 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Republican response to Health Reform
|
|
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 18 May 11 - 03:20 PM Health care costs explodeMay 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,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: Donuel Date: 05 Apr 11 - 11:44 PM http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/medicare3.jpg |
|
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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM Hypocrits!!! |
|
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: Donuel Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:00 PM The republican response is LOUDER THAN EVER |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:31 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:08 PM PBS/NPR Bill Moyers - Liz Fowler the Destroyer of the Public Option |
|
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: 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: 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. |
