BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 05:10 PM

Because Republicans have considered themselves the Moral [Christian] Majority, I added the word Christian, because the behavior of heckling a disabled woman isn't anything like what I was taught regarding the teachings of Christ. I thought it was ironic that they would heckle a woman in a wheelchair and still consider themselves to be the party of "values" and "morality".

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 05:45 PM

They probably figure she's a "socialist".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 07:12 PM

Whoever had the responsibility for chairing that meeting was clearly pretty incompetant. Not an easy task, I accept, but it would appear that whoever it was wasn't even trying.

Or maybe it was a cunning plan. If I was running a media campaign to support reform, I think I'd just show that clip over and over, and rely on the fact that people would find the behaviour of those buffoons nauseating, and would feel disinclined to want to be on the same side as them.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 09:48 PM

I just now had a chance to see that video Alice posted of the crowd jeering and heckling the disabled woman at the Health Care Town Hall. There are no words...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:17 PM

Here's a link that was posted on Facebook. It's worth sharing. It was a site set up by some Republican group looking for horror stories about socialized medicine. Instead, the only horror stories they got were from the USA. http://collegerepublicans.org/node/4292

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 10:26 PM

The people supporting Health Care Reform tell some interesting stories about their campaign. The lack of health insurance costs the lives of 18,000 AMericans a year--six times as many as died on 9/11. Worth going to bat for?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 11:24 PM

Here's a WHite House-generated Reality Check on key aspects of the Health Care Reform issues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 11:26 PM

"This weekend, North Carolina Democrats became the latest in a series to endorse a public health insurance option:

Be it Further resolved, that the State Executive Committee of the North Carolina Democratic Party directs Party Chairman David Young to instruct Senator Kay Hagan, Representatives G.K. Butterfield NC-1, Bob Etheridge NC-2, David Price NC-4, Mike McIntyre NC-7, Larry Kissell NC-8, Heath Shuler NC-11, Mel Watt NC-12, and Brad Miller NC-13 that the North Carolina Democratic Party and its members – in the absence of Single-Payer as a choice — strongly support a robust Public Option as an alternative and expect their Congressional Representatives to make a robust Public Option mandatory; and

Be it Further resolved, that Chairman David Young conveys to Senator Hagan and our Democratic Congressional House Representatives that a bill without at least a Public Option is not acceptable to the Democratic Party of North Carolina and its members and urges our Congressional delegation to vote against any health care reform bill that does not contain a robust Public Option.

I think their message to Senator Hagan and their House delegation is clear.

A few weeks ago, a coalition of Montana Democratic elected officials passed a similar resolution and pushed Senator Max Baucus to represent their views:

U.S. Senator Max Baucus has finally broken his silence regarding his personal position on including a public option in health care reform legislation. Last Monday night (8/17), in an unprecedented conference call to Montana Democratic central committee chairs, the powerful leader of the Senate Finance Committee told his strongest supporters that he supported a public option.

While discussing the obstacles to getting a public option through the Senate, he assured his forty listeners, "I want a public option too!"

…

In the aftermath of the teleconference, a coalition of eighteen Montana counties in the Senator's home state decided to move forward with their plan to issue a Unified Statement accompanied by a joint press release. The statement sends a loud and clear message to their Senator: Any health care reform package coming out of his Senate Finance Committee must contain, at a minimum, a provision for a strong public option.

…

Calling themselves the Coalition of the United Montana Democratic Central Committees, the group's statement announces it has "established a position in support of a strong public option as an essential element in health care reform."

These resolutions are popping up all over the country, in blue states like California and in more traditionally "moderate" states like Montana, North Carolina, and Colorado.

The message is clear, and will only become clearer as more of these resolutions are passed.

77% of the American people want a public health insurance option. Elected officials in states all over the country are standing up and declaring their support. This is grassroots support the Senate can and should act on.

The Senate has to ignore the insider politics that say a public health insurance option isn't possible. The country wants this and needs this, and the overwhelming majority of the people are saying so over and over. The majority in the Senate should reflect the majority in the country."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: KenM
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 12:17 AM

Earlier in this thread, there was discussion of the legacy of Tommy Douglas.....one of my heroes!! One of his grandchildren, the daughter of Stephen Douglas, is Naomi Klein, frequent contributor to The Nation and a prolific progressive author. Apples don't fall far from the tree!!

