BS: Republican response to Health Reform

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 01:10 AM

BOOTH.

John Wilkes Booth gets his name of John Wilkes from his great-great-grandfather, and his strikingly handsome personality from his great-great-grandmother. Thus it is said that John Wilkes Booth is given to the world from an ancestry known to England in their day as the Beauty and Beast.

John Wilkes Booth was a partisan in his sympathies for the success of the Southern Confederate States in the Civil War, bold and outspoken in his friendship for the South and his well wishes for the triumph of the Southern cause. In politics a Democrat, and by religion a Catholic, and a son of Junius Brutus Booth, the first, who was known to all men of his day as the master of the art of dramatic acting, being himself descended from the Booth family of actors in England, preeminently great as tragedians since the beginning of the sixteenth century.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:56 PM

As has been pointed out on many occasions, the postions of the two parties have swapped their positions over the years... Prior to the Civil Rights Act the South was solid Democratic... Upon passage of the Civil Rights Act Lyndon Johnson acknowldged that in doing so the Democratic Party would be hurt in the South for decades to come... Well, it's pushing 5 decades now and Southern Man doesn't seem to be in any more of a mood to forgive than the day after the bill was signed into law...

The Southern Strtegy is still very much alive and well and perhaps gettin' ever weller...

No matter, here's the best thing about the Health Care Refore legislation... The Repubs can grandsatnd all they want... After the elction they can try to repeal it... They can hod heraings and investigations and guess what??? They will fail to repeal it... All they will do is reinforce in the minds of the voters that they are most of the "problem" in Washington...

I mean, yeah, they may have their little fun for 2 years but if the government doesn't start producing with them in power then it will be the Repubs who suffer the consequences in 2012...

Spending, no wasting, a year trying to undo something that is undoable will make them look very petty and once that image sticks then all the "Citizen's" money in the universe won't change the perception of the Repubs in 2012...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:51 PM

BTW, fir folks who are still believers that the Civil Rights Act didn't act as the centerpiece of when and why the politcal parties swapped place as a result of it, I'd suggest Googling up the the electorial map for all the presidentail elections from 1952 until the year election of 1964 after the Civil Rights Act was passed...

Like Confusion say, "A picture tells a thousand words..."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:41 AM

Jw Booth was furious because the north had invaded the south and Lincoln was seen as a despot. Thats why he killed him.
My question stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 08:30 AM

Booth wasn't alone, Capt'n... Lotta people in the South still feel that way...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:29 AM

Actually, Booth was forious because he was a vicious racist & was enraged with Lincoln over the possibility of "Nigger Citizenship" and civil rights for Blacks, as he clearly stated.

The myth of Booth as a "Southern Patriot" was created out of whole cloth after the fact- as was the whole "Lost Cause" mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM

"As has been pointed out on many occasions" By Democrats trying to whitewash their murderous past. Which includes murdering Lincoln.

Still waiting for this large number of Dixecrats that are supposed to be the proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:23 PM

And which party is trying to stop the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM

Here's what you really need to do, Sawz...

Google up electorial map for the 1952, 1956, 1960 and the 1964 elections... That will give a glimpse of what the Dixiecrats were and how they jumped to the Republican Party after the Civil Right Act was passed...

BTW, maybe you could explain yer fascination with these rednecks...

No matter... I'd suggest that maybe you'd benefit from a good 20th Cenury American History course... BTW, remember Trent Lott??? Seems that his references to the Dixiecrats cost him his job... Lotta folks, especially older black folks in the South know all about the Dixiecrat, many of whom were also involved in the KKK...

And before you skirt the issue, yeah, Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK in the 50s before undergoing a transformation that brought him to be a very caring and decnt man later in his life... Wish I could say that about some folks here who are hell bent on defending folks that those of use who fought for civil rights know in our heart of hearts haven't made those changes in their internal compasses... The guy running in Wes Ginny being one... I couldn't believe that the Republican Senate candidate openly disrespected Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor with racist bullshit before an audience that plainly would have shown up to lynchings back in the 30s...

