BS: Republican response to Health Reform

Subject: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:31 PM

No You Can't

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:33 PM

What a clown.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Alice
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:37 PM

Oh, that was funny.

Careful you don't get hypnotized while listening. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:15 AM

Well done!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:05 AM

I think they CAN ! Just hope they can carry on improving things !

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:10 AM

"Unfairly or not, the defining images of opposition to health care reform may end up being those rage-filled partisans with spittle on their lips. Whether the outbursts came from inside Congress — the "baby killer" shout of Rep. Randy Neugebauer, and his colleagues who cheered on hecklers — or outside, where protesters hurled vile names against elected representatives, they are powerful and lasting scenes of a democracy gasping for dignity.

Now, ask yourself a question: can you imagine Ronald Reagan anywhere in those pictures? Or anywhere in those politics? Reagan was all about sunny optimism, and at times bipartisan bonhomie. In him, the American people saw their better half.

    The Republican Party has taken some of the worst elements of Tea Party anger and incorporated them into its own identity.

Compare that to the closing days of a week that will soon be chiseled into the larger American story. One Democrat, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, said he was called a "wetback" by Tea Party hecklers at a meeting a few days before the vote. Black members of Congress say they were spat on, and called racial epithets. Bricks were thrown through the office windows of two other Democrats. And now, the inevitable death threats.

From the leader of the opposition, at least, was expected a level of decorum. But instead, Rep. John Boehner, the Republican who wants to be the next speaker of the House, predicted "Armageddon," and shouted "Hell, no!," his perma-tan turning crimson in rage.

Most of these vignettes are isolated incidents — a few crazies going off in a vein-popping binge. But the Republican Party now has taken some of the worst elements of Tea Party anger and incorporated them into its own identity. They are ticked off, red-faced, frothing — and these are the men in suits.


In trying to explain his intemperate shout over a bill that in fact explicitly outlaws using public funds for abortion, Congressman Neugebauer said he was representing the views of people back home in Texas, as expressed in town hall meetings. By this logic, he'd throw his popcorn on somebody's head if enough people did it in movie theaters in his district.

"Let's beat the other side to a pulp!" Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. "Let's chase them down! There's going to be a reckoning."

Indeed there will. But as the party of the hissy fit, Republicans are playing with fire.

On Monday morning, most Americans awoke with some relief that the epic battle was over. Then, they tried to figure out what health care overhaul would mean to them. They found out that insurance companies would no longer be allowed to drop people if they get sick. They saw that older children could stay on their insurance through age 26. And the elderly, the most consistent voting block, discovered that the new law would gradually end a prescription drug donut hole that causes many of them to cut their pills in half to get through a month.

No death panels. No socialized public option. No forcing people to change doctors or providers. And the most contentious part of the new law — requiring nearly everyone to get health coverage or pay a fine — does not kick in until 2014.

Little wonder then, as the focus turned away from legislators cutting deals to a new law of the land that tries to help average people, the polls showed public sentiment starting to shift. Armageddon was nowhere to be seen."

(NY Times Opinionator)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:03 AM

It isn't health care....it isn't even money that they are frothing over. It's the fact that Obama has won on this VERY important battle. They were banking on him losing, and being able to label him a loser in 2012. Now, by that time, it will have sunk in that he and the Democrats have done something seriously GOOD for the country and made the Republicans look like fools for all the lies and dirty politics.

(well...it IS also money....the money they get from their corporate backers to finance elections. I suppose you 'can' say, using the old joke, that the Republicans are honest politicians - once bought, they STAY bought.)

Now they are sort of committed to doubling down and increasing the lies and hyperbole and artificially linking all sorts of special interest issues to this one...just as they have been playing the abortion card.

Expect to hear LOTS more about guns and religion and *gasp* Socialism, and innuendo about race and immigration and every other conservative 'hot button' they can think of! They KNOW how to use fear and prejudice to inflame people, but just 'maybe' those they are trying to inflame will realize that the party which FINALLY got them Health Care is really the party which cares and can be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:14 AM

The big question now is how the courts will handle it. Once the suits are filed, will everything be put on hold until a legal decision is made?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Those challenges are political theater. Nothing more. Its a shame that some of those attorney's general can say the things they have been saying and remain members of the bar.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:07 PM

It is disgraceful. Rather than participate in the process and produce a health care plan to benefit the entire nation, both parties voted along party lines to ensure their own re-elections. A few hundred people get paid to fuck around, pontificate, hurl slurs and decide our lives for us while protecting their power base.
I suggest term limits in both houses - maximum two. Work, get it done right and get out.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM

"Its a shame that some of those attorney's general can say the things they have been saying and remain members of the bar."

             They have issues that seem reasonable to them. That's why we have three branches of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM

No, Riggy, they have issues to make political hay out of. Every legal scholar has indicated that they have no chance of prevailing. This is about politics at the expense of the public. Nothing else.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:23 PM

Term limits? You mean keep folks like Henry Waxman and Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse and Barney Frank...and a whole list of others from being 'established', with experience and wisdom?
No thanks...I'd rather struggle with the bad ones than lose guaranteed GOOD ones.

(UNLESS we change the entire system of choosing candidates to eliminate most of the power brokering and nepotism... I can design that, but the 'system' has its own built-in safeguards against any changes that interfere with its habits.)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:29 PM

"Every legal scholar has indicated that they have no chance of prevailing."

             There have been a number who have indicated they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:40 PM

The scholars that are most credible, and not paid shills of Fox or any network, are pretty unanimous in their opinion.

As to term limits, in a democratic republic they are built in. It is called "one person, one vote". Only those opposed to representative democracy would be in favor of anything other than that. Note how it was the conservatives, when they could not win in the court of popular opinion known as the majority, that favored establishing term limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

The legal challenges, at least so far, seem to be focused on the mandatory coverage provisions that don't go into effect until 2014. I doubt if any court would accept a suit to delay the entire program in order to address that part (dumber things have happened, of course).

These challenges focus on the idea that a Federal law imposing an obligation on the states is precluded by the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court addressed this, on the topic of Social Security and Medicare, in 1937, and found that a national law that addresses the general welfare of the citizens of the entire nation is constitutional. (Look up Helvering v Davis, if you'd like.) It would be very interesting if the current Court found the health care program unconstitutional - then where would Social Security be? Besides broke, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

Mitt Romney has called the bill unconstitutional and asked for repeal. Several states are voting to put roadblocks in the way of implementation. Loosely organized groups, Tea, Statists and Liberty, are whipping up opposition.

If the opponents increase their voting power in Congress, and the attacks continue to grow, repeal is likely if the Republicans prevail in 2012.

The 'majority' in the last election may well be a 'minority' in coming elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:33 PM

Right, Q. That is called democracy. We will see who prevails in the next election. Why do you think the opposition spent so much money and time trying to demonize it? Because they knew that once passed, folks would come to see it as essential, just as Social Security and Medicare are. The last numbers I saw show a 49% and rising approval, and a 40% disapproval. See you at the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:35 PM

This is basic Constitutional law 101...


"South Carolina's attorney general is leading nine other state AGs -- all Republicans -- in threatening to sue over the provision of the health care bill that exempts Nebraska from new Medicaid costs, a measure secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE).

The 'review' was prompted by a letter sent Monday by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint to Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is currently running for governor. 'We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49', they wrote.

In an interview with McClatchy, DeMint said the Nebraska provision, which would save the state $100 million, violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution: 'No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another ...' "

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:39 PM

Health Care Reform

It's Time to Decide, and 54% of Voters Oppose the Health Care Plan
Sunday, March 21, 2010

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a House of Representatives vote today on the health care reform plan proposed by the President Obama and congressional Democrats. Yet while in Congress there has been months of posturing and shifting of political tactics, voter attitudes have remained constant: A majority oppose the plan being considered by the legislators.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll, taken Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed. These figures have barely budged in recent months.

Another finding that has remained constant is that the intensity is stronger among those who oppose the plan. The latest findings include 26% who Strongly Favor the plan and 45% who Strongly Oppose it.

The partisan divide remains constant as well. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 87% of Republicans are opposed. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 34% are in favor, and 59% are opposed.

Still, 50% of all voters say they're less likely to vote this November to reelect a member of Congress who votes for the health care plan.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe that if the plan passes, the cost of health care will go up. Only 17% believe the plan will achieve the stated goal of reducing the cost of care.

At the same time, most voters (54%) believe that passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

The Congressional Budget Office recently said that the proposed legislation would reduce the deficit, but voters are skeptical of the official government projections. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe the health care plan will cost more than projected. That's one reason voters overwhelmingly believe passage of the plan will increase the deficit and is likely to mean higher middle class taxes.

Some parts of the legislation are popular, but voters are reluctant to embrace the high cost of paying for it. Most voters (56%) oppose reducing Medicare spending and also oppose an excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. Fifty-seven percent (57%) also believe that passage of the plan will hurt the U.S. economy.

In fact, 55% of voters would rather see Congress scrap the original plan and start all over again.

While most voters oppose the legislation, 64% say it's at least somewhat likely to pass. The disconnect between sustained public opposition to the health care plan and the belief it may pass may be one reason that just 21% of voters believe the federal government has the consent of the governed. This follows a similar disconnect on the bailouts, the government takeover of General Motors and other initiatives that were approved in the past year despite strong public opposition.

In his new book, In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen observes that most Americans "have come to believe that the political system is broken, that most politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers." He adds that "the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century."

In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com. The book ends on a hopeful note and reminds readers that "in America, the politicians aren't nearly as important as they think they are."

Skepticism about politicians plays a role in the opposition to the health care legislation as well. Only 20% believe most members of Congress will understand the bill before they vote on it. When it comes to making health care decisions, 51% fear the federal government more than they fear private insurance companies. Thirty-nine percent (39%) fear private insurers more.

Health care reform now ranks fifth in terms of voter concern on a list of 10 issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM

Then why have a term limit on the presidency? Vote him out if he is useless.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:44 PM

Once again: South Carolina has given the Unites States two things: Lindsey Graham and the Civil War. I'm not sure which is worse.

The man is a grandstanding ignorant disgrace.

NB:"Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is currently running for governor..." gee, wonder what his agenda is in filig these frivolous suits? see Big Mick, above.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:58 PM

PDQ:

The part that is being conveniently left out of that hollow position is the brainwashing campaign of false data, fear-mongering and rabblerousing rhetoric that has been endlessly spewed out by the right-end media buys all over the country. Anyon can rig up a poll when they have the population to be polled thoroughly confuzzled and terrorized by painting false alarms and catastrophic scenarios that are completely off the beam. Stirring up fear and hate is a specialty of the right end. They just seem to think that way. Dunno why. But echoing, copying, acting out, amplifying, and cross-seeding all that fear and false mayhem information is a really STUPID WAY TO BE A RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN.

Oh, sorry....damn capslock.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:58 PM

I agree, Sinsull. I don't think that is a good idea either.

pdq, you are emblematic of the old saw, "figures don't lie, but liars figure". You know full well it depends on how the question is asked. For example, if asked whether the individual components, such as pre existing conditions, kids on their parents plan until 26, cost containment, then the numbers skew way in favor. The fact is that those numbers you quote are a direct reflection of the program of disinformation that was instituted by big money folks. Further, your numbers are prior to the vote. Since the vote there is a shift occurring. I would suggest that the real referendum will come in the next election. See you then.......

In the meantime we will be working on jobs, and on sensible restraints on the financial services industry. I can't wait to see how your Republican bosses try to paint that. But in the words of the great Christy Moore, at The Pointe in Dublin, "tough shit, Paddy".

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: beeliner
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:59 PM

The projected cost of the plan is said to be one TRILLION dollars, more or less, over ten years, as if that were an horrific amount.

One TRILLION dollars over ten years is, as I figure it, somewhere between 25 and 30 dollars per month per American.

I pay EIGHT TO TEN TIMES THAT right now just for my Medicare part B and Medigap supplement. I shudder to think how much someone without Medicare or employer benefits has to pay for similar coverage.

Am I missing something here?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:06 PM

"I agree, Sinsull. I don't think that is a good idea either.

Who are you agreeing with about what, Mick? She said she might like 'term limits'...I disagreed...then she suggested what is called in other countries "a vote of confidence" where someone can be removed anytime...although this usually applies to just 'leaders'.

In our current system, neither would work very well....and would no doubt require constitutional amendments.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:15 PM

Sorry, Bill. I thought it was evident. Here is the post I was referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: SINSULL - PM
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM

Then why have a term limit on the presidency? Vote him out if he is useless.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

I was at a meeting last night where a wannabe governor introduced himself. He is a Democrat, running against Sean Parnell who became Alaska's governor when Sarah Palin resigned.

I talked at some length with a man who used to be a gung ho Republican. In the '80s he was an officer in the US military when it suddenly occurred to him that the message of 'Better Dead than Red' was ludicrous. He said last night that that's when he began to learn to think.