I'm an ex-pat Canadian who has lived in the U.S. for 20 years. I have been blessed on two counts: 1) I have always worked for an employer who offered a good health insurance plan as part of the benefit package; and, 2) I have been blessed with good health where neither my physican or me personally has had to contest the denial of a treatment option and, when I have changed jobs, I have never had to worry about the dread of a "pre-existing condition."

Millions of Americans are not nearly as fortunate as me but I know full-well my own good fortune could turn on a dime. However, unlike most of my fellow country-men/women, I have an escape option.....I can always return to Canada! Of course, this scares the dickens out of my two adult-age sons who fear the specter of their aging father and step-mother coming home to live with them!! They have become obsessivly concerned about our health and strong supporters of single-payer health care in the U.S.

This country needs a strong and fearless leader who will take us where others have feared to tread in the area of health-care reform. I once thought this President was that leader but I'm having my doubts.

Franklin Roosevelt once entertained a group of progressive left-leaning people at the White House and having heard their ideas, told them, "I agree with everything you said, now go out and make me do those things!"

A unified progressive front on health care reform is needed in this country....my two sons up in Canada are counting on it!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: KenM
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 12:43 AM

Oops......right progressive party but I had my lineage wrong on Naomi Klein. She's married to the son of Stephen Lewis (not Douglas), who in turn is the son of David Lewis....along with Tommy Douglas, one of the founders of the New Democratic Party. Never mind, read her book, The Shock Doctrine.....it will scare the hell out of you!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 06:08 AM

""Here's a link that was posted on Facebook. It's worth sharing. It was a site set up by some Republican group looking for horror stories about socialized medicine. Instead, the only horror stories they got were from the USA. http://collegerepublicans.org/node/4292""

The phrase "shooting oneself in the foot" springs to mind.

Magic
Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 09:34 AM

Now, if only they'd shoot themselves in the head.....

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:21 PM

All these horror stories in the newspapers, and still nobody believes us Brits when we say it works. We Brits are all wrong, because the papers say we are. Don't believe us then, let your countrymen and women die because your 'system' looks after you (if you're in work that is). I know mine does its very best by us all, and I would NEVER change it for the 'lottery' that exists in the USA. That lottery being whether you have insurance or not. We poor Brits have insurance from the cradle to the grave. We pay to the government, and that then correctly looks after us. Whatever happend to Government of the people, by the people? Or is that too 'Liberal' for you?

John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:24 PM

John:

WHile I applaud your sentiments, I am sure you are preaching to at least some of the choir!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 05:14 PM

I agree Amos - but some of that choir need to feel the music, rather than just be told it's the best music there is by the music industry.
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 05:31 PM

If President Obama offers up single payer on Wednesday -- THEN we'd hear a choir!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 06:01 PM

The essential thing is to get the best package of reforms that can in fact be got. There are more ways to skin a cat than one.

It will still be far short of what is needed, and I doubt if there are many people outside the USA, in any of the other countries with universal health care up and running for decades, who would willimgly change with what you are likely to come up with, at least initially. We certainly wouldn't in the UK - but the thing is, it will be far better than what you have now.

The old saying shouldn't be forgotten. "The best is enemy of the good".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 07:48 PM

I'll consider it good if JtS and I can get access to good medical care that we can afford. If that doesn't happen, then whatever plan they come up with will suck. And I consider myself and expert on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 09:09 PM

I like your style Ken M

I will look for your contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:27 PM

Didn't see another thread on the healthcare debate. Last posting here was back in September. But the issue's back in the news:

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Looking to push the "long and wrenching debate" over health care into its final stages, President Barack Obama asked lawmakers to schedule an up-or-down vote on overhaul legislation "in the next few weeks."

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100303-717240.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

What I find interesting is how the far right and the far left agree on this issue. On the right, the LaRouche people say:

None other than Mr. Peter Orszag himself took to the pages of today's Financial Times to assure London financiers, that "once health-care reform is in place," Social Security is next on the Obama administration's chopping block. The pledge by President Obama's Office of Management and Budget Director is made in the concluding paragraph of a signed op-ed touting the Obama administration's fascist health-care reforms as "A Medical Plan to Boost America's Fiscal Health;" not to secure human health, but that of the financial system.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10681

On the left, the World Socialist Website says: ...a comment by budget director Peter Orszag last week in the Financial Times. In an opinion piece titled, "A plan to boost America's fiscal health," he wrote, "Reducing the number of tests, procedures and other medical costs that do not improve health presents an enormous opportunity." Orszag then elaborated how the Obama administration would be taking advantage of this "opportunity," through Medicare and Medicaid "efficiencies," with proposals to slash more than $600 billion from the programs. ... "Once health care reform is in place," the budget director wrote, "the US can then focus on other aspects of fiscal sustainability, including Social Security reform." ... antithetical to a system that would provide high-quality, affordable health care to the broad mass of the American people.

