Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): My information is current as of June 2009, those are the correct numbers, except Canada has only 31M people.

From Statistics Canada:

Estimated Canadian population As of July 2009: 33,740,287. Wow, we picked up nearly 3 million people in ONE month.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/clock-horloge/edu06f_0001-eng.htm

I know, I know -- just more mumbo-jumbo from a biased liberal source.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): The US GDP is many times the size of the Canadian GDP, so on that comparison, Americans actually spend LESS than Canadians do.

Be honest now, you flunked math in high school, didn't you.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): Your comparison IS NOT based on US dollars, it is a US and Canadian dollar comparison. You need to add 18% to the Canadian dollar to get an equil comparison.

Checked foreign exchange rates lately? You might get a shock. But the point is irrelevant anyway since as FlyPNS1 pointed out the numbers were all stated in US dollars.

I'll give you credit for one thing -- in the face of incontrovertible evidence, you sure don't give up.

Quoting DXing (Reply 296): Quoting Ken777 (Reply 186): Give it time. The legislation changed again this week and will continue to change. The best thing Republicans could do was be apart of the process instead of bitching about it. As a matter of fact it has, and it has moved towards what the GOP has stated was necessary all along. They are even calling it by the right name now, Health Insurance Reform, which is what the debate should have been about all along. Now maybe instead of ripping apart a system that works well for the overwhelming majority we can concentrate efforts on the minority that has the problem.

How much union support (which already has health insurance, many are "gold plated plans" like the UAW has) will BHO get once they find out they will eventually loose their plans for the "government single payer option"?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 297): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): those are the correct numbers, except Canada has only 31M people. You might want to tell the Canadians that. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/clock-h...g.htm

Quoting Arrow (Reply 300): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): My information is current as of June 2009, those are the correct numbers, except Canada has only 31M people. From Statistics Canada: Estimated Canadian population As of July 2009: 33,740,287. Wow, we picked up nearly 3 million people in ONE month. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/clock-horloge/edu06f_0001-eng.htm I know, I know -- just more mumbo-jumbo from a biased liberal source.

Did either of you actually read that link? it clearly says ESTIMATE. It says "Estimated Canadian population". It also says "The clock evolves according to the demographic growth rate estimated for the year ending on June 30th, 2008 and adjusted to take into account the fact that 2007-2008 was a leap year. By applying this rate (1.163%) to the estimated Canadian population as of July 1st, 2008 and keeping it constant throughout the year, Canada's population is growing by one person every minute and 21 seconds.

This growth is broken down into:

%u2022One birth every 1 minute and 27 seconds
%u2022One death every 2 minutes and 13 seconds
%u2022A net migration gain of one person every 2 minutes and 1 second
At this rate, the population of Canada will reach 34,086,245 by July 1st, 2010."

That same web site ESTIMATES the US population at 307M, and the entire world population at almost 6.8B, even though many 3rd world countries have now real idea of their own population.

When you balance your checkbook, do you use an ESTIMATE based on a predetermined speed of a running computer clock?

I don't. Then again, I have never bounced a check either. No, I have no idea if you have or not.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 297): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): I know you are. we have told you, and you still can't find it. No one will find it, because its a lie. Just the usual scaremongering designed to stop any progress.

Oh really, have you looked at Fact Check, wich is a DNC web site? Look at this on Obama's claims on the costs of this proposal.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-health-care-news-conference/

Then there is this double talk from the WH.

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/...health-care-reform-misrepresented/

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 297): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): Bush was the biggest supporter of the troops in the last 20 years, Go ahead ask the troops. And you've done an extensive poll of the military to come to this conclusion. I think not. Just more made up stuff.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 297): Here's one poll that seems to think otherwise. Granted, it's from December 2007, but I doubt his approval increased much thereafter. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bu....html

Unlike you, I sepent 22 years in the military, and still have lots of friends in the military and retired military. So yes, I have first hand knowledge of what the troops actually think, not some twisted liberal based story from the news media.

Quoting DXing (Reply 298): Quoting Max550 (Reply 292): Seriously though, if you want Obama to fail more than anything else, what better way to guarantee failure than allowing him to put a plan in place that kills peoples grandparents? If that's the way the plan works (and I've been assured that it does by Republicans) I think it's pretty safe to say Obama will fail. Therin lies the rub. The plan won't take full effect until his second term or after he is out of office. Can't fail once you've retired.

Correct, all of this won't take place until 2013. That is why the Dems are saying there is "almost no costs for the first 3-4 years.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 300): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): The US GDP is many times the size of the Canadian GDP, so on that comparison, Americans actually spend LESS than Canadians do. Be honest now, you flunked math in high school, didn't you.

Unlike you, my friend, I am not a "financial journalist", what ever that is in the liberal media. I actually passed math, and I am very good at it. In fact, each year, I run a small income tax filing service, and get more work than I can handle.

So, when you compare the size of a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier to 3,000 ton corvette (the warship, not the car) and compare the amount of energy each uses in relationship to total size, your 3000 ton ship actually uses more resourses than my 100,000 ton ship. Economics works in the same linier way.

BTW, I do not keep up with the daily exchange rates between the Canadian dollar and the US dollar. the fluxuation is to large over a period of a year. BTW, todays exchange rate is $1 US equils $1.0824 Canadian. But, if you want to keep track each day, go here.

http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html

There is also a historical exchange rate. For example on 03/09/09 the $1 US dollar equiled $1.30561 Canadian. So the exchange rate I used of $1 US equiles $1.30 canadian is correct.

http://www.x-rates.com/d/CAD/USD/graph120.html

The lowest exchange rate was on 08/o3/09, just last week.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): Quoting Max550 (Reply 292): Republicans used the filibuster all the time too. When?

From '06-'08. They didn't actually use it that much because they could just threaten to use it and the Democrats would get scared and give in.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): A filabuster is based on the number of Senators present, not the whole 100 all the time. If they Repubs had convinced the 8 Repubs who vopted for her, they could have filabustered her.

But they didn't, so they weren't able to filibuster. Nothing was stopping them if they wanted to, although it wouldn't have mattered, the Dems would just have to bring Kennedy back.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): One BIG problem with the Congressional proposals for health care is it is based on Canada's and the UK's systems. None of it looks at Oregon or Massachusetts plans, which, although have some problems, have a limited scope. Oregon, for example spends about 23% of its entire budget on "human services", of all types. Massachusetts is higher, but not by very much.

