Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]


BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Richard Bridge 11 Aug 09 - 08:32 AM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Aug 09 - 07:30 AM
Richard Bridge 10 Aug 09 - 09:50 PM
bobad 10 Aug 09 - 09:05 PM
Maryrrf 10 Aug 09 - 08:52 PM
Bobert 10 Aug 09 - 08:49 PM
Greg F. 10 Aug 09 - 06:03 PM
Alice 10 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM
Riginslinger 10 Aug 09 - 12:30 PM
Alice 10 Aug 09 - 09:32 AM
Bobert 10 Aug 09 - 07:55 AM
McGrath of Harlow 10 Aug 09 - 06:29 AM
DougR 09 Aug 09 - 10:05 PM
curmudgeon 09 Aug 09 - 08:45 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 09 Aug 09 - 06:38 PM
Maryrrf 09 Aug 09 - 10:21 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Aug 09 - 07:52 AM
Charley Noble 08 Aug 09 - 11:21 PM
Peace 08 Aug 09 - 07:36 PM
Bobert 08 Aug 09 - 07:28 PM
dick greenhaus 08 Aug 09 - 06:33 PM
Half of No Worries 08 Aug 09 - 06:19 PM
Stringsinger 08 Aug 09 - 05:57 PM
Greg F. 07 Aug 09 - 09:23 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 09:22 PM
Don Firth 07 Aug 09 - 09:04 PM
Peace 07 Aug 09 - 08:04 PM
Bobert 07 Aug 09 - 08:03 PM
Don Firth 07 Aug 09 - 07:54 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 07:32 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Aug 09 - 07:32 PM
bobad 07 Aug 09 - 07:32 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 07 Aug 09 - 07:28 PM
Bobert 07 Aug 09 - 06:33 PM
pdq 07 Aug 09 - 06:27 PM
DougR 07 Aug 09 - 05:40 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Aug 09 - 05:10 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 05:02 PM
DougR 07 Aug 09 - 04:43 PM
DougR 07 Aug 09 - 04:37 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 04:37 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 04:36 PM
Amos 07 Aug 09 - 04:29 PM
pdq 07 Aug 09 - 04:17 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 03:59 PM
katlaughing 07 Aug 09 - 03:52 PM
CarolC 07 Aug 09 - 03:47 PM
Don Firth 07 Aug 09 - 03:00 PM
pdq 07 Aug 09 - 02:40 PM
pdq 07 Aug 09 - 02:29 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 08:32 AM

Educated?

FEWER!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 09 - 07:30 AM

"Small states tend to have less educated people who are more vulnerable to emotionalism at the expense of the truth."

I can think of many highly educated people who have a very dodgy relationship with "truth".

Not trusting the government is generally a very reasonable position. On the other hand trusting private financial institutions such as insurance companies and banks is not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 09:50 PM

Hey, Don, fine post above. Does this mean you will no longer be voting conservative?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 09:05 PM

NPR piece from today refuting the propaganda issuing from the right whingers re. Canada's health care system: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111721651


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 08:52 PM

Thanks for that link, Alice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 08:49 PM

Yeah, Alice, you have it "right" (pun intended)... Small states tend to have less eductated people who are more vulnerable to emotionalism at the expense of the truth... Ripe for a Sarah Plain to come in and say that the government will decide on when you should die but then say that we should be having a "civil disucussion"... Hmmmmmmmm??? How can one have a civil discussion with anyone who thinks that health care reform means that the governemnt is going to kill you???

The answer???

You can't... There is no arguning with a sick minded person and from what I've seen and read, there are one heck of alot of very sick minded people out there...

But let something happen to them and guess where they will run to??? Yeah, the government...

Man, I oughtta turn into a rightie... Doesn't involve any actualy, ahhhh, thinking.... Then I could free up my mind fir more imporatnt stuff like "Survivor" or "American Idol".....

Ignorance ***is*** bliss...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 06:03 PM

Don't confuse the idiots with FACTS, Alice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM

A link to the web site with video explanations the White House put online today:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/?e=10&ref=text

"HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM REALITY CHECK"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 12:30 PM

And Sarah Palin has recognized that it's evil!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 09:32 AM

Actually, Bobert, the states of Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota have very conservative voters, and those Democrats who get elected to the senate are pressured by the voters back home who listen to the Fox News propaganda.

