President Obama Talks to House Liberal Leaders About Public Option

I COULD’NT AGREE WITH RYAN C ANY MORE! LISTEN TOO YOUR OWN BASE FOR A CHANGE!

The interesting thing is to see how one group of communists cannot communicate with another group of communists

The liberals got him elected, but it’s the rest of us–the independents, the non-socialist Democrats, and the conservatives–who are going to run Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of that Socialist gang out of office.

Many reforms are possible without needing a “public option”.

the progressives are missing the plot on this one. The key item in Obama’s scheme is the centralized database which will be accessible and controlled by a political appointed “czar”. Once Obama’s operatives have this information (containing ALL your private information like ss#, tax records, medical history, sexual history, perscription history, blood type, mental health records, alcohol/drug history, dna, etc) it can be used to further his political, and revolutionary, goals. This distruction of doctor-patient privledge and privacy will be of great use in political campaigns for vetting of candidates, political blackmail, or even framing people for crimes. Obama’s chief aim of healthcare reform is the Orwellian database. Once he gets that he can implement his various public options, death panels, or wealth/land redistrubition.

I suggest you listen to them Mr. President instead of the right wing lunatics.
The liberals were the ones who were the backbone of your tremendous grassroots organization.
Posted by: Ryan C | Sep 4, 2009 6:00:51 PM
***
I agree with Ryan C. Although there ARE many reforms that are possible without a robust “public option,” a robust public option is the best way to achieve many of the goals of health care reform. (I’m not fanatically opposed to Olympia’s Snowe’s idea about the trigger, but if we must go that route, please, please make sure the structure is in place in whatever legislation is passed for a robust public option to be easily triggered, as it likely will be needed.)

Please do keep pushing for the public option.
Please do keep pushing to destroy the health care system.
Please keep heading toward your political suicide.
Please.

@Ryan C: You are right (no pun intended) that the liberal base helped organize the fanatical base that helped push him, but the fact of the matter is, liberals (I’m guessing like yourself, sorry if I’m off base) are a minority of voters in much the same way far right Christian conservatives are a very small part of the GOP.
If you try to shape NATIONAL public policy to appeal and appease the fringes of your party, you will get hammered. He’s gonna get ’94ed I get the feeling and it’s gonna happen BIG TIME if he keeps trying to appease the far left Pelosi Crew.
He MUST appeal to MODERATES of both parties. Clinton’s first term was pretty unsuccessful until he HAD to compromise with the GOP when he lost the houses. Most of the nation falls into that gray area and to ignore that is to ignore reality. Most of that gray area wants nothing to do with a public option as HR 3200 envisions it. They would be wise to make the changes they could easily make (tort reform being a huge one–not sure why a doctor can’t make money but a lawyer is perfectly OK to make millions off the misery of others)
Extending the HIPAA protections to individual plans. (most people don’t realize that if you are in a HIPAA group plan you CAN’T get dropped or denied insurance. Look it up.)

The nice thing about a trigger is that it can be repealed before it is pulled. Alternatively, a Gop House can simply decline to allocate funds to implement the public option if it is still on the books.
Charlie Cook looks at the ingredients for a “wave election, and finds them all present. He concludes that Dems should be “terrified.”
My greatest concern is that they will have the good sense to replace Pelosi. If she’s still speaker 14 months from now it’s going to be great, great fun.

There is now a majority in both the House and the Senate that are on the public record in support of a public option.
Both Jake and Obama know this. Why do they continue to pretend?