But this is normal this year... "Machaca" is a thing of the past... Yeah, we have had to put up with so much racism from the Tea Party this year and TV Wrestling talk from the like of Srah Plain and the other Repub women that it has left US bewildered at where the line is that the right won't cross... Everywhere you look it is vary bad behavior on the Repub/Tea Party side...

But I'll guarentee you that the American people may tolerate a little of it because people are pissed off but sanity will return and these racist comments will come back to bite these folks down the road...

We don't need to have the Klan in our Congress...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM

What Dixiecrats Bobert? you keep claiming to know all about it but you won't disclose the information.

Just exactly who were the shitload of Dixiecrats you brag about?

"No brag, just fact" Its actually no fact, just brag.

You make a statement and refuse to back it up.

To avoid backing up that blowhard statement, you make another blowhard statement to avoid providing anything to support the first one.

You might find this useful to wash the blood off of the Democrat's hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 12:01 AM

Can Bobert explain his fascination with and hatred for these Redn**ks

"You dohn't wanta participate because a black man is president??? Fine... Matbe you could dig up George Wallace or Lester Maddox to be yer new president... Ya'll can hang yer hate-filled confederate flags out and spend yer lives sittin' 'round the TV watching NASAR...

Don't mean a rat's ass to me... I'm so tired of hearing uneductaed ignorant Southerners tell the rst of the country how to do stuff that I could puke... Look where the Hell it has gotten US... Ya'll have had yer boys running the show now for a couple decades and look where it got US???"

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:00 AM

You don't get out much, do you Sawz?

You really ought to turn off Fox News and take a good look at the 3-D world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:35 AM

FYI Mr Firth, I watched MSNBC tonight.

I Watch MSNBC in the morning. I rarely watch O'Reilly, don't watch Hannity, can't stand Glen Beck, Can only listen to Limbaugh a few minutes and loose interest, usually switching to NPR.

So basically you have me all figured out.

Now what else do you know about me?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:14 AM

Doesn't take an army of redneck congresssmen be a forceful voting block, Sawz... The fact is that these were the ones who were willing to step out from underneath their hoods... You can bet that for every Dixiecrat that was willing to stand up and say "I hate Negros and I'm not ashamed to say it" there were alot more thinkiong it then just as they think it today...

The comments by the Wes Ginny senatorial candidte and the reaction from the folks who had come to hear him is clear evidence that racism is alive and well and the Rdepubs and Tea Partiers ain't ashamed this time around to use it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 03:03 PM

Well, Sawz, I've noted that you have never posted on a music thread here. Which raises the question of what you are doing on a music web site.

Eh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 02:29 AM

User Name         Thread Name         Subject         Posted
[PM] Sawzaw         Review: Steeleye Span-40th anniversary tour (18)         RE: Steeleye Span         23 Dec 09

    Love Steeleye Span but where did the name come from?

    I thought it was Steely Dan for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:59 AM

Republican DIsinformation in detail from the NY Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:58 AM

As per NYT:
"The costs of medical care and insurance premiums are still rising, and some employers are still dropping coverage."



As per change.gov:

The Obama-Biden Plan

On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes -- government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that's why they've proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors, and plans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.
Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses -- Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.

    * Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
    * Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.
    * Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.
    * Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.
    * Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees' health care.
    * Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
    * Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:

    * Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs, and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market.
    * Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data.
    * Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
    * Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 03:23 PM

As per NYT:
"The costs of medical care and insurance premiums are still rising, and some employers are still dropping coverage."

Jeez, Sawz- didja miss the part where most of the provisions of the act don't go into effect until 2014?

Gimmie Shelter.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

The boy misses alot, Greg...

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:43 AM

Yeah, I am still looking for Bobert's definition of the truth and where he hid the Lake Pontchartrain dam so terrorists can't blow it up.

Have you seen Bobert's definiton of the truth Greg?

"didja miss the part where most of the provisions of the act don't go into effect until 2014?"