How is it based on the Canada and UK plans? Canada doesn't even have one plan, they have a requirement to provide health care and each province is responsible for it. The UK is nothing like this plan either. They have a single payer system where the doctors work for the gov't. Have you read the plan we're talking about?
The OR and MA plans are more similar to the current proposal, since you aren't affected if you already have insurance.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): They can't and it will

Then you have nothing to worry about. The private companies will compete with the public option, nobody will choose the public option, and it will fail.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): Who do you think will pay all the preimums of those at or below 4 X the povety level. Yes, everyone making $82,500 per year, or less will have their preimums paid for entirely, or substidised by the government. Read the House bill, its in there. Who do you think will pay those preimums and substadies? Every tax payer making $82,501 or more per year.

But the subsidies go to the person buying health care. We're talking about two different things. As long as the public option is not subsidized and it has to get its money the same way the private plans do I have no problem with it.

Quoting DXing (Reply 298): If that were the case then Medicare and Medicaid would have been closed down or overhauled long ago, neither has happened. More money just gets tossed down the hole.

Medicare and Medicaid do what they're intended to do. Why did the Republicans vote against an amendment to eliminate Medicare? Is it because their constituents would eliminate them if they tried?

Quoting DXing (Reply 298): They've already discussed taxing the rich as well as taxing sodas and all sorts of other "unhealthy" foods.

Again, that would help to subsidize premiums. If it is to subsidize the public option, then yes, I'm against it.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Medicare and Medicaid do what they're intended to do.

Sure, at a continually rising cost every year that can't be touched unless the law that put them into being is changed.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Why did the Republicans vote against an amendment to eliminate Medicare? Is it because their constituents would eliminate them if they tried?

Because Medicare per se, is not the problem. It is how it is funded that is.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Again, that would help to subsidize premiums.

????? Whose premium? I'm not selling soda's or fries.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): If it is to subsidize the public option, then yes, I'm against it.

Then you are against it since that's what the aim of the tax is.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): reduced taxes, twice, signed by Bush,

On the wealthy during war time. He was funding a war, but taxes were lowered, mainly on the rich. Hence the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit and the largest spending orgy ever in the history of this nation. But, reducing taxes twice, without all that other information, sounds just great.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): perscription drug benefits, signed by Bush.

That actually made prescriptions more expensive for the consumer and gives more profits to the pharmasudical companies. That was a great idea...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): Dems used the filabuster in the Senate all the time.

And then are threatened to be shut out of any debate with the "nuclear option" if they do not stop their filibuster. What kind of democracy is this we are trying to spread? Free Speech Zones? No debate from the center or left?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): Look how many federal judges they blocked

Ah, yes. Because the right never has any activist judges making laws from the bench. Only the left. Uh-huh...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): Quoting Max550 (Reply 283): I think people are missing the point here, the problem isn't just the issue of the uninsured, it's the inflation rate of health care costs. Which is caused by the government.....

How can private companies profits be caused by the government? Explain, please. Let's say publicly traded Daylight Insurance Group charges $1000 a month for a family of four with a $200 deductable. Both figures go up every year by $100 no matter what, but the family of four does not know that until their bill comes. (I am just throwing out numbers, not using any real figures at all). They are traded on NYSE and they have a CEO, CFO and board of directors. How is what they charge caused by the government?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 299): If it's something else then it's something else. Insurance may actually make sense depending what it is.

Until the insurance company decides the person with sniffles that turns into something else, like lukemia, is costing them too much and eating into their profits.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301): That is why the Dems are saying there is "almost no costs for the first 3-4 years.

Which 3-4 years? The actual 3-4 years the plan is in place or the 3-4 years before it starts? Oh, wait.... let me guess.... Just like the plan forces everyone over 65 to be put to death? I still am waiting to read the actual words where this would happen.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): Until the insurance company decides the person with sniffles that turns into something else, like lukemia, is costing them too much and eating into their profits.

People get cancer treatment under insurance all the time.

Oh and guess what, the greedy socialists in Europe also drop cancer patients that get too expensive. In fact, some places will even deny you certain medicines TO ANYONE whether you are a too expensive cancer patient or not!

And never mind the stats about cancer survival rates in the US versus other places. And that's with the current system that needs lot's of fixing anyways.

[Edited 2009-08-09 10:48:22]

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): Which 3-4 years? The actual 3-4 years the plan is in place or the 3-4 years before it starts? Oh, wait.... let me guess.... Just like the plan forces everyone over 65 to be put to death? I still am waiting to read the actual words where this would happen.

So am I, so is every other American. All we have is what the House has released since the Senate version has not passed out of the finance committee. Yet democratic lawmakers continually reference the "facts". What "facts"? All they have is a rough draft outline which is still being amended and has yet to be passed in either chamber much less make it to conference. Now is the time to make their voices known in what they do or don't want the bill to look like or contain.

Instead, lawmakers, who are public servants whether they like to think of themselves as that or not, are telling their constituents to shut up or going underground and holding telephone conferences where they, just like Rush, Sean, and the rest of the talk radio entertainers they so dispise and reveil, can control the discourse. Someone asks a question they don't want to hear? They can just drop them from the teleconference and then pound on that person for a few minutes with rhetoric. I find it amazing, and slightly humorous, that they have no problem with Code Pink or Acorns tactics of rabble rousing and shouting down opposing political views, yet take such offense when it is done to them.

So I agree with you, lets see some "facts" from our lawmakers. Let's see a bill in its finalized form, and then debate the merits of it. And I do mean debate, not rush through both Houses in the dark of night with little or no debate. Since this will be a permanent forever program I don't see any reason not to take at least a month, maybe two so that everyone interested has time to read and understand the bill in its entirerity, and cannot claim later that "they didn't know". However, at this point the drafts they have put out are full of things that they themselves gloss over. The President says if you like your health care you'll get to keep it. The House bill out on the internet says something completely different. That's just one discrepancy. I want to see him square his statement with what is on page 16 of the House ways and means bill. He can start by explaining those "facts" versus what he is saying on the stump.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): Quoting Max550 (Reply 292): Republicans used the filibuster all the time too. When? From '06-'08. They didn't actually use it that much because they could just threaten to use it and the Democrats would get scared and give in.