The Republicans lost severely in the last mid-term and presidential election for taking advantage of the publics’ trust and for being…well not Republicans (states rights?, fiscal responsibility?, etc). The Democrats won because well…the Republicans where just that bad and we don’t get a third choice in the United States.
I believe most people vote against their best interest due to hype, hysteria, and laziness. Its my opinion more people than not will benefit from publicly provided insurance.
To Gain:
1.) Health care for everyone hopefully modeled after Medicare. Or the Canadian system, I visit Canada often and the anti-Canadian Healthcare sentiment projected by the media is exaggerated greatly according the many Canadians I have discussed the topic with. As it stands, if you don’t have healthcare, and break your ankle you’re going to owe the hospital something like 20k. Canadians don’t have to worry about this. They pay higher taxes for the service but who cares our countries going broke because we don’t pay enough taxes.
2.) It is morally right to provide everyone with healthcare. Why is it so acceptable to support a model that basically profits from the suffering of people? Yes, Insurance companies actually have an incentive to deny claims, its called profits.
3.) It will actually create jobs. I know several colleagues who could retire, would like to retire, but won’t until they are 65 (the age at which Medicare becomes available). If the public option becomes available then it’s no stretch to think that many Americans will retire; this will open positions for the currently unemployed.
4.) The creation of competition. A capitalist system only functions when competition is nurtured and sustained. Currently we live in a system where choice is extremely limited. Basically we get what our employer chooses. Typically, the bigger the company the better the insurance; too bad small business is the backbone of our economy.
5.) Save your employer some money. I feel that companies should still offer an insurance option other than the public option in the event it happens. Currently companies pay about 40% in insurance in relation to an employee’s salary (salary 50k, insurance 20k). This means that companies can’t hire people in many cases. In any event this means funds that could go to extra head count or R&D are spent buying insurance. Maybe, American companies can “afford” to keep jobs in the US if they reduce insurance cost. GM seems to enjoy paying for Canadian labor due to savings it receives from not buying each Canadian employee health care.
To Lose:
1.) Your employer will probably stop offering you insurance. This will limit your choices and hurt the insurance companies. Or maybe it will make the insurance companies more competitive in the private healthcare industry. In any event demand will exist for supplemental insurance.
2.) We will have to pay for it. Sure politicians say it will be budget neutral but I doubt it. I remember being told the Iraq war would pay for itself. We will most likely have to pay higher taxes. Most western countries offer public health care; most western countries require extra taxes to get it.
3.) Maybe Obama really is the anti-Christ and will lure us with his Orwellian promise of a better tomorrow just to turn around when we don’t expect it to squash us like bugs.
4.) The fear of losing your job and having to pay for Cobra premiums (pray you don’t have kids). If this isn’t something you fear then you must own an insurance company or are the offspring of someone who does.

“Health care for everyone hopefully modeled after Medicare.”
That’s pretty much the problem in a nutshell: At this moment Medicare has an unfunded liability of $33 Trillion. In ten years it will be insolvent. To suggest that you can add tens of millions–or hundreds of millions–of people to that system, reduce costs, and not substantially restrict care is to delve into fantasy.
Flash, another alternative would be to pretend that you are a self-respecting free man and decline to be forced to pay for others’ insurance, and at the same time not ask them to pay for yours.
The money goes “directly to the doctors” in Britain, a highly industrialized first-world country
whose NHS is a national disgrace giving rise to tales of appalling abuse and neglect on a daily basis.

Fascist Hyena:”In ten years it will be insolvent. To suggest that you can add tens of millions–or hundreds of millions–of people to that system, reduce costs, and not substantially restrict care is to delve into fantasy.”
Or what every other first world nation on Earth has done successfully in some form for half a century or more. And how is doing absolutely nothing to deal with the FACT the US’s health care spending is DOUBLE what the other first world nations spend – yet our life expectancy is about the same?
“Flash, another alternative would be to pretend that you are a self-respecting free man and decline to be forced to pay for others’ insurance, and at the same time not ask them to pay for yours.”
Yes, lets let people die in the streets because they can’t afford to get that compound fracture bandaged up. Maybe some pious Indian nun will come over and make a name for herself comforting the poor dying in the streets of LA of pneumonia or tetanus. Being a first world nation is so over-rated anyhow, and hey, I’ve got health insurance so I’m good.
“The money goes “directly to the doctors” in Britain, a highly industrialized first-world country
whose NHS is a national disgrace giving rise to tales of appalling abuse and neglect on a daily basis.”
What utter nonsense. A national disgrace. I suppose you believed the editorial claiming that if Stephen Hawking had to be cared for by the NHS he would have been judged unfit to live and left to die (they weren’t being sarcastic – they were sincerely ignorant of the fact Hawking is British and has been all his life).

“1.) Your employer will probably stop offering you insurance. This will limit your choices and hurt the insurance companies.”
Posted by: MikeH | Sep 4, 2009 7:58:17 PM
CBO analysis indicates this is very unlikely under all the currently analyzed bills. A public option will primarily attract the employers who currently supply NO health insurance of any sort. The others, who have chosen to supply insurance to better compete for employees, are unlikely to switch to the public option unless it is more attractive than the private ones (in which case we all win, except insurance companies).

