 sj |
||
|
||
BS: US Health Care Reform
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:27 AM The polls are dropping, JtS, becuase the American people are just downright disgusted are the partisanship and it's 90% from the Repubs and the Dems are are too whimpy to go to the American people and lay the blame where it belongs... Instead, they allow The Big Lies to take hold and then The Big Lies become the new reality... Hitler said that people will readiallully believe The Big Lie. Here are just a few Big Lies that have settled nicely into the minds (or lack thereof) of the folks who are being polled: 1. Partisanship is something that both parties are equally quilty ot playing... 2. The Goevernemnt wants to kill you garndma... 3. The Governemnt wants to take over health care... 4. Obama is a socialist... 5. Obama wants to raise *your* taxes... 6. If the health care reform bill is passed the unemployement will go up... 7. etc., etc. etc... These are all blatent Big Ass Lies but see, the Dems have not been willing to counter them with the force that these Big Ass Lies are being told and so the Big Ass Lies have settled in and one thing about human nature is that once someone has been brainwashed into ***believing*** (not thinking) something then it is very hard to get them to ever again ***Believe*** anything else... This is why the Dems are screwed... The health insurance lobby has won the minds (or laack thereof) of enough people that "new and improved" Big Ass Lies are now much easier to layer on top of the old ones... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:03 AM http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:49 AM Which polls Bruce? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:33 AM "A **majority** of the Senate & House, and a **majority** of Americans want Health Care REFORM...with a public option." "A **majority** of the Senate & House," --- PROBABLY true. "a **majority** of Americans" ---NOT TRUE, from the present polls. "want Health Care REFORM...with a public option." -- A pity that the bills being considered DO NOT provice the desired reform. So the entire debate is a straw man arguement, since the bills do not provide the reform in a meaningful way that the PUBLIC supports. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:31 PM 47 experts have said, Riggo, that that is NOT what the Democrats are doing. That is a stupid distortion of what is in the bill. You "have a problem" with the very idea of seeing the Democrats actually get anything done. *I* am old enough to use it, and I am damn glad I have it,,,even though it costs me more than it should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:58 PM Personally, I've been suckered into paying into Medicare since its inception, now I'm almost old enough to use it, and the Democrats want to savage Medicare in order to provide health care to a bunch of illegal immigrants. I have a problem with the whole thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:13 PM Sneaky trick or not it is no sneakier than allowing the minority to run the show... Time for Obama and the Dems to put up or shut up... They have negoitiated away all the goodness in the bill with people who were not going to vote for it under any circumstance... That is insane... Why negotiate at all... Reconciliation or killing the current insurance friendly bill are the Dems only options if they don't want to be soundly voted back into the loser/minority party that seems to be where their comfort zone lies... This is a very, very bad bill... Bad Dems, bad... And bad Obama, bad... This is their doing... They got voted in to govern and they are afraid to do it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:32 PM Partly because the Democrats don't have 60 SOLID votes...partly because Obama and Harry Reid have tried every way possible to avoid such things as a matter or principle, I guess. Several pundits have asked "why?" and gotten vague answers. The topic of 'reconciliation' has popped up seriously the last day or two, but there are serious flaws in what can be done in that mode. Now...having said that, I heard Howard Dean say this evening that reconciliation HAS been used 23 times in the last decade...mostly by Republicans to get big tax cuts...and Dean thinks it could be used carefully to solve most of the problems. (I am still not sure of the details of his suggestion.....sitting right now with a teeny TV and with headphones on, listening to all the MSNBC programs in hopes of hearing some more analysis.) I think reconciliation has a bad reputation as a sneaky trick, and Obama & Reid don't want to resort to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:15 PM But why was it possible for the Republicans to use the nuclear option, but the Democrats aren't able to use it? Was it because the Republicans had the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster and the Democrats don't without people like Lieberman? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:30 PM Yeah, there is no mention in the Constitution that it requires 60 votes to bring a bill to a vote... Might of fact, I think that the Founding Fathers would have been very much against such a rule... This rule has, in essence, turned the Senate into the "No Chamber" of Congress and is responsible for most of the distatste that the voters have for Congress... It is a bad rule... Bad for Congress... Bad for the Country... And bad for our citizens... It does nothin' but promote bickerin' at the expense of solutions... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:12 PM "The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. " In this context, it refers to the Republicans willingness to use any means to get their way. The Democrats wanted to stop bad judicial appointments: the Republicans wished to keep them from it. Now, the Republicans don't want the Democrats to try similar tactics. "What's sauce for the goose...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:56 PM What is the nuclear option in this context? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:18 PM I'm with you, Bill... In a way, the Dems deserve to lose and lose big because they are losers... I'd tell Joe Leiberman to get outta the caucus... I'd let the other 3 know that they can go, as well... And I'd not only threaten the "nuclear option" but I'd be willing to use it... Anything short will be a most certain defeat in both '10 and '12 elections... Whimps!