Correct, the Repubs didn't use the filabuster, as you calimed they did. They could get their way simply by a threat of useing it, and the Dems caved.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): One BIG problem with the Congressional proposals for health care is it is based on Canada's and the UK's systems. None of it looks at Oregon or Massachusetts plans, which, although have some problems, have a limited scope. Oregon, for example spends about 23% of its entire budget on "human services", of all types. Massachusetts is higher, but not by very much. How is it based on the Canada and UK plans?

Currently, both MA and OR plans are way into the red. Both states are talking about cuts into their health care plans. The US proposals copy the UK and Canadian plans. Perhaps you won';t be able to connect the dots in this CNN report, but it is there, in nyour own liberal news media.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news.../health_care_reform_obama.fortune/

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): The OR and MA plans are more similar to the current proposal, since you aren't affected if you already have insurance.

No, they are not. Only one proposal is similar to the Massachusetts Plan, that is the one submitted by Senator Kennedy (who still hasn't returned to the Senate), He just sent in the Massachusetts Plan.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): They can't and it will Then you have nothing to worry about. The private companies will compete with the public option

The private insurance companies will be TOLD what they must offer, and at what price. The price will be set so low the insurance companies cannot make money. That will leave only the "public plan", after the insurance companies pull out.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 295): Who do you think will pay all the preimums of those at or below 4 X the povety level. Yes, everyone making $82,500 per year, or less will have their preimums paid for entirely, or substidised by the government. Read the House bill, its in there. Who do you think will pay those preimums and substadies? Every tax payer making $82,501 or more per year. But the subsidies go to the person buying health care. We're talking about two different things. As long as the public option is not subsidized and it has to get its money the same way the private plans do I have no problem with it.

Anyone who makes more than $25K (single), or $35K (family) can afford health insurance now. But they CHOOSE to buy their new cars instead, hoping I will pick up their insurance through my taxes. NO, that ain't going to happen. They can drive a Yugo, and have insurance.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 302): Quoting DXing (Reply 298): If that were the case then Medicare and Medicaid would have been closed down or overhauled long ago, neither has happened. More money just gets tossed down the hole. Medicare and Medicaid do what they're intended to do. Why did the Republicans vote against an amendment to eliminate Medicare? Is it because their constituents would eliminate them if they tried?

No, they want to change the way it is funded, nice try.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): reduced taxes, twice, signed by Bush, On the wealthy during war time. He was funding a war, but taxes were lowered, mainly on the rich. Hence the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit and the largest spending orgy ever in the history of this nation.

He reduced your taxes, too. That is unless you have an income low enough to not pay taxes, in that case he increased you EIC. He also increased deductions for your kids from $450 to $1000 per year. Don't give me that he reduced taxes on the rich crap. The rich in the US own companies, that give you jobs. The less they pay in taxes, the more people go to work.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): Quoting Max550 (Reply 283): I think people are missing the point here, the problem isn't just the issue of the uninsured, it's the inflation rate of health care costs. Which is caused by the government..... How can private companies profits be caused by the government?

That isn't a real question from you, is it? The government increases inflation on the entire economy by every dollar they take, either through taxes, fees, or loans. That keeps that same dollar out of your, my, or Ford Motor Companies hands. Money is finite, meaning there is an end to it. So the government, to push that end down the street further, they print more. The printing presses in Fort Worth are running 24/7 now.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301): That is why the Dems are saying there is "almost no costs for the first 3-4 years. Which 3-4 years? The actual 3-4 years the plan is in place or the 3-4 years before it starts?

You cannot possibly be that stupid. ONE MORE TIME, READ THE BILL

Right now, it is 2013, but in reality (I know, a concept you and your liberal friends don't understand) it is four years after the bill is signed into law. Which won't be happening anytime soon.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 305): Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): Until the insurance company decides the person with sniffles that turns into something else, like lukemia, is costing them too much and eating into their profits. People get cancer treatment under insurance all the time.

Correct, I am living evidence to that. Thank you Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 305): Oh and guess what, the greedy socialists in Europe also drop cancer patients that get too expensive. In fact, some places will even deny you certain medicines TO ANYONE whether you are a too expensive cancer patient or not! And never mind the stats about cancer survival rates in the US versus other places. And that's with the current system that needs lot's of fixing anyways.

Correct.

More info for your reading pleasure.

From the CATO Institute;

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5871

What happened to the "big health care rally on 7/30/09 in Washington"?

http://www.democrats.com/node/19877

Maybe everyone was to busy?

Maybe the news media couldn't find enough reporters to cover it?

Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) delivered this excellent synopsis of the situation without fluff or lobbyist banter back in March.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22252WuZdDU

His point about eliminating competing interests in the market should not be lost on anyone seeking to understand the issue behind the epic failure of American healthcare in recent years.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307): The less they pay in taxes, the more people go to work.

Which is exactly why unemployment in this country is so low, right?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307): He reduced your taxes, too.

To pay for his war? How is that helping? Now, all of his debt he borrowed from China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia has caught up with us and everyone on the right is screaming that "Obama did this to us!" but conveniently forgetting the spend, spend, spend tactics of the Republicans.

Quoting DXing (Reply 306): they have no problem with Code Pink or Acorns tactics of rabble rousing and shouting down opposing political views, yet take such offense when it is done to them.

It is funny how not allowing anyone else a chance to speak their mind is democracy, yet actually allowing differing views from center or left if un-American and needs to be drown out by shouts and profanity.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307): They could get their way simply by a threat of useing it, and the Dems caved.

Right, They thretened to shut down anyone else's opinion. Only the GOP was allowed to give their opinion. If anyone else tried to give their opinion, that was threatened to be blocked. How is that democratic? How is it democratic to tell them "vote our way or you will never see the light of day?" That is democracy?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307): The private insurance companies will be TOLD what they must offer, and at what price. The price will be set so low the insurance companies cannot make money. That will leave only the "public plan", after the insurance companies pull out.

Oh, boo hoo. The poor insurance companies. They have been living on a shoe string for the past decades, anyway, and have no way of making any money at all. Boo-hoo. Give me a break. Just like the oil companies. Why don't the Republicans just change their name to Corporation Backers or something? I can not think of anything witty, but all the GOP seems to support anymore is corporations. Just look who backs the teabaggers. Corporations and CEOs.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): but all the GOP seems to support anymore is corporations.