Montana voters in the western part of the state tend to be more liberal, but Democrat Max Baucus, for instance, has a lot of medical lobby money fueling his re-election campaigns.

Many people here have a great mistrust of government (remember the Freeman movement?), are often motivated by anti-abortion rhetoric, but are not particularly well off financially. They are the very ones who need health care/insurance reform. This part of the country is fertile ground for the Sarah Palin mentality. Montana's median income ranks down at the bottom of the list with the southern states at number 42. North Dakota is at 38. (US census)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 07:55 AM

Very interesting reading in yesterday's Washington Post ("The Gang of D.C." by Alec Macgillis)...

Seems that these "blue dog democrats" who are standing in the way of the Dems passing a "public option" come from very sparsely populated states: Montana, Wyoming, North Dekota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa... These states represent only 3% of the total population of the United States, however, these Senators trump half the country's population's Senatorial clout... In other words, 3% = 50%???

(Huh, Boberdz???)

Yeah, that's right... The Founding Fathers really messed this up!!! They thought that Senate would be the *fine tuner* of legislation but the Senate has evolved into the place where the people's will goes to be crushed...

(But why would the "Gang of 6" be interested in crushing health reform???)

First of all, self preseravtion... You know, money... But not just the money that the health insurance companies and drug companies lavish upon these folks but the fact that these states, being less populated, don't have the problems that the more populated states have, such as higher unemployement and more poverty and/or borderline poverty...

So the problem isn't really Repub mischief... Oh sure, the Repub mischief makes it all that harder to get the "Gang of 6" to play nice with their fellow Dems... And face it, in small states Senators tend to have no trouble getting re-elected unless they are caught in a motel room doing what the preacher said not to do so these Senators are the ones with lots of seniority and clout so they become comittee chairmen (which they are) which gives them that much more clout...

Summation: Don't look for the "public option"... The "Gang of 6" will find a way to kill it...

Summation #2: Look for this idea of a "co-op" in which everyone will be be forced to buy insurance from a pool of private health insurers, kinda like "assigned risk" auto policies which are sold to auto owners in some states...

Summation #3: The "Gang of 6", the Rebubs and the insurance lobbiest have won again and when we re-visit this problem of why we pay 17% of our GNP for health care and don't rank in the top 20 in life expectancy or infant mortality in about 15 years, this round will be looked at much the way Clinton's attempts are looked at today...

Summation #4: Yeah, Obama will calim that the problem has been fixed to the best it can be considering the political will of Congress but, in the long run, it won't be fixed until our economy is absolutely on the rocks and on life support...

And the beat goes on...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 09 - 06:29 AM

The crucial thing isn't the extent to which things are "nationalized", but whether the arrangements are such that people are not denied treatment they need because they haven't the money, and nor are they unable to obtain insurance coverage because of "previous condition" or other reasons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 10:05 PM

Apologies to those of you who have addressed or made comments regarding my position, I have been traveling the past two days and haven't been able to reply.

Will do so tomorrow.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 08:45 PM

"We have been nought, but shall be all."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 06:38 PM

There IS not, and there has never been, a limit on how low the greedy and selfish Well-to-Do will sink in the process of protecting their money and status.

If all the "losers" get equal healthcare for free, how will the successful distance themselves from the human "dross" they consider to be so far beneath them?

The inevitable result of a culture which judges a human being by the number of zeros on his paycheck.

It's way past time that those "losers" got up on their hind legs and demanded some of that American Dream currently enjoyed by the Fat Cats who live off the losers' toil.


Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 10:21 AM

The depths to which those who oppose health care reform will sink seems to have no limits. They have turned a provision which provides funding for end of life counseling (explaining the options in terms of life sustaining measures, hospice care, etc.) into "pressuring senior citizens to end their lives" so they won't take up public resources. More info HERE . Sarah Palin fuels the fire by accusing Obama of wanting to set up a "Death Panel". Here's a link to the Huffington Post which includes some commentary.

The sad, sad part about it is that many of the people who believe this nonsense are the ones who would benefit from universal health care.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 09 - 07:52 AM

"But perhaps the most surprising thing about the whole debate is that the appetite for health reform remains extremely popular with most Americans, even as Obama's poll numbers sink and the fight with Republicans and the healthcare industry grows uglier and uglier. One recent poll showed that 62% of Americans favoured a public option and 61% supported higher taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for it."

