on the destitute, who really may need the subsidy, and eliminating the penalty taxes.
Balfegor, don't you get it--opponents of the bill don't want any bill. They are perfectly happy to sink all efforts and blame liberals for being "ineffectual". All attack points are decoys--no one is going to make grandma die, no is going to spy on you, no one is giving government control over medical records, no one is sending nurses to brainwash your kids. It's make-believe--the goal is to shut down all debate and pretend that nothing is wrong. Why do you think the "protesters are just screaming and yelling and complaining and none of them are proposing anything meaningful? Because they want "government to stay out of Medicare"! RIGHT!!
The Democrats can pass the health insurance bill all on their own if they want, but then they will get creamed in the next election. If they can make it seem like it's a bipartisan effort, then it won't hurt them so badly.
Kirby, this is nonsense! If Dems pass the bill quickly enough, and people realize that their lives have not changed for the worse because of it, it will have no impact on the next cycle. Think same-sex marriage in Massachusetts--after a couple of years with no sky falling even conservative legislators gave up the ghost.
I think about 80% of Americans have health insurance and are satisfied with it.
The first figure is roughly accurate--it may be closer to 85%. But it only applies to having
insurance. But it has absolutely nothing to do with being satisfied with the options. Case in point, MA, RI, NH insurance options are largely similar--HMO plans have no deductible and cost about $1400 mo per family ($800 in 2000) and have broad coverage at 100% as long as you pay the co-pay (which went up from $5 to $15 to $25 over the past six years). Some options differ from plan to plan--some cover physical therapy (with varying limits), some include unlimited mental health maintenance (while others give you four visits to a counselor and demand forms that prove improvement before agreeing to pay for more). But, overall, they similar, as long as you use facilities that are approved by the plan (not necessarily their own clinics--just must be on the list). When my wife and I worked in different states, we had to switch to a different plan--it was about $700 mo and covered 80% of most expenses. No extras though--no vision, PT, or any other options or alternatives. That plan now is over $1000 mo per family, but still at 80% with co-pay and $2500 deductible. In Wisconsin, family plans started at $700 mo (in 2005) with $25 co-pay, $5000 deductible and 70% coverage. If you wanted to go up to 80%, costs and deductibles would go up as well. There are no 100% plans in WI.
The problem is that, even though there are a number of HMO and other insurance companies nationally, locally we have mostly regional monopolies. That is, over 60% of the population has minimal choice in coverage. And 15% have no coverage. So, do the math and figure out how many may actually be satisfied with their plans. And, no, these numbers do not include "illegals".
If Palin can cause all this havoc from her Facebook page, will she be next be directing Predator strikes from her Twitter feed?
It's not Palin, it's FreedomWorks and they are paid with insurance companies' dollars.
However, his short term problem is that it will be viewed as weakness and if the conservatives don't pounce on this they will lose their momentum. It's a totally telegraphed stratagem.
Lose momentum? How can a lodestone lose momentum?
Obama's left-wing policies are like a virus and the Tea Party movement is the nation's immune response.
That would be true if you like auto-immune disease.
Obama does not understand how for profit competition leads to both efficiency and innovation. He has zero experience in the private sector and his attitude to profit ranges from indifference to hostility.
Wow! This is so profound! Apparently, David has zero experience in reality.
I propose they instead spend their time on reducing the LITIGATION costs of health care- medical malpractice litigation is exploding. Egged on by greedy lawyers, plaintiffs sue at the drop of a hat which drives OVER TREATMENT.
Patty, are you aware that this blog is being run by a lawyer? Besides, if we are to believe David, the market should correct itself so that it is efficient and innovative. Never mind the fact that you are simply repeating a myth that has little basis in fact--medical costs are not increasing any faster in states without award caps. In fact, it is the opposite. Besides, if you want socialist medical care (as opposed to socialized medicine), go ahead and abolish all malpractice torts. Remember, Tom DeLay was all for award caps, except when he sued over the medical treatment of his own father. At that point, he wanted no limit--classing NIMBYism.
Yet another lie.
Republicans have no power.
Paul, apparently you are not ver familiar with parliamentary procedure. Being a dead weight requires no actual power. It's much easier to gridlock everything than to pass successful legislation. Republicans are exceptional at the former--but no good at the latter.
Maguro, I know what I am bitching about. I am bitching about the panel delaying health care reform being a 50/50 partisan split when the US SENATE is split 60/40.
Every committee and subcommittee in the US SENATE should reflect the will of the voters and have a 60/40 split. This is the principle I'm speaking in favor of.
Now, maybe you think the will of the voters doesn't matter and that Republicans should be granted more power than the voters gave them. I guess we will just disagree.
applies to the current system in spades
It cuts both ways. The problems with the government plan are a) expenses will go up and b) it's the government. You may trust the government, I don't.
Not passing a health plan right now isn't going to bring the country to a halt. I suggest the federal government first start by fixing the Indian Health Service. Next, pass tort reform. Next, change how drugs are patented and how those patents are renewed. Reduce the number of prescription drugs and behind the counter non-prescription drugs. Look at ways to deregulate the system and provide competition. Only then start looking at ways to provide basic medical care to those who need and want it, but can't otherwise afford it.
That said, making in criminal for anyone to NOT purchase medical care is unacceptable (and unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to bother those in power, which is very disturbing in its own right.)
More Maguro:
Basically, if the healthcare bill sucks, it is entirely on the Dems. There is no excuse. .
There's a good argument to be made there which I'm friendly to, except it relieves the responsibility on other parties, like the lousy media and Republicans.
Republicans want the status quo on health care and fight any attempts at reform. People like David Broder, Kent Conrad and Max Baucus demand every bill must have bipartisan support.
All these players are hurting effective reform ad deserve their due blame.
Just when I'm about to leave, this "logic" from Joe pops up:
The meme that insurance companies routinely deny care is utter bullshit. I'm 47 and married. I've never been denied care. Nor has my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends. .
Uh, Joe? Is it possible things happen in this world if they do not happen to you or people you speak to?
Just reflect on that before answering too quickly. Is that really proof?
More from Joe:
b) it's the government. You may trust the government, I don't. .
Hunh. Why all this distrust and hatred for the government is interesting.
So, in event of fire, you don't call the fire department? In event of crime, you don't call the police dept? All that evil hated government.
And, I take it you place great trust in corporations. Especially unregulated corporations?
BTW, the Department of Defense is also the government. Do you have the same distrust for them?
A lot of conservatives supported warrantless wiretapping on the American people - by the government.
A lot of conservatives want to have the government deliver Christian teachings.
A lot of conservatives want the government to regulate our person sex lives and tell us who we can sleep with, marry and what birth control we can use.
That's all quite odd. I thought conservatives don't trust the government? Why do they want to keep using it so much?
The meme that insurance companies routinely deny care is utter bullshit. I'm 47 and married. I've never been denied care. Nor has my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings, my friends.
Joe, stick to plumbing because you suck at statistics!
Alpha Liberal, the problem is that you are simply making up bullshit. Insurance companies simply don't routinely deny coverage. It is a lie.
If you wish to prove me otherwise, it is your burden to provide proof. You can't. Insurance companies do deny some things, most of which are outlined in the policy you sign, but they don't deny coverage routinely (and capriciously.)
Heck, site your own circumstances where you were routinely denied medical care. Please. I'm listening.
JAL:
And we are not making shit up. .
Oh really?
Please provide the text from the bill that establishes "death panels" for babies and senior citizens?
You are recycling 50-year old arguments against Medicare. Please show us where those warnings of the end of freedom if Medicare is passed came to be.
ShadowFox, what the fuck does your comment have to do with anything? The assertion is that insurance companies ROUTINELY DENY medical coverage. That is a lie.
And we are not making shit up.
We are reading what the bill says.
The liberals fall into two camps.
1) Those who believe the words with the simplest one dimensional meaning possible. Ohhhh. WE care about people. All these people in such great want in this awful capitalistic uncaring selfish nation need our help.
2) Those who know what the words really mean.
Conspiracy? No. I am a mental health professional who has hung around social workers, state employees, the "helping professions" and the like for years. You know, those occupations which Mrs. Obama encouraged everyone to pursue instead of that filthy 'making money' gig. You're more noble if you are in the helping professions. Ha.
Social science is full of Orwellian crap. Definitons are critical. And very fluid in the doublespeak culture.
That's what we are responding to.
President Obabma wants a single payer Federal health care program.
He has said it in his own words, and acknowledged it would have to be implemented in steps.
The people of the United States are saying "Hold your horses, sir."
And where are the thousands of uninsured protestors demanding coverage? The ones I've seen sure look like Union put ups. And they have insurance.
You know what? I am one of the 20 million "uninsured" and I am demanding that the Federal governemnt stay out of my medical and healthcare life.
