BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:19 AM

If you look at the article, Keith, it makes it quite clear that they are reporting 'half-truths and innacuracies', in their own terms. Trouble is, it is reported in yet another newspaper so what can be believed?

I am in complete agreemnet with you JtS - I think the Media have an awful lot to answer for in the world and the ability to broadcast those half-truths and inaccuracies to many more people has made matters even worse. I would be in favour of a complete embargo on all such reporting but for the worry that we would then be in a similar situation to countries where the only news you get is censored by the state:-(

Basicaly, if everyone just didn't beleive a word they printed we would be a lot happier, but what chance do we have of that!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:48 PM

""An email widely circulated among US voters, of uncertain origin, claims that anyone over 59 in Britain is ineligible for treatment for heart disease.""

Really strange that one.

In October 2005 I was diagnosed with Aeschemic Heart Disease. By Jan 16th 2006, I'd had all the necessary tests, followed by an Angioplasty performed at St. Thomas' Hospital in London (one of the finest in the World), and was into the first week of a five month course of Cardiac Rehabilitation.

I was 65 years old in Feb 2006.

My father had his first hip replacement at the age of 65, and being a very keen and active golfer, needed a second replacement, which he received at the age of 84.

My mother was treated for Pancreatic Cancer at the age of 87. She died age 88, and my father went into a care home after treatment, at age 88 for an Oesophagal Cancer, where he was looked after until his death last July at the age of 89.

Not one of these treatments involved money changing hands, and the care was as good as any in the World, and better than most.

One last point. N.I.C.E. do not refuse drugs which offer a realistic chance of a cure, no matter what the cost. Where they draw the line, is at the point of spending many thousands of pounds on a drug which may possibly extend the life of some terminally ill persons by two or three months, or may have no effect whatever. This makes sense to most reasonably intelligent people, though of course it is very hard on the patient and his/her family.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:19 PM

"There is supposed to be an innate ethic in the industry

In other words, "No!!!"

There are newspapers with ethical standarsds, and journalists who'd like to have ethical standards - but, in any country, "the industry" never has any standards, unless it is forced to, either by law or maybe by unionised journalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:16 PM

You can only sue, if the lie is about you, it is proven to be intentional, you have suffered monetary damages and you are not a public figure (politician).

That leaves a lot of lies that can be told unfettered.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:15 PM

That was back in the 1860's, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:13 PM

McGrath of Harlow, I think that would interfere with the business model of selling lies to those who want to read them.

Do Murdoch's media tell the truth in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:11 PM

The only procedure I know of is to sue them.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:05 PM

THere is supposed to be an innate ethic in the industry that prompts them to the act, but that was before they discovered they could make more money with electrifying but false stories than with dry true ones.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

Is there any kind of procedure for making newspapers in the USA who tell direct lies publish corrections? Or would that be seen as interfering with free speech?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM

But David, don't despair, anyone who wants real news can get it.

Keep in mind that Fox News and Murdoch's "Sun" news papers in this country pandering to and reinforcing ignorance. Instead of "Fair and Balanced" it should be "Giving the ignorant what they want."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

I'm from Canada, when I had the best type of corporate health care, first HMO then PPO, Aetna, United Health Care and Blue Cross Blue Shield, my family got as good a service as I did, as fast, with more choices. I had to pick my doctors from lists and I couldn't see the same doctors when I switched providers. My family could, and still can go to any doctor with an appointment available.

Don't let the government get between you and your doctor the Republicans say.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:16 PM

>>Scooby Doo compares more than favourably with Cantor and Boehner

rruh rroh!!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:04 PM

Our current crop of "Republicans" operate in a fact-free environment, David- those few left with brains are too gutless to condemn the loonies in the party. Perhaps this sort of thing should be expected from demagopgues to whom winning elections by pandering to peoples' paranoia and ignorance is standard operating procedure.

But what's more disturbing are the numbers of presumably intelligent human beings who BELIEVE this bullshit in the face of conclusive evidence that it IS bullshit.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:26 AM

Sorry - Should have linked to the news stories that are reaching here -

Here's one I'm sure you have heard more of the nonsense yourself anyway.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:17 AM

From the other side of the pond I am getting more and more appaled by the wilder claimes of the republican extemists opposed to the bill. I am close to a lot of people over there and cannot believe that any of you would believe some of teh rubbish we are hearing via our news.