From today's Observer. Obama fights back as bid to reform US healthcare stalls


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 11:21 PM

Hopefully the Republican scare tactics won't succeed this time around.

Doug, you said in your initial post you were satisfied with Medicare. Why would you have reservations about Medicare, a government run program, being extended to the entire population? I do wish Congress had the courage to do that.

Screw the insurance companies who have been ripping off the public for decades.

And while we're at at it, screw the HMO's who dictate what we can get reimbursed for under our private insurance plans.

Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 07:36 PM

Countries pay more for sickness than they do for health. Conntries will do better when their people are healthy. THAT ain't rocket surgery.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 07:28 PM

These people who are disrupting these town hall meetings are the same folks who flocked to Sarah Plain rallies... There are rednecks... They are birthers... They are racists... And equally bad, they don't know anything about what has been proposed...

Tell ya' what... Put some cops in those town hall meetings and announce that "this is a public event and civility will be maintained and those who do not wish to ac5t civilly will be removed" and then do it... Right now, alot of folks don't wnat to attend these meeting because they see on TV that the meetings aren't real but a venue for rednecks to show their asses... And show their asses they are doing...

Yeah, arrest a couple hundred and the rest will get it!!!

Heck, if leftists acted like that they would be arresyed... Ask me how I know... Been there, done that... Hey, the right doesn't understand that if you are going to do civil disobedience then yer gonna get arrested... I knew this in the 60s and I got arrested... Why is it that the right is allowed to conduct civil disobedience and get away with it???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 06:33 PM

Does anyone think that we're not already paying an egregious amount for healthcare? Makes no difference to me whether it's in taxes or fees, it's still a helluva lot of cash. And, if the insurance/medical/pharmicalogical monopolies aren't challenged, it's going to be a helluva lot worse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Half of No Worries
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 06:19 PM

The NHS is not perfect but I have spent my life knowing that we care for our sick no matter if they are rich or poor, UK citizens or visitors.
I would be more than willing for my taxes to be raised to see even more improvements in the NHS service to those in need.
If an ambulance arrives for me I NEVER have to consider the cost. I can visit my doctor without fear of the expense which must be good for preventative care. If made redundant I would never need to consider how I could continue a health care plan.
My son recently had several operations, the last costing the NHS £26,000 for the materials alone. It enabled him to walk again and resume working and paying his taxes. The nursing staff and doctors discussed the medical conditions and not our ability to pay. The sick and their families do not have the stress that must come from inadequate or no health cover.
If we had had private health cover, my son may have had a room to himself but instead he shared with 5 others who spurred each other on to recovery. One of the group had chosen to switch back to NHS to make good the damage done to his leg in private treatment. He was more than happy with his conditions and care.
When visiting Australia we took out private health cover but when an arm was broken we had excellent free treatment thanks to Medicare as we were advised that waiting for a private consultant would have caused a delay.

As I see it Health cover for all is a matter of humanity for our fellow human beings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Aug 09 - 05:57 PM

Doug, the outbursts that you cite are organized by insurance companies and ancillary
political supporters. They are not really grass roots by any means. This is a Republican
tactic that was taken from the protests during Vietnam although the proponents of
the Vietnam war were not shouted down so that they couldn't be heard. They were promptly arrested as these current protesters should be.

This is no longer a free country. Free speech is being stifled by a handful of bullying
tactics by Republican operatives. There is no debate on health care but partisan
jockeying through yelling and it can lead to violence.

This is not the America that I believe in. This is the absence of free speech (more like
crying fire in a crowded theater).

Frank Hamilton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 09:23 PM

he's a druggie, Don- christ only knows what he's seeing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 09:22 PM

Limbaugh just wants Obama to fail and he doesn't give a crap how may people would die as a result.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 09:04 PM

Re:    bodad's fascinating post above. . . .

Rush Limbaugh. What a pathetic, ignorant dork!

Has the man never seen a caduceus before? It's the symbol of the medical profession. It's also the symbol of the United States Army Medical Corps.

I don't see any German swastikas there. What the hell is HE seeing!???

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 08:04 PM

"And according to www.politifact.com, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, most of the claims made in the e-mail are false."