Lots of countries have good nationalized healthcare systems, but the one being proposed in America is a government/private industry partnership. Fascism. And it's being pushed because the private insurance industry is dying, same as the banking system was dying before the Bush/Obama Bailout/Stimulus giveaways. Insurance companies have invested heavily in the collapsing derivatives market, and their only hope now is for a government handout. That's no way to set up a compassionate healthcare system.

Or so it seems.

Wasn't there a furor about mammograms since last September? The government used to say women should begin getting them at age 40 (for decades we were told this), and now the government is saying to start at age 50? Yeah. I googled it. That was back in November:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=mammograms+at+50&aq=2&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=mammograms

And just last week, Obama revealed his total ignorance of insurance in general. He doesn't know auto liability coverage from full coverage:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+acme+insurance&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

So, if the president is so ignorant on the topic of insurance (he said he was a COLLEGE GRADUATE when he went through the liability thing), and if the government is already pushing a change that will lead to no telling how many deaths from breast cancer, can we trust ANYTHING that comes from Washington in the healthcare "debate?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:34 PM

Oops. Here's the WSWS link:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pers-j23.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:45 PM

ichMael, I don't see any evidence that Obama doesn't know auto liability coverage from full coverage. I only see evidence that he didn't know the difference between them back when he first got out of college. If you can't see the difference between those two things, I don't see any reason why any of us should take you seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:53 PM

But he was a COLLEGE GRADUATE on his way to becoming a LAW PROFESSOR. Shades of G.W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:54 PM

So what? That doesn't say anything at all about him at this point in his life. That was decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 08:05 PM

Doesn't change the fact that he blathered on the same level of assininity that Bush used to achieve. And he blathered on a topic he's been telling us he's expert on--insurance.

Obama is serving the same banking interests that Bush did. Insurance companies have in effect become banks since Glass-Steagall was repealed (FDR program to keep bankers off of Wall Street, repealed under Clinton). So, insurance companies started gambling on derivatives and the bad investments are about to come crashing down. Obama's proposing to give them TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, force 50 million uninsured Americans to buy insurance (choose between food for the kids or insurance), and provide diminished healthcare. All to bail out criminal banking/insurance companies.

Not faulting Obama any more than I would Bush--both would have done the same thing. It's not a partisan issue. Both men serve the same bankers. As people they're just corrupt to the core.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 08:33 PM

He is not, and has not posed as an expert on insurance. I imagine he knows a LOT more about than Bush ever did, especially since it became an issue on a national level. What he is though, is an intelligent and curious President with a keen intellect, a category of existence Bush could not imagine, let alone aspire to.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 08:51 PM

I don't disagree with some of your points, ichMael, but you can make those points successfully without misrepresenting things like you were doing there.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:42 PM

I pretty much see it that way too, Carol (as ichMael has said)...whichever group of politicians get elected, they seem to end up serving the very same consortium of huge banking/insurance company interests.

I would assume that it is for the obvious reason: the major banks fund the system that gets politicians elected, therefore the system does what the banks want it to no matter who gets elected, and the game goes on.

Given the fact that the game is really a gigantic pyramid scheme which enriches a very few while impoverishing the many, I see no good end in sight for it.

Abraham Lincoln warned against this happening. He was assassinated not too long after that. I think there could be a connection...not saying there had to be, by any means...but there could have been.

I honestly believe that if Obama tried to take on the banks and insurance companies and break their stranglehold on the political and financial agenda of his nation, that his life wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel, and I bet he knows it too. So, he's basically doing what he thinks he must in order to survive his term in office. That would be my guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:09 PM

I don't disagree, LH. But I find that a lot of the time, when people spread misinformation (like for instance, saying that Obama doesn't understand car insurance), they are actually doing it in service to the corporatocracy (whether they realize it or not), rather than in opposition to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:28 PM

Quite possibly. After all, to sew division, resentment, and bitter partisan rivalry can only work to better serve their primary purpose, to divide and conquer.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:00 PM

Not wishing to appear pedantic, or sceptical, LH, but if your "no difference whoever gets in" scenario is correct, who do they need to divide and conquer, and why?