Just so everyone knows the Unfunded Obligation Projections for 75-Year Budget Window (2009-2083) for Medicare is 37.8 Trillion or 4.8% of GDP over that period of time. And yes it is predicted to be insolvent by 2017. 2017 is an amended date calculated due to the slowdown in the economy. It’s important to state facts and not just toss around numbers. Also, the problem is due to a large percentage of our population (boomers) reaching the age where they are eligible for the service. The same problem is occurring with Social Security. While it’s not perfect, the Medicare infrastructure is already in place so using it would be considerably cheaper than creating a whole new system. Oh, and by the way I’m for paying higher taxes to pay for it. Passing the buck to the next generation is wrong but something Americans are particularly good at and willing to do. Also, boomers which consist of 37% of the population are already or becoming eligible for Medicare. I pay into the system for them and feel it is the right thing to do. As it stands now I will not get the same service when I turn 65.

“Different factions of the party”? Is that planned parenthood or gay lesbian organizations? I do not want to pay for a person’s worry free orgasm or an abortion. I do not want to pay for any person’s AZT cocktail. I do not want to pay for any behaviorist sects or “factions”, when it is preventable.

Fascist, you FAIL again.
Private or public, the entire idea of insurance is that you are going to be paying for other people, and they will be paying for you.
For the non-sociopath, doing this through the government is not just a way to save money, but the neighborly thing to do.

880,00 thousand status updates on Facebook yesterday said:
“No one should die because they cannot afford healthcare. No one should go broke because they get sick, and no one should be tied to a job because of pre-existing condition. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.”

“Private or public, the entire idea of insurance is that you are going to be paying for other people, and they will be paying for you. ”
Not quite the entire idea of insurance. Homeowner’s insurance, flood insurance, and automobile insurance also operate on the idea that people who build on high ground, propertly maintain their homes, and avoid speeding pay lower rates. Health insurance operates on the idea that you pay into the system while you are healthy and in return, if you get sick, you are covered.
Many on the left do not view health care reform as an insurance issue at all. Quite the contrary, for them it is a right, not unlike welfare.
You want to be a free spirit like, oh say….Stanley Ann Dunham for example, and spend the healthy years of your life gadding about and not paying health insurance premiums only to expect others to pay for you when you get sick? Why the hell not? It’s the neigborly thing to do, after all.

Flash, try to do some thinking on the subject. If I buy a private insurance policy, I have voluntarily agreed to join others in a risk pool whereby we agree to indemnify one another against the risk of illness or injury. We pay premiums according to actuarial data on the likelihood of those events among our group.
I am not required to buy any particular policy. (Unfortunately, in many states I am not permitted to buy a policy that does not insure me against the cost of in vitro fertilization, substance abuse counseling, podiatry services and hair replacement. That is not the doing of the insurers, it is the doing of the state legislatures.)
I guess some people grasp the difference between acting voluntarily according to one’s own free choice without government intervention, and taking what the government says to take.

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
Average of OECD developed nations: $2964

TWO CANCER PATIENTS. ONE IS TREATED IN THE US. THE OTHER IS TREATED IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY – YOU PICK. WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO SURVIVE? DUH!!!

to everyone who voted for the curent guy in the white house you asked for change thats what your going to get.shame it seems nobody really remebers 9-11 dont blame bush.war isnt apretty thing but how else do you get id of threats to our country.sit back and watch your tv and think its easy to make hard choices the people in this country have gotten lazy except for the young men over there keeping you safe in your nice little world to watch your tv have your nice cars.you should be mad instead the big buisnees in this country are selling us out and we dont do anything about it .i love this country but you allow this to happeen and i feel no pity for whn it gets rvrn worse and it will and the people whom thing havent reached yet it will and who will feel for you or help you i hope nobody so you no how it feels to lose your job.so get off your ass an make a change.elect the little giy to public office and not judge on past we all have one and dirt is to be found on everyone. steven johnson

“Yes, well, I happen to know any number of people, who do work, would like to not work, and who will be absolutely delighted not to have to do so the instant Obamacare forces you and me to pay for their healthcare.
Posted by: Bridget”
I doubt you know the people you think you know as well as you think. I’m sure they will still want to buy nice things like IROC-Z Camaros w/T-tops and trims for their mullets while having an ice cold Pabst Blue Ribbon. For that they will need a job. Based on Unemployment statistics we would be no worse for having NHC.
July 2009 Unemployment Rate –UK 7.8% HAVE NHC
July 2009 Unemployment Rate –CAN 8.7% HAVE NHC
July 2009 Unemployment Rate –USA 9.4 (August 2009= 9.7%)

“”TWO CANCER PATIENTS. ONE IS TREATED IN THE US. THE OTHER IS TREATED IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY – YOU PICK. WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO SURVIVE? DUH!!!”"
Posted by: Manitu”
Oh! Snap! We just got served!