There is no serious proposal for a "government-run health care system."
The President himself used to be pretty open about the fact that he wanted a transition to single-payer, i.e. a government run system. And Barney Frank has also admitted that he sees single payer as potentially transitioning to single-payer. It's not like this is a huge secret here, and arguments against the bill that take into account the slippery slope are perfectly legitimate.
Furthermore, even setting aside the prospect of single-payer, the House and Senate bills could both be fairly characterised as, in effect, a government take-over of health care. Read the bill. In the House bill, which I've read more closely, the bill requires that every insurance plan cover the same "essential benefits package," -- one which is hilariously overspecified in the bill itself, notwithstanding the fact that the details are to be worked out by an advisory committee of some sort. The benefits plan has to meet a "medical loss ratio" (look at secs. 116 and 161), beyond which it has to rebate the excess to its customers -- this appears to be a backdoor profit cap. And there's the stuff about the penalty taxes for individuals an employers if they don't buy a qualified health benefits plan, i.e. one that provides the "essential benefits package." Pricing of the insurance premiums is specified at sec. 113 -- not an outright cap, this time, but a limitation on the ways premiums can be assessed. I mean, the bill is just full of this junk. Page after page after page.
Sure, it stops short of outright nationalising the health care market, but it more than justifies rhetoric about this being a government take-over of health care. It's establishing an even tighter knot of bureaucratic restrictions around the primary payment and coverage mechanism for most Americans. That's close enough for the characterisation to be fair. It's like a regulatory taking, rather than the government sending bulldozers outright.
There are no proposals for "death panels." etc..
Sure, that's inflammatory. But no more inflammatory than the proponents of the plan toss around. And the general fear of some outside panel deciding who gets care and who doesn't is supported by the statements politicians (e.g. the President -- search for "chronically ill") have made in the course of the debate.
Joe, I could post a hundred stories and you would say they are a tiny sliver.
I could post hearing results from the US Congress and you would say that's just Democrats.
I could post news stories and you would say "that's just the MSM."
You see, I've been on this Merry Go Round with conservatives before. I suggest you do your own research and you will find out for yourself.
Try looking for an interview with Wendell Potter, the former health insurance industry executive (I know, you will disregard him, too).
Hard to reason with someone who disregards any fact that won't support their position.
So, in event of fire, you don't call the fire department? In event of crime, you don't call the police dept? All that evil hated government.
In case you didn't notice, the fire and police departments are not run by the federal government. Even then, we limit the power of government, including the local government. The fire and police don't have unfettered jurisdiction. This has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with fighting the tendency for power to corrupt and for the powerful to become despots. Our founding fathers didn't hate government, but did fight a revolutionary war against the unjust use of power by government. They then attempted to set up a system of divided power, not out of hate, but out of a fundamental distrust of those who wield power.
So, let me turn the question back on you, why are you so eager to have government take over larger and larger portions of our lives? Why are you so eager to have functions heretofore provided by local governments moved to the state and federal level?
Joe, I could post a hundred stories and you would say they are a tiny sliver.
They are a tiny sliver and you are still full of shit. You simply cannot give a list of examples of insurance companies ROUTINELY denying coverage.
The left is truly in some kind of delusion right now. It's hilarious. You have a 20-seat majority in the Senate and a 50+ seat cushion in the House.
And you believe that if only those evil Republicans would come around, you could get the legislation of your wet dreams.
Math obviously isn't a strong point among the smartest people in the room.
If insurance companies "routinely" deny coverage, why is the vast majority of Americans happy with its health insurance? And how will the government be able to give what the private sector denies?
Printing more money I guess.
Joe, it's not worth my time to find the evidence and serve it up to you. No matter how much evidence I provide you will deny it.
That's the point.
Besides that you could go and look it up yourself.
(And you invented "routinely." I didn't say use that word.)
Oh, did I forget to insult and call names? That's the conservative way, not mine.
Seven Machos, the problems come from "conservatives." We have many in the Dem Party who are screwing things up. Mainly, ones from big rectangular and low population states with racially homogeneous populations.
Alpha -- Shouldn't the government just take over all of the means of production? After all, as you point out, they have the military, the police, and the fire department. Why not health care, too? And food and tourism and movies and everything else?
Has anyone ever done this in some other country in history? How did it work out?
Insurance companies ROUTINELY specify which treatments they'll cover and which (usually elective or experimental) treatments they will deny.
They also ROUTINELY deny to cover, from the get-go, people who are already sick.
Which, as many have mentioned, is the whole point of *insurance*... pay a little in aggregate with others JUST IN CASE you pull the short straw and come down with something expensive to treat.
Please provide the text from the bill that establishes "death panels" for babies and senior citizens?
You might start by looking at the text that was removed in response to the "death panels" rhetoric.
Call it what you like but it boils down to "the government decides who lives and who dies."
Right now, you say it's insurance companies deciding that. I say it's individuals who can decide what companies to use--except to the extent that, once again, the government prevents them from doing so.
Government drives up the cost by mandating certain kinds of coverage. It drives up the cost by making it tax-exempt, but only for certain employed individuals. It drives up the cost by setting prices and dominating the market.
And then it says, "Oh, look how costly this is! No one can afford this! Let us help!"
("And, just coincidentally, we'll know everything about your medical history, be able to force you to do whatever we deem is healthy, use our IRS goons as enforcers, and tax you within an inch of your life--which we'll now be running.")
Yeah, it's just those craaaaazy Republicans (that no one agreed with anyway) obstructing progress.
So, Alpha, you mean to tell me that all the evil Republicans could vote against a bill and it could still pass? Is that your belief, now that you have done the proper arithmetic?
If only these Democrats in these sparsely populated states would vote against the interests of their constituents. Then you could have the massive government takeover you desire. And surely it would work without shortages.
Liberal disconnect:
Comment 1: "Oh, did I forget to insult and call names? That's the conservative way, not mine."
Comment 2: "Mainly, ones from big rectangular and low population states with racially homogeneous populations."
Remember: if you're not for state-controlled whatever, you're probably a racist.
So, let me turn the question back on you, why are you so eager to have government take over larger and larger portions of our lives? .
I am not. I never said I was. To put false words in a person's mouth is a dishonest practice.
I don't share your obsession with hating the government. Nor your blind devotion to the private sector.
You said you distrust the government. I addressed many areas, including many federal areas, where conservatives trust the government to run our personal lives. You were oddly silent on those.
If only everyone would just listen to their intellectual betters, we could all have free health care without any shortages or denial of treatment. Because government is so efficient and always flush with cash.
Sadly, we are stupid and racist, and what's worse we live in sparsely populated areas. All of us.
Phoenix Police report that 12 people showed up at the Obama town hall with guns. Some assault rifles.
That is just batshit crazy. And dangerous. What are they so afraid of that they can't demonstrate peacefully?
Hunh. Why all this distrust and hatred for the government is interesting.
are you a child? government is rountinely corrupt, here and elsewhere, now & in the past. and even if they aren't corrupt, they might be a hyperpartisan like you. sorry, no, you don't get to be in charge of my health.
Alpha is not for single-payer health care but he is steaming mad that any American could want the government to provide some services but not health care.
You people will never catch this sly devil. He's too smart. He also lives in a densely populated area. And don't even get him started on your racism.
Alpha -- Why the switch to guns? I thought you were all up in arms because the rubes don't want the government to take over all of the means of production. Focus, please.
By the way, if I have a gun and don't use it, am I not being peaceful? Are police officers peaceful?
But, anyway, I guess you are changing the subject because you so clearly won the debate and are now bored with the trifling racists who live in rural areas.
Blake, what is insulting about this comment of mine?
"Mainly, ones from big rectangular and low population states with racially homogeneous populations." .
It's factual. It refers to senators Baucus, Conrad and Nelson.
The fact that they are from racially homogeneous states indicates they don't understand issues affecting other states with diverse populations.
Maybe it was the rectangular part.
The fact that you are from a racially diverse state indicates that you don't understand issues affecting other states with largely homogeneous populations.
This is way too fun. Please keep your super-awesomely intelligent posts coming, Alpha. You genius.
Seven Machos, I brought up guns because there was rallies of opposing views today over health care in Phoenix.
And one side brought weapons.
That's a new development. I look forward to one conservative offering a lucid argument why they need to pack heat at a supposedly peaceful rally.
I just don't get my hope up.
Comrade X:
are you a child? government is rountinely corrupt, here and elsewhere, now & in the past. and even if they aren't corrupt, they might be a hyperpartisan like you. sorry, no, you don't get to be in charge of my health. .
Whereas corporations are honest and truthful, brave, clean and reverent. OK, Sonny Boy.
