Limbaugh Calls Democrats Health Care Plan an “Insult” to Kennedy’s Memory

The line to urinate on Rush’s grave when he dies will be a long one.

I agree.
I am for health care reform but not reform that makes health care worse across the board for all Americans.
Teddy would not want our health care to be any less than he received and HR 3200 is not that bill.
I am disgusted that Nancy Pelosi started a devious plan to again push for this ill-conceived reform on America before Teddy’s body was even cold. What an unfeeling creature.

Now, that’s a fitting eulogy.

Before the liberal clowns come in here and toss around their beer cans, I will say that many on the left will make these statements all about Rush’s callous remarks (which they are) and his partisan political hackery (which it is) while not understanding how the public will receive and embrace Rush’s central point..because it’s almost spot on.

Hey, if they’re going to talk about Camelot, then we get to talk about The Lady in the Lake.

This is a great site that you have here. I have a site myself where anyone can freely express their opinion towards controversial debate topics. I feel as if this is a way for people to have their voices heard. Anyone is welcome to express their opinions.
Anyway, keep up the good work and maybe we can do a link exchange.
Sincerely,
Jason

“Posted by: Bet Noir | Aug 26, 2009 3:53:26 PM”
Back to the old name huh Belle Starr.

It must sting to have one’s devout enemy speak to the truth so eloquently.
Kennedy’s barely cold and the Dems are parading his corpse around to advance their weakened health care agenda.
Creepy doesn’t begin to describe the circling health care vultures led by Pelosi trying to usurp what is left of his last name.
They make the “death panels” look kind and caring.

A report by the Congressional Rsearch Services seems to confirm that there is no means provided in HR 3200 to prevent illegal aliens from participating in the Health Insurance Exchange.
The report,”Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, notes that “H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens – whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently – participating in the Exchange.”
HR 3200 does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving “affordability credits” that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. There is no “provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure.” CRS conclude that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.
While it’s my understanding that HR 3200 prohibits the reimbursement of illegals, the bill nowhere mandates that provideers or insurers require proof of citizenship at any point.

Limbaugh doesn’t know when to shut up..Ted Kennedy has been fighting for healthcare reform since his brother was president. Limbaugh and his conservative pals have been fighting healthcare reform even longer. Limbaugh is exploiting Kennedy’s death even more onerous reason than liberals are….he is doing for ratings…

“Teddy would not want our health care to be any less than he received and HR 3200 is not that bill.”
Chappy | Aug 26, 2009 3:34:30 PM
jhw, are you saying that you believe Ted Kennedy would want Americans to have inferior care compared to what he received?

““Our health care system is a crisis for American families and President Obama and members of Congress of both parties recognize the urgency of the problem. Our goal is to strengthen what works and fix what doesn’t. Over the next few days, we will continue working with our Republican colleagues on common sense solutions that reduce skyrocketing health care costs, assure quality care for all and provide affordable health insurance choices. Much work remains, and the coming days and weeks won’t be easy. But we have a unique opportunity to give the American people, at long last, the health care they need and deserve,” said Senator Kennedy.”
This is how stupid the right thinks you are. Kennedy’s support for health care reform, with 600 pages of details in the form of the “Affordable Health Choices Act” bill draft he released at the start of June from the committee he chaired, is documented and available for public review at any time. Yet they have the ignorant gall to say trash like “if Ted Kennedy knew how Barack Obama was exploiting his name and tragedy to push through his health care change, he would be rolling in his grave” and “Teddy would not want our health care to be any less than he received and HR 3200 is not that bill.”
Ignore the liars on the right and go see what Kennedy actually wanted. You may not agree, but don’t let his enemies in the status quo pervert his memory.

The only way to truly reform health care, is to create a genuine national health care plan, and to eliminate the need for anything else, except for the wealthy, who can afford to pay for whatever they want in the first place.
That can work, because then, costs will genuinely be cut, by eliminating the profits of medical doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, and by taxing employers, to cover part of the costs.
Of course the GOP doesn’t like anything that takes away the potential for profiteering, but as long as other options are available for the wealthy, the GOP is covered for their own needs anyway.
The problem with the plan proposed, is that it is an also-ran, that will simply make a bigger mess of things, than already exists. It will not cut costs, at all, and it will cut benefits to the elderly, who sorely need them. (Obama has already eliminated Social Security cost of living increases for the elderly for the next 2 yrs, as it is…..yet he would have you believe he won’t cut health care benefits for the elderly….right!!! If you believe that, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn….)
If we are going to take on health care, for everyone, let’s do it…..for everyone, and not some impractical half-way attempt.

“If we are going to take on health care, for everyone, let’s do it…..for everyone, and not some impractical half-way attempt.”
Call it the “private school option” when it comes to what wealthy liberals will get with health care “reform.” These people won’t even take commercial flights. Think they’re going to head on down to get in line with you?

ABC writes:
“the media is more concerned about keeping Camelot alive.”
It’s a little late for THAT — one of Kennedy’s main duties in recent years has been making eloquent statements as the younger Kennedys pass to and fro rehab.
The Axelrod/Obamas’ Scam-a-Lot really doesn’t compare.

This is sickening. How does Kennedy’s passing tie into “rationed” care? I’d love to see Limbaugh or his GOP friends actually point to a provision in any bill that states care will be rationed, and not just some language that the right thinks proves their point…

“(1) provide for tort reform at the federal level, (2) permit the interstate sale of health insurance, and (3) uncouple health insurance from employment by allowing workers to buy individual policies and deduct the premiums from their taxable income. These sensible reforms would greatly improve choice and reduce costs.”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 4:17:10 PM
Gee, good for a whopping 10% reduction or so. But I guess you only care about CBO analysis and reality when the numbers make reform look bad. And tort reform has been done at a state level across most of the US already – and REALITY shows it does not bring down health care costs (or the average cost of insurance in states with aggressive tort reform, like Texas) appreciably (or at all in some states, like Texas).

Matt, where in HR 3200 does it expressly prohibit healthcare rationing? If it doesn’t prohibit it then there is nothing to stop it from happening.

And yes, of course there will have to be rationing in any public health plan, or the costs will skyrocket.
Arguing that there already is rationing in private insurance doesn’t change that. It is natural for people to ask, and right that people know what and how things will change.

Chappy: Broom closets? Verification, please.

Chappy: what horrors! well, guess what – my new right-here-in-the-good-old-u-s-of-a md has a practice made entirely of foreign mds from foreign med schools (bosnia, granada, india etc.) and they cannot be reached on the weekend.