We spend more per person for a number of reasons, three of which are the prohibition against interstate sales, ridiculous state mandates and the malpractice attorneys’ casino we run.
But we also pay more because we get more. There’s a cost associated with being able to get an MRI tomorrow instead of next January, or getting into a hospital this week instead of waiting six months, and etcetera, and those costs are not insignificant. But we pay them because that’s the kind of service we want.
And we pay them because we don’t want 4,000 mothers to give birth in broom closets and lavatories in NHS hospitals.

The President has only the “Community Organizer Gear” and he’s stuck in it 24/7.
Seriously, this guy will simply not concede a point or back down…he just looks for another way to slither around for a new angle of attack.
Now this supposed master of compromise is having to corral the likes of Pelosi and Waxman and once again is having to bow to their pressure.
But now that the bloom is off the rose, independents are burying their face in their hands asking…What on earth have we done and who is this guy?! This isn’t the guy who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, accountability and open dialogue. Nope, what we have here is a politician of the very same ilk as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson with a little Jeremiah Wright seasoned in and with a broader smile and a smoother sounding delivery to boot.

Many on the left do not view health care reform as an insurance issue at all. Quite the contrary, for them it is a right, not unlike welfare.
You want to be a free spirit like, oh say….Stanley Ann Dunham for example, and spend the healthy years of your life gadding about and not paying health insurance premiums only to expect others to pay for you when you get sick? Why the hell not? It’s the neigborly thing to do, after all.
Posted by: Bridget | Sep 4, 2009 10:25:36 PM
***
Wow. Shrill, baby, shrill. Obama’s mother had health insurance. She had started a new job and was diagnosed with cancer right as her old insurance was ending and new insurance was starting so she was concerned about pre-existing conditions and had to fill out a lot of paper work. He’s talked about it at length. That worry on top of finding out she had cancer really troubled him.
Also who says free spirits don’t pay premiums? Lots of free spirits are entrepreneurial, would rather work for themselves than some corporate nanny, and have to pay their own premiums. To assume they don’t because they’re not particularly uptight is a stretch.
As for thinking health care is a right, you know, for many it may depend on how you frame the question. I think of it as a community responsibility– part of the general welfare of a community along with education, clean water, police and fire protection, a judicial system and providing a safety net for when individuals and families hit hard times. And if you’re a member of a community you have a right to equal access to those things.

For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government. 4
In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.

“DON’T BUY THE PUBLIC OPTION MARKET RATE INSURANCE. The CBO estimates that’s what 90% of Americans will do in a decade under even the most aggressive plans put forward.”
Only true should provisions, like those found in H.R. 3200, don’t effectively drive citizens into a Public Option. Regan said it best when he said something to the effect of…the closet thing to eternal life is the birth of a new government program.

“Also who says free spirits don’t pay premiums?”
Not me. However, those who don’t should not expect to freeload off of those who do.

“Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.
“Now we’re in a position to really accelerate,” Obama said.
“He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.”
Huffington Post, June 8, 2009

More comedy from the Huff Po:
“Now, I know that there’s some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don’t believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act.”
“And I would suggest to them that they talk to the companies who, because of this plan, scrapped the idea of laying off employees and, in fact, decided to hire employees. Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying, ‘Come back to work.’” -President Obama, June 8, 2009.
Yeah, those stupid critics know absolutely nothing…why just today unemployment was reported at a glowing 9.7%! Why next week millions going to get that “unexpected call.”
LOL. Barack Obama: Televangelist.

“We’ve got big challenges ahead of us,” Obama said at the ceremony for 25 new Columbus, Ohio police officers.
“But the stimulus plan would facilitate an economic recovery, he said, in part by helping support workers in law enforcement, teaching and other public sector professions.
“Because of this plan, stories like the one we’re celebrating here in Columbus will soon take place all across this nation,” the president said as he announced the distribution of $2 billion in new law enforcement grants from the stimulus package.” -President Obama March 6, 2009.
Six months and still waiting on that “celebration” that will “soon take place all across this nation”, Mr. President.

“In the weeks just before President Obama took office, his economic advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.”
“To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate — then 7.2 percent — rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.” – New York Times, July 1, 2009

“Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.
Huffington Post, June 8, 2009
Posted by: BH | Sep 4, 2009 11:51:05 PM
I realize your point was likely jobs, but I believe Biden also acknowledged recently (yesterday?) when talking about the stimulus that the Prez had wanted him to get things moving faster.
Next week, the Council of Economic Advisers is going to report ttheir projections of jobs created and jobs saved as a result of the Recovery Act. I think that’s also on Wednesday– no probably Thursday.