You'd be wise to back corporations as well, or at least hope for their success, as they provide the majority of jobs and investment capital in our country.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): It is funny how not allowing anyone else a chance to speak their mind is democracy, yet actually allowing differing views from center or left if un-American and needs to be drown out by shouts and profanity.

How you can possibly say that with a straight face given all that happened in the previous years, going all the way back the 60's is beyond me. The left in this country specialized in ambush attacks and shout downs of politicians on the right. They are the undisputed masters at drowning out anyone who doesn't agree with them as well as blocking access and attempting to mob control situations they don't agree with.

The left is not interested in fixing health care, their sole interest is concentrating as much power as possible in Washington D.C. and make as many of this countries citizens as dependent as possible on that government.

Quoting DXing (Reply 312): The left is not interested in fixing health care...

Do you really think anyone is interested in fixing heath care at all? I don't think anyone is except for the average U.S. citizen.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): On the wealthy during war time. He was funding a war, but taxes were lowered, mainly on the rich. Hence the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit and the largest spending orgy ever in the history of this nation. But, reducing taxes twice, without all that other information, sounds just great.

What is it with liberals and 'tax cuts for the rich'. I'm by no means rich, but even I can understand simple math like: a wealthy man who makes $1,000,000.00/year is paying more tax/year then poor ole' Joe Schmo will earn in 10 years. The wealthy are already taxed too much. Why can't liberals get that?? News Flash "The Problem With Socialism, Is You Run Out Of Everyone Else's Money" Why Liberals think that redistributing wealth earned to pay for social programs to benefit mostly those who won't work will actually work are living in the Land of Oz. Obama and his promised tax increases on the 'Wealthy' will send those evil wealthy people somewhere else. Then where will the Left get the money to pay for their utopian pipe dream??

Just with his ObamaCare, even his own CBO said it will become a fiscal disaster, and will add to an already scary ballooning deficit. Let's see here...I am going to borrow and spend spend spend my way out of a mess created by borrowing and spending too much already? Or better yet, why don't I just pick up a bucket while I'm standing in it  

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 314): Just with his ObamaCare, even his own CBO said it will become a fiscal disaster, and will add to an already scary ballooning deficit.

It is not "his own CBO." The CBO is independent, non-partisan, and not at all connected to the Obama Administration.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 313): Do you really think anyone is interested in fixing heath care at all?

As a matter of fact I do. I think more than a few political leaders would like to fix the way health insurance in this country works and that has been the real problem all along. Health care itself is just fine. But given the restricitions placed on the insurance industry by differing State regulations, of which some can be burdensome. An given the democratic party that is in bed with the trial lawyers so deeply that tort reform is almost impossible in many States, an given that the federal government passes along costs to the insurance companies by underpaying or denying it's no wonder health insurance costs what it does and that they don't want to take on high risk customers. Fix what's broken, leave what is working alone.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 304): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 289): Look how many federal judges they blocked Ah, yes. Because the right never has any activist judges making laws from the bench. Only the left. Uh-huh...

Which GOP nominated federal judges lesislate from the bench? Do you have names? I can give you a few liberal judges that have and will ligsislate from the bench, the 9th circuit of appeals court, Judge (now Justice) Sotomayar,, Justice Ginsburgh, the 2nd circuit court.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307): The less they pay in taxes, the more people go to work. Which is exactly why unemployment in this country is so low, right?

Nope, that is all Obama's fault now, both he and Biden said in June, "this is our economy now"

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307): He reduced your taxes, too. To pay for his war?

No, to pay for OYR war, we were attacked. Do you remember that? It was in all the papers and news media.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): Now, all of his debt he borrowed from China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia has caught up with us and everyone on the right is screaming that "Obama did this to us!" but conveniently forgetting the spend, spend, spend tactics of the Republicans.

You are right, Bush overspent the federal budget (on borrowed money) by just over $600B during his last 4 years in office. In Obama's first 6 months in office, he has spent $1.8T, or 3X what Bush spent in 4 years.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): Quoting DXing (Reply 306): they have no problem with Code Pink or Acorns tactics of rabble rousing and shouting down opposing political views, yet take such offense when it is done to them. It is funny how not allowing anyone else a chance to speak their mind is democracy, yet actually allowing differing views from center or left if un-American and needs to be drown out by shouts and profanity.

Oh, I get it, when lefties like Code Pink and ACORN do it, it is alright.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 307): They could get their way simply by a threat of useing it, and the Dems caved. Right, They thretened to shut down anyone else's opinion.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. If the Dems really believed in their opinions,why didn't they fight for them, like the Repubs did?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): How is that democratic?

It is not, neither is the United Sates, my friend. Yes, I hate to point it out to you the United States is not a democracy, never has been, never will be. The United States is a representitive republic form of government.

Quoting Cws818 (Reply 315): The CBO is independent, non-partisan, and not at all connected to the Obama Administration.

Correct, and the CBO has said Obama care is an economic disaster.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301): So yes, I have first hand knowledge of what the troops actually think, not some twisted liberal based story from the news media.

I can remember during the Vietnam War era all we needed was active duty in excess of the "6 month wonders" and we would be eligible for the GI Bill. Those kids who were drafted, went to Vietnam and served for less than 2 years on active duty qualified.

Bush (and McCain) on the other hand preferred to require 12 years of active duty before qualifying. 12 YEARS! That effectively destroyed the idea that a young person could leave high school, spend some time in uniform serving your country and then your country would help you through college.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301): "financial journalist", what ever that is in the liberal media.

Steve Forbes.  

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 310): Just like the oil companies.

Actually, health insurance companies are probably more profitable than oil companies as they don't have the huge exploration/wild cat drilling risks and can reject costs when they want.

Their CEOs also pull in the highest median compensation of all business sectors in this country at $10.3 Billion. Probably makes the oil company execs jealous.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301): So the exchange rate I used of $1 US equiles $1.30 canadian is correct.