And please provide your evidence that governments are routinely corrupt.
seems to me the demonstrators, while vociferous are demonstrating peacefully--not so the SEIU who beat up Mr. Gladney whose sole crime it appears was selling american flags at a rally.. Now clearly Alpha and his ilk are willing to overlook thugs who carry truncheons to voting places but seems to believe violence at town meetings has been bloody. The only blood spilled are by liberal asshole and their running dogs.
Fuck american liberalism-its day is long gone and its supporters are morally bankrupt.
I
Again, 7 machos, arguing with a strawman is a form of mental masturbation. Please don't masturbate in public anymore.
Alpha -- Please provide your evidence that people from homogeneously populated states cannot understand less homogeneous states. Please provide your evidence that the people who bring guns to demonstrations are not peaceful. Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.
Alternatively, since you cannot, please stop asking others to document their beliefs.
You are the smartest person here. I'm sure you can see the disconnect.
So we have conservatives taking up arms in the health care debate. This is a pretty big development that needs to be addressed.
How does bringing arms to a rally help you make your point?
you're a moron AL. my city council is on trial for influence peddling. my congresswoman's children work for the government or organizations that are government funded. California has 1000's of retirees that gamed the system like mobsters. it's a running gag for government employees to sue their employer. why don't you google Randall Hinton, the most typical government employee in history. it's routine. and no, I don't have to business with any corporation, a distinction you are not intelligent enough to grasp.
Alpha Liberal, the problem is that you are simply making up bullshit. Insurance companies simply don't routinely deny coverage. It is a lie.
Joe, apparently that's a lie that insurance company executives routinely embrace.
ShadowFox, what the fuck does your comment have to do with anything? The assertion is that insurance companies ROUTINELY DENY medical coverage. That is a lie.
Initially, I decided to forgo the obligatory "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'". But I see I put too much stock in you.
I could post hearing results from the US Congress and you would say that's just Democrats.
Beat you to it, Alpha. I was hoping for a choice between "a fool and a knave". Looks like we got both in one.
Rescission is recognized practice. "Routinely" is conveniently vague. The point is that both "rescission" and "unapproved treatment" denial occur with people who can generally afford the rejection the least.
Another point of "routine" medical decision is treatment of the supposedly "indigent". Hospitals routinely turn away patients who cannot afford to pay for the service, telling them to come back when they actually need emergency services. This is simple enough math--preventive visits may cost less, but the hospitals are only obligated to open up ER and will be covered for services by--you guessed it!--the government. What it means to the actual patients is irrelevant in this calculus. And, of course, Joe does not know anyone to whom this might have happened because, well, they are not his crowd. It must be nice to be Joe!
The left is truly in some kind of delusion right now. It's hilarious. You have a 20-seat majority in the Senate and a 50+ seat cushion in the House.
7, I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but are you suggesting that Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are "the left"? Ross and Murtha are "liberals"? Of course, if you think anyone not to the right of you is "on the left", I should pity Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
Except in Memphis, New Orleans, California, Detroit and New Jersey governments are NOT corrupt--Incompetent, yes--corrupt no. If we want health care to managed by the same idiots that run medicare, then by all means sign up for it. I will take my chances elsewhere.
Look how smart Alpha is, everybody. He has spotted a straw man that no one else can see and has shrewdly used a masturbation metaphor to belittle me.
I wish I was as smart as Alpha. And as worldly. If only I lived in the middle of one of the largest and most diverse cities in the world, I could understand how the government is going to be able to give away free health care without having shortages.
Sadly, I am a racist hick on a farm in the middle of nowhere.
That's a new development. I look forward to one conservative offering a lucid argument why they need to pack heat at a supposedly peaceful rally.
Maybe he just forgot. I used to have a concealed carry permit and quite often I would just forget to take the gun out of my satchel or handbag until I was already at an event or out to dinner. Oooops.
On the other hand, better armed than not.
The thing that I find striking is, after years of debate about who is uninsured, Alpha discovers that the figure trotted out by the liberals is included illegals. That is breathtaking in its stupidity and ignorance--debate is fine, but when one party is so malinformed, there isnt even a starting point.
Call it what you like but it boils down to "the government decides who lives and who dies."
Blake, are you completely delusional or just dishonest? The point of request for the text was that you would not wave your arms around and just repeat the nonsense but to actually cite the text that is so problematic to you. Simply ignoring the question and repeating the allegation that has not been proven does not solve the problem.
Damn that Republican Lieberman! He's always voting against the government takeover of the means of production. And those other Republicans who secretly ran as Democrats from rural states filled with know-nothing rubes.
I get it now. Sorry. You are right. I'm an idiot. I thought the Democrats had huge majorities in both Houses. But now I see. I wish I was as shrewd as you, Shadow Fox. I wish I could see these deceptions.
7 Machos keeps on with the wanking:
Please provide your evidence that people from homogeneously populated states cannot understand less homogeneous states. .
I did not state it as fact but opinion. Or, maybe just a simple concept. They are not in the habit of representing such diverse populations. So they are not likely to be good at it, especially when it comes to the complex health care problems from large urban areas.
Please provide your evidence that the people who bring guns to demonstrations are not peaceful.
The presence of their arms. Weapons are not needed at peaceful rallies.
Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.
Your language, not mine.
Yeah, let me type up 1,000 well-considered words so the wingnuts can just say "will too." I decline to waste my time.
ShadowFax:
Blake, are you completely delusional or just dishonest? .
I vote for delusional.
"I did not state it as fact but opinion. Or, maybe just a simple concept. They are not in the habit of representing such diverse populations. So they are not likely to be good at it, especially when it comes to the complex health care problems from large urban areas."
DARN good reason to avoid unnecessarily concentrating power on the Federal level then, don't you think? Problems should be addressed as close to "home" as possible so that they are dealt with by those with the best understanding of local conditions.
Keep the Fed's ham fists out of it. WAY out of it.
Shadow -- Generally speaking, it is the side that wishes to change the status quo that must convince.
You are so much more brilliant than the silly rubes who believe that a government takeover of health care will lead to massive shortages in the best-case scenario. I'm sure you are sick and tired of having to explain to us little people.
But those are the ground rules in political debate.
Of course, political debate must seem like a trifling thing to you. Why should you have to explain your glorious vision of the future to these backward hicks?
Alpha -- Please provide your evidence that people from homogeneously populated states cannot understand less homogeneous states.
As far as I can tell, that was not the point. Their representatives don't have to consider the issues that are of lesser interest to their constituents--fuck the country if your constituents are not unhappy.
Please provide your evidence that the people who bring guns to demonstrations are not peaceful.
Again, you perverted the question. Best I can tell, Alpha asked why one needs to bring guns to supposedly peaceful rally, not why those who did were not peaceful.
Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.
I see, offering more insurance options constitutes "government takeover the means of production". You're three for three , 7. Like I said, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Maybe he just forgot. I used to have a concealed carry permit and quite often I would just forget to take the gun out of my satchel or handbag until I was already at an event or out to dinner. Oooops.
Again, we are forced to play the game "delusional or dishonest". Why don't you try to hide an AR-15 in your purse, dear. Than get twelve of your friends to do it.
These silly masturbating rubes and their lies they call facts.
It must be frustrating, Alpha. I mean, you have such enlightened opinions.
Also, your attempt to come down to my level and answer my questions was touching. I'm sure it wasn't easy.
Finally, I note that my city's government was closed today. Must be a holiday, or maybe the mayor was just giving the hardworking servants of the people a day off.
it might be worthwhile to review the terms of the health care issue--so far all the liberals have said is some amount of americans lack health care insurance--of course that conflates health care insurance with health care which is not true at all. The liberal side points to life expectancy and infant mortality to suggest out system is bad--in that, they only expose their ignorance of epidemiology. Are there any substantive arguments over and above those that might be useful to discuss?
Health care = an unassailable right to free stuff.
The right to bear arms = must be infringed.
Got it. You geniuses. I wish I could read the Constitution as well as you.
The right to bear arms = must be infringed.
Well, try to bring a billy club, a switch-blade or a Taser to a rally and carry it openly. Then see how long you last. Why is it that firearms should get preferential treatment? Does the second amendment say anything about firearms? (Note: some state constitutions are far more specific on this point.)
And, yes, the question remains--why does one need a gun to have a debate? Will the Taliban be there?
Shadow fox--tell me why some thug who brings a billy club to a voting place is not prosecuted by the obama administration
"BTW, the Department of Defense is also the government. Do you have the same distrust for them?"
The DOD is very carefully and thoroughly *prohibited* from operating in the domestic sphere.
I wonder the heck *why*?
I've spent time inside the DOD and gave up quite a few of my constitutional rights to do so.
Don't talk to me about the DOD being an example of the Federal government being welcome in our civilian lives.
"A lot of conservatives supported warrantless wiretapping on the American people - by the government."
A lot of conservatives supported warrentless wiretapping of foreign originated communication that bounced around satelites and over US borders without having to determine before hand that yes, indeed, an American citizen was not making that call.
