posted
Granted. However if the argument is that government is overstepping their authority by requiring that you do business with somebody the example stands as legitimate precedent.
If the argument is the government requiring you to insure yourself....well, I guess we will see as Relentless said.
You know what is next if it does get struck down though right? Single payer option becomes the new holy grail for liberal democrats.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Granted. However if the argument is that government is overstepping their authority by requiring that you do business with somebody the example stands as legitimate precedent.
If the argument is the government requiring you to insure yourself....well, I guess we will see as Relentless said.
You know what is next if it does get struck down though right? Single payer option becomes the new holy grail for liberal democrats.
no, you have the choice not to drive on public streets, or you can buy liability insurance.
recently the Supreme Court has been changing it's views on driving cars since the country is now built in such away that we have a hard time living at all without hem, but they still see cars as a privilege not a right. Hence their argumetn that stopping you at random checkpoints is not a violation of the 4th ammendment even tho it clearly is -if you read the Constitution literally...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
isn't your car an effect?
6 plural : movable property : goods
isn't a roadblock "just because" unreasonable? yes it is...
the whole point of getting warrants was to stop "fishing expeditions" which road blocks clearly are...
a portion of the bill can be struck down without breaking the whole bill...
there are many options to fix our medical delivery/payment situation, but the doctors are in charge and in the end? they will get what they want...
they have the most powerful Union the world has ever seen...
i think most of us want them to be paid well...
on the other hand? when they precribe you a 300$ medication when a 25$ will work? you have to ask yourself why. they make a kickback on it..
the FDA has been pulling generics off the market because they were grandfathered in. The new drugs that replace them are ten or even fifty times as much.. yet these old standby drugs are know to work and have been being prescribed since before the FDA began aproving drugs...
this really is about corporate feudalism. i don't want to see single payer, but i see that nobody is trying to set up a decent replacement...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Got our 218 now to the senate to kick more republican butt. Good day for the white hats we are getting closer than ever before its like a wish come true.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prices will go up either way.. The only thing they are doing is killing what is left of our economy while jailing anyone who doesn't want to play along.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have to look very far to see how bad of an idea this is... Is Canada's Government run health care system not just one big backlog. A lot of 'em have been coming down here just to be able to get a doctor.
Will We all be going to Mexico if this thing passes? Is our system going to be marred by bureaucracy... Especially when all them Baby Boomers start getting euthanized to make room for another bed... (note to self: maybe I'll get my social security after all)
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
An interesting table from The New York Times profiles the House Democrats who voted “no” on health reform last night. Mostly it’s people from districts that went for John McCain, oftentimes heavily so. There’s also Artur Davis whose district suggests he ought to be a solid Democratic vote but who’s running for governor of Alabama and thus tacking way to the right of what his district requires. You’ve also got idiosyncratic nos from Brian Baird and Dennis Kucinich and a clutch of freshman Dems from districts Obama won.
This last group, I think, provided the House leadership with a margin of error on the vote. The leaders want to hold these seats, so are happy to let these folks vote no if their votes aren’t necessary. But it’s far from clear that a Larry Kissell or a John Adler (both from districts Obama won by five percent) actually does need to vote need to vote no in order to stay viable. Arms could be twisted in other words. Given how close the vote was in the end, it’s noteworthy that there was no real sign of nervousness from the House leadership all day—they had this in the bag.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes IMO it would. i've been accused of being all kinds of things- liberal etc... but what i understand about our system of govt is that it should be "adversarial". that's the checks and balances that our forefathers were seeking...
i would prefer the President of whichever party have to deal with a Congress controlled by the opposite party.
That's always what is best for the majority...
Clinton was well-balanced by the GOP Congress, the train derailed when Bush got a GOP congress and used his rubberstamp all day long..
it is depressing when the adversarial attitudes don't dwell on facts, just partisan attitudes.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On basic principle, I would agree with the adversarial concept with our current party system.
However, even if it means handing an election to the other party to show your own party that they have to start actually representing the people instead of making decisions based on back room deals and lobbyist donations, then maybe it's worth it.
You can't tell me that when Reagan swept the country that some Dems didn't vote for him out of disgust with their party's actions. It needs to happen every now and then (more than it has in recent times) imo.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
i think they have convinced each other that they are more important and more "right" or "correct" than anybody else. they have a strong following, but they also have a strong negative reaction.
