Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditGod I hope David Broder is wrong. "The President has told visitors," the Washington Post columnist wrote last week, "that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52-48." The good news is that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is now talking about how bipartisanship may need to be redefined downward if the Democrats are going to pass meaningful healthcare reform. In a meeting with journalists last week, Emanuel proposed that healthcare legislation could be bipartisan without Republican votes. "There will be ideas from both parties, and individuals from both parties, in the final product," he said. "Whether the Republicans decide to vote for things they promoted will be up to them." ( David Axelrod seconded the emotion in his appearance on ABC's "This Week.")
The trick now is to ensure that "centrist" Democrats (who, as Paul Krugman notes, "are in fact way out in right field") pay more attention to the broad majority favoring a strong public option than to the wads of dough lavished on them by big Pharma and insurance lobbyists. As Joe Conason put it in his invaluable New York Observer column, "If Congress fails to enact healthcare reform this year---or it enacts a sham reform designed to bail out corporate medicine while excluding the 'public option'---then the public will rightly blame Democrats, who have no excuse for failure except their own cowardice and corruption." Blame could well be registered in ugly midterm election results in 2010.
It's time to part ways with obstructionist Republicans and pass a strong healthcare bill with a majority vote, which is possible if efforts cease to get a handful of Republicans to cross over. Redefining bipartisanship at a time when the GOP has become a male, pale and stale party committed to deficit demagoguery and fearmongering is the common sense and, I'd even argue, pragmatic course. Instead of wasting time on recalcitrant GOP holdouts, do what Drew Westen, author of the terrific book "The Political Brain," advises to pass meaningful healthcare change: "Focus on principles, tell compelling stories, move people emotionally and send clear messages."
Sure, there are legitimate issues raised by people I admire about the value of a public plan. Even President Obama once said, "If I were designing a system from scratch, then I'd probably set up single-payer." Like 59% of the Americans surveyed in January 2009 by CBS News and the New York Times, I would prefer, as would my colleagues at The Nation, to see Congress respond to this country's healthcare crisis by scrapping a failed-for-profit system and replacing it with a comprehensive national health insurance program.
But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken single-payer off the table. That doesn't mean we cease fighting to get it back on --but it probably means we need to balance our short and long-term goals. Let's assume some compromise in our political system is inevitable. The hard question is whether the compromise opens the door to greater progress or forecloses opportunity. A weak public plan will make it harder to get healthcare expenses under control while extending care to all. A weak plan may discredit healthcare reform for a generation. Real reform will cement strong attachment to the party which has shown it can pass legislation truly improving the condition of people's lives. (That's a key reason why former Dan Quayle adviser and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol fought tooth and nail to derail Clinton's healthcare reforms.) And for all the wrongheaded deficit anxiety circulating, do Democrats really think that if they pass major health care reform, and increase access--that voters will punish them for growing the deficit? (And the cost debate is forcing to the fore much-needed consideration of changes to our dysfunctional and unjust tax structure that will enable us to pay for these healthcare reforms.)
Congress is, of course, usually pretty skittish about reform, but with a President with high approval ratings and an historically unpopular GOP--if this isn't a time to pass sweeping reform with a strong public plan, then when is?
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I hope the Dems can recognize the issues that really got them elected and furthermore that betraying the voters who pushed for same won't do them a bit of good no matter how many "Harry and Louise" commercials their donors can scare up for them come 2010.
Attempting to compromise with the "Sampson Option" party at this point is like taking a ride from a scorpion to get across the river.
Cut em loose.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 5:52pm
Katrina,
Pravda in it's heyday as the voice of the Kremlin would not have written this any differently.
Let's translate Katrina talk..
"We have the upperhand so it's time to implement the socialist revolution before the people wake up and realize what we're doing".
Posted by antisocialist at 06/28/2009 @ 6:54pm
Katrina, no way will this pass without Republican support.
Posted by pyeatte at 06/28/2009 @ 6:57pm
Katrina, no way will this pass without Republican support. Posted by pyeatte at 06/28/2009 @ 6:57pm
Why not? The Dems control the Congress and the White House. If they've got the cajones, they certainly could. What are they afraid of?