Yeah I saw that on the last 4 items.

"The costs of medical care and insurance premiums are still rising, and some employers are still dropping coverage."

We are headed in the right direction though. We just need to back up for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:10 AM

Its many cost-control provisions are geared toward reducing the amount of care we consume, not the price we pay.

The price problem that health-care reform failed to cure
        
The Washington Post - Sunday, October 24, 2010

The health-care law of 2010 is, as Vice President Biden put it, a "big fuc*ing deal." It sets us on the road to universal health insurance. It is a favorite target for Republicans gunning to take over Congress. Lawmakers who supported it could lose their jobs. And it will remain a central focus after the midterms, as Democrats defend it against legal and political challenges through 2014, when it takes full effect.

But the Democrats' effort to sell the law to the public may be undermined by what even some ardent supporters consider its biggest shortfall. The overhaul left virtually untouched one big element of our health-care dilemma: the price problem. Simply put, Americans pay much more for each bit of care -- tests, procedures, hospital stays, drugs, devices -- than people in other rich nations.

Health-care providers in the United States have tremendous power to set prices. There is no government "single payer" on the other side of the table, and consolidation by hospitals and doctors has left insurers and employers in weak negotiating positions.

"We spend fewer per capita days in the hospital compared with other advanced countries, we see the doctor less frequently, and we swallow fewer pills," said Jon Kingsdale, who oversaw the implementation of Massachusetts's 2006 health-care law. "We just pay a lot more for each of those units than other countries."

The 2010 law does little to address this. Its many cost-control provisions are geared toward reducing the amount of care we consume, not the price we pay. The law encourages doctors and hospitals to join "accountable care organizations" that have financial incentives to limit unnecessary care; it beefs up "comparative effectiveness research" to weed out inefficient treatments; and it will eventually tax the most expensive insurance plans to restrain consumers' superfluous use of health care....

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:10 PM

Repeal and Replace is the battle cry.

Seriously the health care program we have is already a huge compromise from single payer universal health care.

Now the Republicans new compromise is to repeal the compromise.

Thats greed to the core.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:08 PM

PBS/NPR Bill Moyers - Liz Fowler the Destroyer of the Public Option

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:58 PM

I agree 100% with the Post article...

I guess the thinkin' is that once on the books that the problems associated with cutting costs will come into play but...

... there is no assurance of that...

I mean, yeah, it's a start but a fitfull one at best...

I have said this over and over but will say it again... We ****will**** be revisiting helth care again and hopefully by then there will be anough people who really have internatlized the reality that we can not be a competitive nation until we get our costs down to those of our competitors... 17% of GNP for 2nd rate health care ain't gonna cut it... Formula fir disaster...

Single payer is the best answer 'cuase if the health providers know that there is only one girl at the dance then they are gonna have to dance with her...

But the Repubs, who calculated early that Obma was going to try to "change the tone" in Washington saw this as an opportunity to pounce on Obama and just be crybabies which along with corporate $$$ is proving to be just the ticket to get back to the big money...

But...

...the country has no other choice but to fix the cost problem of health care... That is if the government isn't too badly broken to fix anything, which is debatable...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM

Bobert:

Nobody that I know is against health care reform. They are objecting to the way it is supposedly done (or not done) in the Bill.

It is more of a monument than a reform.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,Steve
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 02:27 AM