The UK health service lets old people die because it cannot afford to keep them alive. Oh yea? My Dad, 87 year old Polish war veteran been in this country since 1945 is just out of hospital. He had a problem a week last Monday. We took him to casualty. They kept him in and sorted the problem, have arranged health care and social work visits and he was discharged Monday just gone only when they were happy he was well enough to be let out. How much? Free. Any hastle or questions about age? No.

The UK health serveice lets children die because they have not contributed to the system. My nephew was born too early and suffered brain damage. The local childrens hospital worked absolute wonders to keep him alive and make sure he could live life to teh full. He is now over 30 and although he will never be 'normal' he has had had a full and useful time with all the help and support he and his parents could ever want. How much? Nothing? Any question of them 'turning support off' - either life support or support later? None.

The UK health service only treats major ilnesses. Minor ones are left unchecked. I have had polyps removed twice - Once privately and once on the health service. I have not had a problem since the health service procedure. I only waited about 4 weeks. The doctors see millions of people every week and treat everything from common colds to chilblains. No charge for any of it. No matter how major or minor. No matter how young or old the patient. No matter how often it happens.

When your Repuplicans tell you it is not working in the UK, I recommend you tell them it is not perfect. But it is a damn site better than they are suggesting.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:20 AM

You beat me to it, Don- I was going to comment that planaria compare favorably to Cantor and Boehner.

Where precisely Doug fits on this continuium is a matter of some debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:25 AM

""I'm pretty sure that DougR realizes more than he lets on. He is pretty, sensible for a Republican.

He certainly compares favorably to Cantor and Boehner.""

Scooby Doo compares more than favourably with Cantor and Boehner, but I wouldn't call him pretty, or sensible.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: GUEST,Alf Landon
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:35 AM

hey take it easy on Alf (even though you are correct) He married my grandmother's sister, but she died in the 1918 Flu Epidemic. My great-aunt coulda been the spouse of the biggest loser in Presidential history( and as you noted, a politician who was renowned for getting it exactly wrong), if she hadn't died. That close to bein' famous-that close!
seth from Olympia

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:40 AM

>>>>Reconciliation... Thats a strategy that seems acceptable to the Democrats.<<

The Republicans have never done that right? Show us your knowledge of civics Doug!<<

Never? What does never have to do with it? Let's talk the 18 years. THOSE are the Republicans we have to work with right now, not some imaginary or long-dead ones. And not reconciliations where the Dems laid down and died. Those are too easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:25 PM

Greg,

I'm pretty sure that DougR realizes more than he lets on. He is pretty, sensible for a Republican.

He certainly compares favorably to Cantor and Boehner.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

He knows, DougR. I think you misunderstood the intent of his post.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:59 PM

Jack:

Answers: Never. and Never.

Besides, Doug LIKES looking mean and stupid; to him its a badge of honor.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM

McGrath,

You seemed to have picked up on the trend that the Republican's "all or nothing" strategy on this bill makes them look mean and stupid. How long do you think it with be before Doug realizes that?

Even more interesting how long before he admits that he realizes that?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 04:02 PM

Are there really that many votes in allowing insurance companies to cut off cancer treatnment to someone because they used to have acne when they were a teenager, Doug?   

I know you have some different ideas of what's right and wrong in America from most other places, as you've pointed out - but surely not that different.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:22 PM

Carol C: share that knowledge with your husband will you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM

Exactly who is it that you see that will be electable from the Republican camp in a presidential contest, Dougie... Maybe in 2016... By then this will all be a distant memory... By then, maybe, just maybe, the rednecks will have pulled off another couple Oklahoma City bombings and the nation will use them as a motivational force to finally put racism in the rear view mirror...

Now, as for the Repubs putting all their eggess into the "repeal 'n redo" basket for this Novemeber??? Bad idea...Tha American people are not in the mood for another year of bickering, debate and if the Repubs were smart they would realize this... People have had enough of partisanship and the "repeal 'n redo" is a formula for more partisanship....

Ya'll might want to trethink that strategy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:38 AM

Show us your knowledge of civics Doug!

Show us your knowledge of ANYTHING, Doug!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:40 AM

The vast majority of the new law was not passed using reconciliation. The vast majority of it was passed with a clear majority in the House, and a super majority in the Senate. A very small part of the new law was passed through reconciliation, and that part was a separate bill that was passed later and signed into law later. Most of the new health care law could not be repealed using reconciliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:43 AM

>>Reconciliation... Thats a strategy that seems acceptable to the Democrats.<<

The Republicans have never done that right? Show us your knowledge of civics Doug!


