President’s Former Campaign Committee Sets Up “Setting the Record Straight” Page

“Obviously the White House doesn’t have access to the list over here.”
Ooooh, OBviously not.
Gak. Suuure.
Maybe the morally-adaptable Attorney General, former bag man betwixt Chiquita and the paramilitaries, can find somebody to tease it out of the ether for em . . .
Not to mention that the Obamabots don’t have to hew to regulations that MIGHT have kept the What House from launching that snitches site . . .

Here’s setting the record straight:
* Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care.
* Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment.
* Sixty-two percent believe Democrats’ proposals would force them to change doctors.
* Seventy-six percent believe Obama’s changes will mean higher taxes for them.
* Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise.

“Is there a limit to what millionaires/trillionaires can give to these organizations? I don’t recall any other President having such intimate involvement in so many groups while in office.”
–> Don’t look now, but they’ve also taken over most of “public” radio. Non-profits are a great way to launder money.
Somewhere on the web, there’s a glowing Obama testimonial to non-profits. It’s corporate fascism, masquerading as “grassroots”. It sucks.

“PhRMA vice president Ken Johnson said his group wasn’t involved in selecting AKPD or GMMB, and that, in fact, he had no idea the coalitions had picked the former Axelrod firm until he was asked about it by a reporter from Bloomberg.” — Politico

@Skittles: and how many of them are birthers who believe in alien abductions?
America is going to hell in a hand basket because stupid people are louder and believe to Rush and his ilk’s scary nonsense.
Phukit

This is just another nail in the proverbial coffin of healthcare reform. Dems cannot help themselves from attacking the messenger in lieu of defending their policies against legitimate public concerns. Live by Saul Alinsky, die by Saul Alinsky.

“Here’s setting the record straight:”
So include both sets of questions for that NYT/CBS poll.
“Three-quarters of Americans are concerned that their own insurance costs will eventually rise if the government fails to create a system covering everyone. Also, 66 percent fear they could someday be uninsured themselves without reform. Eighty percent of Americans also fret that the number of uninsured will rise if reform fails.”

Lies? Are we or are we not dealing with an $80 TRILLION unfunded Medicare liability? Are we or are we not talking about spending (at least) another $1 TRILLION to insure another 15% of the population, more than half of which either qualify for Medicaid/SCHIP already or make over $50K per year and choose not to purchase HC insurance? Are we or are we not talking about who is going to ultimately pay for this? Has any government entitlement cost projection EVER been remotely accurate?
THE 80% OF THE POPULATION THAT ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR INSURANCE DO NOT WANT TO BE DROPPED FROM IT OR FORCED INTO A GOVERNMENT PLAN WHEN A PUBLIC OPTION / SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM (THAT OBAMA HAS STATED HE WANTS) TAKES OVER.
But you’re right, none of these are legitimate concerns. All these lies are being spread by radical right wing extremists known as Blue Dog Democrats.
PASS THE BILL ALREADY…WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? YOU DON’T NEED ANY REPUBLICANS TO DO IT SO JUST DO IT.

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan.
Wasn’t true yesterday.
Isn’t true today.
Won’t be true tomorrow under any proposed legislation.

UNLIKE the left, and UNLIKE some of the posters here, I think for myself. I don’t follow Rush and Hannity around and I am NOT told what to say and what to think. I know that’s a concept unfamiliar to the left, because apparently all they can do is parrot what Obama and his minions say. How many websites do they need to “teach” their followers what to say and believe? This country is in deep crap when the President starts going after private citizens for what they believe. Immature, shameless and just plain fricked up!!

The problem Obama is having in selling his bill is that the American people no longer take him at his word. His words a viewed with a deep scepticism because he has said things that put him squarely at odds with things he had previously said. Lie to me once shame on you – lie to me twice, shame on me.

Centrist Blue Dog Democrats are “making a big mistake” by not backing President Obama’s healthcare reforms, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa threatened Wednesday.

I’m all for reform, why not start by regulating the insurance companies. Cut their costs and the rest of health care workers by standardizing claim forms. One form only for all insurance companies. Drug formularies: Make it where they have to be the same for each Insurance Company. Same with the costs of procedures done. Same price structure throughout the industry. Doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. will then know what can be charged.
Incentives for outcomes of patient care.
Tort reform.
Unfortunately, none of this will happen and it will continue to be status quo no matter if this health care plan gets passed or not. If these things aren’t addressed the administrative cost for Doctors, hospitals, etc. will stay the same.
Drug companies will fight over the aspect of a universal formulary plan just like the insurance companies will because the insurance companies pocket the kick-backs they get.
Sorry to have ranted, but I work in the trenches day in and day out. I see the waste and what could be done if anyone really cared. So I rant and rave but no one really cares. Everyone just wants to point a finger at the other guy and blame him why nothing is getting done.

Posted by: CJ Dean | Aug 19, 2009 8:38:37 PM
I agree. Many, many things that could be done. Few of them will be. Our elected officials continue to fail us.

“Max Bachus, a Montana Democrat, predicts that Social Security could be bankrupt in two years.”
Social security is solvent till 2041.
And Max Baucus has said no such thing.