-As for thinking health care is a right, you know, for many it may depend on how you frame the question. I think of it as a community responsibility– part of the general welfare of a community along with education, clean water, police and fire protection, a judicial system and providing a safety net for when individuals and families hit hard times. And if you’re a member of a community you have a right to equal access to those things.-
How come you’re not paying my rent?! I got rights!

-Next week, the Council of Economic Advisers is going to report ttheir projections of jobs created and jobs saved as a result of the Recovery Act. I think that’s also on Wednesday– no probably Thursday.-
Can’t wait to read it. Glad that guys at Goldman Sachs kept their vital positions. How come creeps like Geithner and Charlie Rangel are still working?

How come you’re not paying my rent?! I got rights!
Posted by: Moar! | Sep 5, 2009 12:13:28 AM
I can help you find a shelter in your community? Or have you applied for low-income housing through HUD?

“And by the way, who’s to say he didn’t offer to help her with her medical bills? Do you know this for fact? ”
Nope. What I do know for a fact is that he uses his mother, whose insurance company covered her care, including treatment at Sloan-Kettering, one of this country’s foremost cancer centers, as an example of what’s wrong with our system. While there are certainly things about our system that need fixing, using his mother as an example is not very honest, in my opinion.

How come creeps like Geithner and Charlie Rangel are still working?
Posted by: Cheat | Sep 5, 2009 12:15:32 AM
How in the heck did Gonzalez find a job?

“And by the way, who’s to say he didn’t offer to help her with her medical bills? Do you know this for fact? ”
Nope. What I do know for a fact is that he uses his mother, whose insurance company covered her care, including treatment at Sloan-Kettering, one of this country’s foremost cancer centers, as an example of what’s wrong with our system. While there are certainly things about our system that need fixing, using his mother as an example is not very honest, in my opinion. Posted by: Bridget | Sep 5, 2009 12:23:24 AM
___________________________________
So really you know very little and you’re attacking Obama by saying he’s lying about his mother going through worries about her insurance while she was wrestling with cancer.
And you don’t know whether she went through those worries or not.
In other words, you’re making stuff up and spewing hate.

Moar would undoubtedly prefer a public option that would require you pay for a home for him/her that is just as nice as the one you live in.
Posted by: Bridget | Sep 5, 2009 12:29:23 AM
***
But that’s not how the public option will be designed. Nice try though. He’d have to pay for that. I’d only subsidize if he qualified:)

“In other words, you’re making stuff up and spewing hate.”
Would you care to refute a single one of the facts I cited? You may not like the conclusions I’ve drawn from those facts, and you are certainly free to draw your own, but I’m not making stuff up. As for spewing hate, well, I’m not the one calling you names now, am I?

“In other words, you’re making stuff up and spewing hate.”
Would you care to refute a single one of the facts I cited? You may not like the conclusions I’ve drawn from those facts, and you are certainly free to draw your own, but I’m not making stuff up. As for spewing hate, well, I’m not the one calling you names now, am I? Posted by: Bridget | Sep 5, 2009 12:41:34 AM
____________________________________
Nice try Bridget – every one of your attempts to smear the Obamas on his mother’s cancer situation were proved phony . . .
You should do better research and be a bit more thoughtful.

Would you care to refute a single one of the facts I cited?
***
Oooooh. Nice trickery. here’s the thing– if you cited facts we could dispute facts or not, but you jumped into conjecture, which could also be called “making stuff up.” (Note I didn’t agree with the spewing hate thing; I didn’t copy and paste that part.)
Example: “What he has conveniently overlooked is that both he and his wife were graduates of Harvard Law School and could easily have helped her with her medical bills had her insurance company declined to cover her, which, as you pointed out, they apparently did not.” Posted by: Bridget | Sep 4, 2009 11:46:07 PM
“What he has conveniently overlooked” isn’t a fact, it’s conjecture and speculation and very likely untrue, as he’s said he would have paid for care for his grandmother. “could have easily helped” is also conjecture as you have no idea how strapped they were with loans. Could have helped is a no brainer. It’s the easily that could be disputed. You state it like it’s true.

The google intelligentsia out in force. There are three kinds of lies:”Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”(M.T.). No Bottom liners on this thread, just hair splitters. Oprah, Phil, Sally, where are you? Any of you all been out of country? You know, practical knowledge.