He is no longer a Republican. Although we agreed that in the *old* Republican party it was legitimate to vote for the occasional Republican politician, that is true no longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 04:36 PM

My post from 03:39 PM was from the most respected polling organization in the country, Rasmussen Reports.

It is dated 21 MAR 2010, the day the House voted to approve ObamaCare.

If people don't like what Rasmussen found, it ain't my fault. Not Rasmussen's fault, either.

He tracks 10 concerns that the US people have and health are re-do was only fifth.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:17 PM

As of right now, a majority of people in the US like the new health care reform law.


"WASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:24 PM

Maybe I should have used big letters in my last post. Here goes...

As of right now, a majority of people in the US like the new health care reform law.


"WASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:24 PM

One poll I saw, and I have no real interest in looking for it, said that some 30% of those who don't like the health care bill dislike it because it doesn't go far enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:30 PM

Funny thing about the new 'n improved Reoub strategy is that it takes US back to arguments that were used by Southern states some 180 years ago about states rights... If you listen to folks like Virginia's Attorney General, Cuncinilli he would have you believe that states have the rights to ignore any federal law that they want to???

Ummmmmmm, not to get too specfic here but isn't that what the Civil War was fought over???

This is what I was talkin' about on another thread... The Supremes are going to find themselves ina major pickle here... That say, on one hand, that states cannot have their own gun control laws or limit corporations form unlimited spending on campaigns becuase federal law trumps state law... Now you have all these states with Repub governors lining up to make arguments that werde part of the 1830s... That's right... The 1830s!!!

Oughtta be interesting...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:40 PM

The Republican leadership has reputiated the few hecklers that went over the line and it is dis-ingenuious to try to hang this issue around the necks of Republicans. One Republican reported today that someone fired a shot through his office door or window so the anger is not confined to Republicans. Some liberals are pissed because they feel the Bill is not liberal enough.

The thread title, I believe, is an insult to my Party and the thread should be re-titled. No one has proved yet that the crimes were committed by Republicans.

Mick states, in his post of 25 March at 12:16 PM, "Every legal scholar has indicated that they have no chance of prevailing." (the state AG cases against the health care Bill).

That's a pretty broad statement I think. That takes in a lot of scholars in the United States. I, myself, have heard legal scholars on TV declare that the AGs may have a pretty strong case. I guess we will just have to wait and see. If Mick is right, I would think that it won't take long for there to be a decision made, not if it's a slam dunk as he suggests.

Since our president is, himself, a Constitutional scholar, it would be a bit embarresing, I suppose, if he were to have signed a Bill that he knew was unconstitutional. Right?

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:43 PM

The Republican leadership has been encouraging and inciting people to use violence to overthrow the democratic election ever since Obama was elected, and they were encouraging and inciting violence during the run-up to the election. Their condemnation of such tactics (yesterday only) is hardly enough to undue the damage they've done by encouraging and inciting that kind of behavior over the last few years.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM

What will the polls show after the dust settles? Polls at this time are meaningless. What will they be when the next congressional election rolls around? Will opposition grow, or fade away?
Several states are planning constitutional arguments; what effect will they have?
There are a rocky few years ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:46 PM

By the way, the title of this thread was in reference to something that John Boehner said about the health care reform bill (now law - watch the video), and is a perfectly legitimate title for this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 05:56 PM

"The thread title, I believe, is an insult to my Party and the thread should be re-titled. No one has proved yet that the crimes were committed by Republicans."

Doug,

The thread title refers to Boehner's reaction to the Bill, being the leader of the House Republican's, I believe that he is more qualified to voice the Republican reaction than you.

......

On the other hand,
If you have a more keen sense of humor, you would see that the thread title was at least partly in jest.

On the other hand,

If you had a more keen sense of humor, you would not be a Republican.

.......

Please note that the lines between the dots were said in jest.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:05 PM

Q, the trend has been that the more people learn about the new law and the benefits it offers for them personally, the more they like it. If the trend continues as it has been going, the Democrats could look pretty good in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

16 jackasses who say it is unconstitutional, does not make it unconstitutional. As I have said before, they shouldn't be allowed to say this publicly and practice law.

It is unethical and it is misrepresentation. Unless they are stupid enough to think that it is unconstitutional, then they are simply unqualified.

If the fed can require you to pay taxes, then they can give you the choice to either
a. Buy Health Insurance or
b. Pay taxes.

Last I heard, it was constitutional to require taxes be paid.

It may be worthwhile to note that they do not plan to put forward a single piece of case law to back up their claim.

They are just trying to stir up ignorant people that are too lazy to find information that isn't spoon-fed to them by liars and rabble rousers.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:08 PM

Btw, for the record, the "Nullifier Party" was founded by John CXalhoun in South Caroline in the late 1820s, was short lived and out by 1840... Their belief is that the states had more power than the federal government... This, in essence, is the Republican response... The Repubs, at least in Virgina, think that the state can pass laws whch override federal law...

BTW, this was the argument that led to the Civil War...

As for Boehner's response to the violence??? Paltry, at best...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: beeliner
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:10 PM

CarolC: "As of right now, a majority of people in the US like the new health care reform law."

49% in favor, with 40-41% opposed, is a plurality, not a majority.

Close though.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:11 PM

No, Doug, YOU are an insult and embarrassment to what the Republican party once was and stood for but which has now evolved into a bunch of mindless obstructionist BuShite assholes- as clearl;y demonstrated by their embrace & support of Limbaugh & the other hate-mongering, violence inciting on-air bloviators.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:20 PM

Has anyone actually watched the video? It's very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:22 PM

Ok, beeliner.

I guess it would be accurate to say that there are more people who like it than there are who don't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 06:46 PM

When Americans voted in the last eleuntilction, they voted a mandate for health reform. That stands until and unless in some future election they vote to repeal it. Fluctuations in opinion polls in the meantime, such as the one pdq quotes, don't have any significance, except when it comes to making prophecies about future election outcomes.

In fact, no country which has introduced universal affordable health care has ever voted to abolish it. People can be stupid at times, but not that stupid, it seems. Maybe the USA will be the exception, and demonstrate that, in one corner of the planet, they can be. Only in America, as they say...

But I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 08:18 PM

I'm sure that the "usual suspects" will say that a CNN poll doesn't count either...

CNN Poll: 59% of Americans Now in Opposition to Obama's Health Care Plan

Posted by James Richardson       Monday, 22 MAR 2010

A majority of Americans hold a generally negative view of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, according to a new CNN poll which found 59 percent of respondents now in opposition to the plan.

After a dozen pro-life Democrats hold-outs lead by Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak caved Sunday to increasing pressure from the White House, the House adopted on a strictly party-line vote the Senate's bill, which now awaits the President's signature.

Among the most salient of Republican talking points on health care, the poll showed, were the issues of cost and quality, which Congressional Republicans had said the bill fundamentally failed to address.

62 percent believed the new reforms would result in a spike in personal medical expenses, while only 21 percent said they would remain the same. In September of last year, a similar poll found 47 percent believed the President's plan would increase medical costs; 35 percent said costs would remain the same.

Democrats hemorrhaged support on the issue of quality, too. The number of those who said their families would be better off dropped nominally, while a significant margin shifted their opinion from September that their families would be "about the same" to "worse off." 47 percent held the view their families would fare worse if the legislation was implemented; 19 percent responded they would be better off; and 33 percent said they would be about the same.

Most damaging–insomuch as anything apart from legal challenges can derail the near-certain implementation of ObamaCare–is that respondents universally held the opinion that the President's reforms will increase federal deficits. 70 percent said the bill will result in higher deficits; 17 percent said it was deficit neutral; and only 12 percent said it would reduce the nation's deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: beeliner
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 08:33 PM

The bill was passed Sunday night, the CNN poll released Monday morning, so it's reasonable to assume that the actual polling took place first.

The most current polls I've seen agree with Carol's figures, and it wouldn't surprise me if the approval figure went over 50% by the weekend.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 08:43 PM

That polling took place on 3/19-3/21. This from the CNN article (I knew I saw that someplace!): Roughly one in five of respondents who said they opposed the bill did so because it was not liberal enough, and those people are unlikely to vote Republican. Take them out of the picture and opposition to the bill because it is too liberal is 43 percent.

More recent surveys have a very different result.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 08:46 PM

Yeah, Carol... I saw it last night on MSNBC... Very well done...

As for polls??? They are a joke... The insurance and drug lobbies have put out an unprecedented amount of media-buy PR and, unfortunately, alot of it has stuck... But the underlying subliminal message in this PR avalanche is that the Dems did this in the dark of night and no one knows what is in the bill... Well, all I gotta say is that if you don't understand what is in this bill yer either brain dead or just landed from another planet...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM

Is pdq's point that opinion polls ought to overrule elections?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:20 AM

Amos:

Is health care reform a binary event?

Are there no alternatives to Obama's health care plan?

You are so into these one way or the other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:03 AM

There is an alternative. That is the bill that was passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. It contains some of what the president wanted and some things he did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:44 AM

Is pdq's point that opinion polls ought to overrule elections?

No, PeeDee's point is that HE should be able to overrule elections.

Or at least the BuShites should be, as they did in the 2000 presidential election.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM

There was a time that both of my Senators, John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum, had the highest progressive rating in the Senate and got elected for term after term. I wouldn't have traded them in for anyone. What possible purpose would term limits serve. Presidential term limits did not exist until Republicans pushed them through in reaction to FDR being elected 4 times. It was also Republicans who wanted to get rid of them so we could have 4 more years of Reagan. Now if you want to talk about campaign finance reform we might be on to something.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 02:58 PM

"...Devin Nunes, a Republican of California, warns that by passing health reform, Democrats "will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people." Gosh, that sounds uncomfortable. And it's been a hoot watching Mitt Romney squirm as he tries to distance himself from a plan that, as he knows full well, is nearly identical to the reform he himself pushed through as governor of Massachusetts. His best shot was declaring that enacting reform was an "unconscionable abuse of power," a "historic usurpation of the legislative process" — presumably because the legislative process isn't supposed to include things like "votes" in which the majority prevails.

A side observation: one Republican talking point has been that Democrats had no right to pass a bill facing overwhelming public disapproval. As it happens, the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits. But in any case, the message from the polls is much more ambiguous than opponents of reform claim: While many Americans disapprove of Obamacare, a significant number do so because they feel that it doesn't go far enough. And a Gallup poll taken after health reform's enactment showed the public, by a modest but significant margin, seeming pleased that it passed.

But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon." The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee's chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on "the firing line." And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.

No, to find anything like what we're seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as "your president." Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, "better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard." (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission.

Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it's clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists.

For today's G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan — not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It's a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans' economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It's a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it's a party that fundamentally doesn't accept anyone else's right to govern. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 02:59 PM

When Bush was President He said, "I don't pay attention to the poles." and Republicans cheered him. This crop of Republicans, many of whom cheered Bush are saying that Obama should govern by the results of the poles.

How much credibility do they have?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:23 PM

Trem limits???

I'd like to see a constitutional ammendment that limits president to one (1) six (6) year term... That would go along way toward presidents doinh what they feel in thei hearts is the right thing for the country rather than spending their first terms setting up the comapaign for the nest one and then being stuck in a mindset/mold that is hard to break in the 2nd term...

Now back to out regularially scheduled program...

Sorry for the drift...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

Oops... POLLS

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:32 PM

""If you had a more keen sense of humor, you would not be a Republican.""

I don't know though JtS, I think a sense of humour would be imperative in one who thought GeeDub would be a good man to put in charge of the World's largest nuclear arsenal.

"Having a laugh" is a mild description.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:36 PM

This is great news, however.
In some countries in this world, they provide free national health care for all. Why can't this also be done in the United States?
As a nation over the last four decades or so. They have spent many billions$ , covertly and overtly murdering millions of men women and children in other countries for trumpt up reasons. The real reasons being strategic, mineral and energy control for individual companies.
Had they spent this money looking after their own people, then the States would be a happier and safer place to live in today.
It is not the ordinary person in the States who is to blame. They have the same dreams as everybody else in this world. It is the result of a group of so called Christian people who have no moral code that I can recognise, taking total power in the name of capitalism. Using this power totally selfishly, internally and worldwide.
Lets hope that these reforms will herald the beginning of a new phase in United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:41 PM

""eleuntilction""........?

This is not a snide dig MGoH, but an honest, if tongue in cheek, suggestion that this typo might warrant inclusion tn the Guiness Book of World Records, containing a whole extra five letter word.

LOL
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: beeliner
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:54 PM

I'd like to see a constitutional ammendment that limits president to one (1) six (6) year term... .

An even better idea, once you get used to it, would be to have three presidents in overlapping six-year-terms, with a new president chosen every two years.

Each president would serve two years as Junior President, followed by two years as Executive President, then two more years as Senior President.

Each of the three offices would have its own set of responsibilities, with some overlap.

But this is admittedly off the theme of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM

Hey Poppa Amos. How about those Democrats the voted against the bill?

How many were there?