“Tort reform.
Unfortunately, none of this will happen”
-CJ Dean
Tort reform has happened in over half the states in the union. It is a good idea, but it has proven to be no more the solution than standardizing a claims form.
And you suggesting a standardized claim form indicates you don’t really understand the problem – insurance companies WANT the forms to be confusing, and filled out incorrectly. Employees get bonuses for finding reasons to reject forms as not filled out correctly – the longer they delay payout, the more money they earn on the float (money in the bank awaiting payout on claims).

C. J. Dean wrote: “…why not start by regulating the insurance companies. Cut their costs and the rest of health care workers by standardizing claim forms. One form only for all insurance companies. Drug formularies: Make it where they have to be the same for each Insurance Company. Same with the costs of procedures done. Same price structure throughout the industry. Doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. will then know what can be charged.”
That would defeat the whole purpose of competition and free choice–the Free Market. Why have 1,300 insurers–ALL having the exact same coverage and price? If you over regulate than you destroy freedom of choice. What the federal government needs to do is open up competition even more by allowing interstate healthcare insurers.
Individuals are different and have different needs and desires. Would you want all clothing stores to provide exactly the same clothes? Would you want all restaurants to have exactly the same menus? Of course not! Then why should all healthcare insurance companies provide the exact same coverage and charge the same price?

Obama has numerous people in his administration that have taken money in one form or another from the insurance and drug companies who they claim to be the bad guys.

Reality Hammer:”We’ve already established that Sarah Palin was right about government panels reviewing who was fit for health care services because it’s already an established fact in places like Oregon.
When will the MSM admit this?”
About the same time you admit that for profit insurers do the EXACT same thing, and if Oregon did not have a review board the few people subject to it would have NO HEALTHCARE AT ALL.
Palin was blatantly and laughably lying about death panels, but keep pushing it if you want. Why don’t you support the Investor Business Daily’s assertion that if Stephen Hawking had to rely on nationalized ‘death panel’ British health care he’d have been left to die next – that’s good for a laughing-at-you-not-with-you chuckle too.

Since this was deleted I’ll try again. Obama campaigned that lobbyist would be severely limited during any discussion on healthcare reform. Their are six lobbyist for every one Congress person.

“Their are six lobbyist for every one Congress person.”
Which is why term limits are a stupid idea.

Boxcar:” Obama campaigned that lobbyist would be severely limited during any discussion on healthcare reform. Their are six lobbyist for every one Congress person.”
Obama never campaigned on banning lobbiests, his campaign plank was keeping them out of official positions. Anyone is free to register as a lobbiest and Obama never suggested that freedom of speech right would ever be limited. Your posts might be getting deleted because by fabricating ‘promises’ that Obama never made you appear to be deliberately attempting to slander him.

jhw539 | Aug 19, 2009 9:36:06 PM Obama never suggested that freedom of speech right would ever be limited+++++++LOL he doesn’t have to “suggest”

Does anyone believe Obama anymore???

Obama has more “committees” defending
him than Bill Clinton had affairs.Who
the hell pays all of these people? If
MY tax money is involved, then I want
an investigation.

RyanC I did hear about the Max Bachus quote twice today on the news. I can’t find it either when I google it.

I just received an unsolicited call from OFA at my house. The OFA rep said that Obama had as his goals reducing costs, expanding care and allowing people to maintain their choice of doctors. She then asked if I agreed with those goals. I asked her if this was a survey; if in a few days I would read a press release about how 80% of Americans supported Obama’s plan based on their answer to this question. She said no, there would be no tabulation. So I said yes to the goals, but from what I had seen the bills in Congress did not achieve those objectives. She said, OK, thank you, then hung up. That was it. So if the call was not a survey, why ask the question? We’ll see if she was telling me the truth.

“No wonder leftists are such shallow unserious thinkers….”
____________________
According to Pew Research, July 9, 2009, only 9% of scientists view themselves as conservatives, and only 6% as Republicans (52% see themselves as liberal and 55% view themselves as Democrats).
I think that says something about the degree to which Republican ways of thinking appeal to those whose career is to think, rigorously.

Obama is just growing government like Bush did. Of course we can’t afford it, but hey we elected him, right. He has a mandate to make things worse than when he started just like many presidents before him, both dem and rep. How is that for some nonpartisan rhetoric jhw539?

Obamacrat for Palin — OMG! What idiot would vote for Palin. I guess you Obamacrat for Palin since you said you would. No more Christian wierdos in the White House like Palin and her so called Christian spin off. Please I would rather have 20 Muslims, 20 Hindu, 20 Zen be in office rather than some sect of the Christian faith like Palin or Bush Republicans. You, Bush, Cheney, Palin, DeLay and the likes of you Obamacrat for Palin have mocked Christ over and over again! Idiot and Christ mockery person you Obamacrat for Palin! Dishonor Christ like you do, shame on you and your prayer pal Palin. Shame on you.

Ryan C -Yes SS is supposed to by underwater in a year or to. Just like in housing, we should just foreclose on the whole ponzi scheme. FDR tried, but in the end it could not last. I just feel for the older folks that were relying on it.