And how are “heartbroken” Obama and jive Joe Biden NOT exploiting Kennedy’s death for “ratings”?
================================
I’d rather you tell me….It is always fascinating how conservatives spin things to match their perception of reality…Reminds me of George Costanza, i.e., it is not a lie if you believe it to be true.. So, you tell me how…because I know you’re not the least bit interested in what I have to say…

The first step toward Universal Health Care must be an Amendment to the Constitution. Providing universal health care is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.
For The General Welfare:
1. International and interstate commerce (trade)
2. Naturalization
3. Bankruptcy
4. Coin Money, establish its value
5. Weights and Measures
6. Punish counterfeiting
7. Postal Service
8. Issue patents and copyrights
9. Establish Federal Courts
10. Govern District of Columbia
11. Purchase real estate for necessary buildings
See Illegal Health Reform by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A Casey: Illegal Health Reform
Bring John Shadegg’s ‘Enumerated Powers Act’ to a Vote
It’s time for Congress to, “Cite it, chapter and verse.” Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that. Help us bring this bill to a vote.

“In the effective place it has brought about a substantial reduction in premiums.
And your principled reason for not doing it on a nationwide basis is…?”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 4:59:30 PM
Name this “effective place” and lets see how their insurance costs compare to a “non-effective” place like Texas, where a typical insurance policy for a family of four is more expensive than the national average (as of 2004, the most recent actual data available).
My reason for not doing it nationwide is that it is a states authority, states have exercised it, and most importantly THE REAL DATA SHOWS IT DOES NOT SAVE SIGNIFICANT MONEY.
Again, name the SPECIFIC state with “effective tort reform,” what that reform was, and lets compare their insurance rates with the balance of the US and other states with identical tort reform.
That’s what the CBO (and OMB) did in the early 2000′s. Guess what their results were (since you clearly still haven’t read up on any of the data, you’ll have to guess)?

Everything we purchase on this earth is rationed. Most of the things you buy every day are rationed by the price system. Things provided by the government are rationed by bureaucratic decisions backed, in the end, by brute force.
The more money you set aside for such things, the better clothing, food and shelter you can buy. Should they all be provided by the government?
Obama’s stated goal is the elimination of employer-provided insurance within ten to twenty years, which in effect means all private insurance. Then no matter how rich you are, or how much you are able to set aside for your family, you will be unable to get insurance except that which the government decides should be made available to you.
If you don’t like the decisions made by your insurer today, get a different insurer. If your insurer doesn’t provide the coverage for which you contracted, sue it for damages (and in my state of California, get a shot at huge “bad faith” damages).
If you don’t like “profit-driven” insurers, try, for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, both of which are non-profit.
Something like 8 million of the uninsured make over $75,000 per year but elect not to insure themselves (primarily young and healthy people). Perhaps ten million more are eligible for such programs as Medicare, but simply haven’t enrolled. (I’d be all for a program to reach out to them and get them into the system.) You are left with something on the order of 5% of the American population who would like to be insured but cannot afford it. I would support any number of means of assisting them.
What no one, least of all Obama, has explained to me why the 70+% of Americans who have insurance and are happy with it should place their most personal decisions at the mercy of the US Congress.

“What no one, least of all Obama, has explained to me why the 70+% of Americans who have insurance and are happy with it should place their most personal decisions at the mercy of the US Congress.”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 5:08:58 PM
The health care reform is predicted to have NO impact on 90% of employed people’s source of insurance 10 year out. But that’s just based on reality used in the CBO’s analysis.
What YOU have not explained to me is whether you are lying with this fantasy that private insurance is going anywhere, or if you just think your blatant ignorance of the fact is a strong argument for the status quo.

“The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth.”
Howard Dean, August 26 2009 (at Moran’s townhall)

Pass a law making it illegal for an employer to offer health insurance as an employee benefit. End wage stagnation and give employees raises instead.
==========================================
Isn’t this just government interference in free markets? If an employer wants to offer benefits in lieu of raises should not be allowed to? Your solution is another fairy tale….Even if you passed a low to prevent employer provided healthcare do you really think they would turn around and give you all that money they saved in a raise? Be serious…

It is not that the House plan either endorses or forbids rationing. Neither it nor any other plan can avoid rationing. In the House plan, the government decides how it should be rationed. In the private sector the rationing decisions are determined by contract, and you can shop among many, many potential contracts. If there were no prohibition against interstate sales, you would have many more choices still, and you would find a great range of prices to suit your desires.
It costs more than four times as much to buy a policy in New Jersey than in Kentucky. This is not because medical care costs more in New Jersey. It is becasue by law, every policy sold in New Jersey must cover acupuncture, in vitro fertilization and hairpieces, whether the consumer wants them or not. And the consumer cannot buy anywhere other than New Jersey. This is a system brought about entirely by governmental intervention in the health insurance market. You want more?

“It has been tried in a number of forms in a number of states, some of which are quite effective. In the effective place it has brought about a substantial reduction in premiums.
And your principled reason for not doing it on a nationwide basis is…?”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 4:59:30 PM
Lets settle this lie at least – could you cite the specific stats where tort reform brought about a substantial reduction in premiums? The CBO and OMB under the Bush administration could not, but I assume you must have some better data – what is the state?

“What no one, least of all Obama, has explained to me why the 70+% of Americans who have insurance and are happy with it should place their most personal decisions at the mercy of the US Congress.”
It’s all going to come down to who we trust more, the government or the health insurance companies. I would say that the majority of Americans who are happy with their insurance but still strongly favor some kind of reform feel that way because they don’t trust the insurance companies. My question is which of them would be more likely to actually operate with my health as the priority?

“In the private sector the rationing decisions are determined by contract, and you can shop among many, many potential contracts.”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 5:20:40 PM
That’s a joke. I can confidently say you are NOT a current small business owner, nor do you have any pre-existing conditions beyond perhaps a hang nail (which may be enough to rescind coverage – but your insurer will wait until you actually get expensive to let you know).
Were you going to let us know what the states that saw substantial reductions in premiums due to tort reform are? Or are you just giving New Jersey as an example of how limiting punitive damages, fixing the collateral source rule, and modifying the joint and several liability rules are NOT effective tort reforms that bring down premiums?
Huh, caps, liability restrictions… Could you be specific about not only the state with successful tort reform resulting in lower premiums, but also what are you calling tort reform?

“part of my business is to represent physicians.about 30% of their gross goes to malpractice insurance.”
catman | Aug 26, 2009 5:31:19 PM
Gee, so doctors who require malpractice attorneys tend to have high insurance costs? Really? You don’t say.
Why aren’t your anecdotal numbers backed up by any survey or analysis performed by any body over the last decade?
And TORT REFORM HAS BEEN DONE very aggressively in some states. Why haven’t those states shown lower health care costs, in the form of lower insurance costs? It’s not useless – it has been a big boon for one or two provider OBGYNs – but your sign waving is wildly divorced from realty.

Jhw539, “And how long do you think a health care plan would survive if it instituted forced “rationing” as horrific and universal as you seem to think it is?”
When the public option becomes the sole healthcare provider there will be no alternative. And everyone will have to just live (or die) with it!