“Ah, but you agree it’s different than simply paying Moar’s rent for him.”
No. Paying all of Moar’s rent would be a 100% subsidy. Paying half of Moar’s rent would be a 50% subsidy. But however much he’s to be subsidized, I’d rather subsidize him in a shelter or Section 8 housing than a McMansion. Or even a nice suburban home.

just hair splitters. Oprah, Phil, Sally, where are you? Any of you all been out of country? You know, practical knowledge.
Posted by: Reflect09 | Sep 5, 2009 1:08:27 AM
***
Ah, but the right wing lies in a manner that requires hair splitting. It’s their favorite game. They ask you to dispute it, then whine about hair splitting cuz they’ve been trained well in making stuff up, sleight of hand– and whining. It’s a subculture thang.
GOP slogan–Shrill, baby, shrill. And when that doesn’t work, make stuff up and keep on going. Then repeat it over and over again.
So if you’re a bottom-liner, let’s hear a bottom line.

“Who’s to say the mother didn’t wrestle with problems with her insurance, they saw this or heard it from her and then they did help her out?”
Who’s to say? Well, how about Obama? It wouldn’t make anywhere near as good of a story, and probably wouldn’t be of much use as a false pretext for railroading us into turning our health care system on it’s head, but if I was nominating someone to say, I’d pick him.

“Provide for themselves”. Well, move heaven and hell Alyson, what a repulsive concept.

“Interesting, huh? How we look across the pond?”
It never ceases to amaze me. We have the greatest country in the world not because we are like everyone else, but because we are NOT like everyone else, and liberals so desperately want to destroy that so we are just like every other country in the world.

Wow, “Dr.” John. You project much onto a benign statement. Hmmm…IMHO, you get it wrong. But you stick to the shrill, baby, shrill slogan. good work.
***
“Interesting, huh? How we look across the pond?”
It never ceases to amaze me. We have the greatest country in the world not because we are like everyone else, but because we are NOT like everyone else, and liberals so desperately want to destroy that so we are just like every other country in the world.
Posted by: drjohn | Sep 5, 2009 7:51:21 AM

Just remember plenty of folks think it’s the right wingnutters that want to drive the country into the ground.
Posted by: Alyson |
And plenty of folks think that those people are lunatics.

I’m currently training for a medical transcription job with a woman who has probably 6 or so doctors. When I questioned her about how the healthcare reform would affect her job, she informed me that “several” of her doctors had let her know that they were planning on leaving their practices, should the bill be passed. Now, we live in a small town so it makes me wonder just how many other doctors across the nation are planning to do the same thing should this train-wreck of a bill be forced upon this country?

And plenty of folks think that those people are lunatics.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Sep 5, 2009 9:50:46 AM
**
I’m sure they do and you’d know– but then it just keeps going, right, cuz plenty of folks think THOSE folks are nuts and back and forth. That’s why Dr. John’s projection is meaningless.

“fixing it does not require guaranteeing everybody a benefit laden, gold plated benefit plan to be paid for, or subsidized if you wish, by others.”
__________________________________
Bridget you would be pretty much the only one advocating this ‘benefit laden, gold plated benefit plan’ approach. As with your previous arguments, you make up hypothetical situations, pretend they’re what other people are doing and attack.
Again, try to find facts for argument rather than trying to stick your false presumptions and allegations on other people.

Quite true, seniors are largely satisfied with Medicare. It will be bankrupt in the not too distant future, but don’t worry, be happy.

“Quite true, seniors are largely satisfied with Medicare. It will be bankrupt in the not too distant future, but don’t worry, be happy.”
____________________________________
Part of the problem right now is insurance companies get to skim all the cream off the top – insuring the young, the employed and the healthy – while the government (and the taxpayer) is stuck carrying the old, the infirm, the unhealthy – and damaged veterans.
It’s a gold-plated deal for the insurers; and a ripoff for the taxpayer.
This will be fixed.

“This will be fixed.”
No it won’t. The government will still be stuck carrying the old, the infirm, and the unhealthy. Only now, it will also be stuck with carrying lots of young and healthy people to the tune of $5000-$10,000 per year.

“No, you miss the point Bridget.
It will be changed so that the insurance companies are not getting away with skimming off the cream from the young, the healthy and the employed – while the taxpayer is stuck carrying the financial weight of the covering old, the infirm, the sick and the damaged veterans.”
Hilarious. This is from a person constantly accusing me of not doing any research and suggesting that I find facts to support my presumptions. Precisely what sections of HR 3200 are going to accomplish this magic?