Posted by: James Danley | Aug 19, 2009 9:06:30 PM
I understand that regulating the insurance companies as such would defeat the whole purpose of competition and free choice. As it stand though you really don’t have a heck of a lot of choice with your insurance. Most people have insurance through their workplace. Those plans have PPO’s, HMO’s, etc. and you get to choose between those.
We need to look at a starting place for compromise. That is why I stated different options to start with. The Democrats are stating the Republicans can’t come up with a plan and the Republicans state the Democrats plan is crap. So try to fix what is already in place. Both sides need to address the true problems with the insurance companies before trying to put together one of their own.
As to “Posted by: jhw539 | Aug 19, 2009 9:01:02 PM” re: universal claim form, why do you think I suggested it. I know all about how insurance companies work. I deal with them every day trying to deny claims. As it stands now I’m fight with 3 different Medicare-D companies to provide pain medication to 3 different cancer patients of mine. I’m sick of trying to get doctors to obtain the prior authorizations for medications or for procedures patients need. That is why I want a standard drug formulary and a basic formulary set forth for medical procedures. Patients deserve respect, they get none.

Republicans — very unfair and completely imbalanced and time wasters — useless to anyone except their own.

The truth?
Hey, let’s tell the truth about Axelrod’s ties to health care reform.
Let’s find out why Obama is subsidizing offshore oil drilling on behalf of Brazil (Hint: the answer is spelled S-O-R-O-S)to the tune of $1 billion.

Ryan C – You forget they have raided the SS surpluses for years. There is nothing, and in the next couple of years it will pay more than it takes in. It has run its course, and now is an impediment to growth since the government uses it to grow itself and the government is inefficient. Your right though…it was nice while it lasted.

“Let’s find out why Obama is subsidizing offshore oil drilling on behalf of Brazil (Hint: the answer is spelled S-O-R-O-S)to the tune of $1 billion.”
“dr” john,
We already know why though the WSJ and Caribou Barbie again LIED
Politico>: “A spokesman for the bank, Phil Cogan, noted to POLITICO that the bank does not rely on tax money and that Palin’s statement ignores the bank’s central function: To lend money to foreign companies for the purchase of American goods and services.
“It has to be produced by U.S. workers,” Cogan said. Palin’s statement refers to “creat[ing] jobs and health benefits in the U.S.”
“That’s exactly what a purchase financed by the U.S. government would do,” Cogan said.
In this case, Cogan said, the proposed loan would likely finance engineering services, sales of ships to service oil platforms, or drilling equipment.”
Palin drew her criticism from a Wall Street Journal editorial which also doesn’t mention the bank’s basic function.”

“Democrats insulted Bush when he wanted to fix SS two years ago and they laughed as they blocked his effort.
Americans will be reminded of that.
Posted by: drjohn | Aug 19, 2009 10:35:24 PM”
I agree.
Americans should be reminded that the Democrats saved Social Security from going down the tubes during the Bush economic meltdown last year.

Good job providing great NBC/Wall Street Journal poll Danny. Thank you.

“Ryan C – You forget they have raided the SS surpluses for years. There is nothing, and in the next couple of years it will pay more than it takes in”
They? You mean Republicans?
Beacon Journal: “Thanks to hikes in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s designed to create a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements, the program’s trust fund is projected to grow steadily for nearly 20 more years — until 2027.
After that, officials estimate there will be sufficient money to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041, when the surplus is expected to be exhausted. From that year on, payroll tax revenue alone should be able to meet 78 percent of the program’s obligations — even if no changes are made.”

Ryan C – Both dem and reps raided the trust fund. Only one year during the Clinton years was actually a surplus. I encourage you and all the rest of the partisan types to watch IOUSA but out by the comptroller. It will show you that both parties are guilty of crimes against the taxpayers of this country. Hopefully, you will come to realize that Ron Paul was right. You are pretty partisan though so who knows. By the way don’t believe the government. SS is not going to be solvent to 2041. If it does pay out that long it will be much less than originally stated or paid in worthless dollars.

FrankleeMiDeer — We don’t allow Rush or any of his counter peers comes through our radios or televisions at any time. We don’t believe in their lies, distortions, all for their paychecks and pure evil entertainment. Those who listen to conservative talk show hosts are usually those who have Rush’ values and belief systems: multiple marriages and divorces, prescription drug abuse, enjoy talking instead of listening, visit countries who allow teenage dating to other men/women, and are solely Republican. Therefore, if you are a Republican most likely you share Rush’s values and belief systems. We don’t share Rush’s values and belief systems, therefore, we are good solid American people — Vote Centrists! Go Obama Go!

Huh — That is totally absurd. How stupid do you think we Americans are? Now you want to change the reasons you are protesting. Give us a break — go to a shrink since you are obviously a psychological liar. You keep changing your story — please get help.

Huh, just a little fact check.
The latest calculation by the trustees has SS paying out until at least 2083 with no changes.

Flash Override – Sorry don’t by it. They will be paying dimes on the dollar. Remember the quantitative easing that is taking place.