From heartland.org:
“Physicians aren’t ready to celebrate just yet, but tort reform efforts are showing signs of positive effects in Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia, where reform legislation was enacted in 2003.
“From lower liability insurance premiums–or at least less-dramatic premium increases–to more insurers entering the market, doctors are starting to see some of the results they hoped for when they pushed for change in their respective states.
“In Texas, every insurer but one lowered liability premiums for 2005, and the last one soon may follow suit, said Texas Medical Association President Bohn D. Allen, M.D. West Virginia has seen an increase in new physicians and a decline in defense costs for liability insurance companies. Ohio has seen a moderation of premium increases and two new insurers enter the market.”

Fascist Hyena:”On a cursory review I haven’t found anything from the CBO one way or another, but will continue to see what I can find from various sources.”
So what were you basing this comment on?!?!?!?
“It has been tried in a number of forms in a number of states, some of which are quite effective.”
Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 4:59:30 PM
WHICH STATES? Sorry to be annoying here, but it is a little annoying that you either refuse to share simple information that could be very illuminating, or you just flat out making up “facts” on the fly to support your opinion.
“what is your principled objection to imposing the most effective forms of tort reform (there are many options to choose from) at the federal level?”
It is a state power that has been appropriate and widely exercised at that level. And most of those promoting it usually are making up wild lies about it’s potential effectiveness in the hopes it will be a stalling tactic or poison pill to effective, fact-based reform.

bout 30% of their gross goes to malpractice insurance. maybe more maybe less but it is an expense that could be eliminated and the benefit passed onto the consumer. it would help so why is it not being pursued?
***
catman, I think part of the reason is the trial lawyer lobby, and part of the problem is the CBO findings jhw is talking about, and part of the problem is how to define “tort reform” as there are many ways to skin that cat, hence, multiple views on how to address it. I have wondered why it hasn’t been used as a bargaining chip, or why it isn’t being talked about in a more comprehensive form such as medical malpractice reform, to include a component for patient safety and rights.

“And most of those promoting it usually are making up wild lies about it’s potential effectiveness in the hopes it will be a stalling tactic or poison pill to effective, fact-based reform.”
Would that be effective, fact-based tort reform?

If there were no prohibition against interstate sales, you would have many more choices still, and you would find a great range of prices to suit your desires.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 5:20:40 PM
**
I actually agree on the pooling possibilities here for individual and small business owners BUT would you allow for federal regulation versus state regulation of insurers then so such a move doesn’t become a trojan horse for insurance deregulation, and/or turn into a situation not unlike the credit card industry (where they all moved to Delaware?)

The 10% estimate was by no means generous; the reductions in my excerpt were those realized by only three types of reform. Are you opposed to legislation that would reduce premiums by ten percent? Please tell us why.
Anyone who thinks that “all insurers would move to the state with the least regulated market” has no clue about competitive market activity. Every insurer (and every other businessman) knows that to survive he must offer the consumer something he likes at a price he is willing to pay.
New Jersey’s “regulation” (to take one example) requires that every individual purchasing a policy must purchase coverage for any number of services, whether he wants them or not. As a result, it costs overr $5,000 per year for an individual policy. All New Jersey residents who want such coverage could buy it, whether from a New Jersey insurer or elsewhere. (Massachusetts mandates that every policy contain a menu of 84 different coverages. The consumer cannot choose fewer.)
If the insurers all flocked a least-regulated state because they could offer bare-bones policies and weren’t required to do more, an immediate market would arise for policies providing more coverage–whether in that state or elsewhere. And insurers would rush to fill that market.

“Anyone who thinks that “all insurers would move to the state with the least regulated market” has no clue about competitive market activity”
Please tell us where the largest credit card companies have their HQs and why they moved there.
Then tell us why an insurance company would not move operations to a state with the least regulations if it could sell that policy nationwide, ignoring standards in other states.

“The Left is exploiting him – his death and his legacy – and they are going to do it, as predicted, to push health care through,” Limbaugh said.
***
If I become well known and die, people who care about the same things I do — universal health care, liberty in lockstep with equal opportunity for all, a good energy policy, and progressive causes– you have the right, and my express wishes to use my death, my life and legacy, my words, and so on to fight for what I would have wanted. I can’t speak for Ted Kennedy, of course, and my achievements will be much, much more humble, but please don’t let the right undermine my causes or make you think for one split hair of a second that they have one iota of an idea of what I would have wanted– and don’t be shamed by their crazy accusations and lies, because we all know who is exploiting what and why. I would want you to go for it with every ounce of your being.
Some Kennedy quotes:
* “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die” – addressing the Democratic National Convention after pulling out of the presidential race, August 1980.
* “What we have in the United States is not so much a health-care system as a disease-care system” – on health care reform for which he campaigned throughout his life, 1994
“The Grand Old Party thinks it has found a great new trick, but 40 years ago an earlier generation of Republicans attempted the same trick. And Franklin Roosevelt himself replied, “Most Republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the forward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. Let us not be deluded that overnight those leaders have suddenly become the friends of average men and women.”
“You know,” he continued, “very few of us are that gullible.” And four years later when the Republicans tried that trick again, Franklin Roosevelt asked, “Can the Old Guard pass itself off as the New Deal? I think not. We have all seen many marvelous stunts in the circus, but no performing elephant could turn a handspring without falling flat on its back.”
The 1980 Republican convention was awash with crocodile tears for our economic distress, but it is by their long record and not their recent words that you shall know them.
The same Republicans who are talking about the crisis of unemployment have nominated a man who once said, and I quote, “Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders.” And that nominee is no friend of labor.
The same Republicans who are talking about the problems of the inner cities have nominated a man who said, and I quote, “I have included in my morning and evening prayers every day the prayer that the Federal Government not bail out New York.” And that nominee is no friend of this city and our great urban centers across this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about security for the elderly have nominated a man who said just four years ago that “Participation in social security should be made voluntary.” And that nominee is no friend of the senior citizens of this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and I quote, “Eighty percent of our air pollution comes from plants and trees.” And that nominee is no friend of the environment.
…Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must — We must not surrender — We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family’s health shall never depend on the size of a family’s wealth.” — addressing the Democratic National Convention after pulling out of the presidential race, August 1980.

“The public option is so bad everyone will hate it or the public option will be so popular it will drive private insurance out of business.”
Neither. Those who lose their insurance because their employer discontinued its plan could either go into the public option, or into a plan approved by the people who run the competing public option. Private insurance would be told the terms on which it could compete. That strikes you as competition?