FYI


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 08:03 PM

Jus can't pass up 500..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 07:54 PM

I read the Newsweek article, Doug. I'm afraid your citing of that to prove your "fiasco" assessment of the "Cash for Clunkers" program is a bit disingenuous. I never said that it would solve all the country's economic woes, nor has anybody else. But—the program is helping. Granted, not much, but as they say "a nickel here and a dime there tends to add up." No single program instituted by FDR during the Depression did that either. But a combination of programs did. It's called "synergy."

Daniel Stone's article (I presume that's the one you're citing) begins, "The popularity of Cash for Clunkers is, by now, undeniable." And then he starts trying to pick it apart. "Negligible" is a word he uses a lot. But that is opinion, Doug. An opinion not shared by the auto companies, the dealerships, and all the employees who will not be laid off and add their numbers to the unemployment roles. And that can't help but help the economy. And the environment. Not much by itself, but at least it's better than doing nothing but whining.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 07:32 PM

I see the poster who has said Krauthammer's proposal will fix the problems of people not being able to get insured because of pre-existing conditions and the problem of insurance companies denying needed care in order to increase profits, can't provide the parts of the proposal that are supposed to address those problems. I'm not surprised because they're simply not there.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that it's not just an "I've got mine and to hell with everyone else" attitude of such people, but that it's also a deep seated need to see Obama fail, and they just couldn't give a crap how many people have to die as a result.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 07:32 PM

Before I receive the usual screams of outrage, let me emphasise that it is Doug's attitude, and NOT Doug himself, to which I am objecting.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 07:32 PM

This is the kind of stuff people who want more equitable health care in the US are up against:

Rush Limbaugh "Obama Health Care Logo Is Damn Close To A Nazi Swastika Logo"

You have my sympathies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 07:28 PM

""I never said that the government should not force private companies to accept people with preexisting conditions or prevent enrollees from being dropped because they become sick after enrolling.""

This is without doubt one of the most disingenuous responses I have ever received.

When, Doug, did you EVER hear of a government, ANY government, forcing a large corporate entity to do ANYTHING?

You have YOUR healthcare covered, so why would you want to contribute one bent penny to the care of those less fortunate?

It is sad to see a whole nation so lost to compassion as to refuse to countenance supplying lifesaving care to those less fortunate.

Gandhi was right when, in response to the question "What do you think of American civilisation"?, he replied "I think it would be a very good idea".

It is the attitude of yourself, and people like you who elicited that response, and it IS a justifiable response.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 06:33 PM

52/45 in these times is a friggin' landslide...

As for co-ops... I'd like to see how they would be structured... If they are like "assigned risk" pools where people are dumped into the for-mega-profit private insurance muti-billion dollar scam, I'd have to take a pass... Unless, of course, the government can regulate the heck out of such a co-op... Like it's operating costs and profits...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 06:27 PM

...just for the record:


Barack H. Obama:         69,498,952         votes or          52.87%        
John S. McCain:            59,949,402         votes or            45.60%

That is victory margin of 7.27%.

That means if 3.635% had change sides, we would have had a tie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 05:40 PM

McGrath: I'm sure Obama and members of his campaign staff would agree with you. However, campaigning is quite different from governing. Politicians make promises during a campaign that even the candidate knows will not become law. Sometime it does, often it does not. True, a president who wins an election by as large a margin as Obama did, plus gaining large majorities in the House and Senate should assure that the winner gets most of the legislation he wants, but it does not always work out that way. Immediately after the election, Obama had very high personal approval ratings. As he began to govern, approval ratings began to slowly start dropping, but over the past few weeks they have dropped a bit faster. Why? In my opinion it is because the DETAILS of the health care plan Obama promised during the campaign became more understood by the electorate and, so far, the majority of voters don't like what they hear. A large percentage of voters, who before, and during the campaign found great fault with their health care plan and though an overhaul of the system would be desirable. After hearing the details of Obama's plan, they are beginning to believe that their current plan is not so bad after all.

It is possible that Obama and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate might push through winning legislation without Republican help. There is even a legislative procedure that they could use (and might do so) but that's a bit risky. All members of the House of Representatives face re-election in 2010, and some Senators do. They are reluctant to pass a Bill that could cost them their seat in 2010 or 2012.