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:04 PM "The system is terribly broken when one man ( Reid) can tell 40 others to fuck off and get away with it... " Gee... don't I remember when The Shrub was in charge and needed to pass stuff, that his majority leader, Bill Frist, aided by Trent Lott and Ted Stevens and others, threatened "the nuclear option" to stop Democrats from filibustering heavily conservative Supreme Court nominees? The Republicans were not a bit shy about 'telling ...others... to fuck off' when they had an agenda. A **majority** of the Senate & House, and a **majority** of Americans want Health Care REFORM...with a public option. A majority of large insurance companies do not...and most Republican senators, and a few Democrats, got a huge portion of their campaign funds from health care interests. Guess what's driving the voting lineup? "voting their conscience"? HA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM And if it goes into next year, everybody will have to worry about the mid-term elections. Is there a Senate seat coming up in Vermont? Maybe Howard is getting ready to run for something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Donuel Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:43 PM YYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW Dr. Gov. Dean NDC chairman, is at it again. He is calling to vote the bill down. You don't have to be a fan of the occult to "channel" the late Senator Edward Kennedy but if one could he would surely say, "Get what you can now, which includes the criminalization of denying help to sick people with pre existing incomes, and get what we want later." Yes the single payer plan and the Medicare expansion is dead along with the 50,000 people who will die as a result. Yes the Drug Companies won the fight to charge TEN times more for drugs in the US than the same dryg they export. The 3 billion or more spent to defeat reform has deformed this attempt but Ted Kennedy would have reason to take this small step forward and build on it later. So today Rep. Coburn has delayed the process another 11 hours by asking the defeated ammendments to be read slowly aloud. Micheal Steele says this slow down is what the American people want and deserve. We will not have a bill this year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:31 PM Apparently, you're not the only person thinking along those lines about Lieberman, Riginslinger (click). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:19 PM We start out wanting health care reform, and after Congress gets through with it, we get health care deform! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM Right you are, Rigs... Hey, Obama thinks this a bad bill is better than no bill... That's not accurate at all... Bad stuff is just that... That's why they call it bad... (But, Boberdz... Then the Dems will get voted out because they didn't get health care thru...) No, not really... If the dems would just vote it down and take their arguments to the people saying that system is broken that requires a super majority in the Senate to pass anything and tell the American people that until that is fixed then nothin' will get fixed I think the voters would reward them for hafving told the friggin' truth./.. Face it... 65 is greater than 44!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:41 AM In any event, Howard Dean wants it to fail so they just ought to stop right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:01 AM No, BB, you have not counted correctly... There are 56 Senators for health care reform and 44 against!!! So right now we have minority rule... And if you break down that minority into actual percentage of the population with less populated states still having two senators this is more like 20% ruling the other 80%... That is closer to what is occuring... The Repubs have thrown more filibusters (and threats of) into the so-called democratic system since 2006 than the Dems had used in over 20 years... This sytem is tyerribly broken and it won't be fixed until... No, there won't be a fix... Tom Jefferson and Co's little experiement is terminally ill and because of Senate rules it cannot even fix its ownself... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:56 AM "Lieberman knows by now he'll never be re-nominated...much less re-elected... as a Democrat, and probably not electable in Connecticut at all." The fact that he got elected the last time when the Democrats nominated somebody else was amazing to me. Obviously AIPAC thought it was important for him to be there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:49 AM The system is terribly broken when one man ( Reid) can tell 40 others to fuck off and get away with it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 09 - 11:01 PM Lieberman knows by now he'll never be re-nominated...much less re-elected... as a Democrat, and probably not electable in Connecticut at all. He has 3 more years to be, as Dick says, the senator from Aetna, and to build up enough blood money so that he can never NEED to work again....even though he will probably have a twilight career AS a lobbyist for big insurance. It sickens me to see ANY senator so unconcerned about what sickens the rest of the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:12 PM Lieberman must go... The Dems should ance with him just long enough to get some ace saving BS health care reform which won't fix squat and then throw the little weisel outta the caucus and strip him of his chairmanship... Screw it... The system is terribly broken when one man can tell 59 others to fuck off and get away with it... But, all this was predictable... Afterall, this is the best government that money can buy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:52 PM You can't say "as can be seen from CarolC's posts, what they are trying to push through is NOT what the people who voted for Obama wanted". At least you can't say that and be telling the truth. What some, of them are trying to do is entirely what the people who voted for Obama wanted. And those others who are trying to prevent this from being done are