Ryan_C is trusting, but poorly informed. The Export-Import bank is a part of the executive branch:
“The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. It was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive branch by Congress in 1945, for the purposes of financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk.”
The Ex Im bank also has US funding from Congress. So, it is quite fair to claim the Obama administration is funding Petrobas development.
Nice try Ryan, but a “fail”
Rick

We are witnessing an utterly catastrophic failure of leadership on the part of this president. On health care reform at this point he simply does not know what to do. His message is incoherent, and he is unable to explain himself to the American people.
The sum of what he has done is quite simple: he has incurred a deficit if $1.84 Trillion to accompish nothing at all, while millions of Americans have lost their jobs.

Fascist Hyena:”We are witnessing an utterly catastrophic failure of leadership on the part of this president. On health care reform at this point he simply does not know what to do. His message is incoherent, and he is unable to explain himself to the American people.”
Really – you are entirely unable to understand what he’s proposing? Yet you viciously reject it anyhow. Interesting.

New Pew poll shows Obama’s approval at 51% among adults. Not likely voters, not registered voters, simply adults.

Do away with the Republican party. They are the party of yesterday ideas of greed, control freaks, and power hogging. Don’t buy Republican products and services and move out Republicans from their comfort zone. Ever seen a Republican out of his/her comfort zone — quite amusing to watch. LOL

Elle – We also need to do away with the dem party. Goldman was Obama’s biggest donor, and we all know who got the sweetest deal on Wall street at all of our expense. Just get rid of both corrupt parties. They both are guilty of corporate fascism. We the people need to hold them accountable. Am I right Elle?

The real story with health care is that congress and the administration attempted to sneak this by the American public with no comment, no debate, and no one reading it. Worse, with no creative input from the most creative culture on the planet.
Now we have taken a breath or two and parts Palin suggested look like “death panels” have been removed. Say what you want about Palin, her actions got a significant change in the bill.
We should in fact be looking at John Mackey’s (of Wholefood fame) plan. His article – a profile in courage if I ever saw it – is that insurance for patients and for docs is what is driving up the cost of health care.
Patients do not know what procedures cost. Mackey fixes that by giving his employees high deductible insurance and a cash grant to a health savings account – they keep what they do not spend – brilliant. Patients pay for things like office visits out of the health savings account and are covered for larger procedures.
Similarly docs fees are too high because they have to pay for malpractice insurance. Insurance at both ends has to be fixed.

Huh:” Goldman was Obama’s biggest donor”
That’s not true. The University of California was Obama’s biggest ‘donor’ at $1,591,395. Goldman Sachs (employees, owners, and immediate family) were a distant second at less than a million. Harvard University came in third place.

Remember Bush’s brillant idea (not) to take ss, privatize in the stock market? Let’s recall September October 2008 — big crash — all of our SS dollars would have crashed with that “brillant” idea. Vote Democrat – Go Obama Go!

Vote Democrats who are well mannered, well versed, well edcuated, respect others, exhibit kindness, goodness, and compassion. Buy Democrat products and services — you know you are getting well made products and honest services. Go Obama Go!

“Remember Bush’s brillant idea (not) to take ss, privatize in the stock market? Let’s recall September October 2008 — big crash — all of our SS dollars would have crashed with that “brillant” idea.”
What a nice talking point…until you look at a 10, 20 and 50 year chart of the DJIA. 8% a year growth vs. what? t-bills?
And could you imagine what 787 billion injected directly into the stock market would like in market terms against the so-called stimulus we have now. You think businesses (of all sizes) might just be hiring again instead of having to look over their shoulder at ObamaCare taxes, cap-n-trade taxes, resisting any temptation to add to their payrolls?
Yeah, talking points sound better, until you bother to align them with reality.

the solutions are simple:
- Let the insurance companies charge whatever they want… and deny benefits however they choose to at any time.
- No regulations on any industry
- Allow all business to pollute they areas they’re in without any requirements to clean
- Mandate bible and creation science studies in public schools.
- More guns, any kind.
- Prevent all citizens from litigating against corporations.
- No accounting for the monies spent by lobbyists, initiate a ‘pay to play’ fee for citizens to insure access to their representaives.
- All voting machines will be bought from and monitored by reliable republican businesses.
- More guns
- mandate loyalty oath to the Republican party
- more prisons for those who can’t pay their medical bills
- freedom for the credit card companies to change terms and charge for everything.
- any country that is even surmised to pose a threat, or speaks against America will be attacked.
- rescind ‘clean water’ legislation
- burn books that are deemed offensive by evangelicals and conservatives
- More guns
- cancel: medicare, medicade, social security.
- monitor music and TV to prevent subversive thoughts and emotions.
- quadruple the defense budget
- lower automotive standards for MPG and safety
- mandate christian policies on all federal legislation
- remove all non-whites from America
- more guns
- if you fall under the new guidelines for personal salary requirements, you will be deported.
- cut down all forests and sell all national parks
mandate lief appoinments:
Bachmann & Taitz for pres. & Vice Pres
Palin for Sec. of State.
Pat Robertson for Sec. of Religion.

JWH, i know exactly what one house committee is
proposing, and I do indeed reject it viciously. Neither I nor anyone else knows just what Obama is proposing because there is no proposal that bears his name. And when he talks on the subject he is inarticulate and self-contradictory.