>>Another possiblility, of course, is simply for the Republic majority to simply cut off funding. <<

But if they did that they wouldn't be keeping their promise to "Repeal and Replace" They couldn't be making a promise that they do not know how to keep could they? Not the Republicans!!! Surely there is no gambling at Ricks! I am shocked!! Shocked!!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:32 AM

McGrath: If the Republicans have a majority in both houses, and a Republican president, there should be enough "right" thinking Democrats to provide 60 votes for repeal(or they could always use Reconciliation of course). Thats a strategy that seems acceptable to the Democrats.

Another possiblility, of course, is simply for the Republic majority to simply cut off funding. Most of the expensive benefits don't go into effect until 2014 anyway because that's the way the Democrats planned it. They didn't want the heavy costs to influence the 2010 elections.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Alice
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:09 PM

Regarding the opinion polls, some of those labeled unfavorable are those who wanted to eliminate the insurance companies and have true universal coverage or at least the public option. The poll numbers will change with time, as they always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:00 PM

they might be able to use reconciling for financial aspects.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:54 PM

Wouldn't an attempt to repeal Health Care, even in the event of Obama being defeated in 2012, and a Republican majority in both houses, come up against the same problem of needing 60 committed anti-health seats in the Senate to get the legislation passed?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:26 PM

Or 'Which is a more practical approach to Health Care Reform, the Current law OR Boehner screaming "Hell No!"'

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:52 AM

Or 'Which is a more practical approach to Health Care Reform, the Current law of Boehner screaming "Hell No!"'

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:36 AM

I third the question.

Many polls show people still opposed. One Gallup poll fromthe 22d showed otherwise:

Gallup*        3/22 - 3/22        1005 A        49        40        For/Favor +9

but it is not typical. Problem is, it is difficult to interpret any of these polls without knowing who was asked what. "Do you favor Obama's communist plot?" is a different poll than "How much do the following provisions of the health care bill meet your approval...".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM

I second JtS' question. Which polls?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM

DougR is a surrogate for the GOP whose leadership has gone way further over the edge than him.

Cantor, Boehner, Steele

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:12 AM

Really? Which polls?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:11 AM

DougR have you gone over the edge?

He's been there for quite some time - how is it you haven't noticed?

Question is why folks continue to try to have an intelligent discussion with a delusional individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:21 AM

The polls are beginning to indicate that as people begin to find out what's really in the bill, they are turning away from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:11 AM

Heh. Learn something new every day. Here's an interesting article about Alf Landon, who campaigned, in much the same way Republicans are threatening to do now, on a pledge to repeal Social Security (this was not too long after it was created)...


"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

Bad call, Alf. Republicans lost that presidential election in a landslide. By the time they finally regained the White House -- 16 years later -- their nominee, Dwight Eisenhower, had abandoned the party's repeal platform.

More here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031902636.html

This must be why Obama is so keen for the Republicans to campaign on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:49 AM

Social Security and Medicare were never dumped by voters committed to preserving a capitalist economy, and they're way more socialist than the new health care law. The reason is that once people see the extent to which they themselves benefit from such programs, they are not likely to be willing to give them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:22 AM

Preserving a capitalist economy? DougR have you gone over the edge? Drunk too much Koolaid? Pray tell how does this health plan threaten the nature of our capitalist economy? By ensuring the producers get well so they can keep producing? Your rhetoric is misguided, sir.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:08 AM

A simple answer, JTS, 2012. Obama was not elected for life. With a majority in congress, Obama dumped by voters committed to preserving a capitalist economy in 2012, a new Republican president, and repeal is a slam dunk.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:05 AM

That's the base for sure Amos. But they won't win with just the base.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:42 PM

The issue is not the numbers, from McCain's view and his party's. It is to keep his base angry at all costs, steamed up, stirred up, ticked off, wound up, and messed up with hatred. If he can do that, they'll jump in line like any mob and lynch anyone they're told is the right target. That's how mobs are made, how they are steered, and how they react.

All it takes is a good solid spark of group-think and a good dose of hot air.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Neil D
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 08:18 PM

I also agree with the gist of Big Mick's post. I would just point out one correction of the numbers. Repubs would have to pick up 26 seats to have enough to overturn a presidential veto.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:32 PM

Vote for Sarah Palin and lose your health care...

Should be a real vote-winner in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:58 PM

Big Mick for President in 2016!!

-Joe-