“Precisely what sections of HR 3200 are going to accomplish this magic?”
____________________________________
This is the directional thrust of the insurance reform, and gets accomplished in part through the public option (or the cooperative approach). The costs begin to be spread evenly rather than insurance companies getting to simply skim the cream (and the profits) off of the young, the healthy and the employed.
Once insurance companies are actually required to pay the costs of people who are sick – rather than ducking out through ‘previous conditions’, caps and such – they begin to actually pay their share, rather than dumping off as many as possible to either sink or be left for the government to cover.
By the way, nobody has said HR 3200 is the final product.

“Got to keep the blood pressure, weight, and cholesterol counts at correct levels so that when our health care system has been destroyed, I’ll be sitting pretty.”
__________________________________
Excellent! I see the upcoming changes in health care are encouraging you to keep healthy in a preventative way – it’s working already.

If there is no option for a federal insurance plan, the big losers are going to be the right wing Democrats.
There isn’t a single liberal to progressive in the Senate or the House whose seat would be in jeopardy if they vote for a public plan.
There are a number of Democrats whom Jake and the rest of the press refers to as moderates who will be in serious trouble if they DON”T vote for a public plan option.

“There are a number of Democrats whom Jake and the rest of the press refers to as moderates who will be in serious trouble if they DON”T vote for a public plan option.”
_____________________________________
Polls have shown that Americans mostly supported a public option – but as the process drags out and the sliming starts they are just tired of all the politics, they don’t like politicians and they are suspicious of politicians.
July, “Another poll is out showing public support for a public/government option. A Quinnipiac poll today shows 69% support a public/government run option.”
September, “When asked “Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?” 58% responded yes. 34% responded no and eight percent were undecided.”

I’m sure they do and you’d know
Posted by: Alyson
Care to elaborate on that?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Sep 5, 2009 10:51:07 AM
To me it’s self-explanatory, I have a right wing of my family so I’m sure they do think what you said they did– and you said it like you have experience with folks that think that way so I have no reason to think you would state it just to make it up, although if I’m giving you too much credit I’m willing to concede that’s all too possible.

“When are the Democrats going to learn, it seems like most people don’t want the public option”
_____________________________________
That is just not true. Polls consistently show support for the public option.
CNN poll Sept 2/2009
Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?
Favor – 55%
Oppose – 41%
No opinion – 4%

It’s been fun playing with you ladies, but I’ve got to go out for my morning jog. Got to keep the blood pressure, weight, and cholesterol counts at correct levels so that when our health care system has been destroyed, I’ll be sitting pretty.
Posted by: Bridget | Sep 5, 2009 11:23:58 AM
***
Have a nice jog. Watch your knees and other joints. Looks like Sylvia responded well to your comments while I was multitasking. I think it would be better to debate the nitty gritty after we hear Obama on Wednesday and so on (see Baucus’s plan and what “Obama care” versus the house bill actually means.) Talk to you then, I’m sure!

So if I thought it sounded snarky and condescending then I would be correct. Thanks for the explanation.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Sep 5, 2009 12:35:58 PM
**
You could interpret that way if you wish. I’m not above snark, but I actually just meant I’m sure they do and you’d know (and not just say it.) If that’s condescending in your world, it’s no big thang to me.

Catch a clue. There actually are progressive districts.
Posted by: Alyson |
Oh I don’t believe that. Next you’ll be telling me that that nice Van Jones is a Truther.

Alyson – it is interesting that the majority of Americans have over time consistently supported a public option.
For whatever reason, the senate has been working overtime to accommodate stubborn Republicans who refuse to respond to the majority will for public option.
And then there has been all the fighting and bickering and hate over the issue that has really turned people off. They support a public option, they hate the messiness of politics and politicians – I think that (especially after the Bush administration) lots of people really just don’t trust politicians.
I’m hoping Obama and the Democrats deliver and that the blue dogs, whoever in hell they are, have had their day.

I’m one of the 30% who don’t support a public option.
I’m one of the 30% who support a single-payer system.

“Excellent! I see the upcoming changes in health care are encouraging you to keep healthy in a preventative way – it’s working already.” posted by sylvia
I have spent my entire adult life keeping healthy. And I’d be a lot less concerned about the economy-busting cost of universal health care coverage as it is proposed in HR 3200 if all of the people who would like to tax me to pay for their health care could say the same.