“Please tell us where the largest credit card companies have their HQs and why they moved there. Then tell us why an insurance company would not move operations to a state with the least regulations if it could sell that policy nationwide, ignoring standards in other states.”
I have no idea where credit card companies are located, and could not care less. If you don’t like your credit card, get rid of it.
No matter where an insurance company moved, it could not sell a policy anywhere unless it offered a policy desired by the consumer. And if it violated the terms of its contract with that consumer, it would be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of that consumer’s state, just as are businesses who sell any other product across state lines.
I take it that you have no problem at all with plaintiffs’ lawyers bringing their lawsuits in the states that have not passed tort reform, rifht?

“I have no idea where credit card companies are located, and could not care less. If you don’t like your credit card, get rid of it.”
IOW you ignore the history of what you propose in favor of theory.

but please don’t let the right undermine my causes or make you think for one split hair of a second that they have one iota of an idea of what I would have wanted– and don’t be shamed by their crazy accusations and lies, because we all know who is exploiting what and why. I would want you to go for it with every ounce of your being.
=====
That’s fine, but you can’t simultaneously want your name to be used to further your goals AND have those using it cry out when there is criticism of you and your goals.
I mean, you can want that, but it can’t be allowed to happen.

“IOW you ignore the history of what you propose in favor of theory.”
Nonsense. I simply see no correlation between what credit card companies do and what insurance companies do.
It’s my understanding that many insurance companies are headquartered in Connecticut. So what? The laws of Connecticut do not affect their ability to offer desirable products to consumers, and if they did the insurers would promptly depart.
The point you do not seem to grasp is that the mandates placed on insurance companies by the states bear no relation to consumer demand; they are put in place by state legislators in response to lobbying by medical-provider interest groups. (In New York you can’t buy a policy that doesn’t covere podiatry services. Do you really think that’s because all New Yorkers demand that those services be included in their policies?)
There are 1,300 separate companies providing health insurance in America. But within a given state the only competition they face is from within the state, and all their competitors must include all the same mandated, if unwanted, coverages. Does that make sense to you?
That’s an average of 26 insurers per state, all told exactly what they must do by the state government. In Switzerland there are 87 compeititors, the government plays no role, and they have universal coverage with provisions for those with pre-existing conditions?
Wouldn’t you like to see such a system tried here? Why not? Why not try it in several states, at least?

“Many but not all credit companies are located in Delaware because of usury laws.”
Exactly.
“What kind of regulations are you suggesting that health care companies would try to circumvent?”
Pre-exisiting conditions, coverage of certain procedures, things of that nature.

“In Switzerland there are 87 compeititors, the government plays no role, and they have universal coverage with provisions for those with pre-existing conditions?”
ROFLMAO!
Switzerland mandates that everyone gets insurances from a government approved insurer.
The claim they play no role is well laughable.

Pre-exisiting conditions, coverage of certain procedures, things of that nature.
=======
Each state can say, in order to sell your products here you have to meet certain requirements. Many states already do that- see MA for example. NJ too.
If you look at any credit card offering, you’ll see disclaimers about specific rules that apply to citizens of specific states. You can keep your American Express as you move from state to state, but you may have more protections or lower fees in one state than another, due to state laws.
That could be done with medical insurance, easily.

Giving Limbaugh a platform on ABC news is an insult to Kennedy’s memory

Gov. Richard Lamm of Colorado mentioned about 20 years ago that we are spending 80% of the health care $ on the last year or two of life.
Ted Kennedy is a great example. The rein in health care, there needs to be $ cut from these seasoned citizens. There is no other way. Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, ect are broke.
Many think it is fair to compare Ted Kennedy’s will to live the $ spent versus the Obama/VA/Socialist Europe plan plan where there is a calculation made by the govet on what to spend.
In England, they will pay up to $40,000 to keep you alive one extra year.
Ted Kennedy had a strong will to live, so that is the contradiction. Also, he wrote an interesting letter to the KGB in 1983, trying to undermine the USA President Reagans efforts in the cold war. At that time, Kennedy was one step ahead of bomber William Ayers who wrote Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father.

I am awaiting the principled respons from JHW539 as to why he opposes a federal reform of tort law applicable to heatlh-related claims. Thus far he has said that it would only reduce premiums by perhaps ten percent, although he as offered no reason why such a ten percent reduction would not be welcomed.
While contenting himself to call me a liar for asserting that premiums could be “substantially” reduced (my term), he has certainly offered no evidence that they wouldn’t be reduced somewhat, and indeed appears to concede that they would be.
And so, you may well ask, why does he oppose federal reform of the tort law? The best he has offered thus far is a passionate defense of state law prerogatives, which seems to vanish when it comes to health insurance.
Everyone knows why he won’t support such a common-sense reform: it is because Barack Obama and the Democrats do not.
And everyone knows why Barack Obama and the Democrats do not support it: It is because they get huge financial contributions from the plaintiffs’ tort bar.
No adult disputes this on the ground of reason. For those who do dispute it, it is simply a question of following the political money.
Again, I await the principled explanation for opposing federal tort reform.

Switzerland has achieved universal coverage and excellent health care outcomes at costs 40 percent lower than ours, as a percentage of GDP, without a public program or government-run market. Instead, ferocious competition among the country’s 87 private insurers has driven their general and administrative expenses down to 5 percent, a percentage lower than Medicare’s.
“The key to Switzerland’s success is that it is consumer-driven – people buy their own health insurance…
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Aug 26, 2009 9:40:35 PM
***
I don’t know what Ryan would say, but I do want to learn more about Switzerland’ program. A week or two ago, Paul Krugman wrote an op ed comparing health care programs around the advanced world (Britain, France and Switzerland, I think). In Britain, which is single payer, the government runs the hospitals and employs physicians (as we all know by now, I’m sure.) In France, and Canada, the government is the single payer but the delivery remains private– not unlike Medicare. And according to Krugman, the Swiss plan is the type most like that which Obama and the Dems are proposing, or what the Senate is likely to propose given the public option hasn’t been on the table– reliance on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage. Krugman also writes that even though it may not be the optimum plan, single payer or a plan with a strong public option would be better, “a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.”
I think you and Ryan were debating something else, but I threw in my two cents anyway:)

I am kind of shocked at how vile a lot of the Republican commentary has been. I was reading one blog where they were crowing about how Kennedys are like cockroaches, and that you can’t just kill one, etc. All a bunch of sickening jokes and high-fiving.
Sickening.

And according to Krugman, the Swiss plan is the type most like that which Obama and the Dems are proposing,
Based on what I am reading on this blog the dems plan doesn’t sound at all like the Swiss plan. They think insurance companies are evil (even the non-profit ones I guess). They want to add a public plan giving all Americans exactly one more choice. They want to keep employers in the mix. And nobody knows how they plan to prevent folks with pre-existing illnesses from being denied covered without either destroying the insurance companies or raising everyone’s costs.

Rush is just trying to continue to kill the bill becasue he know the Dems are going to pass the best Health Care Reform bill they can in honor of Ted Kenney. Rush could care less about a Health Care Bill.