Beck has few good ideas. he doesn't just spew 100% lies; he puts enough truth in there that when he drops turds? they seem palatable as long as you don't think too hard about them....
i only watched a few of the last minutes of his show today but he was rolling, and he is making noises that sound like he's going into politics seriously...
the thing to keep in mind about people like him and limbugger is that they do well when they are on the soapbox, but when it comes time to actually interact with other people? they often fall apart... even Obama was obviously uncomfortable in debates...
another good example is Palin, she claims she wasn't expecting "hardballs" from Katie Couric... but Katies' hardball was asking where she gets her news, what she reads.. my bet is that Palin gets her news from Fox, and she didn't want to say that, and took it as a hardball question because of that...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that I would vote any of them in either, Glass.
But what if they start something that actually threatens the status quo of current politics?
What if a repeat of the New York Congressional District 23 happens on a wider scale? With independents\conservatives actually getting a decent following because people are fed up with the 'R' vs. 'D' crap.
This is what I would actually like to see. People voting for candidates based on their stances on issues, not which party they owe their allegiance to.
If they can actually something that leads to that place, I say more power to them.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
You can't tell me that when Reagan swept the country that some Dems didn't vote for him out of disgust with their party's actions. It needs to happen every now and then (more than it has in recent times) imo.
well carter had the Iraq hostage crisis fiasco on his hands...
the last time unemployment was (almost now) this high? Reagan had been in office for two and three whole years and the Senate had become GOP for the first time almost 30...
i am not sure why people remember Reagans good points more than his bad... Reagan didn't "win" the cold war.. he was in office when the USSR finally collapsed under it's own weight, in large part due to the cost of the Afghan war...
Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing. France bombed them back.. go figure that?
also? Reagan was a firm beleiver in the progressive tax systems, his brand of Conservatism is almost liberal compared to todays brand... he cut the govt growth rate by ZERO while talking "bad" about it...
his tax cuts were apropriate given the rates that were being charged when he came in, but there is a point where cutting them more begins to have much less effect on the economy, and Bush took all that slack out of it, cutting more now would do little..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not holding Reagan up on a pedastal, Glass. This isn't about how his term were spent.
Pulling in 44 out of the 50 states tells you something about the political environment that ushered him in. And I fully believe that many Dems of the time either didn't go vote out of disgust, or actually voted for him to get rid of Carter.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: I'm not holding Reagan up on a pedastal, Glass. This isn't about how his term were spent.
Pulling in 44 out of the 50 states tells you something about the political environment that ushered him in. And I fully believe that many Dems of the time either didn't go vote out of disgust, or actually voted for him to get rid of Carter.
i was disgusted that we had hostages in Iran and "we" were sitting there wringing our hands... i enlisted summer of 80 fully expecting to see action... nobody would have even thought of stopping US..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Former Insurance Company Executive: Health Insurers Stand Between Patients And Their Doctors
ellenhayden3 One of the most common right-wing memes used by opponents of health care reform is that progressive solutions to America’s health care problems place “Washington bureaucrats firmly between you and your doctor.” Again and again, conservatives have deployed this meme to demagogue the health care debate.
However, the reality is there already is someone standing between you and your doctor: health insurance companies. Single mother Ellen Hayden knows this from experience. After losing her mother at the age of 7 from breast cancer, Hayden has done everything she can to get regular mammograms. Following an abnormal mammogram, her doctor recommended that she have an MRI. After the scan, her insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, refused to pay for the procedure and is also refusing to pay for a follow-up second MRI her doctor has suggested.
Ned Helms, a former health insurance industry executive who now works at the University of New Hampshire, told Sea Coast Online that this is Hayden’s case is an example of “insurance people” getting between patients and their doctors:
“It’s understandable that this is an emotional issue because most patients believe that ‘nothing is going to stand between me and what I want to get done,’” said Ned Helms, a former health insurance industry executive and director of the N.H. Institute of Health Policy and Practice at the University of New Hampshire. [...]
“We have this notion in our political debate and popular culture that we can’t have reform because that means that government bureaucrats will make decisions but we already have insurance people playing that role,” said Helms
Helms went on to say that one of the major obstacles to attaining proper reform is the way insurance companies often “write their own rules for the road.” Late last year, former Cigna executive Wendell Potter left his 15-year career at the major health insurer and joined the fight for universal health care. He told Bill Moyers last July that politicians who warn about the government getting between patients and their doctors are “ideologically aligned with the [health insurance] industry.”
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senate Considering Opening Medicare To Americans Under 65?
oldYoungEzra Klein is reporting that lawmakers may be considering replacing the opt-out public option in the Senate health bill with a provision that would open Medicare to Americans under 65 years of age. “Sources who have been briefed on the negotiations say that Medicare buy-in is attracting the most interest,” Klein reports. “Expanding Medicaid is running into more problems, though there’s some appeal because, unlike increasing subsidies, expanding Medicaid actually saves you money.”