What were their names?

Are they bad like the Republicans that voted against the bill?

What kind of threats did they get?

Why was there such a battle and why was it all blamed on Republicans when the Democrats have a clear majority in Congress?

Such a wonderful, too good to be true bill should have sailed through.

Seems like the battle was within the Democratic party to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 03:48 PM

There would not have been a battle if it were not for outdated rules that allow one Senator out of a hundred to put holds on legislation.

As to the "Blue Cross" Democrats, I think they are fair game as well. Not because they have a different view, but because they would not invoke cloture to allow a simple up or down vote. That is anti democratic.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM

>>What kind of threats did they get?

I wrote the Congressman from this district, NC 7th and told him that the next time I campaigned for a Democrat I would campaign against him. It wasn't so much a threat as a promise.

I also suggested that he out to become a Republican and be done with it so that we can work to elect an actual Democrat. So far, he has not done that.

Here is the weasel's website.
http://www.house.gov/mcintyre/

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:19 PM

The significant gorilla in the room was Ron Paul. The Libertarian approach eschews health care through government aid.

Paul got a big response at the GOP convention.

There is a tendency in Libertarian thought to disregard the plight of poor people who are often blamed for their circumstances. "Why should I pay your care through my taxes?"

Tax rhymes with ax.   Revenue is an obligation of citizenship.

Why is it that many Libertarians have no problem with the military industrial complex which
own a good piece of American government?

Free enterprise is not free.

Let the Libertarians pay for their own roads, postal service and the armed services. See how they like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM

The real gorilla in the room isn't Ron Paul as much as it is Rupert Murdock's Tea Party... Yes, Rupert Murdock!!! The Tea Party would not be without the massive organizing and PR from FOX un-news...

The Republican Party is now very much under the Ruperts Puppet's control and, frankly, scared to death of these people... Did ya see the look on McCain's face on the news last night when the Queen Rupert Puppet, Ms. Sarah, mentioned the Tea Party??? I mean, you could tell he was trying very hard not to show his emotions here but, hey, it has become very hard to be an elected Republican leader... Well, leader, doesn't even matter any more 'cause the real leadership of the Republican Party is a commitee of Rupert's boys (and girl) and Rush Limbaugh... I reckon if Rupert could get Rush under contract then he'd have the entire Republican Party in his pocket...

So when we look at the Tea Party folks and the Repubs in Congress lets keep in mind just who is pulling the strings...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:02 PM

"From the Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott we learn that CNN commissioned Opinion Research to conduct a survey on ObamaCare over the weekend during the run-up to the Democrats pushing the bill through the U.S. House of Representatives. The results of the poll are out, and they plainly demonstrate that the votes of 219 House Democrats are a slap in the faces of a clear majority of Americans:

Here are the major initial points of interest in the CNN/OR results:

      · 59% oppose the Democrats' health care bill, while only 39% favor it.

    · 70% say the federal budget deficit will go up under the Democrats' health care bill; only 12% believe it will go down.

    · 56% say the bill creates "too much government involvement in the nation's health care system," 28% say about the right amount, while 16% say not enough.

      · 62% say they'll pay more for medical care under the Democrats' health care bill.

      · 47% say they and their families will be worse off under the Democrats' health care bill; 33% say things will be about the same, and only 19% think they'll be better off.

      · 45% say seniors on Medicare will be worse off; 34% say things will be about the same, and only 20% think they'll be better off.

The Democrats' latest argument is that the more the American public learns about ObamaCare, the more they will come to like it. The results of this poll argue otherwise. American already know quite a lot about ObamaCare, and three of every five of them don't like it at all."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:05 PM

Another bogus opinion poll...

(((yawn)))

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:53 PM

"during the run-up"

pdq,

Obviously you are a good Republican, arguing against points no one has made.

Supporters of the bill, including, myself and Carol and Big Mick on this forum have been saying that polls taken SINCE the passing of the bill have been favorable.

Show me numbers like that in a month and we will have something to be concerned about.

By the way, where were you when George W Bush was slapping the up to 80% of Americans in the face by ignoring public opinion? In 2004 I learned that the only poll that mattered was the vote. One would have thought that you had learned that in 2008. Obama's mandate was quite a bit larger than Bush's. Add that to the mandate in the House and the Senate and its pretty clear that NOT to keep the election promise would have been the real slap in the face.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:55 PM

pdq, the poll I posted is more recent than yours. And the poll I posted shows that a plurality of people like the new health care law. Your poll was conducted before the law was passed. My poll was conducted after the law was passed. So your poll has no more legitimacy than earlier polls that show a clear majority of people supporting health care reform.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:56 PM

cross posted

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:04 PM

Yep, yep. Like said a couple of days ago:

"That polling took place on 3/19-3/21. This from the CNN article (I knew I saw that someplace!): Roughly one in five of respondents who said they opposed the bill did so because it was not liberal enough, and those people are unlikely to vote Republican. Take them out of the picture and opposition to the bill because it is too liberal is 43 percent.

More recent surveys have a very different result."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:21 PM

The AP has just reported that the Health Care Bill actually exempts the house majority leadership. I am not kidding about this. For all of you liberals, what this means is that those who wrote the bill made themselves exempt from the bill. And you expect the rest of the country to believe that this is a good bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM

1 in 5 children go hungry at night according to the USDA. Another bogus opinion attributed to the USDA and unproven.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:32 PM

Guest,

Obama said that "Anyone happy with their insurance would be able to keep it."

Please tell us what part of that you don't understand so that we can explain it to you in smaller words.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

  Poll        Date        Sample        For/Favor        Against/Oppose        Spread
  RCP Average        3/10 - 3/26        --        40.8        50.1        Against/Oppose +9.3
  Washington Post        3/23 - 3/26        1000 A        46        50        Against/Oppose +4
  Rasmussen Reports        3/23 - 3/24        1000 LV        42        55        Against/Oppose +13
  Quinnipiac        3/22 - 3/23        1552 RV        40        49        Against/Oppose +9
  CBS News        3/22 - 3/23        649 A        42        46        Against/Oppose +4
  Gallup*        3/22 - 3/22        1005 A        49        40        For/Favor +9
  Bloomberg        3/19 - 3/22        1002 A        38        50        Against/Oppose +12
  CNN/Opinion Research        3/19 - 3/21        953 RV        39        59        Against/Oppose +20

The critical element left out, however, is how people feel about the specifics of the bill; I suspect a majority of those polled do not know what is in it. Also omitted is those who are against it because they wanted more from it, rather than opposing it for over-reaching.

Another sample in a month will be very different, I predict.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:46 PM

Exactly the opposite, ANON.GUEST. This from Politifact.com:

There is "a specific provision in the bill that would require lawmakers and their staff to buy health insurance through an exchange, a virtual market place where consumers can pick and choose among plans based on coverage and price. To our knowledge, members of Congress and their aides are the only people who are being forced to give up their employer's health care plan -- in this case, one administered by the federal government."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM

Healthcare 101: What the bill means to you

The rollout starts with children. Six months from the day the bill was signed (let's see ... that'll be Sept. 23, by our calculation), insurers will no longer be able to exclude children with preexisting conditions from being covered by their family policy. For current policies, that means insurers will have to rescind preexisting-condition exclusions.

Insurers will not have to take the same steps for adults until Jan. 1, 2014.

Why will it take so long? Because it will be years before the bill's mandate that individuals have health insurance takes effect. The mandate is expected to bring in tens of millions of new customers for insurance firms compensation for accepting customers with preexisting conditions, which can be expensive.

The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014 partly because it will take a long time to set up the state-run exchanges at which individuals and small-business employees will be able to comparison-shop for policies.

The new reform law does create a temporary backup plan for those uninsured who have health problems.

This Plan B is a short-term, national high-risk insurance pool. US citizens and legal immigrants who have preexisting conditions and have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in this pool and receive subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

Under the law, the premiums for this pool will be the same as would be charged for a standard population of people with varying risks. Maximum out-of-pocket cost sharing for enrollees will be $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, per year.

This risk pool is supposed to be up and running within 90 days and then fade into the sunset on Jan. 1, 2014.

---

But Sawz, Are you saying it will cost $500 to $1000 per month to join this new universal low cost government health care plan?

Are you saying that there is nothing to keep health care costs down?

Are you saying there is nothing to keep Insurance companies from raising their rates as their costs go up?

Are you saying they are rubbing their hands together with glee in anticipation of the 30+ million new customers that will be forced to buy insurance and they can keep on making the same 8% profit?

Say it ain't so Sawz. That would mean the holocaust continues while the Dems are whopping themselves on the back and declaring victory.

Look at how many kids could die before Sep 23 and how many adults could die by 2014 due to lack of health insurance.


Well just don't worry about it Sport 'cause once the American people find out what is in the bill, you know how it was kept from them, they will love it and the shortage of doctors, nurses and medical facilities is going to magically go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM

"...they will love it and the shortage of doctors, nurses and medical facilities is going to magically go away."

I heard one doctor suggest that by 2014, when the ObamaCare bill is fully functional, half of the doctors now practicing will have left and most will not have been replaced. Many will have taken an early retirenment because the overwork will have become impossible and the government regulation will have become intolerable. Good job there, Obama/Reid/Pelosi.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: beeliner
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:38 PM

ONE doctor suggested that, eh? Geez Louise, it MUST be true!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:59 PM

Mick: your chatisement of Democrats who did not vote for cloture to allow an up and down vote, would that same criticism apply when the Democrats are in the minority?

(Not that I expect a reply)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:48 PM

"who have pre existing conditions and have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in this pool"

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:49 PM

Look at how many kids could die before Sep 23 and how many adults could die by 2014 due to lack of health insurance.

Well, speaking as one who has no health care now, it's still a big improvement, because I would have to wait until 2021 before I would have access to proper health care if it hadn't been passed. And I guess you don't give a crap about all of the kids whose lives will be saved after September 23. Better to let them die than to pass a bill that won't save any kids before September 23. Right? That's how your math works?

And it's just not true that people like us won't see any improvement until 2014. We will be eligible for a tax credit to help us buy insurance next year. Even if we can't get full medical coverage, if the tax credit will help us get catastrophic coverage, we'll still be better off than we are now.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:37 PM

"Assigned risk is a term used to describe a person or company who cannot get insurance through normal means and is placed in an assigned risk pool of people whom insurers must cover. This term is seen most commonly in car insurance although it may also be used to refer to companies which cannot get workers' compensation insurance by other means. The purpose of this is to ensure that everyone can access insurance because this is deemed better for society as a whole than the alternative."

People who were unable to get medical insurance do to pre-existing conditions (maybe other reasons) should have placed in an "assigned risk" pool and assigned to the various health coverage entities equally. Similar to a lottery.

Everyone gets covered and there in minimal increase in the bloated federal bureaucracy.

We did not need 2900 pages of legislation that no one person has read completely, even the people who wrote it.

We had the Congressional "win one for the Gipper!" mentality with Obama as the star player. This is how bad legislation is passed, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM

That idea wouldn't work because it wouldn't have any low risk people in it. All insurance pools need a combination of high risk and low risk people in them in order to be viable. It's simple economics, pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:47 PM

I should rephrase that. They don't need to have high risk people to be viable, but they can't just have high risk people if they're going to be viable.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:58 PM

You don't get how it works.

The government would assign an equal number (say 3% of their total clients) to each health management entity.

Cost of coverage to the other clients would go up somewhat, but no federal bureaucracy , just a reasonable number on new names for each companty to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:06 PM

Under an "assigned risk pool" would those high risk people pay the same premiums as everyone else, or would their premiums be higher because of the risk?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

That would be set by the federal government. Same or perhaps slightly lower depending on ability to pay.

The health care entities would then have to compensate by slight inceases in premiums for all non-assigned risk clients. They have a duty to stay profitable.

The average profit margin for HMOs is 3-3.5%. Geogre Soros profit margin has averaged 20% since 1969 and he (and most of the investor-speculator class) produce nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM

3-5% is obscenely high considering it is other people's money. It's more like a gamblers vig than real profit. And don't forget that their are executive salaries, some up to 20 million a year do not come out of the profit.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: beeliner
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:48 PM

pdq, just a few quick questions if you don't mind:

The system you outline seems reasonable in some respects, but can you name some countries that are using it now, and how many such countries are there? How many with single payer? How many with free medical care for everyone?

I don't know, I'm just asking.

It is true that the 'health care entities', as you call them, I would call them 'the insurance parasites', have by their nature a 'duty to stay profitable'. Why do we need them? Why not eliminate the middle man?

I won't question your stated profit margin for the HMO's. What is the average profit margin for ordinary health insurers? And is it true that most HMO's are co-ops, that is, owned by the doctors who are participating members? Once again, I was told that, I'm not certain that it's true.

If you can answer those I might have some more.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:04 PM

beeliner...

It looks like you have some good questions there. Hope your research proves fuitful and you find all those answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM

Evidently CC doesn't care about how many people die because they don't have health insurance.