Liberal Lion dead. The Kennedy fairytale has died with him. So long to Camelot.
Sadly, this man was political on his death bed trying to change a law he ushered in regarding succession in MA. Hypocrite? You bet. The man was pure politics.
The left will exploit his death, “do it for Ted” mantra and ol Ted would not have had it any other way. It will still fail because Ted Kennedy’s health care ideas are a failure.
Lastly, I hope his death is not a distraction to what the left is forcing upon the country. I have hope it won’t.

This just in:
“Whatever else he said Wednesday evening at the town hall hosted by Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate Howard Dean let something incredibly candid slip out about President Obama’s health-care reform bill in Congress.
“Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka ‘Tort reform’), Dean responded by saying: ‘The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.’”
JHW539, if you’re still out their looking for your “principled” reason, you can call off the search.

“principled” reason,
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
this, from the purveyors of ‘birth certificate & death panel’ nonsense, add FEMA camps, government ‘take over’ of health care, mission accomplished, katrina & NOLA, Iraq etc….
“principled” reason indeed

in the tradition of Rush…..
freshman Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) told a town hall meeting a week ago that the GOP still had to find a “great white hope.”

“Lastly, I hope his death is not a distraction to what the left is forcing upon the country.”
The ‘left’ doesn’t exist. There are only normal americans and the remnants of the fanatical Republican right.
Your fantasy that ‘the left’ is trying to ‘force’ ‘the country’ into something is grotesque paranoid lunancy.
The Democrats are ‘left wing’, sure . . . and the Republicans are racist extremists.
Grotesque paranoid lunacy seems to be the popular currency of the 21st century.

Wait, Rush says he wants Single Payer? The same care Kennedy got as a Senator, for everyone? Did I miss something?
Well, whether he means what he says or not, I would love to hear some reporter ask every Republican in sight about it. I wonder how they will try to weasel out of it.

Republicans are racists??? Hmmm looks like someone is using the race card in an effort to discredit a debate they are losing…distraction the oldest ploy in losing the political debate..Time to get out of the 60′s…

I think it is very sad that a passing of a respected American is being used to gain political leverage, by both sides. The Democrats can defend the Healthcare reform all they want, but rationing something to basic and fundamental is just wrong. Period.

Just a few recent Limbaugh lies:
“I have not used the word ‘death panels,’ except in quoting Sarah Palin.” – Rush Limbaugh, Aug 17th
“Now, this story in Oregon involving Barbara Wagner — again, it’s in Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny — illustrates that they are death panels. And it’s a great way to phrase these end-of-life counseling and so forth.” – Rush Limbaugh, Aug 13th
“Obama’s even saying ‘There’s no euthanasia in the plan and there are no cutbacks in Medicare.’ What plan, Mr. President? You haven’t presented a plan. How can you tell us what is or isn’t in the plan when you don’t have one? All we’ve got to go on is the house plan and it’s all there. This is mind-boggling stuff. They deny what’s there.” – Rush Limbaugh, Aug 10th
“Nancy Pelosi said those of us showing up at town hall meetings were showing up with swastikas, as she said – meaning we’re Nazis. We were called Nazis.” Rush Limbaugh, Aug 13th
“[Obama] doesn’t know what’s in the bill! He admits he doesn’t know.” – Rush Limbaugh, July 27th

WWW wrote “Limbaugh not only lies, he manufactures his own evidence to support those lies.”
Yeah, he’s done that before. Mickey Kaus caught him editing out parts of Ken Starr’s remarks about the filibuster to make it seem Starr supported the GOP’s attempts to get rid of it.

And we are laughing at the Australians pretending to speak for the world. Piffle!
Stay clear of socialized medicine. Once you install it, you cannot reverse it. It consumes the budget and produces inferior care.
The NHS is the third largest employer on the planet after the Red Army in Communist China and the Indian national railways.
NHS employs one bureaucrat for every health care professional.
Is that what you want America?

One of the other networks–the one with the big eye–has a report by Declan McCullagh. Here is just one excerpt talking about HR 3200:
“Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and ‘other information as is prescribed by’ regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for ‘affordability credits.’
“Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify ‘affordability credits.’
“Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a ‘low-income prescription drug subsid’ but has not applied for it.”
So they want to know our financial information! Information that is supposed to be confidential. They will just pass a law that requires the IRS to readily give up this information, handing it over to the Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs.
WARRANTLESS SEIZING OF OUR TAX RETURNS!
And you Liberals were upset when the Bush Administration “violated” the U. S. Constitution when they searched and seized communications between suspected foreign terrorists and individuals within the United States.

Aussie, you might want to see if there is a job opening at the CBO because they are calling this health care fiasco a boondoggle.

MEP Daniel Hannan and I call your bluff.

Blue Skies never did!
Australians always believe if you going to attack someone do it for something they really did not mafe up stuff!
Obama hasnt done anything for people to be mad at him for yet! He won a free and fair election and has worked to dig you guys out of one god almighty hole!
Before you go calling Australian wossie you may want to remember there is only one nation that has frought side by side The United states of America in every major war.. Australia even the wrong ones Iraq and Vietnam (My Great grandfather my Grandfather and father included)

James Danley
There is nothing in HR 3200, or any of the other drafts, that expressly prohibits unicorns.
Do you really think America is going to be over run with unicorns if the bill passes ??
Come on now!

Rush is saying that passing any bill that allows rationing–in Sen. Kennedy’s memory–would be a “hypocrisy” and “insulting” to his memory. Sen. Kennedy did not believe in rationing healthcare. He believed healthcare to be a “fundamental right.”
The legal definition of a fundamental right is: “A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference.”
***
I find it highly amusing that anyone would think that Rush would have any idea what should or should not be done in Kennedy’s name–or what would be considered hypocritical or insulting by those he worked so hard for throughout his career. Rush will pick on anything the Dems offer up– and a certain faction of the GOP will say we’re hypocritical or insulting no matter what. Puh-lease. That’s no big thang or no new circus trick. People often ask if we listen to Rush before we criticize– please, I grew up surrounded by a heck of a lot of conservatives. Rush quotes and worship have made my stomach churn more times than I can count. I actually wish Kennedy could respond to this latest bit of gamesmanship himself in his booming voice. As TK himself said, “”The Grand Old Party thinks it has found a great new trick, BUT. . .”

Oh, and you libs – if you actually took the time to listen to Rush, instead of listening to what Keith O told you he said, or some other lib – you’d get his point on this. Teddie took every possible tool available to try to extend his life. No rationed, or diminished care there. He got the best that humanity could possibly provide, and God bless him for trying. This bill, as Rush points out, is hardly that! That’s why he said what he said. It’s the Dems in Congress who should be ashamed, politicizing the man’s death before his body was even cold!