doing what people who didn't vote for Obama wanted. The people who voted for Obama overwhelmingly want a public option, or Medicare for all. The people who didn't vote for Obama mostly (but not entirely) don't want either a public option or Medicare for all. What they want is more subsidies for the insurance industry. Those who want a public option are still in the majority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:19 PM No, it takes 40. And, as can be seen from CarolC's posts, what they are trying to push through is NOT what the people who voted for Obama wanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: dick greenhaus Date: 15 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM It means that the senator from Aetna, Mr. Lieberman, is showing voters that one senator can keep them from getting what they voted for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:41 AM I don't think we can know what it means until the House and Senate reconcile their bills and we find out what the final bill will contain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:24 AM Okay, the Senate just tossed out the "expansion of Medi-Care." Does anybody in the real world know what that means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:45 AM CarolC:"....if enough people make sure they know they won't get re-elected if they don't." .....Or get re-elected if they do. Depends on what this thing looks like, and if we can really afford, the REAL numbers....or if it's really a scam. We'll be watching..REAL close. Perhaps we can hash it over..be cool to see what would come out of it. Waiting, ...Holding my baited breath....and turning blue... Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 12 Dec 09 - 01:28 AM There's no way to know whether it will work or not, but I know it won't work at all if we don't make the attempt. It is possible to scare them into to doing the right thing... if enough people make sure they know they won't get re-elected if they don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:44 PM Carol, Good for you!!!! We should do that!! But in the end of the day, do you think your 'representative' will represent you, and his/her constituents, or take a deal, for their vote? That is one of the biggest bummers, which I have written extensively about. But, keep trying. You are doing an honorable thing, in doing that, and all the more power to you for it!! Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:51 PM I'm not waiting and seeing, myself. I've been doing a lot of writing and calling to my Senators and my Representative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:45 PM Fair enough, Carol. I hope this bill either goes through a massive overhaul,(probably from top to bottom), or scrap it, and start again! Jeez, last time I took a 'wait and see approach, I told Amos, that I'd reserve opinion on Obama...and I've been nice, and kept my word...but frankly, it's not looking real great, at this juncture! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:06 PM I was wrong. The Moonie newspaper was talking about something else. It's Quist himself who is presenting us with this one on his own website. And I think I was also wrong when I said this was the first I'd heard about it. I seem to remember, back when the house was deliberating on its bill, that this issue came up (Quist is talking about the House bill and not the Senate bill). I remember that one of the options they were considering would have screwed JtS and me over in just the way Quist describes it here... http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/?q=2 But I also remember that they didn't go with that version of the bill. At least I remember that I was much happier with the version that came out than I was with that one. I think I would have to go back and read the posts in this thread that were made during the time when the House was still deliberating its bill to find out for sure, though. I know I remember posting some things about it then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:41 PM Apparently the source for that one is the Moonie newspaper (Washington Times). I'll keep looking around, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:37 PM That's the first I've heard about that one. I'll check it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,heric Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:11 PM Have you looked into this one yet, Carol? Currently on the right wing blogs and I haven't thought it through - but the numbers should be easy enough to check. (The guy says if two people each make $30K, they will pay $100 per month each if single, but $500 per month each if they get married.): Allen Quist, a former Minnesota State legislator and current candidate for Congress, discovered the penalty while looking at numbers from the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor. "This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360," he wrote in a blog post. "A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger." The Senate bill includes a similar penalty. "The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance," Quist wrote. "Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married." The numbers are based on the government's definition of "poverty level." Those above poverty level will pay higher premiums, and the excess would be redistributed to those in lower income levels. Quist explains that the government's definitions will play a critical role in whether people will choose to get married. "'Household' is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes, thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried," he wrote. "The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:07 AM And I keep saying there is no "this bill". No bill has emerged from the Senate as of yet. We will have to wait until the Senate releases their bill to the public to know precisely what is in it. And we have absolutely no idea what kind of bill will emerge from the process of reconciliation with the House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM Carol,I think you and I have the same concerns in regards to this bill, versus REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM! That is why, I keep saying, 'Yes we need reform, but this bill is not it!' I think it is both despicable, and underhanded that the Dems are trying to pass a bill this huge, and keep it from the American public as much as they can. So much for the 'transparency' we were 'promised'(?)