If the Dems were so wonderful and concerned they could have passed a bill a year ago with their majority. They even had some Repubs on board then but their own internal struggles delayed the whole thing.

Those kids could have been covered last September and lives saved.

Democrats Vied while Kids Died.

They could have been working on J O B S, Biden's 3 letter word, more people would be working now and they would have health insurance.

How about the Dems that still voted against it?

Are they evil like the Republicans who voted against it or do they get judged by a different standard?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:17 PM

A year ago, the Republicans like Collins and Snow were pretending to act in a bipartisan manner so that they could delay the bill.

Most of the delay has been in showing undeserved good will to lying Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM

Evidently CC doesn't care about how many people die because they don't have health insurance.

How so, Sawzaw? Or is that just a knee-jerk attempt to reverse an argument that really can't be reversed?

I have been very critical of all of the members of the House and Senate who have stood in the way of health care reform. Including my own Democratic representative, whom I have promised I will campaign against the next time he comes up in a primary. Remember, I am one of the people who could die for lack of access to health insurance if health care reform didn't pass, so this isn't theoretical for me as it appears to be for you. For me, it really is a matter of life and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM

Knee "jerk" = Sawz, Carol... That is is game here and it is all he knows... He more than likely is not a musican... He more than likely couldn't name one member of the Kingston Trio or ther Pozo Seco Singers without Googling them up... He is nothing bhut a highly loyal Republican lap-dog with no ability to think for himself...

Plus, he makes these terribly outragious statements about what other say, that they didn't say and what they meant, which is is clueless and what all this means in the big picture for which again he is clueless...

That is who he is... A real couch case...

And now he has a new buddy here, icthy, who dispalys the same personality disorder...

Oh well... It ain't boring...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: beeliner
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM

It looks like you have some good questions there. Hope your research proves fuitful and you find all those answers.

Well, pdq, I asked you because as chief bloviator (or perhaps bloviatrix) here you seem to have all the answers.

I do know this. Several years ago I had my eyes 'done' (cataracts removed). As you know, in such cases they normally only do one eye at a time, starting with the worse one. About two years later I went back to have the other one done, as it had worsened in the meantime.

A day or two after the operation, I went back for a follow-up, and happened to look over the receptionist's shoulder at her computer screen as she checked me in, and I saw that my HMO had not even paid for the first one yet, two years after the fact.

She made no mention of it, and later I was told that the doctor was probably a partner in the HMO so, in a sense, he had not paid himself and no doubt some adjustment in that direction would be made eventually.

I don't know if this is common practice with HMO's, I thought perhaps you knew.

Why could the insured not form similar co-ops, insuring themselves in much the same manner as the doctors? Sounds like a deal to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:03 PM

""I have been very critical of all of the members of the House and Senate who have stood in the way of health care reform. Including my own Democratic representative, whom I have promised I will campaign against the next time he comes up in a primary. Remember, I am one of the people who could die for lack of access to health insurance if health care reform didn't pass, so this isn't theoretical for me as it appears to be for you.""

Damn right Carol, and in addition, perhaps Sawzaw will tell us whether he is critical of the repubs who could have reformed healthcare over at least the last eight years (but in reality many more than that), and instead fulfilled their duty as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parasitic Insurance Industry by blocking every attempt.?

Think of the 45,000 lives that could have been saved in each of the years of the Bush presidency.

360,000 dead, from lack of access to healthcare, since Bush took office for the first term, and Sawzaw has the nerve to complain about six months lead time to set up the new scheme.

If he and his kind had their way, there would be no reform at all......EVER!!

But hey! What the hell, Sawzaw, as long as you've got yours, screw the rest. Isn't that right mate?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:37 PM

But please pdq, where does it say anything about opinion polls in your Constitution, and about a duty to do what they say?

You have elections to decide that kind of thing. In between elections what people tell pollsters can move around all over the place, partly maybe because they know that it doesn't make any difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM

>>What the hell, Sawzaw, as long as you've got yours, screw the rest. Isn't that right mate?<<

If it were just self interest it would be easier to accept. But it is very very unlikely that Sawzaw would be better off with the old status Quo. Most people wouldn't be.

Who is guaranteed of a job with Health Benefits until like DougR they can suck off the government teat which they ironically despise?


Above and beyond that,
The US in not competitive with other countries for skilled labor.

Because of the lack of a Health Care system, it is cheaper to build cars in most every other industrialized country. It is certainly cheaper to have older experienced workers.

Sawzaw is obviously not aware of the spiraling costs.

The 53% of the electorate that voted for Obama is saving people like Sawzaw from their own ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM

"How so, Sawzaw?"

Because typical of your double standard, you say nothing while the Dems diddled around with their own infighting except to blame it on Republicans.

Then when they finally get their shit somewhat together after a year, with bribes, threats and arm twisting, the final bill they rammed through delays things even more an you claim that it is better than nothing. It could have been even better.

Can you say no one has died because of a lack of health care insurance since the Democrats have been hashing out a bill?

If not you are in the clear. If people have died, you are giving Democrats a pass at the expense of the dead people. They did have the majority. There was nothing blocking them except for internal differences of opinion and maybe lobbyists who Obama said were not going to run the government any more.

we will tell the Washington lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded this campaign, they won't work in my White House, and they won't drown out the voices of the American people when I'm President.

The Democrats had the ball and they fumbled.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:01 PM

Oh, come on, man. You are completely overlooking the dedicated, loud obstructionism being run up against their every move forward. Why so oblivious, Sawz?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM

People have died. People will die. Resources are finite. The Democrats have tried to save people. The Republicans have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:51 PM

Doug R, I would expect Republicans to react the same way. In fact I believe Democrats need to take a lesson from Republicans on the issue of cloture, or more broadly, how one acts within their caucus. If a Dem feels they have to vote against an issue, on the basis of belief or interaction with their constituents, that is fair enough. I am not talking about forcing elected officials to vote for an issue they don't believe in. What I am talking about is a procedural issue. I can guarantee you that when Cheney was in power, any Repub that voted against invoking cloture to allow an up or down vote on an issue, would have found their office in a bathroom so far in the basement of the Senate Office Building that they would need a mule train to get out. That is part of being a part of a caucus. The Dems need to use the same leverage. I expect Repubs to be against what our President is trying to accomplish. They have stated that is their intent. But Dems who vote against their caucus are literally playing politics on the Republican side. They are entitled to vote up or down on the issue as they see fit. But to subvert the will of the majority on the use of a procedure is to side with the opposition. The Majority Leader should "encourage" them appropriately. May not be nice, but that is how it works.

As to doing it when the Dems are the minority, hell I watched the Cheney gang do it. That is why it is so laughable to see the Repubs acting outraged that reconcilliation was used. We learned it watching your boys do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:02 PM

Because typical of your double standard, you say nothing while the Dems diddled around with their own infighting except to blame it on Republicans.

This is a lie, Sawzaw. I've said plenty. But since the majority of Democrats worked hard to get the bill passed, and ALL of the Republicans worked hard to prevent it from being passed, the Republicans clearly bear most of the blame for the deaths of the people who died while it was being hashed out. This is what I have consistently said, and it happens to be the truth. If even just a small handful of Republicans had been willing to vote for the bill, it would have passed a long, long time ago, and many lives would have been saved. ALL of the Republicans are responsible for those deaths, and a very small number of Democrats are responsible for those deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:08 PM

Mick: you make my point. Both the Republicans and Democrats us the same strategy to block legislation, or to approve appointees. Do you know how many judges Bush appointed who were blocked by the Democrats from receiving up or down votes? Lots.

If the rules are to apply to the Republicans, as you propose, they should also be applied to the Democrats. That's only fair.

As to controlling a caucus, well, that's up to the party's leadership isn't it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:09 PM

I think it should be pointed out for DougR (in case he is not informed about this), that the vast majority of the health care bill was not passed through the process of reconciliation. Most of it was passed by a clear majority of the House and a super majority in the Senate. Only a very, very small portion of it was passed through reconciliation, and that was a separate bill, not the bill that Obama signed into law on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:12 PM

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Your post seems to imply that I am applying a double standard, when the point I am making is that there should not be a double standard. What was good enough for your boys should be good enough for our side.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:40 PM

Amos: When did this opposition begin? If they could pass the bill recently with even more opposition, why couldn't they have done it way back at the beginning. It would have been even easier then but the Democrats bickered while opposition increased and people died.

How can you blame the delay in passing a bill on the minority?

Here is a list of the 34 democrats that voted against the bill:

Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Rep. John Barrow (Ga.)
Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.)
Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
Rep. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.)
Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.)
Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.)

So where is the condemnation of the Democrats that voted against health care reform?

Does the double standard give them a pass as usual?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM

"This is a lie, Sawzaw. I've said plenty."

You didn't hold them accountable for people dying because they did not have health insurance. I haven't found any criticism of Democrats at all, not that I can see in this thread.

All I see is kudos like "Democrats could look pretty good in the fall."

Yeah, If they can take all the un necessary deaths that happened under their watch and blame them on Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:59 PM

Sawzaw,

We, Carol and I, have promised our Democrat, Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.) that we would campaign against it the Next time we campaign for Obama or against a Republican. There isn't much more we can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:08 PM

I've criticized them plenty, Sawzaw, and so have a lot of other people. If you haven't seen it, it's because you have ignored it just so you could make that specious accusation. I've even told you during the last couple of days some of the things I said to my representative.

And beyond what I already told you, I told my Democratic representative that if my husband were to die because of lack of access to health care if the bill didn't pass, I would hold him personally responsible and I would regard him as a murderer.

You really need to either pay attention, or leave off those kinds of incredibly dishonest accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:13 PM

However, there's absolutely no reason why all Democrats should be held responsible for what only a small number of them did or didn't do. So a very small number of Democrats get my condemnation for their opposition to health care reform, ALL of the Republicans have earned my condemnation for their opposition to health care reform, and the majority of Democrats get my praise for having supported it.

Among those who get my praise for supporting health care reform, there are several who earned criticism from me for watering it down and not supporting a public option.

Piece of news for you, Sawzaw. Democrats are not a Borg collective. Each of them is either praised or criticized for what they do or don't do. They don't get praised or criticized collectively for what some of them do or don't do.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:21 PM

It is possible that some choices or tactics done differently would have hastened the passage, Sawz, I don't know. But I think you are trying to reframe things in a rather desperate effort. The vast majority of the opposition to the health care bill came from the Republican side of the aisle. If you want a replay, go look it up yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:01 AM

"If you haven't seen it, it's because you have ignored it just so you could make that specious accusation"

I looked for it in this thread. I could not find it just like I said. Your accusation is specious. All I found was support for Democrats. I didn't see the ones that voted against singled out and demonized.

"The Democrats have tried to save people. The Republicans have not."

Therefore all of "the Democrats" get a pass and all of "the Republicans are to blame for anything wrong.

And again "the Democrats" had a clear majority and they could have passed a bill a lot sooner, a lot easier, back when they had the support of some Republicans and saved lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:07 AM

Their response is simple:
Only Communists don't want everybody to get sick and die.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:14 AM

You can't use only this thread as an indication of whether or not people have criticized and/or condemned the Democrats who didn't support the reform bills. This thread didn't exist during the discussions when we would have been doing that. This thread was started after the bill passed, and it's really just about Boehner's response to the new law (and what some creative people did with that response). We did our condemning back when we were trying to get the bills passed. Now we are celebrating (and campaigning against Democrats and Republicans who opposed the bill).

So your argument is specious because you're making accusations based on only a small amount of evidence, while ignoring the rest, which is extremely dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:19 AM

"back when they had the support of some Republicans and saved lives."

They never had the support of some Republicans. The Republicans en masse declared from the start that this bill would be Obama's "Waterloo." Not at any time did any of them support the president regarding this bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM

""Because typical of your double standard, you say nothing while the Dems diddled around with their own infighting except to blame it on Republicans.

Then when they finally get their shit somewhat together after a year, with bribes, threats and arm twisting, the final bill they rammed through delays things even more an you claim that it is better than nothing. It could have been even better.

Can you say no one has died because of a lack of health care insurance since the Democrats have been hashing out a bill?""

The Democrats have had a year, against a total stonewall job by republicans, and yes, a few (very few) Democrats, and they have finally managed to ram a largely castrated bill through.

I judge, from those facts, that the opposition is totally responsible for the time it has taken. That opposition did include a few Democrats, but it also included every Republican.

Eight years (and more) of deliberate inaction by Republican Government can only be attributed to Republicans.

So, all in all, the Democrats have been no more than minimally responsible for the deaths they have been seeking desperately to avoid.

The Repubs on the other hand, have sat back and said "FUCK 'EM! LET 'EM DIE, BECAUSE WE WON'T LEND A HELPING HAND IF IT COSTS US ONE RED CENT!

And they are still saying that now.

What the Democrats have achieved, though far from the ideal, is saving lives from day one. Lives that the Repubs have consistently written off as not worth saving. It amazes me that any Republican Senator or Congressman claims any kind of humanity or credibility.