Why do we find ourselves defending ourselves against a repressive government? Maybe it’s a good time to read, or re-read the Declaration of Independence!
Posted by: Ed Taylor
too bad we can’t arrange for you and your like ‘minded’ buddies to be taken and dropped off in a country with a real repressive government..
you might actually learn something about the ‘repression’ nonsense you write.. but then again, sadly, you probably would end up saying it’s the same thing as America.

welldirected said “Now we have taken a breath or two and parts Palin suggested look like ‘death panels’ have been removed.”
Sarah Palin has made the false claim on Facebook that the advance care planning provision (section 1233) is being removed from HR 3200 by the Senate Finance Committee.
1) Show me where it has been announced that ANY part of HR 3200 is going to be removed.
2) Show me where there is any sort of panel in section 1233.

Obama himself has spoken several times about the panels of “ethicists, scientists,” etc. that would develop guidelines as to whether persons like his grandmother should receive various forms of care late in life. I believe Palin may have been referring to Obama’s own words, although I don’t really know or care.
The provision for end-of-life counseling has been removed from the draft in Max Bauchs’s Senate committee.

Very interesting, Thinking. There is no public option for auto or life insurance–does it trouble you that you are forced to buy them from private companies?How about your food–do you want a government provider?
And who, exactly, “forces” you to buy health insurance from a private company? Many people who could buy it elect to self-insure instead.
If you want it, you’re going to have to buy it from a private company. But cheer up–just about everything you buy comes from private companies.

Fascist Hyena you have a good point that health care is no different than food or shelter or your car – if you have one. No one see those as having to be provided by the state – well not yet anyway.
There are reports out this week that Canada’s health care system is collapsing. We should not institute a system we know is broken. We are the most creative culture on the planet. I think we can come up with a solution to health care that is distinctly American, fair, and efficient.
There is a panic on the left and emotions are high. I have never seen so much name calling. That is not going to help. We need to get together and work on this thing.

Good/Bad it is not Palin saying she had that impact it is the mainstream media. Look back at the news for last week. It is full of how Palin is controlling the dialog.
It does not matter. Good people like John Mackey are trying to help and are being shouted down. We need to get everyone working together.
No one wants rationed care or a government board in Washington deciding that at what age what interventions are appropriate. We know with the Fedex UPS analogy that competition tends to produce a better system. To do that one has to be aware of what one is paying for healthcare. People in the US for the most part do not.
We also need a complete break out of the costs. I find it quite surprising that we have not seen that. Are the insurance companies keeping that from us? We know that they are making a bundle insuring the patients and the doc. We need to know where the money is going to stop the leaks. People are not even admitting that the boat is leaking.
What is the cost break out for the current health care system?

Fascist Hyena you have a good point that health care is no different than food or shelter or your car – if you have one. No one see those as having to be provided by the state – well not yet anyway.
Posted by: welldirected | Aug 20, 2009 2:27:42 AM
***
I think Fascist Hyena was talking about insurance, but bygones that’s besides the point for now. If I’m not mistaken there are such things as public housing and shelter, food stamps, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, and reduced-price school lunches. Part of democratic capitalism IMO, IS providing a safety net that promotes the general welfare of a democratic republic’s citizens. But again, bygones, because no one is asking the state to provide free health care, but rather many people want to reform the current system, particularly the payer system, to make it more equitable and affordable. Universal or near-universal coverage and cost containment are the primary goals.
In regards to car insurance, you can elect not to have a car and no need for state minimum liability coverage or more, but you can’t really opt not to have health needs. You can try, I suppose, but sooner or later a need for some form of medical care arises– you can’t necessarily anticipate your own or family’s demand. So, you can’t really opt out. As for food, you can buy from farmer’s markets and co-ops, which isn’t government run but its an option, an alternative. You can also grow your own and trade. But the more applicable analogy to what is being proposed in health care is food stamps.
The health care/insurance sector IS different than the market for food, houses and cars, btw, at least in my opinion, for a couple of reasons. First it’s billed fee for service. Second, it’s paid for largely through insurance, which premiums are paid for, plus deductibles, co-pays and so on. But actually paying for your health care is a loss from the insurer’s perspective. Hence, insurers have a built-in financial incentive to try to deny as many claims as possible, and also to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. And as a tangent here, the denying and avoiding lead to much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems, not that I’m advocating that. Every system has its problems.
Nobody wants “rationed” care, but that whole rationed care thing is a red herring. Thinking People differ as to who they trust more to ration it– but it is more or less rationed, not only by bureaucrats but also by income. Here’s the thing, however. Not all “rationing” (depending on your definition) is a bad thing. About a third of American health care delivered is not necessary and wasteful. What’s wrong with eliminating that care in the name of lowering costs?
Just my two cents worth:)

“Is it just me or is the Republican party slowly coming apart at the seams?”
It’s just you.
It’s the Democratic Party that’s coming apart at the seams. There’s constant intraparty fighting which Obama didn’t anticipate.

Yikes!
The CDC says life expectancy is up. That means more health care costs and older people!
Obama had better get going with his Mengele plan!

It’s amazing that anyone still believes this administration.
I’m sure the Dems still support BO because they have no place else to go.
But truth be told I doubt the majority of them really trust Obama.
He has not proven to be credible or trustworthy.