!!!! Another campaign lie! Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:59 AM Hmmmm... WASHINGTON – A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates. The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote. As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not "unreasonable." The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_senate_loopholehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_senate_loophole |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:21 AM He's saying exactly what several of us have been saying all along right here in this thread, GfS. Which is why we are still trying to ensure that there is at least a strong public option in whatever health care bill passes. Kucinich is for single payer, not for profit health care, as I am also. But unless the House and Senate pass a bill that gives us that, I'm going to have to settle for the best I can get. A bill with a strong public option will come the closest to allowing me and my husband get access to health care (short of Medicare for all). The compromise being proposed by the Senate is a much bigger giveaway to the insurance companies than the House bill (although the House bill still falls far short of being ideal), because it doesn't help foster competition or break the monopolies of the insurance industry cabal. But we haven't yet seen what their bill will look like, because they have not released it to the public. My own suspicion is that it is not likely to go anywhere, because it won't get good numbers from the CBO, for the very reason that it relies heavily on subsidies rather than bringing the cost of premiums down through a robust public option. My suspicion is that the reason they won't talk about it is because they know it won't get good numbers from the CBO and they will be using the CBO numbers to show that any bill that passes will absolutely need to include a robust public option if it is going to fall within the criteria set by Obama and also the Congress. By the way, I heard Kucinich being interviewed by some talking head this evening, and I was surprised to hear him say that he is not against the proposal to expand Medicare to those over 55. But he was careful to emphasize that he thought it would be a good start. He would want Medicare to be expanded eventually to cover everyone. I don't think I share his optimism about Medicare coverage ever expanding beyond people 55 and up. But I respect his position on this. He's earned the right to be an optimist, in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Dec 09 - 02:25 AM Here Carol. try these: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/kucinich-health-reform-legislation-a-bailout-insurance-companies/ http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2838&Itemid=1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 10 Dec 09 - 05:32 PM I'm trying to think of one that isn't, and I can't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Dec 09 - 05:17 PM "...I must conclude that the radio program you heard it on must have been an arm of the corporate propaganda machine." If there was a radio program that wasn't, would they let it on the air? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 10 Dec 09 - 02:02 PM When you say, "the bill", in order for your statements to be correct, "the bill" has to be defined as the proposal to expand Medicare to those who are between the ages of 55 and 64, which is not the same thing as health care reform. It cannot be defined to include the public option or Medicare for all. Now that the public option has been effectively killed in the Senate and they are leaning toward only expanding Medicare to people over the age of 55, the insurance companies are declaring victory. This is not a surprise to me or anyone else who has been paying attention to the ways in which the insurance industry is trying to screw over the US health care consumer. I have never been in favor of expanding Medicare to only those 55 and above, and I know that Kucinich has never been in favor of that, either. So I must conclude that the radio program you heard it on must have been an arm of the corporate propaganda machine. Because the way they are framing the issue is dishonest and designed to mislead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 Dec 09 - 01:34 PM Carol, I was posting what was on the radio. According to the report, the insurance companies being against the bill, is a smokescreen. Kucinich, who is VERY liberal,(but an honest guy, in my opinion) raised the issue, and objected very strongly when he found out what was going on. Yes, I think this bill sucks,..but this tidbit is not in support of that opinion..it's just a whole other side that is being kept from the public's view...but the words out now! Thank you, Kucinich! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:41 AM And by the way, GfS, I find myself thinking that you think I'm stupid. I said the insurance industry is against the public option, which you have ignored and you are still trying to foist an obvious misrepresentation of the facts to me and thinking I will fall for it. You are trying to make me believe that because the insurance industry supports what the Senate has just done, that means they support health care reform, even though all of the real health care reform initiatives, like single payer not for profit for everyone, and a robust public option, have been vigorously opposed by them. They support an initiative that will hurt me and my husband and that I don't support myself, and you expect me to believe that this is health care reform and their support of it is evidence that the insurance industry supports health care reform. I find myself thinking maybe you work for the insurance industry yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform From: CarolC Date: 10 Dec 09 - 04:32 AM I should rephrase this part: I repeat, what the insurance industry is peddling is not health care reform - it is a preservation of the status quo with more corporate welfare for them. It is the opposite of health care reform. |