Obama’s given 111 speeches, interviews, and press conferences in which he’s talked about health care, and the more he opens his mouth the more the American people recoil from his “reforms.” Now he’s giving a 112th — to a joint session of Congress — and this one, we’re assured, will finally do the trick.

Sylvia, I do not agree with your premise that “the majority of Americans have over time consistently supported a public option.” DIfferent polls have shown different results, and it seems clear to me from following the “debate” all summer that many ordinary americans are very much opposed to the public option.
And I am troubled by your statement that “For whatever reason, the senate has been working overtime to accommodate stubborn Republicans who refuse to respond to the majority will for public option.” This attitude is a large part of the reason the president has been having trouble getting public support for a health care reform proposal.
First of all,the opposition to a public option comes not only from Republicans, but also moderate and fiscally conservative Democrats. Also, the Democrats do not have to have Republicans on board to get their program passed, but they want to use the Republicans as an excuse for not getting passage.
Most importantly, though, you dismiss people with legitimate concerns about the shape of these reform proposals as “stubborn,” as if they are being deliberately difficult for the sake of being difficult. Was Ted Kennedy “stubborn” for not supporting the resolution authorizing the Iraq war? He disagreed with the arguments in favor of the resolution and did not bow to pressure to give the president unanimous support. It was a principled stand, one with which I disagreed but which I respected. It would be nice to see liberals on the health care issue be equally understanding that there are differences of opinion that cannot be papered over here.

Listen carefully for things like “co-ops.”
Democrats fully realize how stupid their base is and attempts to camouflage their real goals will be fairly easy with their supporters.
Anything Obama proposes will be a Trojan horse.
Period.

moderate,
I don’t think you can use profit levels to judge the greed of a company but must add in the administrative costs. The average U.S. health insurance company takes 20% for administrative costs(those huge salaries and bonuses for executives help drive this number up) compared to Medicare running their business at 4%. The health insurance companies have so many layers of employees dedicated to increasing their profits, none of which is actually providing health care. Did you know that some employ lots of adjusters to deny claims. For instance if a customer has been in an auto accident and will have big medical bills, the insurer’s adjusters will look through their records for flimsy reasons to cancel the policy, sometimes while the patient is still in the hospital.
As for your assertion that the insurance companies don’t want to price themselves out of the market, that just hasn’t been true historically. As long as they can make the same profit levels, the number of people they insure isn’t really a concern. Just ask some of those 47 million uninsured.
That is the trouble with most big corporations. The people at the top making the decisions are wanting to keep profits as high as possible for this year, this quarter to justify a huge bonus and/or salary increase for themselves. They are not making decisions to keep the business healthy for the next 20 years. Look at the greed of the oil companies last year. They charged really high prices which helped to bring our economy to a screaming halt because they wanted those killer profits that year. It was perfectly clear they were not thinking of their customers ability to afford their product.

Philip V. Every other industrialized nation provides health care for its citizens. Surely we should be able to learn from their systems to improve ours. Take the best ideas from each. We can give everyone health care and the best first step is a public insurance option. A little competition will go a long way. My family buys insurance but it is so expensive, I can see why so many can’t afford it. Health care costs take up 10% of our income before taxes. It is too much. So many countries do health care better. The Japanese spend $3400 per person, while we spend $7,000. M.R.I’s there are $98, ours are around $1500. They can choose their own doctors, hospitals, don’t need referrals or authorizations from insurance for operations. We don’t have those freedoms.
The Public health insurance option is the first step in correcting the insanity of our health care system.

If you watch cable news at all, you’ve seen the ads for “health care reform”, now being called “health insurance reform”. “It is an interesting subtle switch in language”. Mike Oliphant runs a small Utah health insurance website
whom deals with people day to day struggling to find affordable coverage. “I think it’s important to not understate the huge difference in meaning between “health insurance reform” and “health care reform”. Let’s not lose focus on the need to reform a broken health care system which includes not only health insurance carriers but also billing practices of medical providers. Why isn’t TORT reform part of the national discussion? Studies show that alone could lower costs by 15% for both the medical professionals and health insurance carriers (Humana). Perhaps the federal government should take notice of what Utah has accomplished with first step of health insurance reform and promises for reform in the medical provider arena. Several interesting changes took place with the passage of H.B. 188. House Speaker Clark has championed the need for change while recognizing the experience of the private health insurance sector. To see more about this visit

Would someone please be so kind and explain this to me in simpler terms please? This is a very confusing subject. What will this health reform do? Will it make health insurance cheaper?