On that day, yes. Today it's not correct. And it wouldn't have been correct a couple of years ago when, for a few months, the Canadian dollar was worth $US 1.10. But it's all academic isn't it? You cited exchange rates to attack a per capita health care cost comparison, only to be told that the numbers had already been converted to US dollars. You still haven't come up with a credible argument to counter that comparison, although you've tried mightily through obfuscation and subterfuge.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301): Did either of you actually read that link? it clearly says ESTIMATE. It says "Estimated Canadian population". It also says "The clock evolves according to the demographic growth rate estimated for the year ending on June 30th, 2008 and adjusted to take into account the fact that 2007-2008 was a leap year.

Yeah, I guess a number for July 2009 is going to be an estimate since they'd have to knock on everyone's door to firm it up. But since the same thing applies to the numbers you're using for US population, it's unclear what your point is. Statistics Canada, using a plethora of government data from income tax returns to SIN numbers to birth/death numbers to immigration/emigration numbers produces an estimate of 33+ million. You, using what -- a guess? -- estimate 31 million -- which conveniently shaves the numbers a little in your direction.

By the way, twice you've said that a million Canadians cross the border annually into the US for health care. Since that appears, from a comprehensive survey conducted on that very point, to be a gross exaggeration, I'd like to know your source. Another guess?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 317): I hate to point it out to you the United States is not a democracy, never has been, never will be. The United States is a representitive republic form of government.

What about your good ol' boy out there nearly every day talking about spreading freedom and *deomcracy* to places like Iraq, Iran, Norht Korea and such places. Going on about how great America is because of it's *democracy* and *democratic* principles?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 317): Nope, that is all Obama's fault now,

How convenient for you all on the right. Since no one on the right took responsibility, blame no one until someone on the left takes responsibility for it.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 314): What is it with liberals and 'tax cuts for the rich'.

If your good ol' boy hadn't been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on his war, I would not have a problem with it. I still have never had it explained to me how borrowing all this money to pay for war and lowering taxes is a great idea. How? Nation building in the mind of the "great" leader Bush is perfectly acceptable and wonderful, but spending money on our own country and our own people is evil and needs to be stopped? Tell me all about the tax cuts FDR imposed for all of WWII and how that was such a rousing success. Tell me all about the tax cuts Wilson imposed for all of WWI and how that was such a rousing success. Tell me all about all the tax cuts during all the wars and how they were rousing successes. Not to mention, Bush sent out all that money in rebates to Americans to get the economy moving again. During war time. On borrowed funds.

Quoting DXing (Reply 312): The left in this country specialized in ambush attacks and shout downs of politicians on the right.

As opposed to the right who do not want to hear any opinions other than their own, so they are cut out of any debate at all.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 311): You'd be wise to back corporations as well, or at least hope for their success

Hope for their success is fine. Loans paid back with interest so they can keep people employed is acceptable in the long run. Not to the right, apparently. But, the point I was trying to make is the GOP in Congress seems more determined to treat corporations like citizens than corporations.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 317): to pay for OYR war, we were attacked.

Very few people were against the Afganistan war. Go after the Taliban, go after al-Qaida. That was fine and acceptable. Iraq, however, was not a problem until Bush made it a problem. What, exactly, did Iraq have to do with Sept 11?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 317): You are right, Bush overspent the federal budget (on borrowed money) by just over $600B during his last 4 years in office. In Obama's first 6 months in office, he has spent $1.8T, or 3X what Bush spent in 4 years.

Yes,. but Bush/Cheney et al kept the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures "off budget" and chose not to deal with the auto or banking issues, except for spending just enough money so they'd still be problems when Obama came to office. Seems like GWB didn't want GM to fail on his watch, although he certainly could have chosen to do so.

The people of America who would like Federal Free health-care and for government to take care of them .. are not un-American at all. They are the ancestors of those Americans who opposed breaking away from the British and were happy to live under the rule of the King ... There were many who did not join the rebellion , and were happy to pay the kings tax..
They are also ancestors of those who wanted to make George Washington our 1st King. Some of our fellow countrymen just think the king knows best...

Funny how some things never change .

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 322): The people of America who would like Federal Free health-care and for government to take care of them .. are not un-American at all. They are the ancestors of those Americans who opposed breaking away from the British and were happy to live under the rule of the King ... There were many who did not join the rebellion , and were happy to pay the kings tax.. They are also ancestors of those who wanted to make George Washington our 1st King. Some of our fellow countrymen just think the king knows best...

Not at all sure where you're coming from. The fact is we are paying for everyone's health care right now, via the emergency room. And the fact is that local and state taxes are out of control largely due to health care costs. Why not try to make things better? Do you think the current system will just fix itself?

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 238): I respectfully have to disagree Ken. Conservatives wouldn't deny healthcare to senior citizens, but under ObamaCare, senior citizens are certainly going to get the short end of the stick

If you believe this is true, you have misread the proposals. Do not listen to the extremists like, yes, Sarah Palin, who are spouting all the lies about the "death panel". They have completely distorted the provision to provide more counseling for the elderly in essentially making their living wills/advanced directives more specific. A lot of the extreme measures taken at the end of life for many of the elderly are things I promise you most of them would prefer not to endure if they understood them better. I know this based on many years in Medicine. Nobody is going to force euthanasia on the elderly or disabled, despite the lies of Sarah Palin and her ilk.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 317): Which GOP nominated federal judges lesislate from the bench

Every Supreme Court justice that voted to stop the recount in Florida in 2000 legislated from the bench, because that decision was not based on any existing law. That is exactly why Justice Souter was so troubled by the decision. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor have not legistlated from the bench, either. The intense scrutiny of Sotomayor's record, including the firefighter case, showed she ruled in accordance with the law which existed at the time. If Ginsburg had "legislated from the bench", she would never have received the overwhelming vote of approval she got from the senate, and she certainly wouldn't have been recommended for the court by none other than, I believe, Orrin Hatch.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 324): If you believe this is true, you have misread the proposals.

Oh really?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

How about reading pages 425 onward, where all seniors will be subjected to an interrogation every 5 years regarding their "end of life", including what the state may or may not provide for them in terms of health care. Sounds a bit like Logan's Run to me. The government also grants itself the right to "advise" you on the preperation of your will and other such arrangements. What penalties will be quietly threatened if you manage to arrange your will to pay the minimum amount of taxes? "If you donate all that money to charity tax-free, maybe we won't give you the Chemo you need..."