“Sen. Kennedy did not believe in rationing healthcare. He believed healthcare to be a “fundamental right.”
Everybody is tossing the ‘rationing’ hot potato back and forth. Kennedy said “decent, quality health care as a fundamental right” not unlimited coverage. Unlimited coverage for every possible procedure for every person will never be affordable so healthcare will always be rationed somehow by someone–and Rush knows this so he’s being disingenuous again. Right now healthcare is rationed by the health insurance companies. You’re saying Rush is being magnanimous but it’s hard to trust Rush.

Aussie wrote: “Do you really think America is going to be over run with unicorns if the bill passes ??”
Actually this healthcare issue is a
distraction to what is actually taking place behind the scenes. Liberals ALSO hate Glen Beck, but that’s because he ALSO speaks the truth. Here is an exerpt from his TV show yesterday:
“Congress, beyond not reading these bills, is not even writing these bills. They are being written by a vast network that is not conspiratorial — it is completely out and wide open — yet the media refuses to report on them.
“Organizations that are filled with socialists, communists, revolutionaries. Organizations that pull their members from legitimate businesses, politicians and from groups that most Americans have never heard of, like Movement for a Democratic Society — a group started by members of the Communist Party USA, other radicals and Socialists of America.
“I have demonstrated these radicals are not only instrumental in shaping legislation that’s being jammed through, but are also — by invitation — personally advising the president of the United States.”
President Obama is once again surrounding himself with radicals–Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones and FCC Diversity Chief, Mark Lloyd to name just two.

James Danley
Fox News isnt a real news channel its Republican propaganda!
Fox News is heavily tied into the Republican Party apparatus. Let’s start with the top. Roger Ailes learned his trade in 1968 at the feet of the granddaddy of GOP disinformation, Richard Nixon, continuing his career as a high level aide to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign, and crafting George H.W. Bush’s media strategy in 1988, including the infamous Willie Horton ads.
Ailes isn’t the only high level Republican operative in a position of authority at the network. Former “Fox News Sunday” host Tony Snow worked for President George H.W. Bush as a speechwriter, moved to the network, and then became White House press secretary for President George W. Bush.
Fox News, aside from its Republican leadership, supports the Republican Party overtly. As Robert Greenwald of Foxattacks.com and OutFoxed discovered, Fox News executive John Moody hands down a memo with Republican messaging themes each day to guide editorial content. Sometimes the support is more direct – just last month, Fox News personality Sean Hannity was the headline speaker at the South Carolina Republican Party’s Annual Silver Elephant Dinner.
Falsification of information is bad enough for an outlet channel that calls itself a news organization, but the overt ties to the Republican Party are deeply disturbing for our democracy as a whole. This is not an ideological argument about diversity – Fox News is not really a conservative news channel, it is a Republican propaganda and surrogate operation, as Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch seem to have baked into their business model a wholesale allegiance to the Republican Party.
Glen Beck is a crazy alcholic paid to create fear and panic to drive up suport for the republican party! The FoxNation passes on all its/your information to the Republican party!

You mean Glen Beck the cry baby Parinoid who cant even keep his Hate and Lies straight? google what he says after his Surgery about our Healthcare and then says its the best in the world the guy is a JOKE! And sad thing he makes millions by lying to The Right and they fall for it! hahah what a joke!

… Comments that are violent in nature, wishing someone harm, as well demonstrating ones opinion through, ummm colorful words that demonstrates anti-social behavior is definitely NOT promoting the liberal agenda in an logical light…Keep up the good work..Makes the argument for the moderates seem..well..Correct…

Second Coming proves once again that “common sense” is used by wingnuts as a euphemism for personal prejudice.
Free yourself from your ideological constraints! You’re so comfortable inside your box that you can’t even see its a box anymore.

“Of course, the bill doesn’t actually use the word “rationing” or “death panels” or “single-payer” for that matter …. but if you can actually read between the lines, gauge the conditions the bill would create, and then follow the line of common sense, you can see that this bill will lead us – definitely to rationing, and then – indirectly – to a panel of people who will be able to deny coverage for what they see as something unnecessary (like they are God and get to make this decision, but that’s another story).”
Wow, a 90 word sentence – how Palinesque! Now, would you kindly point out the lines in section 1233 between which lie the invisible rationing-death panels?

James delany
The truth is Fox News does not tell the truth! They are there for one reason TO SPREAD REPUBLICANS LIES AND FEAR! Thats how the Republicans Campaign, on lies,fear, mis-information. I mean look at Geore W Bush elevating the terror alert scaring people to win the election. Thats how Republicans roll- FEAR MONGERING And you people fall for it all the time Just like WMDS! Just like Saddam Hussein was Linked to 911 now their trying to install FEAR With the Healthcare Bill dont you see the Patterns and Fox News Champions them all the way! GULLIABLE PEOPLE YOU ARE

“Just ignore the message! But when Glenn Beck’s warnings become reality don’t act surprised or that you “never saw that coming.”"
ROFLMAO!

The truth of Fox NEws slogans
We Report LIES you decide IF YOUR SILLY ENOUGH TO BUY INTO THEM.
Fair and balanced IN OUR ATTACKS ON ANYTHING NON REPUBLICAN.

obama is the king of useing fear tactics. and a one sided media thats in bed with this administration.and can you imagine what americas image is to our enemys silly americans and there in fighting.crooks in the white house. they get stronger day by day.mr obama you can lie to the american people but God help you on your judgement day.

New GOP fear tactic.
Politico:”The RNC reportedly sent a Washington State couple a mailing that suggests the Obama administration will create “Dem Panels” [my term] — to parse out health care based on voter registration.
Raymond and Louise Denny of La Center, Wash. were surprised to receive a one-page mailing from RNC Chairman Michael Steele entitled “2009 Future of American Health Care Survey” that contained a series of loaded push-poll-ish question. (See survey page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
The Dennys, retirees from New York, are lifelong independents who registered as Democrats last year to vote in the state’s caucuses approached the survey with an open mind, according to Louise, but were taken aback by the following question:
“It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person’s political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?”

“Meanwhile, the administration yesterday announced a half-year of leave for Federal employees to care for wounded vets. Stars and Stripes’ coverage of “Your Life, Your Choice”, front page yesterday, has now disappeared.”
Belle Starr, the supposed lefty is upset that a right wing lie has bit the dust.

Every single thing you purchase in this life is rationed. In the privat sphere, it is rationed by the price system. When the rationing method of free-market pricing is removed, government does the rationing. You get what they decide you get, period, because the demand for what they can provide is far greater than the supply. Thus, to use Obama’s own example, the elderly lady gets the pain pill instead of the pacemaker.

“Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Aug 27, 2009 12:53:02 PM”
We get it, rationing by one’s ability to pay is okey dokey with the right wing.