A lot of other conservatives pointed out the extreme hypocrisy of Democrats who suddenly CARED when they had never cared before. It stunk of opportunism. And as we see now PROOF that it was... not a PEEP about Obama asking people to report their neighbors to the government.
The lies are like animated sludge crawling across the floor.
"A lot of conservatives want to have the government deliver Christian teachings."
Such as? What? Having the GALL to ask that the state not suborn their religion when they've delivered their children to the keeping of the state?
"A lot of conservatives want the government to regulate our person sex lives and tell us who we can sleep with, marry and what birth control we can use."
Abortion isn't birth control and I defy you to find a conservative who wants to know what you do in bed.
"That's all quite odd. I thought conservatives don't trust the government? Why do they want to keep using it so much?"
Some conservatives are Statists. Just like liberals. It's a sad thing. They're probably out there right now *supporting* the health reform bill in any (who really cares anyway) form it takes.
Why don't you try to hide an AR-15 in your purse, dear. Than get twelve of your friends to do it.
Well, darling, I certainly wouldn't put an AR -15 in my purse and I do agree it is a bit much to carry around on my shoulders. My blouse would get wrinkled.
Even carrying my Mossberg Persuader with pistol grip would be too cumbersome. I would go for light and more modest 380 semi automatic handgun in public.
So are you of the liberal mind bent (on purpose) that gets the vapors at the thought of guns? Open carry is legal, you know, in many States.
I see, offering more insurance options constitutes "government takeover the means of production".
Also, sweetums, I think you need to look up the definition of insurance. What the government plan offered was not by definition insurance and their plan would severely limit the ability of insurers to generate new policies...particularly high deductible catastrophic only coverage, which is what many people really only need.
wv = obile. what Obama generates
there does seem to be a few questions on the table that our libtards havent responded to:
1) how many people have been physically assaulted at a town hall meeting-answer: one Mr. Gladney by the SEIU who are in Obamas pocket
How many people use HSAs and other forms of self insurance to take care of their personal needs? This relates to the question of the total number of "uninsured" Answer: none
Other than the number of uninsured in what other areas is American health care inadequate? Silence
Please tell us libtards how a debate can even take place when you can't even say why the system is bad?
So are you of the liberal mind bent (on purpose) that gets the vapors at the thought of guns? Open carry is legal, you know, in many States.
Oh, schnuckums, I don't inhale the vapors. Guns don't bother me in the least--took pistol and archery as PE requirement in college, among other things, and used to shoot at a range as a kid. But some people with guns definitely bother me--like the ones who think that they need to bring a gun to a policy debate (and encourage others to do so as well).
I always thought that the ultimate irony would be a shootout at an NRA convention.
..."government takeover the means of production".
Also, sweetums, I think you need to look up the definition of insurance. What the government plan offered was not by definition insurance and their plan would severely limit the ability of insurers to generate new policies...
Well, honeybunch, perhaps you can explain to us how the "non-insurance" policy created by the bill takes over "means of production". Whatever you may think of the proposed bill, it covers a form of risk management--whether you call it insurance or not. "Means of production" it is not--by any stretch of imagination.
And, yes, the question remains--why does one need a gun to have a debate? Will the Taliban be there?
That's not the question. The question is why you would think that anybody owes you any explanation whatsoever for doing something that doesn't hurt others and isn't even against the law.
But that's an easy question to answer: you are a statist, and it bothers you that people are permitted to do things you disapprove of.
So, the answer to your question is: none of your damn business!
So... it's not "means of production" if we don't socialize farmers?
The insurance industry is an *industry* and yes, that counts as "production".
The US government *becoming* an insurance company is certainly "means of production" every bit as much as the US government owning a automobile manufacturer is "means of production."
Why are you so freaking terrified of being identified as socialist when you think it's such a tearing good idea?
hey shadow fox--where has gun violence occured in any town hall--how are you with SEIU beating up on Mr. gladney? How are you with obama thugs carrying night sticks to polling places and having justice drop the prosecution?
Your acquience in these miscarriages of civility and justice speaks volumes for you moral bankruptcy.
I did not state it as fact but opinion. Or, maybe just a simple concept. They are not in the habit of representing such diverse populations. So they are not likely to be good at it, especially when it comes to the complex health care problems from large urban areas.
I think the homogeneity of a population tends to cut in favour of support for extensive public welfare schemes, like, welfare, or national health insurance (look at page 11). In the instant case, though, I think the diversity or lack thereof in a congressman's district is pretty much irrelevant.
Best I can tell, Alpha asked why one needs to bring guns to supposedly peaceful rally, not why those who did were not peaceful.
One obvious motive could be that Obama's supporters sometimes beat the shit out of their political opponents at these "supposedly peaceful rallies". :)
Also, it is a little silly to say that "one side brought guns". Obama's side brought guns, too; do you think the police and Secret Service were unarmed? The relevant question isn't which side(s) had weapons, but which side(s) used them inappropriately. Neither did, so where's the problem? The sight of a gun might make YOU wet your panties, but normal people don't act that way.
Other than the number of uninsured in what other areas is American health care inadequate? Silence.
Oh, I wouldn't say there's silence. Actually, the President has been quite vocal in identifying the fact that Americans pay a lot more than people in other countries for their healthcare, but don't seem to be any healthier, as a problem:
Last point I would make, just to give you a sense of why I know that we can get savings in the system without over the long term spending more money. We spend about $6,000 per person more than any other industrialized nation on Earth -- $6,000 more than the people do in Denmark, or France, or Germany, or -- every one of these other countries spend at least 50 percent less than we do, and you know what, they're just as healthy.
The President has got his statistics completely wrong as usual -- he's clearly not much of a numbers person -- but the gist of what he is saying is correct. We do spend a lot more on health care than people in other countries, with no improvement in our health outcomes. And many people do think this is a problem.
Liberal disconnect two:
"Oh, did I forget to insult and call names? That's the conservative way, not mine."
"I vote for delusional."
Yeah. No insults or name-callings on "your side", AL.
It might be so very easy to post a comment on this article except for the fact that the subject matter seems to wander all over the place, except for AL who proclaims his love for all who oppose his views on life, love, gun ownership, gun carry, peaceful assembly, appropriate role of government in running our private lives, etc...
Still, the banter seems delightful, if not a bit boring from time to time.
Of course, in some ways, this posting has been educational in examining the views and attitudes of the American Socialist rabble rouser, masquerading as a knowledgable soul; although one without such a soul and in fact more like a useful idiot.
wv: eudionci. To be eudified once each day.
wv2: sclown. One of the Socialist persuasion
Alpha just assumes, of course, that the side against the massive takeover of our lives brought guns.
There's just as good a chance they're moles, just like the ones with the Obama-as-Hitler posters.
Alpha would love it if guns were used because he figures that would give his side a win and prove all his prejudices about conservatives.
Even if they were liberals pretending to be conservatives.
Actually on CNN one of those holding an AR-15 were amongst the Obama supporters.
Sorry I meant "was"
Liberals - guns are good in the hands of the overlords, bad in the hands of citizens.
Just like the ability to make medical decisions.
Actually, the President has been quite vocal in identifying the fact that Americans pay a lot more than people in other countries for their healthcare, but don't seem to be any healthier, as a problem:
That is a stupid stupid argument. Of course we pay more for our health care than some other countries. You know WHY? Because we use more health care, receive more services.
It would be like saying Americans pay more for food than people in Zimbabwe. Of course we do.....we have more food. We have better food and we have the ability to pay for it.
If you want us all to be the same and eat the same as Zimbabwe or have the same health care as Zimbabwe...YOU go for it. I'm just fine with the idea that the American citizen spends more.
HEALTH CARE is not the same thing as HEALTH INSURANCE. A very important point that, many including the idiot in the White House, are missing, refuse to see or are just too stupid to see.
Could our system be more efficient and perhaps cost less? Could we figure out a way for the high risk people to be insured. Of course. But completely destroying current health insurance and going with a massive and destined to be over budget and under efficient socialist system....isn't the answer.
And what is the number one reason that we get more services? Often services that we don't need?
Malpractice law suits. If the government would institute tort reform, the doctors would not have to practice defensive medicine where they do every procedure invented to avoid being sued......the costs would come down.
Naturally, we can't have that because the politicians are vapor locked on the asses of the trial lawyers and in their pay with lobbiest groups.
One simple thing and it would go a long way to having those savings.
We do spend a lot more on health care than people in other countries, with no improvement in our health outcomes.
I always wonder if the "spending" by other countries includes the amount by which they go further and further into debt, trying to prop up their systems.
As for the health outcomes, life expectancy is a poor measure. What about cancer survival rates? Having had cancer, I'm especially glad to be an American.