Forty five thousand Americans died for lack of proper healthcare in each and every year of Republican government.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:54 AM

Yeah, Don... That is about it... The Repub response has been purdy much like when Bill Clinton was president and thr Repubs held up a spending bill which temporarially shut down the government... It is irresponsible... Heck, if they don't want to participate then they should resign... Their response has left them very vulnerable to some very interesting mid-term ads showing them as being AWOL from their jobs at a time when the nation needed everyone to pull together... I'd love to write some of those ads...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:25 PM

In any event, whatever the Republicans are doing seems to be working with the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:33 PM

What this crop of Republican did was particularly bad because a lot of their ideas are in the bill. They didn't refuse the bill to save money. The Bill is paid for. They could have even strengthened the fiscal responsibility had they cooperated.

They let those people die in hopes of a cheap (in their eyes) political victory over Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:14 PM

Riginslinger, I don't think they necessarily are. But time will tell. Personally, I think their methods are backfiring on them (instant karma).

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:04 PM

Not every American who votes Republican is the kind of arsehole who represents him/her in Washington.

Those who have the intelligence will be sitting at home, one year into Obama's presidency, and seeing what their representatives are deliberately and cynically doing to prevent him from clearing up the Augean Stable he inherited from George W (I've only one brain cell, and it's at the laundry) Bush, and they will be wondering what exactly is being achieved in their name.

When they realise that they have elected men who will destroy the USA rather than accept a black president, then you might see some changes.

The bottom line is that closing down America inc. to beat Obama, will be at best a Pyrrhic victory.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 10:14 PM

ANother sterling example of the Republican flase-reality factory hard at work, from "The Progressive"

"IRS AGENTS 'BREATHING DOWN' OUR NECKS:ÊFox News and Republican lawmakers have been pushing a talking point claiming that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) willÊneed to hire more than 16,500 new agents to enforce theÊuniversal insurance mandates in the Affordable Care Act, and that the agency will impose harsh punishments on those who don't purchase insurance it deems worthy. At least a dozen Republican lawmakers pushed the meme, with Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) calling it a "dangerous expansion of the IRS's power and reach into the lives of virtually every American." Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) warned Fox News host Sean Hannity that "theÊIRSÊwill be tasked with breathing down the neck of 300 million Americans every month to determine whether we have purchased governmentally acceptable levels of health insurance." Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and others attributed the 16,500 figure to "the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office," but as PolitiFact noted, the figure does not come from the CBO. It comes from a report prepared byÊthe Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee, which used rough estimates from the CBO in order to fabricate the 16,500 figure. During a recent congressional hearing, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman made it clear that these claims are nothing but "misconceptions." When asked whether the IRS would "verify if [Americans] have obtained acceptable health insurance,"ÊShulman flatly said "no," adding that there "are not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." As for claims of draconian enforcement, including jail time, for those who do not buy insurance, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted on her web site, "The bill specifically prohibits the IRS from confiscating taxpayer assets, from using liens or levies, or imposing criminal penalties of any kind -- including jail time -- because of a lack of health care coverage."


A
"

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:21 PM

More of the same class of distorted stories:

"CORPORATE WRITEDOWNS: For months, Republicans and their allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been claiming thatÊhealth care reform would create huge new taxes that would hurt businesses. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act,ÊAT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and others have come out with a series of -- seemingly coordinated -- press releases announcing that the new bill will cost them billions of dollars. An association representing 300 large corporations is also urging Congress to change the part of the Act that is responsible for the charge. Republicans and the right-wing media latched onto the news of the writedowns as proof that the bill will lead to the "wholesale destruction of wealth and capital," as a Wall Street Journal editorial put it. This is "the exact opposite of what the president promised if we passed health care,"ÊFox News host Sean Hannity said of the writedowns. But in reality, these writedowns are due to a big cut in corporate welfare. The Medicare Part D legislation -- passed under President Bush -- gives subsidies of about $1,300 per retiree per year to businesses that provide prescription drugs to their retirees. On top of that, it allows companies to deduct the value of the credit from their taxes. The new health care law, however,Êpays for itself, in part, by eliminating waste in the system and puts an end to this "double dipping." Companies will still receive the tax-free subsidy, but they'll no longer be able to take the tax deduction as well. As the Wall Street Journal notes, these charges are "noncash," and the cost of losing this exemption is relatively small. And the relevant change doesn't kick in until 2013. Moreover, is disingenuous for companies to suddenly complain about the charges, considering the change was a part of the draft bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last year and several business groupsÊcomplained about it in September. Finance Committee aides "were in close talks with employer groups" and it ultimately won approval from many, with the chairman of Business Roundtable saying "it's very closely aligned to [our] principles."

A NEW TAX ON STUDENT LOANS: While its inclusion with the health care bill has often been overlooked, legislation to streamline the student loan system has not escaped its share of right-wing fear mongering. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told Radio Iowa that the plan "end[s] up taxing college students" because they'll be forced to pay more borrowing from the government directly than if they couldÊshop around for a loan from private lenders. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) agreed, claiming that students will spend "$1,700 to $1,800 more during the life of their loan because of this surcharge." But both Grassley and Graham are ignoring the fact that it SAFRA does not change interest rates, meaning that students will pay the same amount as they did before. As PolitiFact notes, the interest rates are set by law and were not changed by SAFRA -- "there is no 'surcharge' in the bill." Grassley and industry lobbyists have also claimed that people employed by private loan companies will lose their jobs "at a time when our country can least afford to lose them." But as Campus Progress notes, "There will be no shortage of work for loan companies under the new reforms," as federal loans will still be serviced by private companies. "In fact, student loan giant Sallie Mae has announced it is in the process of bringing back 3,400 jobs from overseas. These jobs are returning to the U.S., at least in part, so that the company can be eligible for Department of Education contracts to service Direct Loans," Campus Progress adds.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 12:19 AM

CC:

Some someone that comes across this thread is not allowed to form an opinion based on what is posted in this thread?

They are supposed to hunt down everything you have said before making a comment?

Your argument is specious. In this thread you have consistently derided "the Republicans" as being against health care reform and given a pass to "the Democrats" even though 34 of them opposed it like "the Republicans" did.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 12:22 AM

Democrat Joins Calls for Health Care Repeal

At least one of the 34 House Democrats who voted against President Obama's comprehensive health care overhaul is now calling for its repeal, joining a chorus of Republicans intent on making the new set of laws an election issue.

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) said he would be in favor of repealing the entire bill, WECT reports.

"If we had the opportunity to vote on it, I would," McIntyre reportedly said. "But I don't think the votes are there right now. So now (the) question is, it'll have to be addressed by the judicial branch."

McIntyre said he supports the numerous, largely Republican state attorneys general suing the federal government on the grounds that the bill is unconstitutional, according to WECT.

The congressman's comments fly in the face of the Democrats' current efforts, led by Mr. Obama, to convince the American public of the benefits they will see from the new legislation. It highlights the adamant opposition to the reform package that exists in moderate and conservative parts of the country.

In a CBS News poll conducted last week, nearly two in three Americans said they wanted Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.....

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:13 AM

Ah. North Carolina. Home of the race-baiting, ignorant, pig-headed Jesse Helms.

McIntyre is a worthy successor.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:46 AM

Some someone that comes across this thread is not allowed to form an opinion based on what is posted in this thread?

They are supposed to hunt down everything you have said before making a comment?

Yes, absolutely. You're not in a position to comment on whether or not I am a hypocrite about Democrats and Republicans if you're not familiar with what I have said about them. To try to do so with incomplete information is dishonest, because you're just making stuff up.


Your argument is specious. In this thread you have consistently derided "the Republicans" as being against health care reform and given a pass to "the Democrats" even though 34 of them opposed it like "the Republicans" did.

You're lying, Sawzaw. You haven't even bothered to read what I've posted in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 08:50 AM

McIntyre is my representative. As I have said in other threads, he is useless. And he has been a resident of the C Street house (and may still be, although I don't know), and he is a member of The Family. I will be campaigning against him the next time he is in a primary.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:35 AM

CC: Was that before or after I brought it up?

CC Mar 25 "the Democrats" could look pretty good in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:39 AM

CC:

You must track down and read everything I have ever written in every thread before you accuse me of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 10:09 AM

CC: Was that before or after I brought it up?

I don't understand the question.


CC Mar 25 "the Democrats" could look pretty good in the fall.

That's pretty pathetic if you think you can use it to support your contention that I have been criticizing Republicans. This is the full context of what I said...

the trend has been that the more people learn about the new law and the benefits it offers for them personally, the more they like it. If the trend continues as it has been going, the Democrats could look pretty good in the fall.

Since only Democratic votes and efforts got us this new law, Democrats are the only ones who will get credit for it if people like it. That's just a fact. I know some Republicans are now trying to take credit for the new law, but that just goes to show that they know this law is going to help Democrats in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 11:20 AM

"...the more people learn about the new law and the benefits it offers for them personally, the more they like it. ~ CC

That sounds like bribery to some. It does not address the fact that much of the bill is unconstitutional, helps some people at the expense of others, and is going to force jobs overseas in time of 10%+ unemployment.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 11:27 AM

That sounds like bribery to some.

Really? You think there's something illegal or unethical about individuals voting for lawmakers who will look out for their best interests? That sounds like democracy to me.


It does not address the fact that much of the bill is unconstitutional, helps some people at the expense of others, and is going to force jobs overseas in time of 10%+ unemployment.

Perhaps that's because it isn't any of those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:44 PM

"the fact that much of the bill is unconstitutional"

We will see if it is unconstitutional. If the Supreme court says it is than it is.

Otherwise that is just whining and sour grapes.

Sawzaw
I consider McIntyre a Republican (Democrat in name only.). I have told him so via email.

If you would like to consider everything I have said about "The Republicans" to be aimed at "The Republicans and Fake Democrats" I really don't have a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:50 PM

Personally, I am very willing to give the Democrats full credit for the health care bill. If it fails, they get the credit too, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:57 PM

If it fails, they only get the credit if it fails on its own merits, and not because any Republicans found a way to sabotage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 06:45 PM

If the Supreme court says it is than it is.

Dred Scott...

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:52 PM

If the Republicans find a way to sabotage it, then it wouldn't have failed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 01:38 AM

CC show me your criticism of the Democrats that voted no.

"the Republicans find a way to sabotage it" But "the Democrats" including the 34 that voted no, even the one that wants it appealed are heros for getting the bill that 40.7% of Americans favor ad 50.8% oppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:46 AM

http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=128314&messages=144&page=1&desc=yes#2877311

By the way, Sawzaw, I am not a Democrat myself. So I don't have any personal sense of identification with either party. So it's quite easy for me to criticize both parties when I don't like what they do.

I'm not the one who is talking about "the Democrats" as if they were a Borg collective, Sawzaw. That's what you're doing. Heroes is your word. I think the Democrats did a shitty job of passing a health care reform bill. But it's the best one we've got, so they get credit for at least doing that much. Republicans have done nothing whatever except try to preserve the status quo. If this new law makes it possible for me and JtS to get health insurance (and I expect that it will), it could save our lives. So those who voted for it (the vast majority of Democrats) will get credit from me for saving our lives.

In most of the polls taken during the time health care reform was being worked on, most of the people were in favor of it most of the time. You're cherry picking and only considering the polls that support your contention that most people don't want health care reform. But if you're going to quote percentages (which you really can't do and be telling the truth), you need to look at all of the polls and use an aggregate of the numbers. Most of the people favored what the Democrats were doing most of time. And a large percentage of the people in the polls that showed a majority of people against, were against because the bill in question didn't offer a public option. When asked about a public option, the majority of those polled consistently said they were in favor, and when asked if they would support the proposed bill if it offered a public option, the majority of people consistently said they would support the bill. So you're just flat out wrong that the majority of people don't support health care reform.

And now, after the bill has become law, a plurality of people have said they are glad it passed. So your 50.8% number (if it is from the poll I am thinking of), don't oppose health care reform, they just want the law to go farther than it does, and they either want single payer not for profit, or they want a public option. When the people who feel that way are removed from that number a minority of people oppose the bill.

There are more people who are glad the law passed than there are people who are not glad the law passed. That's a fact. If the law included a public option, there would be a clear majority of people who would say they supported the new law. When people see in what ways their lives are positively impacted by the new law, the people who made it happen will be rewarded at the polls in future elections. Democrats like my representative, who worked against it, might not fare so well, however, and I'm going to do my part to make sure that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 09:59 AM

Here's a couple more...


http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=123258&messages=1334&page=5&desc=yes#2785164

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:42 AM

And by the way, they are totally against the House bill, because that one includes a robust public option. The reason the Senate dropped the public option is because Senators like Lieberman and Lincoln are completely in the pockets of the insurance industry.


http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=123258&messages=1334&page=3&desc=yes#2792095

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:13 PM

I don't disagree that the Democratic leadership has failed in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM

DougR that seems very fair and non-partisan of you.