The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that allowing uninsured Americans 62 to 64 to buy into the Medicare program and charging the buy-in population a regular premium plus a 5 percent administrative fee, would not add to long-term Medicare outlays. Dick Gephardt and John Edwards both offered a buy-in option during the 2004 presidential campaign and, in November 2008, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) proposed expanding Medicare in the short term and phasing it out once the Exchange became operable (in 2013). More recently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — who led a group of seven centrist Blue Dogs who objected to a public option that reimbursed providers based on Medicare rates — floated a proposal to open-up Medicare to Americans under 65, “but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates.”
But some point out that expanding Medicare to a younger population is not without its problems. Jacob Hacker predicted in an interview with the Wonk Room, that seniors would oppose opening the program to younger Americans and explained that Medicare was not designed “to provide health security to a younger than 65 population.” “There are a lot of holes in the Medicare program that should be fixed but which aren’t going to be fixed immediately. One of the important reasons to have a separate insurance plan is to make sure you’re providing the kind of good coverage that you know younger Americans need,” Hacker said.
“Ultimately though, we should understand the public health insurance plan idea, and Medicare as being very much interrelated. That over time, we should see this public health insurance plan and Medicare as a way of improving the cost effectiveness and the quality of care delivered to both younger Americans and to those over 65.”
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.
And it looks like Lieberman used that leverage to the hilt and we’re looking at a bill with not so much as a faint trigger of a public option.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Lieberman’s Offer to You: Nothing
Well, as I wrote this morning:
That said, I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a “reconciliation” path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s being uncompromising. Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman? Sure, they could. But liberals members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.
And it looks like Lieberman used that leverage to the hilt and we’re looking at a bill with not so much as a faint trigger of a public option.
Do you have documented proof that tens of thousand of people die each year simply because they have no health insurance? That's a scare tactic and you know it.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have documented proof that tens of thousand of people die each year simply because they have no health insurance? That's a scare tactic and you know it.
so, take the opposition view and say nobody dies because they don't have health care and where does that take you?
if it were true, and i don't think anybody beleives it is, the answer would be that we with insurance already pay for the people that don't have helath care insurance (we do, but not all)
all those BK filings on health care bills? we pay for them too, we also pay for all those damn TV commercials.
this is why it's funny when people claim that any health care bill will cost us more. done well? it would cost us alot less.
we have built our health care system sitting on a railroad track and the trians a'coming.
i see no reason to think anything has been fixed.
and quite frankly? the GOP wants it to be worse than it is now. don't they?
in a couple years? people will remeber that they sat on their butts and and threw rottten fruit instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting to work. cuz it's gonna be worse.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Do you have documented proof that tens of thousand of people die each year simply because they have no health insurance? That's a scare tactic and you know it.
so, take the opposition view and say nobody dies because they don't have health care and where does that take you?
if it were true, and i don't think anybody beleives it is, the answer would be that we with insurance already pay for the people that don't have helath care insurance (we do, but not all)
all those BK filings on health care bills? we pay for them too, we also pay for all those damn TV commercials.
this is why it's funny when people claim that any health care bill will cost us more. done well? it would cost us alot less.
we have built our health care system sitting on a railroad track and the trians a'coming.
i see no reason to think anything has been fixed.
and quite frankly? the GOP wants it to be worse than it is now. don't they?
in a couple years? people will remeber that they sat on their butts and and threw rottten fruit instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting to work. cuz it's gonna be worse.
Ok lets let the government run health care with a single payer system. They do such a good job with everything else. Wait until we see how they do with the census count next year...I'm sure it's gonna run as smooth as silk.
Has anyone actually done a study to see why health care insurance is high? I think we should identify the reasons the present system doesn't work...of course it works for 85% of americans so I'm told...I'm for improving the system but starting from scratch seems like a huge job that I honestly don't see our government capable of.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok lets let the government run health care with a single payer system.
you are doing it too.
the system is NOT working for 85% of Americans.
first off, the Govt does not screw up everything.
that's such a patent lie that people don't even try to make the case anymore.
the govt is just fine with whoever is in power at the moment and sux for whoever is out of power, and that can change in the course of 6 years now. that's tearing our country into little peices.
the Govt is not perfect, but private enterprise is no better. in fact? private enterprise has not performed too well when it has been allowed to run wild.. ever.
why do we need to do a study to find out why health care is high?
we know why, doctors spend our insurance money on themselves without any questions.
our employers buy our health insurance for us, and we go to the doctor and ask for every test in sight just in case because we don't get a bill.
it's not freemarket at all. the doctors own the system and they have figured out how to charge whatever they want.
medicare was fought tooth and nail by conservatives. but now that they have it? they won't give it up. and yeah, it's going broke, but conservatives like to borrow and spend while liberals like to tax and spend.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