Right or Left, you can’t add 46 million bodies to the ‘pool’ without something giving…that is reality.
And for the record, Rush is a unabashed self-promoting blowhard….laughing all the way to the bank.
I once saw a show with Rush and Phil Donahue talking about why the B-1 bomber wasn’t used in the first Iraq war.
Clearly, both did not know WHAT they were talking about…clueless.
They often talk of subjects way beyind their knowledge…that is fact.
But, at least Rush has some common sense, unlike Phil.

when Glenn Beck’s warnings become reality don’t act surprised or that you “never saw that coming.”
Posted by: James Danley | Aug 27, 2009 11:33:11 AM
***
Gotta say I’m not too worried about that happening. When it does I’ll likely be flying on my pink unicorn, dodging pigs and beholding the underworld freeze over as neocons head into their shelters to await Glenn’s next command. But thanks for the concern:) And no worries, I will note that you and Glenn warned me and wearily sigh, back of hand to forehead, bemoaning my lack of fear and paranoia in the here and now of reality-based living.

“We get it, rationing by one’s ability to pay is okey dokey with the right wing”
Is it OK with the left wing that food is rationed by one’s ability to pay? Clothing? Shelter? Flat-screen TV’s?
Automobiles? Shoes? Toys? Furniture? Gasoline?
I’d love to hear an answer, but I’m not holding my breath.

If we are to have medical reforms at all, it should be to limit liability and give hospitals the authority to screen applicants at the ER before admitting them.
One reason health care costs are so high is that the poor often take advantage of the ER, using it as their own personal “insurance plan.” If hospitals had the freedom to simply eject customers who did not have the money to pay, health care costs could be driven down much further.
A secondary effect of this reform would be a reduction in wait times, cleaner emergency rooms, and, eventually, a more robust population overall.

LaVey
Everyone in Australia is insured I have no problam seeing a doctor. There are waiting lists for Elective surgery if your in the public pool Medicare (named long before yours) more like NHS then your medicare
If your in the Private pool there are no wait times.
All Australian pay 1.5% of there tax able income and are covered by medicare and you can if you choose join a private insurance provider on top of that. Which 20% of the population does.

“Ryan does not understand that the financial form of rationing he fears is precisely the kind of distribution, which, over generations, will help the able to thrive. It’s imperative that any advanced society find a rational way to direct resources towards those who would be able to benefit most from them, as a way of maximizing economic growth and productivity.
A real, free market system would function like your beloved “Cash for Clunkers” ought to…. it should get the clunkers off the road, so that more efficient models represent a great share of the overall society. But it would require no tax dollars to support it. It would happen through natural means.”
Brilliant satire?

Fascist Hyena
Does failure to fly result in pain or death ?

Sound like Wisconsin has some issues and needs some legislation in place.. shame its a nice place!

Greta unwittingly exposes GOP idiocy.
“VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, I understand that a lot of Republicans want reform. In fact, most have said some reform is needed. I understand that they don’t like the public option, or the government option. I understand that they say there’s no bipartisanship. But can you sort of, you know — you know, bring me in on the secret why the Republicans didn’t do health care reform when they owned the House, the Senate and the White House? Do you have any idea?
STEELE: No, I don’t have an idea, and I think, you know, again, it’s one of those — those flaws of the past that, you know, we tripped ourselves up on. We had a perfect opportunity even when we didn’t have control of the House and Senate during the early days of the Bush — of Bush first term to at least put in place some of the — some of the efforts to put, you know, our imprimatur, if you will, on the health care debate.”
The GOP controlled the House from 1994 to 2006.
They controlled the Senate from 1994 to May of 2001 when Jeffords left the Republican party and the Democrats and Republicans came to a power sharing agreement. The GOP resumed control in Jan of 2003.

RYAN C
AND THEY DID NOTHING!
They were too busy setting up secret torture missions and spy programs on Americans!

Kennedy is an example of EXACTLY why we can’t have a public option/government run care. He was able to use PRIVATE care to extend his life when a government option would have had him “take a pain pill” to quote Obama.

Alyson, I actually think they were able to accomplish a great deal. Even the supposed “recession” has been a tremendous success. At an auction, I can purchase a house for $1000. In a few years, I will be able to sell this house for 100X as much. This has created a terrific opportunity to consolidate resources, while providing a great pretext for cutting away the social programs.

RyanC,
The point is, the President talks the talk on education and healthcare, but can’t walk the walk.His kids go to an elite private school (as he did) and will get gold plated healthcare (as he will), but the ‘people’ deserve less, because he knows better than them.
Like Al Gore and the rest of the liberal elite, they complain about global warming and the environment and trot around the world monthly on their GV’s, telling us how bad we all are.
Please…this is a ‘new kind of politics’?

J House
Firstly cool that you have lived here.
I grew up in Melbourne Live in Sydney (bondi) most of the tme have a hoilday house’s in Tourquay and the gold cost
Ive lived in the US Sacramento Hollywierd Denver Boise Boise and NY Ive been to every state even that crazy palins one.
Did you feel like you lived in a socialist country when you lived here ?
Unemployment never runs out everyone has healthcare everyone is educated to 18yod Uni is paid for through governments no interest loans that only have to be paid back after you earn above $40,000 a year.
Dental is the only thing we dont have a real program for here! But we all have ok (non british teath)lol

meant bosie boston not boise twice

And I don’t blame them one bit given the violent nature of the right wing and their eagerness to attack the Obama children.
Posted by: Ryan C
This coming from the group who felt it was and is perfectly ligit to demonize everyone in the Palin family.
Obama’s kids have taken ZERO when it comes to that. Palin’s family has taken it not only in the blogospheres, but in the MSM as well.

“Also we are waiting to hear about the state that enacted tort reform and saw medical insurance premijms go down.”
Texas and Massachusetts, to name two.
For which claims do you want sources?
Aussie, failure to have food, clothing and shelter results in suffering and death. All are rationed by price, except for the truly needy, for whom the government and charities provide.

Per capita income in Australia is US$37,229. In America it is US$46,859.
Life expectancy at birth (a datum determined by many factors other than health care) in Australia is 81 in Australia. In the US, with tens of millions of third-world immigrants and about 11 million residents illegaly in the country, life expectancy at birth is 78.

“The point is, the President talks the talk on education and healthcare, but can’t walk the walk”
So someone of means cannot advocate for the poor? Is that what you are saying?

“Texas and Massachusetts, to name two.”
The thing you posted on Texas had to do with malpractice/liability insurance for doctors, not medical insurance premiums.
“For which claims do you want sources?”
The Wisconsin birth mark claim.