I live in the U.K, i have a friend who lives in Florida, at about the same time both our fathers got cancer, mine had prostate, my friends father pancreatic, under the NHS, my Dad had everything he needed, more drugs than he could ever take, nurses at his bedside (IN HIS OWN HOME) the doctor on call, with his home phone number, everything was catered for, my mother didnt have to pay one penny, sadly, my Dad died in February the following year, my mum has had so much to cope with, but she doesnt owe any money to hospitals, her house is safe, the life they built between them is safe and secure along with her happy memories, now, onto my American friend, luckily, his mother had some health insurance with her employer, but it wasnt enough, seemed everytime they went to the doctor it was $500, the drugs they had to buy cost a fortune, sadly, the outcome was the same, this poor lady is left with mountainous debts, along with that, she has to hold her family together and grieve her lost husband, the difference in the two stories are startling. Wake up America, a National Health Service does not make you a communist nation, you have libraries, police, fire service, Ambulance etc, all funded by the tax payer, why would healthcare be any different, Make your politicians work for you, if they mess it up vote them out, in established wealthy countries like our, Healthcare is a right not a privilege.
Also, why on earth are asthma ventilators $120 in the U.S and around $3 in mainland Europe????? someone is taking you all for a ride!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:31 AM

Hey, Sawz... Yer guys were given ample opportunity to shape the health care reform bill but chose instead to play politics, take the bigass contributions from the health insurance lobby and sandbag... That's the way it went down...

Rearranging the decks chairs was never an option...

But here is the reality... The bill is on the books and in spite of the Repubs promises to repeal it, they won't have the votes to do it... The Repubs are about to learn that their sandbagging has taught the Dems that the advantage goes to the minority party if the minority party is of a mind to sandbag... They say that paybacks are hell and me thinks that the last couple of years has left alot of Dems in a purdy foul mood so when it comes to repealing the bill that the Repubs say they are going to do a betting man wouldn't put a lot of money on the Repuns being able to pull it off...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 03:08 PM

Howzat Bobert?

There was a meeting and The Republicans had the audacity to bring a copy of the 2700+ page bill with them.

Mr Obama accused them of bringing a prop.

Mr Cantor opened the prop up to a certain page and told Mr Obama about a particular item that they objected to.

What was Mr Obama's response Bobert?

Were you watching and listening or are you going by something you read in your approved sources?

Have you watched the Bill Moyers PBS video about the health care bill yet? It was the Democrat in charge of writing the bill that got $1.5 million from the health insurance lobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

Ya' know what, Sawz... The number of pages is not all that significant... I mean, this was going to be a big bill so no matter how it was written, Repub contributions or not, it was going to be a big bill...

So the number of pages is a non-issue... Eric Cantor just played politics with it... Bottom line, the Repub made a decision early to take advantage of Obamas's promise to change the tone and usede that against him... It wouldn't have made any difference if the bill had 10 pages, 50,000 pages, or a million... The Repubs made a calculated decision to play "sandbag" and they played it perfectly... It's kinda like when Joe Gibbs introduced the counter-trey with the offensive tackle and guard pulling to the opposite side... It was less than a year and everyone was doing it... The blueprint on how a minority gums up an allready messed up legislative system is firmly in place and it ain't rocket surgery... Like I said, the Dems can do exactly what the Repub have done and gum up anything, including repeal of the health care reform bill, just as the Repubs have done...

The problem, as I see it, is that the Repubs will soon need Dems if they are going to convince anyone that they now have any ability to "govern"... I mean, it's one thing to gum up the works but quite another to demonstrate that one can actaully govern... So after the Repubs have taken the House they are going to be on the hot seat... It ain't gonna help them win over enough Dems to get something done (anything done to show they can govern) if they are going to try to repeal the Dems crowning achievment...

Gonna be interesting and one heck of a lot more fun being a Dem in the House...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:33 PM

You talk all around the facts Bobert but you have no idea of what was actually said.

You are all Bluster.

Would you actually like to know what was said so you can form your own opinion?

Are you capable of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 06:30 PM

As I wrote in another thread, if the major polls are correct, after Tuesday there will so few Democrats in the House, it is laughable to think Republicans will need any of those left to do anything.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM

"It wouldn't have made any difference if the bill had 10 pages, 50,000 pages, or a million"

Why stop there with your hyperbole? How about a billion pages a trillion pages.

I love these "if then" proofs of yours.

If it had a million pages, reading a page every two minutes 8 hours a day 5 days a week would take over 16 years to read it. Reading 24/7/365 would take 3.8 years.