If we're going to give insurance to all the illegals why don't we just give medical insurance to the entire world? And why not give it to fish, and dogs, and bacteria? Everyone should be protected equally or else our hearts are not big enough! Let's insure butterflies and whales and porpoises. Let's insure the Chinese since they are making all of our products! Let's redistribute money from the human species to all other animals, so that every worm on every continent is worth as much as every American citizen. Until we do that we haven't reached equality.
What's that I hear? Someone is against giving AMERICAN money to the illegals, and to everyone else? That's not AMERICAN!
I always wonder if the "spending" by other countries includes the amount by which they go further and further into debt, trying to prop up their systems.
I'm pretty sure it does. I mean, it's a pretty straight number. There may be issues with inter-country comparisons, if one tally counts an expense as medical while another counts it as something else, but broadly speaking, the comparison is probably valid and accurate.
On the other hand, I don't think it counts interest payments on government debt, if that's what you mean. I'm pretty sure our totals aren't factoring that in either.
LOL, Kirby. It's crazy, isn't it? But yeah, what's stopping us from insuring the world!! Yeah!!!
psynedst: Someone you hire to rid the threads of AL
@Kirby, the limousine liberals are concerned about the people who mow their lawns, trim their shrubbery, clean their houses, look after their kids, etc.
They pay these ille..., undocumented workers less than minimum wage and of course no health care, so they want to fix the health care part using our tax dollars.
Me, I think they should learn to mow their own d*mned lawn.
What's with the billy club meme? What moderate leftist started this?
Of course you should be able to bring your billy club to a town hall. Also your throwing stars and your nunchucks. Bring all of your ninja gear, in fact. Because I'm sure all you brilliant leftists have got a ton of it sitting around.
Revel in your Second Amendment glory.
We do spend a lot more on health care than people in other countries, with no improvement in our health outcomes.
Is that true? My understanding is that our cancer cure and survival rates are higher than Britain and other "model" countries.
Factored into this are things like we spend a lot of money on tiny very premature babies (who might be deemed less worthy by a panel as they often have ongoing issues which would consume more health dollars; not to mention their survival is discomforting for some).
America has a different culture, we have large areas which are not, um, homogenous. It's a bit like apples and oranges to compare.
In fact in the US there is a lot of money spent on people who cannot pay (or do not) which I think might not be spent in other "enlightened" countries.
But that's just a thought.
One obvious motive could be that Obama's supporters sometimes beat the shit out of their political opponents at these "supposedly peaceful rallies". :)
If you don't have health insurance, and you're out protesting against health insurance and you hurt yourself, you don't deserve any treatment. I mean, really. What a dipshit.
For a laughable moment, let's take the European Union seriously as a political entity. Each one has its own health care system, many of which are socialized. But they are radically different in their socialization. Does it make sense for the EU to adopt a one-size-fits-all health care plan? If so, why doesn't it exist?
How about this, brilliant leftists: make this thing thing work in a state first. Make it work in one of your vaunted and diverse cities. Make it work on a small liberal arts campus. For five years. No shortages.
Then we can expand your brilliant plan to the beleaguered masses, with their two cars and their central air and their jet skis.
and you hurt yourself
I wish I had your supple mind, Garage. I envy you.
The President simply lies about our health care outcomes.
Despite a population that makes far from the best choices of diet and lifestyle:
The U.S. has the highest life expectancy when accidents and murder are adjusted out of the calculation. This is the effect of superior health care. Read it: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/
The U.S. has far better survival rates for most cancers than any other nation.
The U.S. has substantially shorter wait times for most important procedures and much better access to advanced imagining and other diagnostics.
The U.S. produces the vast majority of new drugs and techniques used around the world. We also pay higher prices for them, subsidizing the other systems use around the world.
This is why we spend more and also because we can. Citizens in other nations have no choice to spend more and are stuck with what is cheapest.
The higher spending here also creates modern high end jobs rather than paper pushers created by nationalized systems elsewhere. This is why we drain many of the world's best and brightest away from their system to ours.
In short, we spend more to
get more. I for one, do not want less when my life is on the line.
garage said...
If you don't have health insurance, and you're out protesting against health insurance and you hurt yourself, you don't deserve any treatment. I mean, really. What a dipshit.
First of all, do you have any reason to believe that he hurt himself, as opposed to the commonly reported scenario that someone else hurt him?
Second, why would he not deserve treatment? I can certainly understand that he would not deserve government paid for treatment. But if he can pay for it himself, or someone else is willing to pay for him, why would he not deserve it?
If you don't have health insurance, and you're out protesting against health insurance and you hurt yourself, you don't deserve any treatment. I mean, really. What a dipshit.
While I agree that anyone protesting near union thugs runs a significant risk of being assaulted, I'm not sure doing so can legitimately be called "hurting yourself". :)
Alpha asked why one needs to bring guns to supposedly peaceful rally
For the same reason they carry firearms in grocery stores, in restaurants, in bookstores, in churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., etc., etc., because they can.
And, as others have previously stated, to protect themselves from union thuggery.
WV: shootabi
Amen.
I wanted to mail a certified letter today.
The Post Office was mobbed, lines out the door, wait well over an hour. There were even lines at the automated machines.
I didn't have time to wait during the day, but figured I'd go back at night and use the automated machine in the lobby.
When I went back this evening the one machine in the 24 hour lobby was broken.
The Post Office defeated my attempt to use their 'service'.
This is not unlike my experiences trying to get health care from the US Army Hospital at Fort Hood Texas, or the NHS Hospital at Banbury, UK.
Why anyone with experience with government provided health care would prefer it to private insurance is a mystery.
Of course, nobody would prefer government provided health care.
Congress and the Civil Service will continue to be able to choose their insurance from competing private companies, as they do now.
Obama's plan will create a system that forces the private sector to use substandard government health care, while preserving the private insurance policies of government employees.
The DOD is very carefully and thoroughly *prohibited* from operating in the domestic sphere.
Jesus!! Are you serious? Do you think that government running DOD only amounts to "operating" outside "the domestic sphere"? Ever heard of Duke Cunningham?
I disagree with Alpha here--DOD is probably one of the most corrupt and inefficient agencies in the US government. I guess, it's just the economy of scale--it's easier to make more money disappear if you get more money to begin with (and you have friends like Cunningham, Lewis, Doolittle, Hoekstra and Murtha).
But there are others--FAA, for one. Ever wonder why Reagan didn't bother just privatizing the air-traffic control system instead of firing the striking employees?
"A lot of conservatives want to have the government deliver Christian teachings."
Such as? What? Having the GALL to ask that the state not suborn their religion when they've delivered their children to the keeping of the state?
Funny you should ask. Texas has mandated--starting this year--that public school teach Bible classes. Care to guess what will happen? Remember now, this has to be taught as a literature, history and social studies class, not religion. Should we start the pool on the first law suit date?
how many people have been physically assaulted at a town hall meeting-answer: one Mr. Gladney by the SEIU who are in Obamas pocket
Don't you mean that Obama is in the SEIU pocket? Get your conspiracy theories straight! And if you think that SEIU assaulted "Mr. Gladney", I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
The question is why you would think that anybody owes you any explanation whatsoever for doing something that doesn't hurt others and isn't even against the law.
Given that (1) this is not something that these people ordinarily do (can you imagine them going around every day with AR-15s over their shoulders) and (2) this was suggested in fliers and emails sent out by "organizers", yes, I believe, we are entitled to an explanation. If it's intended to intimidate, then it does hurt others.
But that's an easy question to answer: you are a statist, and it bothers you that people are permitted to do things you disapprove of.
If you think I am a statist, you really need your head examined. But, judging from the subsequent clause, you don't even know what a statist is.
Shadow -- Why the First Amendment but not the Second?
Also, you are most definitely a statist. I just wish we could be as brilliant as you are. If we were, just think how great the world could be. Sadly, we all can't be the most dazzlingly intelligent person in the room. I guess your utopia will fail on account of us.
Sigh.
Also, it is a little silly to say that "one side brought guns". Obama's side brought guns, too; do you think the police and Secret Service were unarmed?
Oh, I see--police and Secret Service are "the other side"! Got it! I hope you have that cabin in the woods all planned out, complete with a bunker where you can duck and cover.
The sight of a gun might make YOU wet your panties, but normal people don't act that way.
Actually, brandishing weapons in the proximity of the President is likely to make you wet your head--with blood. Luckily for these idiots, they were far enough away.
That is a stupid stupid argument. Of course we pay more for our health care than some other countries. You know WHY? Because we use more health care, receive more services.
You're badly misinformed. I had a family member visiting from abroad (not a European country). When he was in Germany, he was paying $200 for a session of dialysis, including all incidentals. In a Boston hospital, he was charged $650 and they wanted another $1400 for a prescription medication--lucky for him, he brought his own supplies, carrying hypodermics through airport security. And scheduling a session was a pain because of, gasp, rationing. In Germany and in UK he just walked in when he needed service. Now, remind me again, who has socialized medicine?