That's my thinking anyway.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 05:10 PM

Why are current public opinion polls etc that relevant anyway? You've just had a general election in which an overwhelming majority was given to the side that promised to bring in a scheme providsing universal health coverage. That means the current administration has a mandate to push ahead with that.   

Fluctuations in public opinion are interesyting as indications of what might possibly happen next time there is an election, but that's all. The promise made to the electors on which they voted in November still stands as an obligation upon the administration.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 05:02 PM

I would probably settle for a bill that contained a strong co-op option, if there were provisions that would strengthen the co-ops so they couldn't be demolished by the for profit insurance industry as co-ops in the past have been.

Please show me which parts of Krauthammer's proposal addresses the problem of people not being able to get coverage because of pre-existing conditions (and also people who are able to buy insurance, but whose pre-existing conditions are not covered), and please show me the part that addresses the problem of insurance companies withholding needed care from those they insure in order to increase their profits.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:43 PM

Oh, and kat, there were outbursts at similar meetings relating to the War in Iraq during the Bush administration. I never heard complaints from liberals who viewed such "outbursts" as acts of patriotism not disruption.

I don't approve of rude outbursts at meetings about either subject just as I do not approve of rude posts on the Mudcat, but, we still have freedom of speech in the U.S., right?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:37 PM

Don T: I never said that the government should not force private companies to accept people with preexisting conditions or prevent enrollees from being dropped because they become sick after enrolling. That could be done through legislation by preventing private companies that participate in Medicare and Medicaid from doing so. There may be other inequities that could be handled the same way.

In regard to Cash for Clunkers, I suggest you Google, "The effect of Clunkers on the Environment", an article printed in Newsweek magazine, hardly a paragon of conservative thought.

Carol C: I guess we both read the same column and arrived at different conclusions.

Our discussion re Single Payer: So I'll rephrase my question. Would you, Carol, be satisfied with a health care plan proposed by the Democrats that did NOT have a Public Option?

On statistics: Did you read PDQ's post today at 02:40 PM?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:37 PM

And doctors also support it, as does the AMA and the major nurses associations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:36 PM

The text of the bill that is being considered at this time contains elements that were not presented to or considered by the CBO when it made its report.

It's true that some members of Congress aren't listening to their constituents. Those are the ones, like the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats, who are working on behalf of the Insurance industry, and are ignoring the wishes of the majority of people.

And it's absolutely true that many small businesses want Obama's health care proposals to succeed. They are being crippled by the costs of providing their workers with health care and for those who can't afford to, they are not able to compete with companies that can afford to. JtS and I are small business owners, and we are definitely in favor of Obama's proposals, because as small business owners, we don't have acceess to health care ourselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:29 PM

"As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy.

There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won't be able to piggy-back on Medicare. So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business -- the Republican nightmare scenario -- is approximately zero.

By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.

First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.

Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.

The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy.

While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control." (Washington Post)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 04:17 PM

The text of the bill is the only thing that matters. Period!

What people think is in the bill doesn't change anything. What people want in the bill doesn't seem to matter either. "The People" aren't writing the bill, lawyers and political activists are writing it.

Small business owners and doctors do not support what they have heard so far. They are not even part of the decision making process.

If the bill is so good, why won't Obama & Co. explain things better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 03:59 PM

Gallup: Majority in U.S. Favors Healthcare Reform This Year

Harris: Majority of Americans want a public option

Majority of small businesses in New Hampshire want health care reform (this is a sentiment that is shared by small businesses all over the country).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 03:52 PM

It's getting ugly out there:

    * Last night in Tampa, Florida, a town hall meeting erupted into violence, with the police being called to break up fist fights and shoving matches.
    * A Texas Democrat was shouted down by right-wing hecklers, many of whom admitted they didn't even live in his district.
    * One North Carolina representative announced he wouldn't be holding any town-hall meetings after his office began receiving death threats.
    * And in Maryland, protesters hung a Democratic congressman in effigy to oppose health-care reform.