Either way they win, so why draw attention?

If you are right, of course.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:35 PM

"When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won't name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company — let's call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I'd like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn't serious insurance. Now, it's one thing if you've got an old beat-up car that you can't get fixed. It's another thing if your kid is sick, or you've got breast cancer."

I didn't shovel those words into his mouth. He's a verbal stumblebum when he's not scripted. OR, maybe he's not. Notice how he says liability insurance isn't "serious insurance." Hmmm. So, are the feds now going to mandate that we all carry FULL AUTO COVERAGE? Bottom line, you can't trust someone like that to make insurance decisions for you. The guy's threatening you with prison if you don't buy health insurance from one of the government-approved insurance companies. Fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:41 PM

They divide and conquer for a very simple reason, Don. They need something for the public to focus on and more importantly, believe in.

Thus...the 2 party system, which works exactly like 2 football or baseball teams, bitter rivals who meet after a hard-fought season, and battle for the cup.

Both football teams work to keep the league in business, but they play against each other tooth and nail to win the cup. They will cheat, injure opposing players, do anything they can as long as they can win that cup. It doesn't matter much to the owners of the league which team wins as long as the public keeps attending the game (stayin interested and voting) and buying the tickets (paying their taxes).

But it's essential that the public be excited about the whole process...otherwise they wouldn't be willing to buy tickets and attend the game. Thus the public must be made to become "fans" of either one team or the other by every possible strategem...and that involves a lot of propaganda, raving on by talking heads, etc.

That results in a permanently divided public who end up detesting each other just as much as they detest the "visiting" team. For a Democrat, the Republicans are the "visiting team". For a Republican it's the other way around. They both regard the other as interlopers and enemies.

The rivalry never ceases, and it gets passed down in families from parents to the next generation, and the game goes on.

It's a divide-and-conquer game because the owners of the league always win and they keep the game going by keeping the public divided over the 2 teams.

The 2 teams both genuinely desire to win the cup, for a number of reasons...financial gain, glory, promotions, etc. So the frenzy of competition between them is quite real...but it doesn't change the fact that the league owns those 2 teams and controls the whole situation from off the field, back at head office.

The public doesn't focus on the league, because they don't see it. They focus on the teams. They vote for the teams. They expect the teams to solve their problems....but that's a pipedream. The 2 teams are not there to solve the public's problems, they are there to 1. Keep the public entertained and distracted. 2. WIN the game! and 3. Do what the league tells them they can do, because the league is their employer.

And who is the "league"? Well, the league is the biggest controlling financial entities of this society which means: the major banks and insurance companies and the biggest corporations. And what is their objective, both individually and collectively? To each make more money than they did last year and control more stuff than they did last year.

And so it goes.

The public must be kept mesmerized by the partisan game or they might start to notice what's really happening, in which case they might get truly angry at the league itself and stop believing in the 2 teams, and then anything could happen.

But as long as one half of the public can be kept angry at the other half of the public through team partisanship instead of ALL the public getting angry at the league itself, then the league remains pretty much unnoticed and the great game goes on.

It's smoke and mirrors, Don. Mostly just about money.

Now, before you say it....NO, I do not think there is no difference at all between the 2 parties. I think one can definitely be worse than the other at any given time, depending on a number of factors. But they both work for the league that employs them, not for the public.

It's vital to keep the public distracted by means of bought political parties and paid-for elections and the facade of what is assumed to be real democracy....and that is why you have the old divide-and-conquer scenario playing itself out over and over again.

It's a very, very clever system...in the sense of perpetuating itself and creating the illusion of free choice. It's an insane system in the sense of being unable to secure a prosperous, healthy, and viable future for the nation it rules over.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:54 PM

He's recollecting how he saw things when he was much younger. You really don't help your cause by investing yourself heavily in this mischaracterization of what he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:03 PM

lol. What's to mischaracterize? Those are his words.

But personalities aside, Democrats wouldn't have put up with Bush tampering with Medicaire and Social Security, so what makes it okay for a know-nothing like Obama to do it? Like Little Hawk was talking about, it's a game and they keep rotating the teams. But I don't like Obama's team. I didn't like Bush's team. It's a rigged game.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:16 PM

It is a mischaracterization because you are framing his lack of understanding of auto insurance in the present tense. You may think we're to stupid to tell the difference, but we're not. And as someone who doesn't have any access to medical care myself, I support his efforts on my behalf. But the fact is, it's the Congress who will make the decisions about what happens with health care, and not Obama, so trying to frame it as if his knowledge or lack of knowledge of the insurance industry has any effect on what happens with health care reform is also very dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:19 PM

Yesterday afternoon I started to feel a bit ill - pain in my right lower quadrant, and sweating. About eight o'clock it seemed to be getting worse, and I started worrying about possible appendicitis, so we phoned the out-of-hours health line. They set up an appointment for me to see a doctor at our local walk-in health centre at 8.45.