If I may summarize your position to ensure that I have it straight.

If the Health Reform Law succeeds the Democratic Party should get full credit.
If it fails, then the Democratic Party should get full blame.
It the Republican Party somehow manages to sabotage it, then the Democrats should not be blamed for the Law's failure.

I like that attitude of yours DougR. It reflects a value of personal responsibility. I think that you should be speaking at the Tea Party rallies rather than Sarah Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 11:07 AM

I am still waiting for Bobert to tell us who is "out there screaming for re****ks to kill Oabama".

Now there is person with some serious anger management issues.

It you disagree with Bobert you must be crushed. His uncontrollable elitist ego demands it.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 02:49 PM

Well, Jack the Sailor, you are partly right.

If ObamaCare is a smashing success the Democrats get full credit for passing it.

If ObamaCare fails, the Democrats get full credit for passing it.

If the Republicans find a way to block it, the Republicans get credit for doing so.

Juan Williams (who cannot be mistaken for a conservative) has an excellent OP ED in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal about the Tea Party, should anyone care to look it up.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:53 AM

"...ÒI think the vast majority of Americans know that weÕre trying hard, that I want whatÕs best for the country.Ó

Limbaugh shot back on Friday, ÒI and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do whatÕs best for the country.Ó

And there it was. ObamaÕs language focused on what people Òknow,Ó or should know. He seems to find comfort in the empirical nature of knowledge. ItÕs logical. LimbaughÕs language focused on what he thinks people Òbelieve.Ó Beliefs are a more complicated blend of facts, or lies, and faith. And, they can exist beyond the realm of the rational.

This focus on faith has allowed people like Limbaugh to mislead and manipulate large swaths of the right.

According to another Quinnipiac poll released last week, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to say that they follow public affairs most of the time. But how? They listen to people like Limbaugh, and theyÕre more likely than others to watch Fox News.

But invectives are not information. For example, a poll released on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center found that most Republicans say that they still donÕt understand how the new health care reform will affect them and their family.

They donÕt know what it means, but they believe itÕs bad. Rush & Co. said so. In the vacuum of confusion and misinformation, they strum their fears and feed their anxiety. And, by worrying, their faith is made perfect."

(NYT Columnist Charles Blow)

---

Charles Blow raises an interesting point. In the middle of this virulent clash of beliefs, viewpoints based on media distorted mythology, and politics based on perverse faith, how do you abstract any kind of real sense of the calculus between politics and reality? How do you estimate the consequences of positions or the merits of policies in a storm of denial and misleading assertions? Especially in those rarer cases where the misleading is cloaked in plausible rhetoric?

Like most people I respect viewpoints from those I trust, and I trust people whose understandings I share; but this is tricky because it can lead you into a blind end of hidden tacit suppositions and overlooked but important data.

For me the solution has been to keep my own counsel foremost and not make agreements too lightly. Not always an easy resolution to keep, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 11:59 AM

I have heard Fox News employee Juan William speak a hundred times on FOX and NPR. If he is not a conservative, he is to the right of conservative. He mostly talks about what liberals are doing wrong and by implication, how to defeat them.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:38 PM

House passes health care bill

Mar 21, 2010 CNN.com... The House passed the bill in a 219-212 vote on Sunday. ... Republicans [and 34 Democrats] failed to stop the Democratic health care initiative despite utilizing almost every weapon in their legislative arsenal ... The plan, according to CBO projections, will cut budget deficits by over $1 trillion in its second decade ...


Huffington Post April 2, 2010

.....Democrats trumpeted the bill as reducing the deficit. They relied on last minute scoring from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reporting that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. As a result, proponents declared the bill as good for the deficit and the economy.

History will prove whether this claim is true. But anyone who has even peeled back one layer of this onion knows the CBO was boxed in to giving a distorted picture. This law will be proven quickly to expand our bloated deficit -- and sadly, the media was asleep at the switch and did not report on it.

The big distortion occurred by the CBO assumption that the 21 percent cut in doctors' Medicare reimbursements would stay in place...... This allowed them to claim $450 billion in Medicare savings. Yet, the same politicians who voted for the bill have also promised doctors a "fix" and that they will restore the drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement.

Democrats Successful in Stopping [their own] Big Cut in Medicare Pay for Physicians

April 16, 2010 Senior citizens can take their annual sigh of relief that a Medicare pay cut for physicians has once again been avoided. The giant pay cut over 21 percent had the potential of causing many doctors to no longer care for Medicare patients. The bill stopping this year's pay cut was signed by President Barack Obama last night after Democrats won a hard fought battle with Republicans [and 34 democrats]....

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 02:24 PM

Here's a post I put on another thread that maybe fits better here:

"I think the NHS is a wonderful, wonderful thing. What it did for my
family and for my son, I will never forget. I went from hospital to
hospital, A&Es in the middle of the night, sleeping in different wards
in different places. The dedication, and the vocation and the love
you get from people who work in the NHS just, I think, makes me
incredibly proud of this country, so thank you for all that you've
done.

"I think it is special, the NHS, and we made a special
exception of the NHS and said yes, there are going to have to be
difficult financial decisions elsewhere, but we think that the NHS
budget should grow in real terms, i.e., more than inflation, every
year under a Conservative government. My vision is that we
improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got
more choice and more control for the patient."

Quote comes from the leader of the British Conservative Party, speaking in the course of the first TV debate with his rivals to be elected to become Prime Minister. That's the kind of thing that makes it so hard for non-Americans to begin to understand where the fanatical hatred for advocates of health reform in the USA comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:14 PM

Kevin, don't bother trying to change their minds with facts.....

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:34 PM

Only time will tell about any net savings from the health "insurance" reform... One thing that never quite got talked about is that the uninsured do go to hospit6als when they are very sick or are badly injured and the hospital ends up eating the cost of these folks care which gets passed on to everyone else in the form of cost... Now if we insure 35,000,000 people then the hospitals won't have to absorb those losses and should be able to, at the very least, keep cost increases closer to inflation rates...

But that is in theory...

But the second aspect is that these same 35,000,000 people will get care before stuff gets so out of hand that the care becomes very expensive... This, in theory, should help control overall cost of health care...

We'll just have to see...

One thing is for sure and that is that the 17% of GNP that we are spoending on health care alone will cripple our economy...

I was fir a single payer system... I think it has the greatest chance of holding down future costs but that politically wasn't possible...

I think we have moved forward but I aslo think that we have not had the courage to really put a good fix in and that we will have to revisit this problem again very soon... Like within the next 7 to 10 years... Maybe then the politic will be better and we will put together a system that works...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Apr 10 - 10:42 PM

Why does it cost $940 Billion to save money?

What is in the health care bill that lowers the cost of medical care, health insurance or medecine?

To make it more palatable they built in a 21% medicare pay cut for doctors. They hooted about how they won the fight against the Republicans and do not mention the Democrats they battled with.

Then they restore the 21% cut in another bill that has nothing to do with healths care and hoot about how they beat the evil Republicans again.

The bill is the product of health care, insurance and medical industry and drug company lobbyists, after we were told lobbyists were not going to have any influence any more.

No back room dealing. Every thing out in the open, on Cspan even.

---

Familiar Players in Health Bill Lobbying Firms Are Enlisting Ex-Lawmakers, Aides

Washington Post

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
...The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

The push has reunited many who worked together in government on health-care reform, but are now employed as advocates for pharmaceutical and insurance companies....

...A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment.

Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies....

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Maryrrf
Date: 22 Apr 10 - 10:08 PM

Here's an example of why health care reform was needed, and what ended up being passed was far too watered down. This kind of thing is unconscionable and wrong, but it has been going on for a long time. People who pay their premiums, get diagnosed with an illness, and suddenly the policy is cancelled.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 01:56 AM

Operating a for-profit business and ethically delivering health care or health care financing (insurance) are mutually exclusive. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Apr 10 - 09:46 AM

HHS Report says health care bill will cover more, cost more

AP 4/23/10

WASHINGTON -President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance, adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill, Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings, could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.............

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:05 PM

Health Overhaul Law Potentially Costs $115B More

...Congressional estimators also said they simply had not had enough time to run the numbers. Costs could go higher, because the legislation authorizes several programs without setting specific funding levels.

The health care law provides coverage to some more than 30 million now uninsured, offering tax credits to help purchase health insurance through new competitive markets that open for business in 2014. When Congress passed the bill in March, the CBO estimated the coverage expansion would cost $938 billion over 10 years, while reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion....

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:37 AM

Maybe there's a distinction between a for profit business which has the priority of maximising profit, and one where the idea is just to avoid making a loss.

The former is essentially a form of theft.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 10 - 09:30 AM

Well, here we go again with that "r" word... Seems that the conservatives here and elsewhere think that "regulation" is the enemy...

Horrors!!! If we regulate anything then the next thing ya' know s that we'll end up as a socialist country!!! That is their mindset...

The problem is that we tyried 3 decades of deregulation and letting marrkets police themselves and in the words of Dr. Phil, "How's it workin' for ya???"

What is has produced is a massive redistribution of wealth from the working classd to the wealthy and corpoartions running rougshod over not only the working class but over the environment as well... Yes, it has been a very good 30 year run for the wealthy but it hasn't served our country very well when it is compared to other nations in qulaity of life issues, like life expectancy, employement, standard of living, infant mortality, edfucation, etcv. etc...

Face it, the US is a declining nation and the letting industry, and monopolies write their own rules is at the heart of what ails it...

Yes, the health care industry needs some over due regs... Like pricing of procedures... They are way off the scale... I just had a basil cell removed from my face... The outpatient procedure lasted less than 5 minutes... The bill was $2300!!! My wife had a brace made for her thumb base arthritis... Total time to make it was less than a half an hour... The bill was $1700!!! These are crazy charges... I mean, I understand the idea of profits but this is theft!!! Time to rethink deregulatioon that allows the hospitals to decide just how much ***they*** think they are entitled to for performing minor procedures... Or even major ones...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 03:48 PM

according to the health care reform bill:

"If a landscaper wants to buy a new lawnmower, or a restaurant needs a new ice-maker, they have to report that to the feds. If you're a mom-and-pop grocery store, and you buy $1,000 worth of merchandise from each of 15 different vendors, that's 15 different forms you have to file."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,Bobert, on the road...
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM

Seein' as yer into that source stuff, Sawz... How about posting the lawn mower reg in it's entirety so that it can be taken in context...

As fir purchasing??? If you have been in business for any period of time you realize that you do have to keep records of expenses... Doesn't matter how little the expense or how many vendors are involved... But no forms are required that need to be filed with any government agency... That is pure bullshit!!! I mean, like another right wing lie... Yes, when a company sets up an account with a vendor the vendor is going to require that you are authorized to purchase wholesale in order to not have a duplication of collecting sales tax... Hey, that is to the retailers advantage... Sales tax is intended to be paid by the end user... Not middle men... Big deal... The forms are filled out with tax-exempt numbers... Been like that going back decades... Who cares??? To read that forms need to be filed is bullshit??? They need to be filed with the vendors... Not the government... The only time the government gets involved is in the case on an audit when someone is trying evade paying taxes as an end user...

But it sho nuff sounds scarey... Just ain't exactly true if one is trying to imply that these forms need to be filed with the mean ol' government...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:42 PM

And if they had simply made Medicare available for everybody, think of how much simpler it all could be.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:21 AM

Glad you asked Bobert. Politifact.com

Before you try to discredit the information by attacking the site,

PolitiFact Ohio is a partnership of The Cleveland Plain Dealer and PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, to help you find the truth in politics.

The St. Petersburg Times is a United States newspaper. It is one of two major publications serving the Tampa Bay Area, the other being The Tampa Tribune, which the Times tops in both circulation and readership. Based in St. Petersburg, Florida, the Times has won eight Pulitzers since 1964, and in 2009, won two in a single year for the first time in the paper's history. It is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school directly adjacent to the University of South Florida campus in St. Petersburg.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:27 AM

Relax, Sawz-

From the same source you quoted:

"This obviously was something that needed to be better thought out," said Democrat Dennis Kucinich, in a telephone interview. "It has to be fixed, and it will be fixed, because it's not tolerable."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: DougR
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM

Gee, I wonder why Democrat candidates are NOT including their support for Obama Care in their efforts to get re-elected on November 2? Senator Finegold of Wisconsin appears to be the only one who is claiming credit for voting for it. It's a puzzelment, isn't it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:23 PM

Lots are, Dougie... Seems the Dems have been afraid (as per usual) of standing up to the loudmouth bullies... But many are now touting health care reform as an accomplishment in spite of the hundred of millions of negative ads run by the health insurance companies over the last couple years.. Kinda hard to go up against that much negative advertising...

B~

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

Looks to me like the loudmouth bullies rammed a new regulation that has nothing to do with health care down the throat of the 70% of the American people that disagreed with parts of it.

Good thing we have Kucinich's guarantee that it will go away.