Hey man, that sounds logical to me. Let's use that as a proof of something.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:02 PM

According to the polls the republicans could take back the whole congress.
The polls, they call people on their phones to ask them how they will vote. Ok, what they don't tell you is that the majority of voters now have cell phones which are not listed therefor can not be called by poll takers.
So, how accurate are these polls?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:45 PM

20 reasons Democrats are the walking dead
Oct 31, 2010

The final numbers are almost beside the point. Whether Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress, the 2010 congressional midterms will almost surely be an epic rebuke to the party and President Barack Obama. Two years ago, Democrats actually thought they would probably gain seats during these elections, just like Republicans did in 2002. What happened? This, politically and economically:
      1. Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction. According to a new Washington Post poll, 71 percent of registered voters think the United States is on the wrong track. That's the same as it was in February 2009 when the economy was shrinking and hemorrhaging jobs.
      2. Sustained high unemployment. Ouch. 17 straight months of an unemployment rate of 9 percent of higher, 20 straight months of underemployment of 15 percent of higher. Both numbers are twice as high as what Americans are accustomed to during the past generation.
      3. A moribund housing market. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values covering 20 cities, housing prices are 28 percent below their July 2006 peak.
      4. A devastating loss of wealth. Households are 19 percent or $18 trillion poorer than they were right before the recession in 2007 thanks to the housing collapse and falling investment portfolios. Household wealth in the U.S. fell another 2.8 percent in the second quarter of this year.
      5. The infamous Bernstein-Romer chart. Back in January 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer released a report that included a chart predicting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. That forecast created a metric that has come to define whether the stimulus plan is considered a success of failure. The current White House forecast, by the way, assumes the rate will not fall below 8 percent until 2013.
      6. Americans think the stimulus has pretty much failed. Some 68% of likely voters think the money the federal government has spent on the economic stimulus has been mostly mostly wasted. (ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 30-Oct. 3.)
      7. Obama's unpopular and off-point agenda. Democrats love to say how productive Congress has been. But apparently it has been passing stuff Americans don't really want. They don't like healthcare reform (56 percent to 39 percent), bank bailouts (61 percent to 37 percent), or the auto bailouts (56 percent to 43 percent), according to Gallup.
      8. The astounding budget deficit. Politicians are usually dubious about whether Americans really care about the deficit. The Tea Party movement showed otherwise. Numbers in the trillions are so mindboggling ginormous that they undercut confidence in the economic progress that has been made. Americans know such debt levels are unsustainable.
      9. A collapse in the belief in government efficacy. Obama was from the government and he said he was here to help. He represented a swing back in the pendulum toward faith in what Uncle Sam can do. But a Gallup poll finds that 59 percent of Americans think government has too much power, up from 50 percent when Obama took office. And 78 percent trust government onlysome of the time or never. That's the same as in 1994 and 20 points higher than when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. (New York Times-CBS Oct. 21-26.)
      10. A rise in the belief that government is too meddlesome. The new WaPo poll also asked what do you think is the bigger risk that the Democrats will put in place too many government regulations, or that the Republicans will not put enough government regulations in place 52 percent said Democrats, 35 percent Republicans.
      11. Lots of vulnerable House Democrats. There are 48 Democrats in seats won by both John McCain in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. After big Democrat wins in 2006 and 2008, it was time for some mean reversion.
      12. The Greek debt crisis. Debt problems in Greece and other European countries have provided a vivid warning that high government debt levels can lead to financial crisis. Budget hawks no longer have to make theoretical arguments. They just have to point to the business pages.
      13. The stimulus was poorly designed. The infrastructure spending took too long, and the tax credits were saved at an even higher level than the Keynesian rebates in the 2008 Bush stimulus plan, 13 percent to 25 percent. And sweeping cuts to marginal income and investment tax rates were never considered.
      14. Americans are ready for Washington to be downsized. By 55 percent to 36 percent, respondents say they would rather have smaller government providing fewer services than the opposite. (New York Times-CBS Oct. 21-26.)
      15. The Gulf oil leak was no Hurricane Katrina, but it was pretty bad. Not only did the environmental disaster cut against Obama's image of technocratic competence, but distracted from the administration's Recovery Summer tour.
      16. White House overconfidence. As recently as last spring, the White House was confident that the economy was turning its way and would help Democrats keep control of Congress. So no final effort was made for fiscal action to boost growth. This same unfounded optimism led them to create a stimulus in 2009 that was as much about rewarding interest groups (public employee unions, greenies) as boosting growth.
      17. The creation of toxic levels of business uncertainty. American companies are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. They don't know what's going to happen with the deficit, Bush tax cuts or how the new healthcare and financial regulations are going to play out. They also think the president doesn't quite understand their role in the U.S. economy. Said Intel CEO Paul Otellini recently, The decisions so far have not resulted in either job growth or increased confidence. When what you're doing isn't working you rethink it and I think we need to rethink some plan.
      18. Obama misunderstood his mandate. Americans voted for Democrats to get the economy fixed, not to use the crisis to redistribute wealth and implement the Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry agenda of nationalized healthcare and industrial policy.
      19. The Internet. It allowed thousands of average Americans to organize and network into what became the Tea Party movement.
      20. America is a center-right, aspirational nation. Democrats thought the financial crisis and near-landslide 2008 election meant it somehow wasn't anymore. So they attempted to graft an essentially artificial, elitist (especially cap-and-trade) agenda onto the body politic. It didn't take and is in the process of being rejected.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 10:10 AM