Other notes:

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process, and no other insurer to run to)

Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll

Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll

Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.

Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.

Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.

Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!

Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.

Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?

Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.

Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.

Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

Shall I continue with the other 500 pages?

Quoting Dvk (Reply 324): Quoting EA772LR (Reply 238): I respectfully have to disagree Ken. Conservatives wouldn't deny healthcare to senior citizens, but under ObamaCare, senior citizens are certainly going to get the short end of the stick If you believe this is true, you have misread the proposals. Do not listen to the extremists like, yes, Sarah Palin, who are spouting all the lies about the "death panel".

They are doing now with the Oregon Health Plan, denying a 64 year old cancer woman the drugs she needs to live. The state say they will pay for an assisted death pill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Quoting Dvk (Reply 324): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 317): Which GOP nominated federal judges lesislate from the bench Every Supreme Court justice that voted to stop the recount in Florida in 2000 legislated from the bench, because that decision was not based on any existing law.

WRONG............. The SCOTUS ordered the vote count in FL to be stopped in 2000 because the FL Supreme Court ruled the recount to continue and limited the scope of the recount, that was illegal according to the FL Constitution.

The SCOTUS didn't legislate from the bench, they stopped the FL Supreme Court from doing it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 323): The fact is we are paying for everyone's health care right now, via the emergency room. And the fact is that local and state taxes are out of control largely due to health care costs. Why not try to make things better? Do you think the current system will just fix itself?

We don't need a health care system ... we don't need bureaucracies to run out lives .. If you stripped government rule out of the program ..free-market would take over and there would be insurance companies and providers for all levels of our society . Government is there to insure fair safe practice ..NOT to be the freaking practice.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): Shall I continue with the other 500 pages?

It is truly unbelievable. It is a total power and control manual for the state .. its a fascist dream come true. Once the Democrats do this to us ...its over for Americans.. it will never be the same.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 326): , denying a 64 year old cancer woman the drugs she needs to live

And insurance companies have never ever denied what is covered right?

Are you feeling sorry for her? Why? Compassion is liberal sentiment, only felt by weak people.

The cold hard facts is that an assisted death pill would be more economical. You should be glad that your tax money would not be wasted. That is what the free market would say.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): How about reading pages 425 onward, where all seniors will be subjected to an interrogation every 5 years regarding their "end of life", including what the state may or may not provide for them in terms of health care. Sounds a bit like Logan's Run to me.

It's pretty sad that you are so devoid of integrity that you would make this kind of garbage up. You are so desperate to scare people since you know you have no real ideas to offer. It's scary to see such hate and lies be spread, by people so ignorant. Clearly, some will never learn from their history.

Oh, and for any of you who don't like to hear about Obama's true intentions, here they are in his own voice. The purpose of all this is indeed a single-payer system, with no private insurances. They are intended to be driven out. This will be about the best 3 minutes you will spend here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E&feature=player_embedded

By the way, here is a very interesting report on the history of the UK Health Care System, prepared by the Bristol Royal Infirmary. Did you know that when proposed in 1946, they also promised that private insurance and health care could continue? Within 2 years of implementation, private care was gone - pushed out of the market. And did they ever see the promised lowering of health costs? No, apart from what they could achieve by rationing.

"Sorry about the cataract in your right eye, Mr. Smith, but you still have the other eye, so no treatment needed."

http://www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/final_report/annex_a/chapter_2_3.htm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 327): .free-market would take over and there would be insurance companies and providers for all levels of our society .

But we already know this isn't true. Without government intervention, the free market will not provide coverage for the poor and/or elderly.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 329): It's pretty sad that you are so devoid of integrity that you would make this kind of garbage up.

It's right-bloody-there! Are you blind??? Or are you like the child standing next to the shattered vase with a hammer in his hand, shaking his head saying, "No, Ma, I didn't break nothin'"

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 331): But we already know this isn't true. Without government intervention, the free market will not provide coverage for the poor and/or elderly.

They can be made to provide coverage with proper regulation. In fact some of the regulation needed is in the current bill. I have been pushing for such reforms a long time, but that does not mean we need to bring in the government to actually provide health care. They's screwed up Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security with a combined $100 TRILLION of uncovered liabilities - anyone who wants to give them even more is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 331): But we already know this isn't true

Really we don't , the government options have been growing for the past 40 years .... it has landed us just where we are.. So which one has failed ? Free market or Social welfare.

Social welfare has proved to only increase the need for more social welfare and support . The social welfare state just takes money out of the economy , it does not produce anything. So the more that it takes out , the more it hurts the economy. As the cycle expands there becomes less of a economy to support the huge drain from the social dependents. You can imagine the rest.

We need to go to either all free market enterprising capitalism ... or go to a all socialist state run system. They do not mix , that is what the battle is over. This is not about health-care ..its about the battle between capitalism and socialism . Period.

[quote=Dreadnought,reply=333]regulation[/quote

Regulation? Are you insane? The free market regulates itself.

What are you becoming? A communist?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 332): It's right-bloody-there! Are you blind??? Or are you like the child standing next to the shattered vase with a hammer in his hand, shaking his head saying, "No, Ma, I didn't break nothin'"

Let's just take one example from your list.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

While true the government insurance will cover family/marriage therapy (as do many private insurers today), NO WHERE does it say government will require marriage therapy. Whether you go to marriage therapy or not will be your choice.

The government is not "intervening in your marriage" as you claim. You are simply lying or have poor reading comprehension.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 334): We need to go to either all free market enterprising capitalism ... or go to a all socialist state run system. They do not mix , that is what the battle is over. This is not about health-care ..its about the battle between capitalism and socialism . Period.

On this I disagree with you. I find completely unfettered capitalism to be an unattractive option as well. Ever read Sinclair?

Otherwise, you are basically right - social programs feed on themselves, especially when a large part of the population are dependant on them for some/all of their income or standard of living. It becomes a votes-purchasing vehicle when less than half the population actually pay the taxes and all the others vote to give themselves more stuff at the expense of the minority who pay for it.

I think a Capitalist system with a safety net for the people in the bottom 10% or so is appropriate, along with the necessary antitrust and other regulations.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 335): Regulation? Are you insane? The free market regulates itself. What are you becoming? A communist?