Driven up there by my son. Ten minutes wait and then I was seen by the very friendly and efficient doctor on duty, who gave me a check-over and did some tests - no, it wasn't appendiciries, it was an acute urinary infection. So he gave me a prescription for a strong antibiotic, which I took to the private chemist across the road - no payment for the prescription because I'm over 60 (if I'd had to pay it woudl have been £7.20). Woke up next mornibng right as rain.

That's "Nationalized Healthcare" for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:35 AM

Yup, McGrath. Same basic thing in Canada. Genuine nationalized health care is the only sane way to go.

What is being proposed by the Obama administration doesn't appear to be anything like genuine nationalized health care to me...it appears to be a way of legally forcing people to buy private health insurance! (is that correct?) If so, it is just a big giveaway to the private health insurance industry...which suggests to me that they are the real architects of the bill, not Obama or the Democratic Party.

I suspect the Republicans are just mad because it isn't their bill. ;-) They're looking ahead to the midterm elections, and they want the Democrats to be seen to fail in passing major legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:46 AM

It's definitely a big giveaway to the insurance industry. But until we fix what's wrong with our campaign and election process, it's probably the best we're going to get. And it's still a far sight better than what we have now. Although I still hold some hope that we might be able to get a public option, which would be bit less of a handout to the insurance companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:58 AM

Well, any improvement is better than no improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:02 AM

It is from my perspective, since I don't have any health insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:05 PM

Michael Moore agrees with Dennis Kucinich that Obama's Deathcare is bad, bad, bad:

"If I drove up an old AMC Pacer here tonight and said 'here, Larry, I'm giving you a free car,' I don't think you'd say 'get the hell, get that out of here.' I think you'd say 'well, that's nice, Mike' and maybe you've got a sixteen-year-old you'd give it to."

"So that's what this bill is," Moore continues. "It's the AMC Pacer. It runs. But it really doesn't take care of the main problem which is the profit motive will still dictate everything. The insurance companies will still be in charge...."

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/michael-moore-rep-kucinich-one-vote-435-standing-300-million-sad-that/

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:07 PM

Michael Moore has access to health care, as does Dennis Kucinich. They can afford to wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:19 PM

From what Obama's offering, we'll ALL have to wait. Pre-existing conditions aren't covered for four years.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:29 PM

Four years is better than 11, in my case, and 13 in the case of my husband, which is how long we will have to wait to get access to health care if the bill doesn't pass - if we live that long, which is doubtful without access to health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:35 PM

If you mean Medicaire, that stuff will be GONE if this passes. That's a competing system and won't be allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 11:03 PM

I don't agree with that at all. But even if it were gone, we would at least have some insurance, which we don't have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 11:53 PM

No, Medicare will be eliminated. No need for it anymore once Obamacare kicks in.

Insurance companies have become banks. This is just some more of the Bush/Obama giveaway to banks. But this is an especially big one. The healthcare industry in the U.S. accounts for about 1/6 of our economy, when it's all totaled up. And Obama wants to give that to the big insurance companies. That's more money than the entire GNP of the next largest financial power after the U.S. This is a continuance of the looting of the U.S. Treasury and the middle class in America. And you will end up having less coverage under this plan than you would under Medicaire. There is nothing good about this plan unless you work for an insurance company.

I need to do a search for "eugenics" and see if that's been addressed here. The stuff's called Deathcare for a reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:23 AM

What we have now is deathcare, ichMael. 45,000 people die each year because of lack of access to health care, and that number is going to drastically rise in the coming years if we don't get this bill passed, because more and more people are going to lose the coverage they have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Janie
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:44 AM

According to CNN, 3 Democratic House members from North Carolina have indicated they will vote a firm NO. Very concerning to me. The Representative from my District, David Price, will vote for the bill. I am wondering if there is any possible benefit to me contacting representatives outside of my district to urge them to vote For.

The bill is not good. But it inches us in the proper direction. As it is implemented, our citizenry will see that the sky is not falling. If it fails, it will be a huge step back.