I thought Sawz and BeeBee & Douggie didn't BELIEVE in polls, Kendall, if you review their postings during the period of the BuShite terror.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 10:26 AM

"Some of the measures will attempt to repeal parts of Obamacare. For example, the new health care law has a provision that forces companies to file a 1099 form to the I.R.S. every time they pay more than $600 a year for goods or services from any individual or corporation. If you're a freelancer and you buy a laptop from an Apple store, you have to file a 1099. If you spend more than $600 per year with FedEx, you have to file a 1099. Republicans are going to make this an early target — an example of the law's expensive interference in business life. "


This from David Brooks, NYT.

I have to say I agree with this specific target. That is a stupidly burdensome proviso.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:24 AM

Is the Obama terror any different from the BuShite terror?

He ordered up 3 times more drone strikes that Bush and the war criminal accusers have fallen silent. He upped the troops. No problem with the impeach Bush crowd.

Guantanamo closed yet?

Citing the need to protect classified information, the Obama administration has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit intended to stop the government's attempts to assassinate a U.S. citizen overseas.

The focus of the civil case is Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S.-born Muslim cleric believed to be hiding out in Yemen. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitution Rights sued the U.S. government on behalf of Aulaqi's father, arguing it was illegal for the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command to put Aulaqi on a capture-or-kill list of suspected terrorists.

The lawsuit claims that because the United States is not at war with Yemen, the killing of al-Aulaqi should be characterized as an illegal extrajudicial execution.

Lawyers from the Department of Justice responded to the litigation by calling on a Washington, DC, judge to throw out the lawsuit, claiming the case could not be heard without exposing states secrets.

Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller told The Washington Post: "If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."

Aulaqi is suspected of helping orchestrate al-Qaeda attacks in Yemen. He has also corresponded with Major Nidal Hasan before the Army psychiatrist killed 13 people at Fort Hood.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 02:27 AM

Amos..are you sitting down??...I agree with you (mostly). There are quite a few things that need to be repealed, if not the whole thing, then restructured.

As I said, when it was being debated, 'Yes, we need health care, but NOT this Bill.'

Right again, Sanity!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 02:35 AM

Amos Lightfoot:
"From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:41 AM

Sorry, Sawz, I don't buy your bait.

Show me the actual poll, and it will be quite clear that it was an emotional reaction, not a reasoned conclusion. As for your crude assertions about my assumptions, they are in error.