I never said I was against regulation - as long as it is simple and clear in purpose. 90% of current regulations of just about any industry are relics of by-gone days and simply never got written off the books. Get rid of that 90%, then add some up-to-date, rational and necessary ones, and you will have gotten government out of our faces by maybe 80% (what conservatives want) and still provide some of the protections that statists want. See, I've just made everyone happy. Me for President!

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 336): While true the government insurance will cover family/marriage therapy (as do many private insurers today), NO WHERE does it say government will require marriage therapy. Whether you go to marriage therapy or not will be your choice.

They can't require you to go to therapy, but they can deny you. Not to mention that I am uneasy about a government employee/shrink knowing about all the crap that can come out of these sessions. If I in an argument with the spouse, one of the points of contention is that you don't use the proceeds from your secret bank account in the Jersey Isles to take her on vacation - whoops, you've just told the government.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 333): They can be made to provide coverage with proper regulation.

What is proper regulation?? Force insurance companies to lose hundreds of billions of dollars covering those cannot pay, but use tremendous amounts of healthcare?? Without substantial government funding, the private insurers won't do it, they'll just go out of business.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 334): We need to go to either all free market enterprising capitalism ... or go to a all socialist state run system.

Why does it have to be either/or? We have private universities that compete against public ones? The private ones haven't been run out of business and many are quite good. Yet, at the same time, there are many public universities that are quite good and still reasonably affordable.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 338): I never said I was against regulation -

sorry you don't get to expalin yourself. If you were to have a Town Hall meeting you would be heckled.

Regulation is a bad word only spoken by socialists

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 326): The SCOTUS ordered the vote count in FL to be stopped in 2000 because the FL Supreme Court ruled the recount to continue and limited the scope of the recount, that was illegal according to the FL Constitution.

Right. So, the activist judges on the right decided to stop everything the State of Florida was doing. The FEDS decided what was best for the state of Florida. You are saying that was fine, but health care by the feds is an abomination.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 326): They are doing now with the Oregon Health Plan, denying a 64 year old cancer woman the drugs she needs to live. The state say they will pay for an assisted death pill.

Did you read the article? She has only 4 to 6 months to live, even with treatment. The Oregon Health Plan clearly states there is a 5 year, 5% rule; a 5% chance of survival after five years. This woman will die in a year even with the treatment. As CEO of a corporation, is it really in your financial interest to give her $5000 worth of medications when she will be dying soon? I thought you righties were all about the bottom line.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 327): We don't need a health care system ... we don't need bureaucracies to run out lives .. If you stripped government rule out of the program ..free-market would take over and there would be insurance companies and providers for all levels of our society . Government is there to insure fair safe practice ..NOT to be the freaking practice.

The existing situation is already a giant bureaucracy. And if you stripped government rule out of the program, insurance companies would get to decide that some people weren't worth insuring, basically sentencing them to poverty and/or death.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): How about reading pages 425 onward, where all seniors will be subjected to an interrogation every 5 years regarding their "end of life", including what the state may or may not provide for them in terms of health care.

I'll have fun going through your list later, but let's start here. First, the text of the bill clearly describes the Advance Care Planning Consultation as a series of explanations, not interrogations. The doctor would basically just explain to the patient what their options are in terms of end-of-life care, setting up the appropriate documents so that they receive the sort of treatment they desire, etc. This is, believe it or not, a good idea. Seniors should be informed of these sorts of options.

Second, the portion of the bill you point to is only a definition. Nowhere in that part of the bill is it stated that people must receive that consultation; the consultation is merely defined. Compare it to some of the other items defined in the same subparagraph of the Social Security Act: "kidney disease education services," "ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm," "bone mass measurement," etc. Clearly, this portion of the law is not a list of items that everyone on Medicare must use! It is merely a list of services that doctors under Medicare may choose to offer their patients.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): Oh really?

Yes, really. You are cherry picking and placing your own liberal (pun intended) interpretation on many items. What you and many others fail to understand is the amount of bureaucratic control already imposed on ALL insurance plans, including traditional plans. The fact is that these proposals will NOT ration care any more that insurance plans already do. Medicare sets the NATIONAL standard for health coverage, and private insurers are pressured to meet that standard. If not for Medicare, private insurance would cover much less! This is how it's been almost since Medicare's inception

Medicaid patients being automatically enrolled and having no choice? This is largely how Medicaid already is. Medicaid patients in most states are automatically "assigned" in many respects--prescription formulary (no multiple choice as with Medicare part D), and they are often automatically assigned a primary MD, which they CAN change if they go through a reassignment process.

Physician wages are already largely set by insurers. They are the ones who have made the decision to assign a much higher value to procedures than to non-procedural medicine. HMO's already sharply set reimbursement. A primary MD who accepts HMO patients gets paid a flat amount annually for all care provided to each patient, with no variation.

Your Logan's Run statement is another distortion. Keeping patients better informed, and allowing them to adjust their desires for end-of life care, is a much needed reform in Medicare. A disproportionate amount of Medicare dollars is spent on end-of-life care that is more often futile in nature, prolonging suffering with little or no chance for the patient's recovery. Providing patients with a better understanding of what that care may include, so they can make informed choices about such measures as prolonged mechanical ventilation, permanent feeding tubes, etc., will allow patients to make informed decisions in accordance with their own wishes, rather than leaving things to the default and terribly flawed "do everything possible" approach employed in far too many cases where there is virtually no hope.

By the way, hospitals are already on their way to being penalized for "possibly preventable" readmissions, and this has been in the works since well before this health care reform proposal was written.

Government already covers a disproportionate amount of mental health services, and NEEDS to cover more, because too many people with major psychiatric disorders have NO coverage, and the government provided resources are overwhelmed completely beyond the capacity to provide care to all who need it. As a primary care MD who serves a lot of Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured patients, I can tell you that the single most difficult specialty for referring patients is Psychiatry. If uninsured, they're screwed unless they are seriously psychotic. Medicaid patients only fare a little better, again unless they're seriously psychotic. The only way either of those groups gains access to care is often after a long, expensive, and unpaid admission for a major psychotic break. Medicare patients fare much better, but again, Medicare sets the standard for ALL insurers.