If the WH is in chaos it is because Obama is such a weak and incompetent leader.
So he dumps everything in the lap of Nancy Pelosi!?!?
The WH is in full damage control, trying to save a sinking ship.
It’s their own fault.

“I belong to no organized party. I’m a Democrat.”
-Will Rogers

“I belong to no organized party. I’m a Democrat.”
The Democrats have almost always had the ‘big tent’ and it’s gotten even more diverse recently. Why does anybody expect harmony? The inner turbulence of the Republican Party seems more significant.

Elle wrote (August 19, 2009 11:39:24 PM): “Remember Bush’s brillant idea (not) to take ss, privatize in the stock market? Let’s recall September October 2008 — big crash — all of our SS dollars would have crashed with that “brillant” idea.”
And many of you accuse Conservatives of misinformation! First of all, Bush’s plan was strickly voluntary. And an individual could choose to have up to a maximum of 4% of his or her Social Security placed into a private account that would have been managed by the individual.
About 30 years ago, Galveston Co., TX wanted to opt out of Social Security for its county employees. In an election, a slight majority voted to opt out. This was an all-or-nothing proposition, so when the final decision was made to opt out all county employees were effected. Many of the employees were very upset. That was UNTIL the first retirees under the new program began to retire. The average Social Security check is currently a little over $1,000 per month. The Galveston County employees averaged over $8,000 PER MONTH. That’s because the employees’ money was invested in government guaranteed bonds.

What the Democrats in Washington fail to understand is that most American’s balance their check books and read what they are going to sign, unlike this White House that has spent wildly and did not read the Stimulus Bill. President Obama signed that bill within days of his oath of office…and his credibility has been falling aways since. I think the smoke and mirror days are over…

Woody “Part of democratic capitalism IMO, IS providing a safety net that promotes the general welfare of a democratic republic’s citizens.”
Mandatory health insurance is less like a safety net and more like a rusty cage for the entire country.
John Mackey’s proposal improves health care, lowers costs, and keeps the government from growing and imposing its will on us. I am always surprised that fellow democrats are so willing to give up their freedoms when the counter culture freedom movement is a central facet of the left.

“Certainly did in the 50′s and 60′s with Klan members.”
You guys have them all now and you can keep them. They’re working hard to wreck the Republican party from within.

Nobody’s perfect. So, they’re not a diehard fetish for me
***
I meant the forefathers and some of their conclusions, not the Constituion

Everything about Obama has been bait and switch, from I am a centrist, bipartisan, moderate to I am a religious, articulate, leader. One shouldn’t have to wonder why a fact check page is needed and it all started with ‘Ayers is just a guy that lives on my block.’ Trust him, like I trust a junkie to spend money on food.

“…modern liberalism stresses liberty in lock step with equal opportunity.”
That would be a rather veiled description. Modern liberalism is based on perceieved social justice. For example, its perfectly fine to have a Negro College Fund, not fine to have a Caucasion College Fund. Thus, modern liberalism percieves that social justice must be served based on the prism in which they percieve the world. The method of doing this is targetting the rich and successful to compensate for this percieved social injustice, sometimes even claiming that success and wealth stems from the exploitation of the downtroden.
Thus, modern liberals support policies that fit into their prism of perception of social justice. This has an uncanny resemblence to 1860′s marxism. Thus, the label marxist/soclialist ideology claim by many conservatives.

Mr Tapper, I saw you last Sunday when you filled in for George Stephanopolous, and I was truely impressed, you sir deserve your own Sunday show.
In the past I have been critical of your opinions, but you made me into a fan last Sunday.
Re: Health Care.
I love my fellow Americans but they can be as dumb as a door knob. Perhaps I am giving door knobs a bad rap, as they can turn either way, so let me say dumber than a door knob.
Try this: point to their own houses and tell them it’s a Socialist house and then sit back and watch them burn it down and then look at you with the “what do I do now, that I’m living under a bridge” look.
Jason Miller
Jason Miller,

While obama and axlerod keep lying to prop up those big wealthy pharmaceutical companies, Jason….

“Yes. Notice I threw the IMO in there. I’m aware of the difference. Classical liberalism (conservatism) stresses individual liberty, modern liberalism stresses liberty in lock step with equal opportunity.”
Conversely, modern conservatives believe in self reliance, almost to a fault. They have difficulty explaining the role of social assistance in a conservative perception of individual success, in that, where the social assistance line is drawn, defining it in a way that explains their beliefs. While a conservative supports social assistance to handi-capped or disabled, they draw the line at lazy or those who built themselves into a trap of substandard living. This is at odds with modern liberalism who subscribe to the “all can benefit” concept of social justice. Modern conservatives tend to be older, more realized of the folly’s of marxism in eastern Europe and thus, commonly point to the failures of marxism as something to avoid. Modern liberals believe that it simply hasn’t been done correctly yet. Conservative counter point is that it cannot be done correctly because it runs counter to human nature which is based on effort = reward. When effort exceeds perceived level of necessary reward, human nature is to lower effort, and in a socio-economic system this is loss of productivity, as proven by years of marxist based socio-economics in eastern Europe and their now complete departure from those ideals. (flat tax, private property rights, etc).