What specifically do you think is wrong with the Health Care bill?"


Amos Lightfoot(this thread): "Some of the measures will attempt to repeal parts of Obamacare. For example, the new health care law has a provision that forces companies to file a 1099 form to the I.R.S. every time they pay more than $600 a year for goods or services from any individual or corporation. If you're a freelancer and you buy a laptop from an Apple store, you have to file a 1099. If you spend more than $600 per year with FedEx, you have to file a 1099. Republicans are going to make this an early target — an example of the law's expensive interference in business life. "


This from David Brooks, NYT.

I have to say I agree with this specific target. That is a stupidly burdensom"


KEEP READING IT!! YOU'LL FIND MORE!!!!

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:37 PM

Aviso: Accipitridaeus Minimus

Canada's health care system is coming apart at the seams, torn between a desire to uphold a monumental principle and the staggering challenge of delivering on that promise.

Canada, it's time to get our Health Act together Nov. 07, 2010 The Globe and Mail

Equity the notion that healthcare should be provided to all without regard to income   is medicare's defining feature.

But the lofty principle loses its meaning if the care provided is not prompt, high-quality, co-ordinated and affordable.

On the ground, there is too often a glaring lack of execution: long waits, bed shortages, unequal access to medication. Those failures are compounded by the fact that the ever-rising medicare bill is squeezing out education and other social priorities. Together they spell inequity and a growing loss of faith in the system. Medicare's iconic status, coupled with the well-honed rhetoric of those with a vested interest in the status quo has created a political aversion to reform.

Instead, we get a lot of chatter-heavy inquiries, lawsuits and legislative tinkering that is address fundamental problems only peripherally. Other countries with universal health systems notably those in Europe, which are consistently ranked as the most equitable and cost-effective have not made Canada's mistake of confusing equity with sameness.

Rather, European countries have done what Ottawa and the provinces know they need to do: Adopt a model that pragmatically mixes public and private elements both in funding and delivery while staying true to values.

But to see how Canada's governments have struggled, one need look no further than the Chaoulli decision. In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a ban in Quebec on the sale of private insurance to cover services also covered by medicare. Many predicted this legal victory by Dr. Jacques Chaoulli (who yearned to open a private hospital) would open up a parallel system one that might have provided a relief valve for the beleaguered public regime.

Five years after that landmark decision, there has been no seismic shift. The status quo reigns even though the financial pressures on medicare keep growing.

That's because Dr. Chaoulli's legal victory came with conditions. Not only did the ruling apply only in Quebec but the court said private insurance could only be offered if waits were unreasonably long in the public system. The provincial government, in the legislation it fashioned in response, restricted the sale of insurance to three procedures hip and knee replacement and cataracts and then invested in those three areas to ensure waits would not exceed three months.

The government opened up the market to the private sector then immediately gutted that market, says Colleen Flood, scientific director of the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research.

This push-me pull-me approach typifies the overly-cautious Canadian approach. There's no law that says private health care is illegal. What there is instead is a whole bunch of laws that dampen the ability of private care providers to be parasitic on the public system.

The result is an oft-illogical patchwork that has left Canadians and to a large extent policy-makers themselves   perplexed. To wit: Physician visits are covered by medicare but the drugs they prescribe are not unless the patient is over 65; physicians cannot bill patients but they can refer them to imaging clinics and laboratories that do; private clinics can offer knee surgery but not heart surgery; a citizen cannot jump the queue for care unless they were hurt on the job and they are the responsibility of Worker's Compensation; homecare nursing is provided by private companies but hospital nursing is not.

There seems to be confusion about the legitimate role of the private sector in the health system, as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development says in a recent report. That's quite an understatement.

In Canada, the debate about the role of the private sector consists largely of exchanges of rhetoric between those with entrenched ideological positions, i.e. any move to private care will destroy medicare vs. a strong dose of private sector medicine will solve all our health system's woes.