As I said in another thread, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system provide most of the care to the sickest citizens: the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. Despite their various problems, you have a much better chance of getting high quality medical care under one of these systems than if you are uninsured or underinsured. These are all forms of "socialized" medicine, and commercial insurers have drifted very far in the same direction over the years. If they hadn't, HMO's with all their restrictions and controls and bureaucracy could not exist, and procedures such as "pre-certification", "prior authorization", and other euphemisms for bureaucratic control of medical care present in EVERY traditional insurance plan would not exist.

Universal health care will never occur without a public option, period. Why? Because the insurance companies and their lobby are too powerful, completely profit-oriented, and they will NEVER cooperate with any proposal to provide universal coverage unless they have a government-sponsored competitor to force them to participate and change the status quo.

I could go on, but I know you and those who feel as you do have made your mind up that the reform proposal is some kind of Orwellian evil. It's too bad, because I'm increasingly afraid that health care reform will either be defeated or so seriously weakened that we will continue to have a system that screws over a lot of Americans, including MANY hard-working citizens who don't have the good fortune of employer-provided coverage and either go uninsured or pay a fortune for crap insurance policies that cover nothing but major medical (i.e., after you're so sick you have to be admitted to the hospital).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 337): I think a Capitalist system with a safety net for the people in the bottom 10% or so is appropriate, along with the necessary antitrust and other regulations.

Of course , I stated the government is there to regulate and oversee .. but not be take our money and give it to others to the level the Dems want. I have always said we need a safety net , and we do . But this is way beyond safety net ... I believe you would agree.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 339): Why does it have to be either/or?

Because you can not have one side having the power to make law and too levy money to issue care to the people as they see it... and on the other have a group who has to compete with them.


We have a giant bureaucracy created by Medicare , Medicaid and the mess brought on by LBJ and continued by both parties. Why do we think they can now fix what they have broken by doing more of the same.?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 323): Not at all sure where you're coming from.

It's the 1700s version of aluminum hats.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 324): Nobody is going to force euthanasia on the elderly or disabled, despite the lies of Sarah Palin and her ilk.

Some people actually believe Palin's crap, no matter how far out in right field it is.

I guess that those people are also against a Living Will. It's not in the Bible so it has to be against God's WIll.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): How about reading pages 425 onward, where all seniors will be subjected to an interrogation every 5 years regarding their "end of life",

When my father was dying of cancer in the 80s we had sufficient funds to pay for this type of consultation. Those conversations were important for my father, who wanted the truth, and wanted it from a knowledgeable source.

These days the only thing a lot of people can afford is a family discussion and a decision on a living will. All of the doctors I have been to in my life would not, however, charge for this type of consultation.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

As opposed to these days when private insurance companies simply refuse to pay for treatments?

The blunt truth is that health care is rationed today. How long do you think your basic PCP at a HMO will spend with you during an appointment these days? 15 minutes? When was the last time your doctor made house calls? How long do you have to wait for a doctor when you feel bad?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

That's fine with me as long as it is not my Social Security number. That bloody number should be held private and is used everywhere. I guess you could call it our national ID number that has been around for years.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 325): Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

BFD. I'll not be crying if someone straightened their act up a bit.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 327): If you stripped government rule out of the program ..free-market would take over and there would be insurance companies and providers for all levels of our society .

If you stripped government from health care you would have health insurance companies going wild (compared to today), no FDA to require testing on new drugs, a majority of the elderly unable to afford health care without Medicaid - so they would die earlier, which would keep the rich happy. You would also have no standards for licensing - lost of foreign trained "professionals" that have a hard time speaking English, etc.

Maybe you should be glad that government is involved in your health care. I am.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 327): It is a total power and control manual for the state .. its a fascist dream come true.

Bull.

Hasn't happened with Medicare.

Hasn't happened with Medicaid.

Hasn't happened with VA Health Care.

Hasn't happened with CHIP.

Hasn't happened with government provided health care to employees.

I think you've been listening to too many TV ads paid for by the health insurance industry.

Read somewhere that they were putting in a million dollars a day to keep their fat ride they get off those paying for over priced insurance.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 331): But we already know this isn't true. Without government intervention, the free market will not provide coverage for the poor and/or elderly.

Exactly correct. The private health care industry "cherry-picks" the market for younger people, without health conditions, or family histories of "expensive" diseases such as cancer. People need to face this simple reality - this is the ugly, mean, dare I say "cruel" side of the for-profit health care industry - health insurer are in business to maxize their shareholders value, not to help keep their insureds healthy.

All across the country, right-wing extremists (mainly organized by the health insurance industry lobbyists) are frequently disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama's plans for health care.

* 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, and was escorted from the meeting by police.
* 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.

This is ridiculous - I feel that the lobbyists have clearly stepped over the line and are enemies of democracy (and friends of big industry money) at this point.   

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 344): Because you can not have one side having the power to make law and too levy money to issue care to the people as they see it... and on the other have a group who has to compete with them.

Again, private universities compete against public universities all the time.

FedEx/UPS compete with the Post Office and do fine.

Private industry can compete with the government.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 341): As CEO of a corporation, is it really in your financial interest to give her $5000 worth of medications when she will be dying soon? I thought you righties were all about the bottom line.

I know right. All of the sudden they turn into Mother Theresa and want to save people at any cost.

Didn't "empathy" got Sotomayor in trouble?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 320): As opposed to the right who do not want to hear any opinions other than their own, so they are cut out of any debate at all.

Such as? BTW since the democratic party controls both Houses of Congress as well as the White House, why bother with the GOP? Why don't they just pass what they are so sure is right? Instead they seek the political cover of "bipartianship" to the point that any amendment, even if it only has to do with minor regs is considered "bipartisan".

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 345): The blunt truth is that health care is rationed today. How long do you think your basic PCP at a HMO will spend with you during an appointment these days? 15 minutes? When was the last time your doctor made house calls? How long do you have to wait for a doctor when you feel bad?

There is a huge difference between "rationing" in that you are told it will be X amount of time before you can be seen by a doctor or receive a treatment and a doctor that has patients in waiting rooms and is diagnosing as quickly as they can. When was the last time you were told you would have to wait X amount of time to receive a test or procedure outside of a nomimal and unreasonable amount of time? Anytime I've need blood work it was done the same day and any other procedures were generally scheduled within a week so I could accomodate my work schedule rather than their appointment schedule.