Good thing we have Bobert to call everybody that disagrees a loudmouth bully. A little louder Bobert, we can't all hear you.

You say your premiums have gone down?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:06 AM

"I've said no to more government spending, no to President Obama's big health care plan and no to Wall Street bailouts."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:04 AM

No, Sawz... The only folks I call "loudmouth bullies" are the, ahhhhhh, "loudmouth bullies"....

BTW, the Wall Street bailout was on yer guy... Not Obama.... So you can take that lie and shove it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM

A: Obama voted for TARP.
B: A Democratic majority passed it.
C: Obama voted for it as a Senator supported it as President.

Obama: "In the midst of a really bad recession and the possibility of financial meltdown, preventing the collapse of our banks and with it the access to lending and credit and preventing hundreds of thousands of job losses that would have followed the collapse of two of our major automakers that was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do; it was the necessary thing to do. It might have not been popular, and I sure didn't like doing it, but it was the right thing to do. And as bad as the damage has been in this recession, without those actions the damage could have been far more extensive.

A transcript of his speech at Chesapeake Machine Co.

It passed the Senate 74-25
  41 Democrats voted for       34 Republicans voted for 
  9  Democrats Voted against   15 Republicans voted against 
  Obama (D-IL), Yea  
  
  It passed the house 263-171
  172 Democrats voted for      63 Democrats voted against
  91 Republicans voted for     108 Republicans voted against

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:37 PM

Yes, TARP was passed while George W. Bush was president and he signed it.

What is never mentioned by our wonderful folks in the new media is that Bush wanted a system of loans, not gifts.

Bank of American and many other recipiants of TARP money paid it back completely plus interest. B of A alone gave back over $40 billion.

What did Obama do with the returned money? He gave it away to groups he liked.

Obama's actions were not authorised by the bill and amount to theft of money from the American taxpayers.

Again, where is the news media? At the country club golfing and drinking with their buddy, Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

An excerpt—part of the Foreword of the very informative (and often shocking) book, The Healing of America : A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care by T. R. Reid, Penguin Press, copyright T. R. Reid 2009.

Prologue: A Moral Question
If Nikki White had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.

Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosus; that's a serious disease, but one that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say, Japan -- the world's second-richest nation -- or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old.

"Nikki didn't die from lupus," Dr. Amylyn Crawford told me. "Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system. It was a lack of access to health care that killed Nikki White." [ . . . ]

On September 11, 2001, some three thousand Americans were killed by terrorists; our country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to make sure it doesn't happen again. But that same year, and every year since then, some twenty thousand Americans died because they couldn't get health care. That doesn't happen in any other developed country. Hundreds of thousands of Americans go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. That doesn't happen in any other developed country either.

Those Americans who die or go broke because they happened to get sick represent a fundamental moral decision our country had made. Despite all the rights and privileges and entitlements that Americans enjoy today, we have never decided to provide medical care for everybody who needs it. In the world's richest nation, we tolerate a health care system that leads to large numbers of avoidable deaths and bankruptcies among our fellow citizens. Efforts to change the system tend to be derailed by arguments about "big government" or "free enterprise" or "socialism" -- and the essential moral question gets lost in the shouting.

All the other developed countries on earth have made a different moral decision. All the other countries like us -- that is, wealthy, technologically advanced, industrialized democracies -- guarantee medical care to anyone who gets sick. Countries that are just as committed as we are to equal opportunity, individual liberty, and the free market have concluded that everybody has a right to health care -- and they provide it. One result is that most rich countries have better national health statistics -- longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better recovery rates from major diseases -- than the United States does. Yet all the other rich countries spend far less on health care than the United States does. [ . . . ]

My global quest made it clear that the other wealthy democracies can show us how to build a decent health care system -- if that's what we want. The design of any nation's health care system involves political, economic, and medical decisions. But the primary issue for any health care system is a moral one. If we want to fix American health care, we first have to answer a basic question: Should we guarantee medical treatment to everyone who needs it? Or should we let Americans like Nikki White die from "a lack of access to health care"?

I think that makes the case better than anything I can say. As T. R. Reid says, it's a moral issue. I must say that there are times when I am not particularly proud to be an American.

Blurb on the back cover of the book: "When the World Health Organization rated the national health care systems of 191 countries in terms of 'fairness,' the United States ranked fifty-fourth -- slightly ahead of Chad and Rwanda but just behind Bangladesh and the Maldives. How is it that all the other industrialized democracies provide health care for everyone at a reasonable cost, something the United Stateshas never managed to do?"

Reid travels to an number of countries around the world to find out how they manage their health care systems and clearly reports the good points of each one he investigated, along with their "warts." Clear, concise, and very much to the point. Highly recommended if you wish to know what you're talking about when you discuss our health care system -- or lack thereof.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM

Who cares if Obama voted fir TARP???

Bottom line is that the Repub PR machine is tryin' to put the entire bailout on Obama's back...

That is a shameful BIGASS LIE....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:42 AM

"Wall Street bailout was on yer guy... Not Obama"

Obama voted for it. he supported it and he said it was the right thing to do.

The only loudmouth bullies I hear go around yelling "BIGASS LIE" and trying to shout down any facts that are presented.

I haven't heard anybody trying to blame the bailout on Obama.

But the money loaned to the banks, not given to the banks, was supposed to be returned to the treasury to reduce the national debt. However Obama saw fit to use it for things like cash for clunkers which is a give away to help the unions that voted for him and not a loan to be repaid with interest.

Therefore that part of the debt could be blamed on the former administration.

"The law says that money coming back from TARP beneficiaries "shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt." Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) was the first to cry foul."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 07:53 AM

Well, of course you don't hear the implied message from Boss Hog's PR machine, Sawz, because you are are part of the brainwashed...

To the unbrainwashed, the message comes thru loud and clear...

"We want our country back... We want government off our backs... We don't want no stinkin' Obamacare and government bailouts..."

The implication to the "thinking world" is that Obama brought us TARP all by his own little self...

You have a major case of denial but, hey, so do the rest of ya'll Tea Baggers... Buy in yer case I'd like to think it's just denial rather than, like yer buddies, eat up stupid...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 12:20 AM

No I haven't heard anything from Boss Hogg since he went off the air.

His full name was J. D. Hogg, Jefferson Davis Hogg, obviously a Democrat, known for their PR machines.

"Obamacare and government bailouts" that is clearly two things there, one being healthcare the the other being the bank bailout. Only the non thinking world would beleive that it would mean Obama was solely responsible.

If it said Obama bailouts you would be correct. Otherwise your BIGASS LIE assertion is a loud, bullying tactic.

Of course you could ask others.

We have to agree with Bobert so he will quit yelling BIGASS LIE.

but Obama did claim a bailout as his: "It might have not been popular, and I sure didn't like doing it, but it was the right thing to do."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 10:26 AM

Greed! Pure and simple. Republican update: "Let 'em eat cake."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM

You couldn't get a job on Boss Hog's PR firm, Sawz... They all know that by putting Obamacare (a lie) in the same sentence with Bank bailout that most of the morons that they are aiming that toward will think that Obma was president for the bank bailout...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 07:09 AM

Well, looks as if the government is in the process of putting together an agency that will start explaining the ins and outs of the new health reform bill...

BTW, I fully understand that the angry Repubs are running on repealing this bill but the reality is that unless they get 66 votes in the new Senate, which is very unlikely under any scenerio, that all they are doing is wasting tax payer money with their grandstanding...

(Normal, Bobert... Wasting tax payers money and grandstanding is all they have done for 2 years now... Why would you expect them to change???)

Good point...

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:57 AM

Yay some more jobs have been saved or created.

And Obama has a new grandstand for him to stand on.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:31 AM

"With Congress cutting $500 billion from Medicare to pay for their big government health care bill, it's good to know Representative Jim Marshall voted 'no,' telling Washington he's not going to stand for government as the solution."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM

"You couldn't get a job on Boss Hog's PR firm"

Why would I want to work for a Democrat Bobert?

They can't see that the word and is a separator.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM

I've said it before and I repeat.
Tell me one thing the republican party ever did for the BENEFIT of the working man.
Let it equal,
Social security
Minimum wage
the 40 hour week
the middle class
child labor laws
workplace safety laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM

And a democrat signed into law the right of women to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 12:45 PM

I'm waiting Doug, BB, Jed...

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:01 PM

Just as a matter of amusement, I notice that up until now, Sawz has posted 2,172 times, stating almost exactly two years ago, and NOT ONCE has he posted to a music thread above the line.

Strictly here to hawk arch-conservative politics to the hippy folk singers, right, Sawz?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM

Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?

Ever heard of the 14th amendment?

Civil Rights Act of 1866?

Is that what you are? A hippy folk singer?

Are you only interested in listening to people who agree with you or common sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:59 PM

This is dedicaited to Don:

Twang

On top of old smokey

All covered with snow

I found a Hippy Sanger

Who didn't want to know

Anybody's opinion

Other than his own

Because he was obviously

A left wing drone

Twang

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:47 PM

Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves, the 13th amendment did.

I'm talking about all working men, black, white yellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:18 PM

Well, at least since the FDR, it has been the Dems who have been responsible for any bit of progress that the working class has seen...

And it seems that every time the Dems do something big it really pisses of the rich and they throw everything and thr kitchen sink at the Gems for having moved the country forward...

BTW, the US still lags way behind every industrialized nation in life expectancy... Hmmmmm??? The rich extract 17% of our GNP every year, double all the other countires were people are heathier and live longer... Then they take those profits and invest them overseas that take our jobs...

I'll tell ya'll what... Given the fact that the Repubs are so in far in bed with the rich that I find it incredulous that Redneck Nation has been completely duped into voting for these guys... This is like a sick and dieing man who has a dozen leeches allready suckin' the life out of him asking for just one more???

It is insanity...

But this is what happens when the media is turned into a 24/7 propaganda machine...

I know that folks are tired of hearing this but unless we find a way to stop the brainwashing of our countrymen and take the propaganda out and replace it with facts then Tom Jefferson's little experiement's days are numbered...

I mean, we are on the verge of being ruled by the stupid...

This does not bode well for the US... We already are scarin' off the brightest and best scientists and reaserchers... I mean, how many people with IQs above 100 really are considering coming to a nation where loonies who belive in the Rapture and creationism get to call the shots???

Beam me up, Scotty... The stupid think that their stupid frioends need to run the show...

B~

BTW...Hope that if Sawz ever needs a serious heart operation that he calls on Bubba to do it...

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM

"Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves, the 13th amendment did."

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) served as the 16th President of the United States from March 1861 until his assassination [by a Democrat] in April 1865.

He successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, preserving the Union, ending slavery, and rededicating the nation to nationalism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy.

President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which outlawed slavery in ten Confederate states still in rebellion in 1863, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was based on his war powers and did not abolish slavery in the border states.

A bill to support an amendment to abolish slavery throughout the entire United States was introduced by Representative James Mitchell Ashley (Republican, Ohio). This was soon followed by a similar proposal made by Representative James F. Wilson (Republican, Iowa).

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

Please keep informed Kendall

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:26 PM

>>>Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) served as the 16th President of the United States from March 1861 until his assassination [by a Democrat] in April 1865.


I was going to read your post until I got to this.

>>>[by a Democrat]

Then I realized that you were incapable of or unwilling to engage in rational discussion.

If you think that Booth was acting as an agent of the Democratic Party, I pity you.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:33 PM

Obama put Booth up to it, Jack...

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:23 PM

I am informed sir. So I was one number off on the 14th amendment.

Abe Lincoln did not free the slaves, and the republican party has done squat for the working man.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: kendall
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:26 PM

Prove other wise.and quit nit picking.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:21 AM

Funny that Democrats want to harken to the policies of Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner who diddled one of his slaves and blame racial injustice on Republicans. The slave owners were Democrats who even went to war to preserve slavery. They lost and then they fought civil rights tooth and nail, up until the second that they realized it was inevatable and then they flip flopped. I was actually for slavery before I was against it. They realized they needed the black vote to stay in power. As Lyndon Johnson said "I'll have them Ni**ers" voting Democratic for the next 200 years". That's not selfish is it?

If anybody wants to dispute this let them give an example of a civil rights bill that the majority of Republicans voted against.

Let any accomplishment of the Democrats equal the elimination of slavery by the Republicans.

Let any abomination equal the assanation of Abe Linco;n by a Democrat or the Jim Crow laws created and upheld by Democtrats and fought buy Republicans.

The Democrats still hold black people in their power by telling them they can't get ahead because white people won't let them. All the while Republicans have been telling them you are equal human beings and you can get ahead.