The President cannot possibly explain how access to healthcare can go unaffected when you add 40+ million new customers to it without expanding the number of healthcare practioners, hospitals, etc.
The resources are finite, which means it will be rationed to even a greater extent, for everyone. Such is the wait in countries where healthcare is ‘free’.
He is being dishonest, and he knows it.

Another dumb think I noticed:
Everybody keeps talking about “MY HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY” don’t you realize that you don’t own the policy the Insurance company has loaned the policy to you employer who ALLOWED you to participate out of the kindness of their hearts for a fee.
The people of the UK, OWNS their Health Insurance, the people of Germany and France OWN their health Insurance, you don’t own anything, you are a begger in this.
Remember you are just one job or one big health problem away from living under a bridge. – Please go read THEIR policy before defending the Insurance companies.

“The people of the UK, OWNS their Health Insurance, the people of Germany and France OWN their health Insurance, you don’t own anything, you are a begger in this.”
“Own” would indicate control. The people of those nations have no control over what is covered and what is not, or how much is taxed for it. Politicians and bureaucrats do. While insurance companies here do have a certain amount of control as well, outside of government mandates, you can customize your policy, choosing different deductables and copays that can lower your premiums. It’s definately more flexible. It’s not without it’s problems but once it goes government, cost and coverage goes into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. Just look at the proposal to cut medicaid, the outrage of seniors, while it does pressure, it doesn’t mean control.

KR – What are you talking about.
I just hate when idiots fight and defend these companies who are using them like tools/indentured servants to protect their money tree (the American consumer)

The People of the UK/Germany/France has been proven by health researchers to have better medical results from their medical institutions than Americans.
The Europeans are ahead of us in:
Longevity
Defensive Medicine
Population health
Education
Implemented Technology
But we just love when the politicians lie to us the “WE ARE THE BEST” and “WE ARE NUMBER ONE”
To get over a drug you first have to admit your problems then work to fix them, and only then can you truly become “NUMBER ONE”

Jason, you might want to double check those stats of yours. The latest info being put out there is that, if you eliminate deaths due to homicide and accidents, the US is number one.
Maybe we ought to lower the speed limits back down to 55 and forget about cap and trade and health reform altogether. We’d accomplish much the same amount of progress on both.

“However, this really isn’t a product of our health system, its more of a product of our huge economy compared to Europe.”
To be more specific, it’s a product of our health care system, which rewards research and innovation with profits.

On the subject of the Setting the Record Straight page….
If Obama actually produced a plan that a majority of Americans could support, and then explained it clearly and persuasively, he could dispense with the need for Setting the Record Straight.
Short form might be something like:
“Henceforth, every American must have heath care coverage. Every single person in the country is hereby declared eligible for Medicaid. Premiums will be means tested.”
See? Not so hard.

There is the rich who don’t need help with Health Care.
There is the Corporations getting rich from the American mess called Health Care.
There is the Middle-Class who are just one family illness away from living under a bridge.
There is the poor who have medicaid.
Then there is is lower-middle class who don’t have Health Insurance and work every day afraid that they could get an illness that would put the alongside the ill middle-class under that famous bridge.
This is the American reality the tell the lie to America being “Number One”.

Funny how No Drama Obama has turned into all drama.
And it’s his fault for allowing all the chaos.
As he says the buck stops with him.

Here it comes….Organizing….the Chicago Way!!!!!
That bus keeps getting higher & higher!!!!!

Re: “I don’t think racism subscribes to any one party. Not only is racism color blind, it’s also party blind, and exists in every diverse culture around the world.”
Surely you don’t think racism just distributes itself randomly among political groups. Would I bee slandering the KKK by suggesting their political philosophy seems to attract a disproportionate number of racists?

Baily,
Was the interview tip that didn’t remind you of President Obama labeled Sour Grapes?

“Surely you don’t think racism just distributes itself randomly among political groups.”
Rev. Wright obviously would not be described as a republican. So yes, racism exists among both of the parties in the US. Dem’s also support minority groups that segregate by race, i.e. NAACP, NCF, etc, but would not support a white version of those organizations. That is in fact, racist. To be non racist would be to not support any group that segregated by race. So to say racism only exists in the Republican party points more to the fact that because of your political motivations, you want to believe that.