Now, let's take a look at the market, for a moment. Medicare sets reimbursement rates--much in the same manner that the bill proposes it be done for a broader public option. Insurance companies "negotiate" reimbursement rates--and these largely end up similar to the Medicare rates, surprisingly consistent among different companies (in legal parlance, this is known as collusion). So who pays the "rack" rate? The poor schmucks who have no insurance and are not covered by Medicare or Medicaid. These can be 300% of the insurance-negotiated rate.
Want more? Insurance companies negotiate reimbursement rates for pharmaceuticals as well. These can be as little as 10% of the rate normally charged by a hospital (to the uninsured) or about 30% of the rate charged by an independent pharmacy. What happened with the last Medicare bill that Bush dragged through Congress? Republicans added an amendment that prohibited Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical rates in the same manner insurance companies and the VA do. A proud moment to be a Republican, no doubt!
Oh BTW you pay the same rate at many US hospitals whether you receive more services or not. Do you know why? Because you're already paying for all those ER visits by those who are not fully covered. That's right--you pay for them whether government runs their risk management or not. But, because (1) they are forced to go to the ER and (2) their rates are three times as high to begin with, it costs us considerably more than it would have had there been a public option for them. Of course, you've never faced this situation because you're healthy as an ox--and just as thick.
Oh, I see--police and Secret Service are "the other side"! Got it! I hope you have that cabin in the woods all planned out, complete with a bunker where you can duck and cover.
So you're saying that the Secret Service isn't on the President's side? That the police aren't on the government's side? What an interesting claim.
The point is moot, of course, since (as others already pointed out) at least one of the folks with an assault rifle was an Obama supporter. :)
Actually, brandishing weapons in the proximity of the President is likely to make you wet your head--with blood.
Neither the Secret Service nor the police are allowed to murder Americans just because they are carrying guns near a politician. I'm not sure why you'd think they were.
The insurance industry is an *industry* and yes, that counts as "production".
How dishonest does one have to be to ignore the actual question. The initial comment was that Obama et al. propose a government takeover of "means of production in healt hcare". To wit,
Please provide your evidence that a government takeover of the means of production in health care will not lead to shortages.
"Insurance industry" is not in the "means of production" business in health care. They are in risk management business. Means of production are supplied by health care organizations--you know, hospitals and such.
Now, are you going to insist on your argument?
First of all, do you have any reason to believe that he hurt himself, as opposed to the commonly reported scenario that someone else hurt him?
By "commonly reported", do you mean repeatedly reported by Fox News? The guy's story is so completely inconsistent, it makes no sense. But if one has no insurance and needs to sue someone to cover medical expenses, why not pull a Tawana Brawley or a Chuck Stuart?
This is not unlike my experiences trying to get health care from the US Army Hospital at Fort Hood Texas, or the NHS Hospital at Banbury, UK.
...and, of course, you always get perfect service from the private sector! No doubt about it! You know--like the banking sector... or airlines... or... oh, never mind!
Also, you are most definitely a statist. I just wish we could be as brilliant as you are.
You nailed me, 7! Your keen powers of observation got me dead to right! Such a brilliant extrapolation from a sample of 1. Care to share with us your experiences with statist economies? Perhaps some large/small European country (never mind that nearly all the services in the EU have been privatized, even the postal service)? Ever been to one? How about a totalitarian socialist state? Ever had to deal with one directly? Lived in one? They are kind of hard to find, these days--China, North Korea, Cuba... er... that's it, I guess. Or was the closest you've come to one of those the State of Confusion?
Your mind's so sharp, you must have been educated under the Ginsu grant.
So you're saying that the Secret Service isn't on the President's side? That the police aren't on the government's side? What an interesting claim.
Silly me--I've always thought they were supposed to be on the side of public safety, to serve and protect... er... the public.
Neither the Secret Service nor the police are allowed to murder Americans just because they are carrying guns near a politician. I'm not sure why you'd think they were.
Let's just put it this way--if you're brandishing a weapon in the proximity of the President or another protected figure, don't make any sudden moves. It's hard to argue your rights after you've been shot through the brain stem.
"Texas has mandated--starting this year--that public school teach Bible classes."
Really? I live in a liberal part of Texas and have friends who are teachers, and haven't heard word one about this. Can you link something?
Shadow fox--so Mr gladney was not assulted by SEIU thugs? that your story? you sticking to that? you are long on bull s**t and short on answers--typical libtard
the only bridge being sold is by the liberal democrats and its called health care--and apparently the american people arent buying it
ShadowFox,
You remind me of a smart-mouthed adolescent with an overly generous opinion of his own intellect and no idea what he doesn't know.
Yes, moron, the military is strictly prohibited from acting in the domestic sphere, by law. It's called posse comitatus, and posse comitatus exists for a reason.
Insurance companies DO have "products," you frigging moron. Generally, these products are called "policies," and they are marketed, distributed and sold through distribution channels no different than widgets.
People refer to "financial products" all the time, and people within the industry even occasionally refer to an insurance company "manufacturing" a new product.
Just because it's an intangible doesn't mean it's not "produced."
Now go on back to high school civics class, and stay there until you learn something, kid.
AlphaLib said Joe, it's not worth my time to find the evidence and serve it up to you.
Translation: I just make shit up out of whole cloth.
This is classic Alphaliberal. He always does this crap, just makes innane generalized comments and then tells you to Google it. See in his world the burden of proof is on you to say he's full of shit.
I agree with Joe. I would like to see where an insurance company is routinely denying coverage. Insurance policies are quite specific in what is covered and what is excluded. They have to be because it's a state requirement. If you're denied coverage for a specific procedure, pull out your policy, look at the exclusions page and then demand from the claims examiner to point out the specific exlusion the claim was denined.
I don't know of any HMO or PPO plan where the physicians are not contacting the company for pre-certification. I'd like to see specific examples of coverage that should have been paid for denied and if so, why it wasn't pursued as part of the contract. Yes, your insurance policy is a contract.
Alpha also gets his panties in a bunch because one guy comes in with a handgun yet is thunderously silent when Obama's union thugs are out there beating people up.
Yes Alpha, you're a typical leftist hypocrite.
wv- slyzatti = sneaky papprazzi
But yeah, what's stopping us from insuring the world!! Yeah!!!
America, Fuck Yeah!
Funny you should ask. Texas has mandated--starting this year--that public school teach Bible classes. Care to guess what will happen? Remember now, this has to be taught as a literature, history and social studies class, not religion. Should we start the pool on the first law suit date?
I think that’s great. Seriously, you don’t think the bible has had a huge influence on western history, enough that people who want to be well educated might need to be aware of this? I think they should teach about the Koran too, if there are enough students interested. Why not? I know I learned Greek mythology in high school, which was a religion. I don’t think you should go through life ignorant of the major religions. And if it’s an elective, that's great.
And if you think that SEIU assaulted "Mr. Gladney", I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
And you think the guy with the SEIU shirt running away from the crime scene was what? A nun?
Seven Machos, the problems come from "conservatives." We have many in the Dem Party who are screwing things up. Mainly, ones from big rectangular and low population states with racially homogeneous populations.
Translation: It's whitey who is fucking this up for Obama.
Alpha why don't you just man up and admit your a racist.
America has a different culture, we have large areas which are not, um, homogenous. It's a bit like apples and oranges to compare.
I'm not sure why heterogeneity is supposed to drive health costs. True, if you have a sizable minority, it may be necessary to stock pharmaceuticals and train physicians for diagnoses that take into account differences between the races, but beyond a certain point, I'm not sure how much that matters. Whether its 5% or 15%, wouldn't the structural costs be about the same (I assume, of course, that different drugs and training cost about the same to implement, you just have to arrange for both)? And many procedures aren't really affected by racial diversity or cultural diversity -- an MRI works fine on you no matter what your race is.
Essentially, I can see why American care would be more inefficient and more expensive than, say, Japanese care, where 99.9% of the patients are going to be Japanese, and maybe Zainichi Koreans. But I don't see the mechanism by which "hetereogeneity" would increase American care costs over European care costs, given that basically all the big European nations have sizeable non-European minority populations, whether they're Turks or Maghrebin or sub-Saharan Africans or whatever.
On the other hand, the fact that America west of the Mississippi is basically empty and hugely spread out -- it looks like North Korea, on those satellite maps of the night lights of the Earth -- would drive costs up, since you need to set up facilities to serve all these little towns dotting that vast, empty landscape here and there, and I'd guess that would make care more expensive (and less effective) than care in more concentrated population areas. But it's not like American care in, say, the megalopolis stretching from Boston to Washington DC is able to keep costs down to European standards.