Yet, the reality is that, like it or not, there is already a lot of private care in Canada: About 30 per cent of Canada's $192-billion in annual healthcare costs are paid out-of-pocket or with private insurance.

Moreover, the vast majority of care about 70 per cent by some estimates is delivered privately and that includes medically necessary services provided by physicians (who, for the most part, are independent contractors) and by healthcare institutions that are almost exclusively not-for-profit corporations.

People get all tied up in knots about private-public when they should be focusing instead on ensuring we have a system that delivers the highest quality care in a cost-effective manner, said Jeffrey Turnbull, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

As Dr. Turnbull says, it is imperative that Canadians get away from the notion that there is black-and-white choice between public and private. More here

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:00 PM

The republican response is LOUDER THAN EVER

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:52 PM

Mr. Hell no you can't is against health care reform because he will only dance with the fella that brought him to this dance
Loyal gift receiver and all american american

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM

Hypocrits!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 08:09 PM

Canada can not make it work even though they sell so much of their natural resouces that they have plenty of trade surplus to pay for their socialist programs like free universal health care.

The US can't run the Post Office or Amtrack or FHA with out a loss but they can do what Canada can't do?

France? How are the riots going? Ireland? Greece?

Yeah we are the only industrialized nation that does not have national health care.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout cost is likely to rise to $154 billion
Washington Post October 22, 2010

Good ol' US Gummint can do anything. "Yes We Can"

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 09:20 PM

sawz is a propogandist but a one trick pny propogandist.

Your problems is that you simply skip over the countervening fact/facts of the issue in order to distort the issue and reinforce your party line.

That is so easy to see through that only the ignorant can embrace it.

In your last post for example the one fact you skip over is the deregulation spree of Banks and Mortgage Companies.


Try the anti goverment privatization way and what you get is a mandatory skim off the top and middle to pay the owners.
It is 100% more expense to privatize anything the govement provides today. Yes after 16 years of republicans the laws have been changed to make the illegal legal and make certain goverment agencies inadequate be it FEMA during Katrina or RUMSFELD's blitzkrieg mini army.


Lets see you propoganda art if you think you are a propogandist worth seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 09:52 PM

What party is that? All I see from you is a bunch of rhetoric, not a single fact but you accuse me of omitting facts.

By the way the correct spelling is propaganda.

From a hearing on September 2003 on an administration proposal to alter the regulation of GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressman Barney Frank's opening statement:

    I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.

    I must say we have an interesting example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is that the Federal Government is obligated to bail out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as I said, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy by some people.

    So let me make it clear, I am a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing, but nobody who invests in them should come looking to me for a nickel--nor anybody else in the Federal Government. And if investors take some comfort and want to lend them a little money and less interest rates, because they like this set of affiliations, good, because housing will benefit. But there is no guarantee, there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest, and you are on your own.

    Now, we have got a system that I think has worked very well to help housing. The high cost of housing is one of the great social bombs of this country. I would rank it second to the inadequacy of our health delivery system as a problem that afflicts many, many Americans. We have gotten recent reports about the difficulty here.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, both in general through leveraging the mortgage market, and in particular, they have a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing, and that is what I am concerned about here. I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals. I worry frankly that there is a tension here.

    The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

So Leveraging the Mortgage Market is a good thing? Wasn't that what caused the housing bubble?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 09:53 PM

Yeah, Donuel... The US government pays up to $300 a hour for Blackhawk for stuff that they can get done for peanuts in comparison...

Privatization is nuthin' but an expensive way to bust federal unions and reward donors...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 06:42 PM

Their response TODAY is to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a block grant to govenors to do with as they please.

The middle class is not entitled to entitlements only the rich


Next is the privatization of SS.

ITs about the last 3 trillion dollars they can steal.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:19 PM

Yup, me thinks the Repubs have gone off the deep end here... Other than the "epsilon" Tea-libaners they are pissing off everyone else...

Good luck in '12 election with that strategy...

They just lost the seniors, that much is for sure...

B~