Per KR: That would be a rather veiled description. Modern liberalism is based on perceieved social justice.
***
Okay, so continuing from my last post, in the book of Nehemiah, which incidentally was written waaaay before the 1860s, there was an outcry among the poor because they didn’t have enough to eat and they needed grain. They were mortgaged to the hilt, in debt and they needed help. So Nehemiah, who was already lending money and grain, v called the nobles and officials and basically asked them what in the heck was wrong with them. After a stern lecture, they agreed to give back their lands and money. And Nehemiah never, for a hundred or more years or so, collected all that was allotted to him as governor but rather let the people have it and prosper. He wasn’t guided by opportunism and profit over the human dignity of the people. But he was prosperous:)
Provide a safety net for the poor. Don’t let them fall through the cracks. Don’t discriminate against minorities, the underprivileged, the disabled or disadvantaged, the sick, the elderly, women and so on. Provide equal rights to vote, receive an education, get health insurance. Social justice.
None of those things are an antithesis to capitalism. There will always be poor people. But we can still treat them with dignity, recognize their humanity, and provide the and their children with opportunities.
So how did I go from a growing up in an ultra conservative town with a right wingnut wing of the family to a college libertarian to a moderate progressive. First I moved to the city — I think large cities change some things because you live in such close quarters to all walks of life. And I started working for some bigshots and saw up close the issues with large corporations– not that I demonize business, but you have to be realistic about how they are and how much financial incentives alone can fulfill you. The way I see it is corporations don’t have a heart and you can’t vote them out of office, and once the power aggregates and their interests become entrenched in government and they become corrupt, it can be very hard to change the status quo (see 90s health care fight; Wendell Porter’s insights are the tip of the iceberg in my experience; and also Wall Street). Granted, you can apply conscious consumerism– but if they’re big and there’s not a lot of competition in the market?? I also started tutoring kids in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in the city. They were just kids, you know, who hadn’t asked to be born into the circumstances they were born into. I see their faces every time I get into one of these conversations. And I went to Appalachia and rehabbed coal miners shacks five summers in a row. And I listened to their dreams and their limited opportunities.
So, I think the veil is a good test– actually I can’t remember what kind of veil; its sort of a well-known thing associated with social justice and I can’t think of the full name! Sigh. But the idea is this– if you were behind a veil and you had no idea what kind of circumstances you’d be born into– what talents, what sex, what race, what family, what position in society, what family circumstances, what wealth– how would you set up the society, assuming all persons including yourself have equal rights, and there will be biased institutions regardless of what you do. Or something like that. The safest thing to do is to set it up as equitably as possible with a safety net. But, honestly, I really don’t see how that warrants accusations of communism, socialism, Marxism and so on– at least not necessarily.
I got interrupted several times so hopefully there’s not too many typos and its lucid.

Baily,
Was the interview tip that didn’t remind you of President Obama labeled Sour Grapes?
Posted by: Kelly | Aug 20, 2009 5:36:03 PM
***
I think it was!!! Sheesh.

Hey KR,
A couple things. First, I know that Marx talked about class struggles. I put class in quotation marks, because I think many, many folks on the right have a much more rigid view of use of any words used by Marx , and I mean benign things like the words “class struggles,” than I and a lot of other people do. I mean, I am fairly moderate so I consider quite a lot of things over the top, on both sides of the right-left spectrum. From my perspective, class struggles have been a part of our existence since societies gathered, but nowadays the phrase “class struggle” seems to be a code for communist to people who, to me, seem really hung up on that. If you fight for the underdog in anything that can perceived as a “class” struggle, you are automatically somehow derivative of Marx– the baby gets thrown out with the bath. The bushel of apples gets thrown out with the worm. But I object! Marx doesn’t own all conversation about or viewpoints of class struggles or how to make things more socially just. IMO, those who are taken advantage of have every right to organize and fight for their civil rights and their fair share– and even for a law on the books or a program that will be beneficial to them. Maybe they won’t get it, but they have the right to fight for it. I think the communism thing is a ploy to shut down any meaningul conversation.
As for economic equity, I’m not one who would argue, and I never have argued, that my 50 lb. son should have the same size piece of steak as my 230 lbs. husband– but I would argue he deserves and should have his proportionate piece– and that it’s not fair to give my husband all the steak cuz he’s bigger and my son only rice because he’s little. Imperfect analogy, but you get the drift. I think your argument about the janitor and the law professor is faulty and perhaps, disingenuous or a bit of sleight of hand:) By equating equity with exactly equal, you’re making proponents of fair treatment and social justice sound silly. Who argues that a lawyer or physician shouldn’t make more than a janitor or window washer? Or the owner of the company shouldn’t make more than his administrative assistant? That’s not fair or just for the reasons you said, and more. On the other hand, I think its silly to ignore history where people have been serfs, slaves, coalminers, factory girls and so on– and still are in certain places, even here– and have indeed been treated unjustly. I seriously think it’s a mistake to tie one’s hands when it comes to fighting injustice– whether it’s injustice against the government or big business– by painting any talk of class struggle or of social justice as communism, socialism, Marxism. I think it’s a mistake to view things in such stark, black and white, communism or not terms– as if there are only two ways to look at, well, anything. You miss out on a whole world/spectrum of possibilities that way.
I think I’m being redundant. Sorry.
Now, I DO agree that we don’t want people to be dependent on the government. I also don’t think people ought to be dependent on a nanny-type employer that doesn’t often give a hoot about them either outside of monetary terms, and I’m glad we’ve moved away from that a bit. I wish the health insurance sector would catch up.
Anyway, I know we’ll likely never agree on this, but it’s always good to hear others perspectives. I actually think a lot (not all) of former military folks think in a similar manner, and I do think it could come out of the Cold War and related ongoing experiences, meaning the military folks have a reason to remain ever diligent against communism and Russia and so on. In the civilian world, and I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but for some reason it always sounds so old school to me– like, isn’t it time to move on and just talk about our problems here without conjuring up supposed moves toward some anticapitalistic regime?

Making a Great personal ad – Develop an attention grabbing headline – Steer clear of the overused ‘SWF seeks SWM with GSH’, be distinct. Just before you post study other ad headlines and see what makes you take note and use these as a model, to write your personal.