Sources:

1. "Tampa Town Hall On Health Care Reform Disrupted By Violence," The Huffington Post, August 6, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51727&id=16748-8293565-KhFG0nx&t=3

2. "Local Fox Reporter Attends Town Hall And Finds 'Some Attendees Admit They Don't Live In The District,'" Think Progress, August 4, 2009
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/04/gene-green-townhall/

3. "Dem Congressman's Office: His Life Has Been Threatened Over Health Care Bill," Talking Points Memo, August 5, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51724&id=16748-8293565-KhFG0nx&t=4

4. "The Danger Over the Right's Anger," Politico, August 3, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51726&id=16748-8293565-KhFG0nx&t=5


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 03:47 PM

I didn't say there is not plan yet. I said that the version of the bill that was sent to the CBO was not complete. Those are two entirely different things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 03:00 PM

"Don Firth: Mudcatters, at times, confuse 'evidence' with opinion."

True indeed, Doug. Your referring to the "Cash for Clunkers" program as a "fiasco," for example, was pure off-the-top-of-a-conservative-head opinion with no basis in fact. The program has been spectacular success, and that's not an opinion. Individual buyers are getting a good deal all the way around, the environment will benefit, it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the automobile companies are getting a much needed stimulus, and the dealerships in particular (many of which were in danger of having to close and lay off their employees) are being saved from extinction. And the program is not costing the taxpayers that much, especially when you consider that the auto companies, the dealerships, and their employees will now be able to continue paying their taxes! And today's news said that the program has proven so successful that it's going to be re-upped. Now, I'd say that's hardly a "fiasco."

I might point out (fasten your seat belt, you might find this ride a bit bumpy!) that the idea 0f putting the money in the hands of people who will spend it right away, as opposed to giving it to company heads who merely squirrel it away and/or give themselves salary raises and bonuses, was one of the fundamental principles of FDR in an effort to help people directly, while at the same time, stimulating the economy during the Great Depression, when he created agencies that would hire people for specific projects and directly pay them a salary—which they would spend right away because prior to the program, they were jobless and often homeless and hungry:   I'm sure you're familiar with the WPA (building roads, bridges, infrastructure in general that we still use today) and the CCC (cleaning up the environment and tidying up parks and recreation areas, which we are still enjoying today). It helped millions of people, needy through no fault of their own, and it went a very long way toward bringing the Depression to an end.

Given the right leadership, the government can do a pretty good job.

Conservatives don't like to acknowledge that. But it isn't opinion, it's history.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, I also heard on this morning's news that half of all personal bankruptcies in the United States are related to expenses engendered by health care problems.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:40 PM

"American voters, by a 55 - 35 percent margin, are more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than it will not act to overhaul the health care system, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. By a similar 57 - 37 percent margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds "significantly" to the deficit.

By a 72 - 21 percent margin, voters do not believe that President Barack Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health care system without adding to the deficit, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll finds.

American voters disapprove 52 - 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 - 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 - 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 - 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it. …

Only 21 percent of voters say the plan will improve the quality of care they receive, while 36 percent say it will hurt their quality of care and 39 percent say it will make no difference.

The big number here is the independents.  Democrats got elected by splitting independents away from the GOP, especially in the 2008 presidential election and the 2006 midterms.  Despite their insistence that opposition to ObamaCare has been cooked up in RNC laboratories and transmitted through people wearing Brooks Brothers suits, the 26-point gap with independents shows that Democrats are alienating the very constituency that keeps them in power.

Voters in the Quinnipiac poll support elements of ObamaCare, but not the cost.  For instance, they support mandates on businesses to supply insurance by a 54%-38% margin, and respondents also like the idea of a public plan by almost a 2-1 margin.  They strongly oppose individual mandates to carry health insurance, 68%-26%, a key part of ObamaCare that achieves universal coverage by making it illegal to be without insurance of some kind.

Obama has more demographic problems than just independents.  Women now oppose Obama on health care issues, 49%-41%, a 17-point swing since July 1st.  Young voters, in this poll defined as 18-34 year olds, oppose Obama on health care 48%-44%, a 23-point swing from their 54%-35% support a month earlier.  Low income voters swung 12 points and now oppose Obama on this issue 47%-43%.  When populism starts failing among the young and the relatively poor, who will buy it at all?"


{I wonder if Obama will order the American people to stop reading the Quinnipiac Poll. Perhaps order the Fairness Doctrine involked so a poll he likes better can have equal time.}


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 07 Aug 09 - 02:29 PM

"... I would be very happy with the plan that Obama is proposing" ~ CarolC

You and artbrooks have both said that there is no health care plan yet. That is why the finantial impact cannot be evaluated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 21 October 6:07 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.