There are causes beyond heterogeneity and population concentration that drive our costs up.
Balfegor--I am not sure how much heterogenity adds to the cost. That said, from my standpoint as an epidemiologist, heterogenity is the explanatory factor when drolling libtard idiots trot out our life expectancy and infant mortality stats as "proof" that our health care system is inadequate.
Balfegor--I am not sure how much heterogenity adds to the cost. That said, from my standpoint as an epidemiologist, heterogenity is the explanatory factor when drolling libtard idiots trot out our life expectancy and infant mortality stats as "proof" that our health care system is inadequate.
Could you expand on that a little? I can guess at what the mechanism there would be, but better to hear it directly from someone who knows.
Balfegor--I am not sure how much heterogenity adds to the cost. That said, from my standpoint as an epidemiologist, heterogenity is the explanatory factor when drolling libtard idiots trot out our life expectancy and infant mortality stats as "proof" that our health care system is inadequate.
Roger, is it possible that it has a lot to do with culture? Heck look at diet, Asians generally have a high life expectancy over other races and I think it has a lot to do with their diet. African-Americans tend to eat very delicious but hardly nutritiously good food and their rates of obesity and heart disease are higher than whites or Hispanics or Asians. Then I think our overall diet in the US compared to Europe is abysmal just based upon obesity rates which in turn leads to other chronic illnesses. I’ve been to Europe and it is a damn rare sight to see someone who is obese and they generally turn out to be an American. You go anywhere in the US and you can throw a rock and have a 50/50 chance of hitting someone who is a biscuit short of 300 pounds.
So when the usual suspects like to point to Europe as evidence of better health care it’s not an apples to apples comparison because a good chunk of what ails us as a whole is by and large preventable through simple diet and exercise.
Balfegor--I am not sure how much heterogenity adds to the cost.
Different cultures, values, and behavior that lead to different health outcomes.
For instance, blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of the murders. Take away that violence and health care costs in urban areas drop significantly.
The more diversity in a country, the most diverse the values, beliefs, behaviors, and social problems with which a health care system must contend. These impact costs, effectiveness and lifespans.
Our amusing friends Shadow and AL are clearly the kind of folks who say silly things when they get excited, and like a lot of liberals they gets excited when they have the unusual (to them) experience of hearing facts and opinions that contradict the One True Way of thinking that pervades the insular little bubbles they inhabit.
Shadow keeps talking about somebody 'brandishing a weapon'.
That term has a specific meaning. It means pointing or gesturing with a weapon in a threatening way.
Arizona is an 'open carry' state. Go in to just about any public place and you're likely to see someone carrying a pistol, or driving with a rifle in their gun rack. These law abiding citizens are not 'brandishing a weapon'.
I'm pretty sure it's not legal, and certainly it would be stupid to 'brandish a weapon' in Arizona absent a direct threat to ones own person or property.
The Obama supporters who brought their weapons to the venue were not 'brandishing a weapon'.
To say that just shows the speaker is ignorant or lying.
"Insurance industry" is not in the "means of production" business in health care. They are in risk management business. Means of production are supplied by health care organizations--you know, hospitals and such.
The Insurance Industry does produce policies that provide different levels of coverage for the risks that people would like to insure against. Those are called financial products.
Yes, they are not in the business of providing health care. That would be hospitals and doctors. You and Oblablah are aruguing two different things. Health insurance is not for health care. They are not the same thing. Actually, Zippy the Won wants to take over both the Health Care and the Health Insurance industries and run them just like the Post Office......into the ground.
In addition the current industry provides a wide array of products that people can choose between. If I don't want to pay high premiums for coverage of ordinary doctor visits and routine check ups and prefer to CHOOSE a lower premium and pay for those things out of my pocket.....that is MY CHOICE'-------'note the word.
The insurance company will rightly limit the items that it will pay for and limit the coverage to those who have risk. Meaning those who are not already sick. RISK------- another word you might want to look up. If I'm not sick now, there is a risk that I might get sick later. If I'm already sick....there is no ------risk. And I am therefore uninsurable.
When we go to a government run program of health CARE and private insurance companies have been squeezed out of business and the bulk of the country is now relying on a DMV type of government office with Sally Satchelbottom deciding who gets to be 'waited' on and who gets coverage, there WILL be rationing. We will have no choices.
Well, except for the wealthy, the politicians and the Unions who are exempted from the government run health CARE plan and will be allowed to have their OWN special coverages.
The socialist leftards WANT to destroy yet another industry and take over even more control of our lives.
If your bleeding heart is all about those who can't get insurance, like my husband, and those who are too poor to get insurance yet are not so poor that they can get the FREE welfare program of Medicaid, then do something about that. Just leave the rest of us alone who are able to have insurance at the levels we need and want.
In otherwords, leave us alone and get the fuck out of our lives.
Balfegor, Hoosier and Dogwood--I can only speak as an epi guy. The US has a very diverse population and epi only works when you compare LIKE populations--for example, compare mexican american health outcomes with those in mexico--like numerators and like denominators.
It is unfortunately true that homicide rates among blacks, and the terrible state in native american health lower our aggregate life expectancy. And as Hoosier has pointed out, our cultural differences lead to different life styles among differing populations.
From an epi standpoint you have to correct for these disparities, and the ignorant fools who think an aggregate statistic means anything are only describing their abysmal ignorance.
Balgefor--I think you have hit on a pretty significant thought re health care cost of differing populations--you are going to drive me to pub med (the authoritative source of health care info) and have me look that up.
Dogwood has identified some significant factors that tend to reduce our life expectancy in the aggregate; eg, we have enough income for most americans to be able to drive, and we are large nation that requires more driving. Like duhhh--that means more accidents and regretably more fatalities.
The simple recitation of meaningles stats by the drooling libtards like alpha and shadow fox only expose their ignorance, and in so doing, diminish our ability to seek solutions and find common ground.
Hope this helps
we have enough income for most americans to be able to drive, and we are large nation that requires more driving. Like duhhh--that means more accidents and regretably more fatalities.
And that is a huge factor when you look at the numbers. Last year there were 34K fatal crashes, toss in pedestrians and cyclists and we're at 37K.
Roger J,
Well said.
Not only do you have to compare like to like in terms of populations, but also in data collection.
For example, it is my understanding that European lifespan stats do not include the deaths of premature babies, while U.S. stats do include those deaths.
Comparisons have to be identical in every way if they are going to be useful for public policy purposes.
Hoosier Daddy, continues to be a lying sack of shit:
Alpha also gets his panties in a bunch because one guy comes in with a handgun yet is thunderously silent when Obama's union thugs are out there beating people up. .
No "union thugs" beat anybody up.
There were 12 armed right wingers at Obama's appearance yesterday. Not counting all the previous armed right wingers at other events.
You are very full of shit. You must stink to high heaven.
Why does anyone need a weapon at a political rally? Because they need to threaten with force? Because they are paranoid and violence-prone lunatics?
How does a weapon help you win a debate?
Why does anyone need a weapon at a political rally?
It is not about need, it is about freedom.
No "union thugs" beat anybody up.
I would link to the video to show you real life actual union thugs in SEIU T shirts (dumbshits) beating up people, but I'll just take a page out of your book and say...use google.
How does a weapon help you win a debate?
Geee I dunno. It seemed to work for the Black Panthers threatening people and wielding billy clubs outside of polling places during the election. They are also on video, but for some unexplained reason they ALSO are given a pass by the media and the administration.
I'm going out on a limb here....it is because the thugs that are FOR Obama get a blind eye and the little old ladies who are against him are terrorists.
DBQ:
I would link to the video to show you real life actual union thugs in SEIU T shirts (dumbshits) beating up people, but I'll just take a page out of your book and say...use google. .
Oh bullshit. You know I have posted hundreds of links here. You actually don't have anything to post. I think I've seen the video you claim shows someone being beat up and it shows nothing of the sort.
But, hey, prove me wrong. Show us this video.
then you cite Black Panthers from 40-fricken years ago! You sound like a small child caught behaving badly who says "well, Billy did it!"
Armed right winger at political rally:
"We Will Forcefully Resist"
More threats of violence from the right wing if they don't get their way. They are dangerous children in adult bodies.
they have zero respect for civil debate and our democratic institutions.
No "union thugs" beat anybody up.
Lying little racist bitch. Par for the course with you.
Ya got nothin. All you guys have are the lies you keep telling each other and repeating over and over.
What a sorry bunch.
Hey, Hoosier Daddy, yuo lied about the lone gunman. there 12 yesterday alone.
Hey, Hoosier Daddy, yuo lied about the lone gunman. there 12 yesterday alone.
You lie everytime you open your pie hole you racist.
I think I've seen the video you claim shows someone being beat up and it shows nothing of the sort.