< a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html">PBS:

The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.
Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.         
The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
Then and Now: After the Civil War, the Democratic Party in the South was the party of white supremacy. Now, African Americans form the party's most loyal base of support. One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:35 AM

PBS:

Early in the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was hard pressed by the Radical Republicans -- the party's abolitionist wing -- to abolish slavery by proclamation. Lincoln was opposed. He said that his main concern was preserving the union and he subordinated his feelings about slavery to that goal: "My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or destroy slavery." Moreover, he knew that if he decreed emancipation at the beginning of the war, Missouri, Kentucky, and probably Maryland, all of which technically remained on the Union side, would have joined the South. As the war gloomily dragged on in 1862, and things looked bleak for the Union cause, Lincoln realized that he would have to end slavery. He was willing to issue an Emancipation Proclamation but he felt that the people of the North were not yet ready for it.
Lincoln called the proclamation "the central act of my administration, and the greatest event of the 19th century."         Lincoln
He needed a military victory. In September of 1862, he barely got one. Five days after the Confederate Army's northward march was stopped at the battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation.

The key paragraph of the Proclamation read: "That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom." Lincoln gave the Confederate states until the end of the year to return to the Union if they wanted to maintain slavery. They ignored him. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the final proclamation and slavery was officially abolished, affecting about three million enslaved blacks. The proclamation did not apply to the border states, which were not in rebellion against the Union, and it could not be enforced in the regions held by Confederate troops. Critics charged that the Proclamation ended slavery in areas where it did not exist and was unable to end slavery in areas where it existed. But the Proclamation proved effective as Northern armies penetrated deeper into the South, freeing those who had been enslaved. Lincoln called the proclamation "the central act of my administration, and the greatest event of the 19th century." Later, the Thirteenth Amendment incorporated the abolition of slavery into the U.S. Constitution.

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~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:31 PM

The nest Republican candidate

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 11:44 PM

http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/medicare3.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:47 AM

I am surprised so many people think it was ever otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 May 11 - 03:20 PM

Health care costs explode

May 16, 2011

The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) contains some grim tidings for health insurers and others concerned by the rising cost of health care, as for the fourth straight year, costs rose by at least 7%.

The MMI found that for 2011 the average cost of health care for a family of four covered by a preferred provider plan now stands at $19,393, up from $18,074 in 2010. The 2011 tally reflects the steady rise charted in health costs over the last decade. By way of comparison, the MMI for 2002 was $9,235.

The study delves deeply into the causes behind this cost inflation. For example, the study notes that even though hospital spending is only 48% of total health care spending, increases in facility spending accounted for 60% of this year's total increase in costs.

For the third year in a row, spending at outpatient facilities rose faster than any other component of patient care, climbing 10%. Milliman attributes the growth in cost to the fact that existing outpatient services have increased in price while new, more expensive services continue to emerge.

Pharmacy costs were another source of cost inflation, rising 8%. Although a quarter of that increase came from broader usage of pharmaceuticals, most of the change came from higher average prices.

These rising costs present a challenge for insurers, which are facing more political pressure to keep premiums down. Indeed, the report calls health care reform the elephant in the room and predicts that insurers will become subject to greater scrutiny of their rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 11 - 03:24 PM

Gee, Sawz, maybe if the Repubs hadn't blocked real health care reform & spawned a raft of idiotic court challenges to the emasculated bill that did pass, these increases wouldn't be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 May 11 - 08:51 AM

If then proves what? If then changes what?

A. there are an infinite number of ifs.

B. No one knows what the result of those alternate realities would be.

It is wishful thinking.

A way to avoid reality.

Take the if then argument to your health insurance company [whose lobbyists were hired to write the bill] and tell them it should not cost so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 May 11 - 10:00 AM

B. No one knows what the result of those alternate realities would be.

Actually, the Congressional Budget Office (and others) did a pretty good analysis of the result of "those alternate[sic] realities" and how much money a real health care bill would have saved across the board.

The TeaBagger Repubs still torpedoed it. Not that you, or they, would want to confuse the issue with facts.....

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 27 May 11 - 11:24 AM

The Tea Baggers largest fear is that they won't be able to sink the Affordable Care Act and it proves to be successful...

But here's another twist on Republican thinking... Remember the death panels??? Well, if the Ryan and the Repubs had it their way then Medicare would disappear and health insurance companies, interested solely on profit, would be making the life and death decision for our elderly...

Hmmmmmmm???

Where does the hypocrisy end with the current batch of Repubs???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: saulgoldie
Date: 28 May 11 - 10:39 AM

No matter who is providing health insurance, the private or the public sector, there is one truth that no one is honestly discussing. That is the fact that everyone dies, regardless of what is done to or for them. At some point, either they just die on their own, or medical help can no longer sustain them.

If some entity is providing health care, at some point, some person will decide that they will no longer provide whatever care is keeping the person alive.

The right-wing hysteria machine calls this decision a "death panel." But in the private sector, the decision is often made way before the end of life period in favor of profit and the withholding of care. So many patients end up suffering and dying much earlier than they would have if they had received relatively "normal" health care.

Remember that in the private sector, the motive is only secondarily providing goods or services, but primarily making a profit. For a health care company, this means taking in as much as possible in premiums, and delivering as little service as possible (to keep profits high). So in this situation, some clerk looking at claim forms acts as the de facto death panel.

Nevertheless, in whatever system of providence of care, someone, somewhere is going to make a decision based on the quality of life, the relatives' wishes, if there are relatives, and yes, the cost. It is not a happy thing, thinking about whether or not to provide care. But the choice is going to be made by some person. Doing nothing, is, by the way, a choice.

A number of years ago, the State of Oregon wisely made a list of all the medical conditions that might be covered and rated them on whether or not they would cover them. I have not been able to find this list. But IIRC, it was something like 804 conditions. Oh, I just found the list here:

http://www.oregon.gov/OHA/OHPR/HSC/current_prior.shtml


The conditions included broken bones, stitches, the usual illnesses, including viruses and cancers. One of the conditions was anecephalia, a baby born, with extensive medical intervention against the will of Nature, with no brain. This was one of the conditions they decided they would not cover.

Curiously, I also remember a piece on the news about a woman (in Florida, I think, but it doesn't really matter), who had an anecephalic baby and was insisting that the baby be kept alive with machinery at the cost of something like $500,000 dollars per year.

The questions that one must consider are whether the baby had any remote hope of anything resembling a normal life, and what were the opportunity health costs of keeping it "alive."

How many broken arms, cases of pneumonia, tonsillectomies, early stage cancers, diabetes, and other conditions would not be able to be treated if this one baby got its half a million dollars a year to keep it "alive" on machines.

I do not know the outcome of this. But someone decided either to sustain the baby and forgo treatment of all the others in need of health care, or someone decided to unplug it and let Nature do what she would have done in the first place if medical science had not intervened.

Now, some may argue that the baby in question was "entitled" to health care because it was "a life." This assertion begs the bigger question of who should get care, and what is the structure that should deliver that care.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 May 11 - 11:35 AM

Oregon-Health in the state of Oregon is in trouble, primarily because Oregon took a big hit in the recession and has not yet recovered. Several years ago they dropped - or planned to - a great many of those covered under the plan.

But they kept a great many on its rolls. My brother had been a very heavy smoker, developed emphesema, couldn't walk 10 feet without gasping for breath. He was on Oregon Health and they did a fantastic job keeping him alive. A person who was congenitally suspicous of government with its authority and rules, he ended up totally dependent on it.

The last few years of his life he was in and out of the hospital dozens of times a year. I have no idea what they did- but the medics would come to his home and take him in unable to breathe and then call four or five hours later to have someone come collect him. He would be back to his normal breathless self.

He died at the age of 72, having lived much longer than he had any reason to expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 May 11 - 12:06 PM

Torpedoed it how? What changes did they make to the bill?

They were all ignored and rejected and the bill went through as designed by the Democrats and guaranteed to save money except that in reality, health care costs are still rising at the same rate they were, nothing has changed and the only way to avoid the reality to blame it on the folks who said I told you so.

Exactly what and where in the bill was there anything to contain health care costs? What was taken out of the bill that would have prevented the current rise in health care costs?

Some facts from the people that live in the "if then" world might avoid the confusion that they claim others are creating.

"if the Ryan and the Repubs had it their way then"

The Democrats had it their way and this is the result, reality. Health care going up and up.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 May 11 - 11:35 PM

The median income fo all US MD specialists is over 350,000 per year.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 11 - 07:15 AM

There are lots of reasons why health care in the US is so expensive as compared to European countries but the one common denominator that all of or European competitors have is that they provide health care for their citizens...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

European countries spend an average of 8% of their GNP on health care and rank higher in every good category that the US in level of health and life expectancy...

The US is the only developed, industrialized nation that does *NOT* provide health care for all of it's citizens yet pays a whopping 17% of it's GNP for health care and doesn't even break the "Top Ten" in terms of being a healthy nation... Even our infant mortality rate (not factoring in abortion) is in the 20s... That sucks...

Dick is right... It's partly for the high salaries that specialists get... $350,000 a year is alot of dough... But it's not only that... Every rinky dink health center buys equipment to do tests that they frankly don't need and in many cases don't have the properly trained people to run the machines??? But they'll have their doctors order up these tests just to pay for the friggin' machine... And then there are stockholders who invest in hospitals who want dividends...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 May 11 - 01:15 AM

So far, we haven't had much of a change in health care reform; just some tweaking of the health insurance business. This IMO, is a good thing...as far s it goes, but there are feasible ways of lowering health care costs: allowing the government to bargain on drug prices, making sure that there are enough doctors in less-profitable locations ( setting up s "Med Corps", where the Feds would pay medical school tuitions for qualified pre-meds in exchange for a period of assignment
in MD-deprived areas), providing software for uniform computerized record-keeping, and lots more.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 May 11 - 09:35 PM

Banning popular media advertising of prescription drugs would also help.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 01:22 AM

I never said health care was not too expensive. It is too expensive and the costs are climbing too fast.

I am all for health care reform that reduces the costs. Who the hell wouldn't be?

The problem is the current health care reform does not do a damned thing to reduce or even contain the cost.

Who the hell would not be against a health care reform does not do a damned thing to reduce or even contain the cost.?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Jun 11 - 12:05 PM

For some idiot reason, it's easier to get folks to fork out a thousand dollars to a private insurance outfit than to get them to pay five hundred bus in taxes to get th same health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 07:03 AM

Wherever you live the cost of medical services tends to rise, as more sophisticated medical treatments get developed.

Of course when you have sky high costs to start with it's all a lot worse. And reforms of health services which enable everyone to get the help they need which they haven't been getting is liable to be pretty expensive if it isn't accompanied by an attack on profiteering.

Letting poor people suffer and die is cheaper I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 12:32 AM

ObamaCare will lead to a dramatic decline in employer-provided health insurance with as many as 78 million Americans forced to find other sources of coverage.

This disturbing finding is based on my calculations from a survey by McKinsey & Company. The survey, published this week in the McKinsey Quarterly, found that up to 50% of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to their current health-insurance plan in the years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014. An estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get their coverage at work, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Before the health law passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only nine million to 10 million people, or about 7% of employees who currently get health insurance at work, would switch to government-subsidized insurance. But the McKinsey survey of 1,300 employers across industries, geographies and employer sizes found "that reform will provoke a much greater response" and concludes that the health overhaul law will lead to a "radical restructuring" of job-based health coverage.

Another McKinsey analyst, Alissa Meade, told a meeting of health-insurance executives last November that "something in the range of 80 million to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories in the two years" after the insurance mandates take effect in 2014.

Many employees who will need to seek another source of coverage will take advantage of the health-insurance subsidies for families making as much as $88,000 a year. This will drive up the cost of ObamaCare.

In a study last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that an additional 35 million workers would be moved out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage, and that this would add about $1 trillion to the total cost of the president's health law over the next decade. McKinsey's survey implies that the cost to taxpayers could be significantly more.

WSJ

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 11:22 PM

Santa Monica, CA ~ Consumer advocates are calling Blue Shield's 59% premium hike Exhibit A for legislation that would allow the Insurance Commissioner to curb health insurers' rate hikes.

In California and most states, health insurers can raise premiums without providing any detailed justification and without any fear that a regulator will investigate and potentially block rate hikes. With federal health reform's requirement that 80% of premiums must be related to healthcare services and only 20% on profits and administration, it is likely that Blue Shield and others will increase payouts to medical providers in order to increase premiums and their own total income.   

The "medical loss ratio," as the 80%/20% rule is known, does not limit how much insurance companies spend on things like advertising and profits unless the rule is applied in conjunction with regulation of rates. Without regulation, as is the case with Blue Shield, insurance companies are using the federal law as an excuse to increase premiums.

"Californians are not the only ones about to suffer through huge price spikes," said Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, author of The Progressive's Guide To Raising Hell. "Blue Shield's announcement foreshadows what we'll be seeing around the country in every state that refuses to take on the insurance industry and enact real regulation. Insurance companies are limited to 20% of premiums for profit and overhead, so in the absence of price limits they have every incentive to pay doctors and hospitals too much in order to let premiums rise and pad their 20%"

So there is your cost cutting measure folks. Only 20% of whatever the costs are go towards profit and overhead.

So all they need to do to make more money is to spend more on the overall cost of healthcare and they make a bigger profit.