Ryan, I think that J House has a perfectly valid point. It’s not that you can’t advocate for the poor, but you simply shouldn’t.
If you are rich and you talk about “helping” the poor you are an idiot and hypocrite.
If you are poor and you talk about helping the poor, then you are just waging class warfare.
With the war on poverty, we lost ground because politicians wrote the rules of engagement, limiting the ability of our military, police, and citizens groups to wage an effective war. We thought we could achieve our goals through diplomacy and aid.
But the war is far from over. And, I think that these Tea Party protests prove that the American people, at least some of them, are serious about winning this time around. And successful low-intensity conflict means that we must establish dominance over the pressure points (food, health care, shelter, water, etc.) and we must mobilize a counterinsurgency that is capable of dealing with radical elements. But this requires a bit of sacrifice on the part of business leaders, who must do their part to support populist groups while applying pressure from the other end.
Eventually, of course, you also have to have mechanisms in place to roll up your counterinsurgency once they neutralize the radical elements.

MIKE C
And who put the Palin Children out there? The Pregnant daughter, The Disabled son? I believe Palin paraded them around and invoked them into politicts. Just like she did with her Death Panels she used her son!and also put her Teenage Mom Daughter on various news shows
Posted by: Angie in Pa
angie,
this really does need to be said :
You are a complete Left-Wing Whack Job!
Of all the moronic statements to make, especially with the recent passing of Eunice Kenndedy Shriver!
So if a politician has kids, ONLY those who pass YOUR litmus test can bring their kids up on a podium.
Nice to know that Angie the Just is now deciding who gets to do what in our society!
Talk about the ultimate liberal poster child -> Your It!

Private healthcare make so much profit in the US its crazy on 69 cents in every dollar actualy goes to healthcare.
Hey I gota go but even though I dont agree with you it was nice talking to you. Peace out!
Posted by: Aussie | Aug 27, 2009 3:29:40 PM
The for profit health care is not as limited as the goverment plan would ber the passing of Ted Kennedy would be a good example. Under a government plan he might not got the best health care in the world and lived a year after diagnosis. The government plain and simple does not have to show a profit and we talking about goverment they do not produce anything the confiscate it and they would put private plans out of business. Do you think Wal Mart is going to keep paying 1/2 of their employees health care if they do not have to. They will dump them on the government.

Fascist Hyena
“Aussie, failure to have food, clothing and shelter results in suffering and death.”
Here people receive uneployment benifits if your not working or earn below the poverty line, You get rent assistance to pay your rent. So you could argue the quality is rationed but not the Items. We help people get on there feet!

Posted by: Angie in Pa | Aug 27, 2009 3:55:19 PM
you are as well, angie

Palin is crazy thank the lord she shot herelf in the foot quiting and lying about the healthcare system..

Another inconvenient truth about ObamaCare revealed by a DEMOCRAT….
—Some people, INCLUDING MEDICARE RECIPIENTS, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation’s health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.
Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that MEDICARE SPENDING NEEDS TO BE REINED IN to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.
“There’s going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work,” Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. “But we have to do this because we’re Americans.”—
Posted by: Truth Czar | Aug 27, 2009 4:27:12 PM
Thanks dude you killed the whole blog

In Australia, if you are out of work and your partner earns $500 per week, you will get nothing.
Effectively you need to be down to your last $2500 in cash before you qualify for the dole. There are other hardship tests which can be applied but generally, you’d need to be pretty broke before you qualify.
They ask the value of your assets, too including car, furniture, etc.
Maximum rent payable is $125/fortnight depending on circumstances ie single/partnered etc. If you have a mortgage you do not get any assistance towards this.
Posted by: Adelaide | Aug 27, 2009 6:14:18 PM
Almost sounds like bankruptcy

In my personal opinion, renaming ObamaCare to KennedyCare is akin to “putting lip stick on a pig.”

A question for ABC – WHY ARE YOU NOT ALLOWING FOR ALL COMERCIALS TO RUN: BOTH PRO AND CON?

Rush: I’m glad you agree that all Americans should have the same health care as Kennedy…he was on medicare…

I have lived both in the UK and in the US. Originally, I’m from Germany — which has an insurance-based system that seems to be much closer to what the US might go for than the UK with its NHS. Coming from Germany, I was not particularly impressed with the NHS — getting a doctor assigned, rather than choosing, having to go to rather poorly trained and equipped dentists who recommended that I should go back to Germany if I really wanted to get a good crown, etc.. In the US my experience has been good so far — but of course that’s contingent on having good insurance. The cost of many treatments and tests in the US seem very high. What I’ve missed both in the UK and the US is greater attention to alternative treatments and herbal medicines. Germany has a great system of such medicines being controlled and sold through pharmacies — while in the US there are fewer good herbal medicines available (say for gastro-intestinal disorders) and they are all considered food supplements — and hence they are not sufficiently strictly controlled.
Germany has many problems with its health-care system as well — but at least it shows that you can have an insurance-based system that combines private and public provision and that provides universal coverage — and I’m surprised that it seems to hardly come up in the US debate as an example.
Thanks.
Claudia

On NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show, close friend Ed Klein reminisces about Teddy:
“I don’t know if you know this or not, but one of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself.
“And he would ask people, ‘have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?’
“That is just the most amazing thing.
“It’s not that he didn’t feel remorse about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, but that he still always saw the other side of everything and the ridiculous side of things, too.”
Aw heck, let’s name this thing KennedyCare. Maybe, in time, we will see the humorous side of denying care to Grandma.

Health care is indeed a right. Sen. Kennedy was a strong champion of single-payer, so if his name gets put on this insurance company subsidy it would be a travesty.
Kennedy’s bill that he kept reintroducing, was much simpler, and better. Kennedy championed “Medicare For All”.
It would be more appropriate to name the government insurance plan (the “public option”) after him, than it would be to put his name on the rest of the garbage in the bill.

“Our rights are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.”
We have a right to property?

Maybe you meant to say that we have a property right to our jobs? That would be a good explanation of socialism, a much better understanding of it than is usually propounded on these pages, anyway.

You don’t abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not you call it a “right.” To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still — though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.

“To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil.”
So life and liberty are not natural rights but ones that must be earned?

It does not guarantee one property.
Correct. One has the right to own property. One is not required to do so and you do not have the “right” to take property from others.

Ryan C-Do we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? In that order?

let me put an end to this ridiculous debate…there can be no right to goods or services, or notion of rights because meaningless. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc…. these can be rights because when I claim them I make no claim on another man’s labor. When I claim a right to health care or shoes, I say that I have a right to the life energy of the doctor and shoemaker. Immoral, monstrous, absurd…

Healthcare is not a right because it demands something of another person (the doctor, the taxpayers) without their consent and possibly against their will, thus violating their rights. You have the right to provide for yourself without interference from others or from the GOVERNMENT (you hear me Barry?) as long as your actions do not impinge on others’ rights to do the same. It can be argued that individuals have a moral obligation to help others in need, but that is a personal choice and in no way is our ridiculous government (especially the current one) able or qaulified to compel such personal decisions upon the people. To even be having such a debate as this is a sad testimony to the low value some Americans place on their liberty and on the liberty of their neighbors.