Yes of course. It doesn't show a black man being tossed on the ground by your union thugs. It doesn't show your union thugs threatening other bystanders around. It doesn't show the union thugs being arrested by the police.
You are one sorry excuse for a person.
then you cite Black Panthers from 40-fricken years ago! You sound like a small child caught behaving badly who says "well, Billy did it!"
Hey AL. You must be living in a box. This happened this last election in Philadelphia and was reported by several concerned and worried citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/04/black-panthers-intimidating-voters-philadelphia-polling-station
Google Voter Intimidation Black Panthers Philadelphia....if you can type that many letters.
"According to one bystander, a Republican poll observer, interviewed by Fox News,
"Black Panthers" Intimidate Voters in Philadelphia the "Black Panthers" made their intentions very clear:
"We got a phone call that there was intimidation going on. I walked up to the door, two gentlemen in Black Panther garb, one brandishing a nightstick, standing in front of the door. They closed ranks as I walked up. I am a veteran; that does not scare me. I went inside and found poll-watchers, they said they had been here for an hour — I went inside and found poll-watchers, they said that they had said not to let people outside because black people are going to win no matter what. At that point, I spoke to him, we would not get into a fistfight, I said, and I called the police."
The police arrived and escorted the "Black Panther" with the nightstick off the premises."
Now your excuses will be "Oh. but they weren't real Black Panthers..blah blah blah" Walk like a duck, talk like a duck, dress like a Black Panther Marxist and wield a night stick. ....conclusion....Black Panther's intimidating people at the polling place and they get a pass from the Obama administration.
How about we have people dress in KKK outfits and stand outside polling places and see how much of a pass THEY will get.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/tea-party-protesters-attacked-1-man.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/seiu-obama-supporter-smashes-woman-tea.html
Union thugs. I'm beginning to think that it is necessary to be armed when attempting to exercise the First Amendment. This is why Obama and the rest of you LibTards are against the second amendment.
It takes the second to protect the first.
Ya got nothin, DBQ. Those videos do not show any "beatings", as you falsely claimed.
In one case, a woman (do women often beat people?) pushes back on a camera in her face. You claim that's a beatnig.
In the other case, the film starts with a guy on the ground and a bunch yelling. No blows but just accusations. Have the police filed charges? THEN an SEIU person walks up - WITH A CANE.
And you call that a beating? Really? Lose credibility much?
--------
As far as the "Black Panther" excuse, we also had right wingers with weapons outside of polling places in Arizona last November and demanding citizenship papers of any brown-skinned people showing up to vote.
It is wrong for ANYONE to bring weapons to a polling place, Presidential event, or political rally is wrong to do so. Anyone.
But, let me guess, you think it's OK when a right winger brings weapons to rallies and polling places, but it's not okay if a person is not a right winger.
How many standards do you have, anyway? Just two?
Dust Bunny Queen shows dishonesty:
This is why Obama and the rest of you LibTards are against the second amendment. .
That's as blatant a lie as you're gong to find.
DBQ:
How about we have people dress in KKK outfits and stand outside polling places and see how much of a pass THEY will get. .
A rather telling hypothetical reflecting on the current state of the Republican Party. This is who you identify with?
Hey, gang, leave AL alone! His psyche is fragile and needs to be stoked with bedtime stories about Poppa Obama! Gee, if more of you needle AL, it'll inflame AL's frailness. AL's going to cry and that's not a pretty sight. Poor baby, AL's got rough enough as it is without the rest of us ganging up on AL as he and his few minions help eachother get across the street of life's misery.
wv: anoil Means more offshore drilling off of Santa Monica.
This example of Republicans bringing guns to polling places to intimidate non-whites is from 2006:
On Election Day, a posse of three men in Tucson, Ariz., proved that the Wild West still lives.
The group, which was three strong, and allegedly composed of two anti-immigration activists, Russ Dove and Roy Warden, carried a camcorder, a clipboard -- on which, they said, was information about a proposed law to make English the state's official language -- and a gun. While one man would approach a voter, holding the clipboard, another would follow, pointing the video camera at them. The third would stand behind, holding his hand to the gun at his hip in what activists on the other side called classic voter intimidation tactics in a precinct one local paper had previously declared the bellwether of the area's Hispanic vote. .
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/21/cheat_sheet/print.html
As far as the "Black Panther" excuse, we also had right wingers with weapons outside of polling places in Arizona last November and demanding citizenship papers of any brown-skinned people showing up to vote.
So now who is the little baby with the waaaaahhh they did it first excuse.
Do you ever freaking listen to yourself?
But, let me guess, you think it's OK when a right winger brings weapons to rallies and polling places, but it's not okay if a person is not a right winger.
As in most cases, it depends on the intent of the person.
If the intent is to prevent people from voting by use of intimidation, then no it is not okay.
In the case of the black man carrying an AR 15 in Arizona, he was exercising his Constitutional right to protest & carry a firearm.
In other words, he was acting as a free man in a free country and was not a threat to anyone.
As long as he obeyed the law, then I don't have a problem with what he did.
It is wrong for ANYONE to bring weapons to a polling place, Presidential event, or political rally is wrong to do so. Anyone.
No, it isn't.
Leaving aside that you don't apparently have any objection to cops and bodyguards - and possibly some congressman - packing heat at the same events, there is nothing "wrong" about ordinary people carrying means of self-defense, unless you think it is immoral to defend yourself.
If people are being threatened, weapons brandished, etc., that would be wrong, but that's not what we're talking about here.
(1) adopted the health insurance exchanges;
(2) mandated uniform disclosure standards for health insurance policy coverage (which may, for all I know, already exist), but not uniform coverage (contra the House bill);
(3) overruled some state regulations hobbling the development of a national market in health insurance;
(4) mandated disclosure of hospital pricing schedules, including the hospital's "base" or "list" price, the medicare price, and the pricing schedules negotiated by their largest private payor (to help with price discovery in the market for health care); and
(5) limited medical malpractice recovery.
Actually, I don't have problems with most of these, and if this were what was being proposed, I could probably be brought around to support it.
However, keep in mind that one of the big problems with national coverage is #5, medical malpractice. One of the big differences between prices of health care (and thus health care insurance) is the cost of malpractice litigation - both direct, as for example, the cost of malpractice insurance, and indirect, in the form of excess testing.
@ondeafears
I live in a liberal part of Texas and have friends who are teachers, and haven't heard word one about this. Can you link something?
No problem. Better yet, it's an unfunded mandate (from the state).
Shadow fox--so Mr gladney was not assulted by SEIU thugs? that your story? you sticking to that? you are long on bull s**t and short on answers--typical libtard
Love your epithets--some wine just does not improve with age. I watched the video--did you?
I would link to the video to show you real life actual union thugs in SEIU T shirts (dumbshits) beating up people, but I'll just take a page out of your book and say...use google.
Well, since we are still on the same subject, did you notice that the guy on the ground--and the same guy who is rubbing his injured shoulder is wearing... gasp... an SEIU shirt? And Gladney is being pushed back to get off him...
Yes, moron, the military is strictly prohibited from acting in the domestic sphere, by law. It's called posse comitatus, and posse comitatus exists for a reason.
Jason, you miserable douchebag! The military is indeed prohibited from "acting in the domestic sphere" when it comes to military actions, but this is not what I was talking about and this is not what anyone would ever say constitutes as "operating" the DOD. Much of the "operations" is bureaucratic, including procurement and analysis. All of this is certainly done domestically (except for the trivial matter of supplying foreign bases). Or did you miss the reference to Duke Cunningham and his posse who went to jail for wrongfully awarded contracts with the DOD (in other words, bribery and influence peddling). Before calling someone a "moron", get your bearings straight, so that you don't look like a complete idiot.
Yes, they are not in the business of providing health care.
Do you hear the crickets? You could have ended with that line right there. This was the only contention that was in dispute--thanks to 7's stubborn insistence that "providing health care" was the issue. As for the rest of your comment... oh, look, a bird!
Shadow keeps talking about somebody 'brandishing a weapon'.
Yes, I know what "brandishing a weapon" means and I used it in that very sense.
It is not about need, it is about freedom.
Really? And I foolishly thought it was about affordable health care. Silly me! Apparently some people just can't get it through their thick skulls that not every argument is about the Second Amendment. And when one shows up to a discussion of issues with an assault weapon, it is easily interpretable as an act of intimidation and threat of violence--as, of course, it was intended.
It is not about need, it is about freedom.
Really? And I foolishly thought it was about affordable health care. Silly me!
No, not silly: Idiotic. As in "useful idiot".
Make up your damn mind: Is it about forcing the 47M to get insurance--many of whom don't want it, and could rightfully see this as an encroachment on their freedom to NOT have it, or is it about "affordable health care"?
Those two things are mutually exclusive.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा