You're not buying this "competition" horsesh!t are you?

[ImWithStupid]

Funny how, illegal patient dumping under Reagan, is responsible management to you if it's connected to the Obamas...

 

.

 

.

 

.

[ImWithStupid]

What do you think the plan that the Pres, Senators and Congressmen get?

 

Do you have any idea, what plan they get?

 

If you know that, why don't Dems support the Republican plan to require them to adopt the same plan that they want all of us to have?

 

The Repubs keep trying to get legislation passed that they would have to be on the same Government plan they want us to be on but the Dems keep shooting it down.

 

Why?

[ImWithStupid]

I told you, he CAN'T give that same plan to Americans... impossible. I think if he were more honest and realistic about what COULD be offered, he'd gain more ground. He's killing himself off with both Dems and Republicans.

 

I don't think he lied to anybody, he's just faced with the reality that it can't be done the way he thinks.

 

Honestly, I don't think having Republican votes are the issue. I think what it is, is he wants the Republicans to get off their ass and contribute into a plan rather then try to pass off some poorly designed plan like they did, or pout like they usually do. I'm thinking what he wants to do, is get Republicans on board not to get it passed, but to garner support for a proposal from the public.

 

What I fear, is if the Republicans DON'T get their ass on board, the plan will fail even if it is good because it will be rejected by the public.

 

Least that's what I think.

.

.

 

 

There you go again falling for the BS that if you aren't for the Dem plan you don't want any reform.

 

Another post from the stance of igonrance.

 

I challenge you to find anyone, Rep, Dem other that is against all health care reform.

 

If I win you have to get me one of everything on the Baby Huey's menu because I'm dying for some good BBQ.

 

Give me a prize if you win.

[phreakwars]

Because the Republican plan caters to the insurance companies and pharma, not to the Dr's and hospitals like he wants. He wants to let the Dr.'s make the call, not the insurance companies. The Republicans are basically saying there gonna give a tax CREDIT. OK, that would be fine if people actually used that credit for health care insurance, but they won't. Come on, person making say around 9, 10 bucks an hour getting a 5,000 deduction in their tax return ain't gonna use that to buy insurance. And because of them being a dead beat, we will still have to give them welfare care. Or, in another scenario, the Republicans talked about crediting this to the insurance companies. That's just another way of saying your gonna feed the insurance companies (All our Reps favorite sugar daddies) money. And we would, of course, still have to risk losing all we worked for because of Insurance company bureaucracy.Sorry, I can't go for a plan that benefits the lobbyists and big money. I want a plan that helps people.

.

.

[phreakwars]

Interesting:

 

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.) has introduced an amendment in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would replace the convoluted please-the-public-and-the-insurance-companies-at-the-same-time healthcare bill with the single-payer plan found in HR 676 and backed by 86 members of Congress. The vote has been delayed beyond Wednesday, support for the measure is growing, people are phoning in constantly, and a whip count is being kept online.

 

An amendment introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) was passed last week by the House Education and Labor Committee that will allow states to create single-payer systems if the federal government does not. So, if Weiner's amendment fails, we could still achieve single-payer state by state, and eventually nationally, if we are able to persuade congressional leadership not to strip Kucinich's amendment out behind the closed doors of a conference committee.

 

But it is entirely possible that Weiner's amendment will pass, and even if it does not pass the support it musters will nonetheless serve to improve the bill and maintain a useful public option. Weiner is a supporter of the existing bill and the public option, but clearly sees a value in pushing for something better both as a bargaining position and as an attempt to achieve a solution that we can be more confident would really solve our healthcare crisis. Weiner's column in the Politico today is worth reading in its entirety. After reading that, please come back here and

of Weiner addressing the concerns of Republicans in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

 

While Weiner doesn't say this, I will: Everybody now knows that Republicans will oppose any healthcare bill. Worsening a bill in order to win over a few of them provides not a single person with better healthcare. Republicans are not needed and have nothing to add. But of course to pass healthcare reform you do have to win over all of the Democrats. And are you more likely to do that with a bill that wastes public dollars on an inefficient for-profit system, or with a bill like HR 676 that guarantees significant savings? While HR 676 is an approach that forces congress members to go against the wishes of health insurance and drug companies, the mixed-bad approach allows legitimate criticism of wasting money, and the insurance and drug companies still hate it.

 

Whichever approach you favor, we're going to be better off with a significant show of support for single-payer. With it, a useful public option becomes a compromise. Without it, the compromise to win over the worst Democrats has to begin with the current bill and move down from there. So keep the phones ringing.

 

Americans consistently tell pollsters that they want single-payer. And this is true in Blue Dog districts and Republican districts too. Single-payer is not a tough sell with the public, only with certain Congress members.

 

Other nations that have public health coverage (government spending on private or public healthcare) provide their people with better care. The U.S. system is ranked 37th by the World Health Organization. The United States is 24th in life expectancy and 29th in reducing infant mortality. Infants who do not survive the U.S. system do not get a chance to enjoy the free market and glory in the absence of socialism.

 

A single-payer system would cover everyone at all times with no exceptions, allow completely free choice of doctors, invest in preventive care, allow patients and doctors to make their own decisions free of insurance company restrictions, reduce the 30 percent waste in the current system to the 3 percent overhead in Medicare, and create a net gain of 2.6 million jobs, $317 billion in business revenue, and $100 billion in wages. Single-payer is a real economic stimulus, something Washington has been looking for in all the wrong places. Imagine being able to make that argument. We can if we pass Congressman Weiner's amendment.

This I like too, let the states decide as well. If you have a huge support for it in one state, the voters can decide and the rest of the Public can watch them either succeed or fail. Red states sure wouldn't have to worry now, would they? Unless it became the will of the people. Actually, the more I think about it, I am STRONGLY in favor of this idea.

.

.

[phreakwars]

BTW, I merged the 2 health care topics into 1, for convenience.

.

.

[timesjoke]

So, your complaint is about 8% and it went higher? What was Reagan's numbers during the same alloted time in office .vs promises? It's a failure because it went past 8%. No chance of a comeback, is that what your saying? How long has the stimulus been out now? I see what it is, you people are so wrapped up in calling him Messiah, that you expect him to work miracles in only a couple months. Nice try, Cry to me in 2012 when he faces legitimate judgment, then we'll talk about the plus benefits of the Republican candidate.

.

.

 

No, my complaint is his fear tactics to get horrible legislation passed when he knew from the start there was no way to stop the decline in this way.

 

He lied on purpose to create enough fear and momenum to force passage of a bill we did not need and has done nothing to improve the economy....and never will help the economy.

 

 

His healthcare is the same thing, he is telling lies to get support of a plan that is nothing like his promises.

 

 

 

Obama, the bait and switch master.

 

 

 

 

 

And I see you still have not answered my questions Bender.

 

 

If they are all too hard for you how about just answering if you understand how any increased tax on business and their top guys is passed down to the consumers? How consumers, not the rich pay all taxes.

[RoyalOrleans]

BTW, I merged the 2 health care topics into 1, for convenience.

.

.

 

Now I'm totally fukken confused.

[timesjoke]

Now I'm totally fukken confused.

 

Interesting because that is the same way I feel after Obama explained his health system last night.....

[RoyalOrleans]

Interesting because that is the same way I feel after Obama explained his health system last night.....

 

The "errrrrrrrrrrrs" have it!

[RoyalOrleans]

I just love how the AP describes it: "President Barack Obama sought Wednesday to cast the intensifying health care debate in terms that matter to ordinary people, promising to offer more savings, security and treatment to millions." Oh there you go ... using the word "security." We'll give Obama credit for that. He knows that the word "security" is much more important to the majority of Americans than the word "freedom." That would be why Hillary's attempted takeover of health care in 1993 was called the "Health Security Act." Much of governance today revolves around finding the right trigger word that resonates with the government-educated dumb masses. Get the right trigger word; like "change" for instance, and you can sell horsesh!t in a bag to most people.

 

If you're a bit more advanced in your ability to engage in rational thought - a disappearing trait - you will understand that Obama really gives a flying dogfukk about the healthcare of "ordinary people." What Barack Obama wants to do is promise people "security" so that they will buy his takeover of almost 20% of our econmy and, thereby, become even more dependent on government. That's what this debate is about .. not about healthcare!

 

But back to the prepared remarks .. Obama wanted to remind Americans that "This debate is not a game." Pretty clever. He says, "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer .. They are looking to us for leadership. And we must not let them down." Looks like PrezBO is consulting his team of behavioral scientists again. Obama is trying to paint a picture that he and the Democrats are the only ones who are taking things seriously in Washington. His opponents aren't really serious, they're just playing games. They're just screwing with him because they lost, and the people need to realize this or our country is doomed. For months now Barack Obama has made a point of telling the government-educated dumb-masses that the fate of our economic future is tied to healthcare reform. Not a bad tactic, actually. He knows that not many people are really feeling the pain of a broken system of health care, but the pain of our economic downtown has been spread pretty widely. So .... It's simple! Tie his takeover of health care to the economy, and the people will get on board!

 

Barack Obama and the Democrats keep reminding us that the healthcare industry comprises about 16% to 18% of our economy. Question .. is this necessarily a bad thing? David Gratzer, a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says that regulation is in fact our biggest problem with healthcare. Here's a peak:

 

Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000.

 

The stark difference has nothing to do with each state's health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state's insurance pools are regulated.

 

In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin's insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.

 

The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention--not too little--is what's distorting prices from one market to the next.

 

So.... Just thinking out loud here ... but what if the people who live in New York were allowed to buy their health insurance from a company in Wisconsin? Do you think the competitive pressures from the Wisconsin insurers just might drive the cost of insurance in New York down? Now that's a free market solution .. and if there's anything missing from the Democrat side of this health care debate, it's free market solutions. By now you should know why. This isn't about delivering health care. This isn't about making health insurance more affordable. This is about making people dependent on government for their health care. You don't do that by making it easier for them to buy their health insurance in the free marketplace.

[timesjoke]

Exactly, Obama keeps trying to say this is urgent but his 'solutions' do not go into action until after he leaves office so how is that considered urgent?

 

It is power grabbing, nothing more.

[Ahhlee]

I just love how the AP describes it: "President Barack Obama sought Wednesday to cast the intensifying health care debate in terms that matter to ordinary people, promising to offer more savings, security and treatment to millions." Oh there you go ... using the word "security." We'll give Obama credit for that. He knows that the word "security" is much more important to the majority of Americans than the word "freedom." That would be why Hillary's attempted takeover of health care in 1993 was called the "Health Security Act." Much of governance today revolves around finding the right trigger word that resonates with the government-educated dumb masses. Get the right trigger word; like "change" for instance, and you can sell horsesh!t in a bag to most people.

 

If you're a bit more advanced in your ability to engage in rational thought - a disappearing trait - you will understand that Obama really gives a flying dogfukk about the healthcare of "ordinary people." What Barack Obama wants to do is promise people "security" so that they will buy his takeover of almost 20% of our econmy and, thereby, become even more dependent on government. That's what this debate is about .. not about healthcare!

 

But back to the prepared remarks .. Obama wanted to remind Americans that "This debate is not a game." Pretty clever. He says, "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer .. They are looking to us for leadership. And we must not let them down." Looks like PrezBO is consulting his team of behavioral scientists again. Obama is trying to paint a picture that he and the Democrats are the only ones who are taking things seriously in Washington. His opponents aren't really serious, they're just playing games. They're just screwing with him because they lost, and the people need to realize this or our country is doomed. For months now Barack Obama has made a point of telling the government-educated dumb-masses that the fate of our economic future is tied to healthcare reform. Not a bad tactic, actually. He knows that not many people are really feeling the pain of a broken system of health care, but the pain of our economic downtown has been spread pretty widely. So .... It's simple! Tie his takeover of health care to the economy, and the people will get on board!

 

Barack Obama and the Democrats keep reminding us that the healthcare industry comprises about 16% to 18% of our economy. Question .. is this necessarily a bad thing? David Gratzer, a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says that regulation is in fact our biggest problem with healthcare. Here's a peak:

 

 

 

So.... Just thinking out loud here ... but what if the people who live in New York were allowed to buy their health insurance from a company in Wisconsin? Do you think the competitive pressures from the Wisconsin insurers just might drive the cost of insurance in New York down? Now that's a free market solution .. and if there's anything missing from the Democrat side of this health care debate, it's free market solutions. By now you should know why. This isn't about delivering health care. This isn't about making health insurance more affordable. This is about making people dependent on government for their health care. You don't do that by making it easier for them to buy their health insurance in the free marketplace.

 

Very true, RO. I completely agree.

 

It's amazing how those simple trigger words can sway the average American....who isn't willing to take the time to look past the pretty, clever marketing and see what they're REALLY buying into.

[timesjoke]

Very true, RO. I completely agree.

 

It's amazing how those simple trigger words can sway the average American....who isn't willing to take the time to look past the pretty, clever marketing and see what they're REALLY buying into.

 

And the real sad part.........

 

Down the road they will cry and complain that nobody told them the truth when they could have dug deeper themselves to find their own truth.

[ImWithStupid]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs]YouTube - Krugman gets p3wned on Canadian Health Care[/ame]

 

 

He,he,he. :D:D