Posted by twillie at 06/28/2009 @ 7:44pm
Nice amplification of the re-defining of bipartisanship as the key. Build on the schisms we've been enjoying in the con party - the goofs in the goosestep - with a decidedly Reaganesque optimistic tone, "we've achieved bipartisanship!!
And stop with the corporate media propaganda term "government option"!!!
It's the "people's choice" (note the cool dual meaning, yeah baby!)
People's choice.
Naturally, it's excellent coverage, your choice of doctor, same as Blue Cross - Federal, Medicare, the VA.
Posted by winyahn at 06/28/2009 @ 10:33pm
KVH, for once I agree with you! From now on when ever a future Republican President and Republican congress is in power they should wipe the slate clean of all the Obamanation that makes desolations regressive socialistic bills and laws and totally ignore the Demoncrat minority!
What was Newt thinking about by his allowing the Demoncrats input into bills being written and passed in the 90's and why should any Demoncrat ever recieve any attention from other than their national liberal propoganda media! We need to end this total lack of communistic journalism so biased it literally stinks!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/28/2009 @ 10:46pm
Opps. We need to end this total communistic journalism so biased it literally stinks!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/28/2009 @ 10:52pm
posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 06/28/2009 @ 5:41pm – in part:
It's time to part ways with obstructionist Republicans and pass a strong healthcare bill with a majority vote…
The problem with that approach is the Democrats would own it and that would leave them vulnerable to attacks when it failed to meet short term benchmarks. Politics is a 2-4-6 year time frame game.
Posted by Incoming at 06/28/2009 @ 11:44pm
Great summary of the challenges and issues. The conservative posts here show their fear. If the Democrats show boldness and seize the opportunity, the alliance of working class voters back to the Democrats will change our politcal landscape for a generation or two. But its not the politics that is important- that politcal success will be a byproduct of the health care policy that we need to enact if we are to even to begin to consider living up to our dreams and ideals as nation.
It is time to use the power the people gave the Democrats. The worst outcome would be half baked m,easures that fail and leave us getting blamed.
Social Security and medicare were brutal and tough fights, and the leaders suffered slings and arrows of insults and blame. Buit the people rewarded the Democrats with fifty years of ascendancy for their boldness and success in transforming American society and our lives.
How many conservatives will thank the Democrats as they cash social security checks and use medicare or medicaid ?
Be bold.
Posted by larrys at 06/29/2009 @ 12:12am
Excerpt from Finnish online publication ovimagazine.com.
http://ovimagazine.com/art/4566
The Real Solution to Healthcare Reform by Bohdan Yuri 2009-06-26
"…Those that can afford it don't really care.
...True change - begin by cutting Congress's health care benefits.
… it may be the only way to force Congress into changing the moral character of this pseudo "debate... That is the REAL SOLUTION to this problem. Throw Congress into the world of the uninsured --- perhaps that sting will make them act."
Posted by onekoleso at 06/29/2009 @ 01:38am
I smiled as I read your post, "onekoleso." Of course, it would be just as difficult to get the Congress to cut its own health care benefits as it is get the Congress to extend similar benefits to the rest of us. It makes no difference from which end you start; hypocrisy is hard to cure.
The best way to "redefine bipartisanship" would be to have proportional representation, which would give us more than two parties and would in most cases require the co-operation of at least two parties to get anything at all done.
In a two-party system, "bipartisanship" means unanimity among the political establishment, which is impossible even in our Washington monoculture, particularly when its feeble conscience must stand up to its plutocratic impulses. When it comes to a showdown between our national conscience and our national vice, it is conscience that must win. No compromise is possible.
I am perfectly willing to extend the devil's bargain of entitlement to monopartisan rule to the Republicans. Let them implement a Gingrichite revolution the next time they get the chance and impose corporate feudalism upon us. Their revolution won't last long, for the simple reason that it is not suited to modern civilization. In contrast, the last progressive revolution lasted from FDR through the Johnson administration, and it was not completely dismantled even in Nixonland, from which we are now re-emerging. The Republicans will howl if Democrats push healthcare reform over their objections. But they will fail to undo it.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/29/2009 @ 04:12am
We need to do something, seems things just keep getting worse by the day!
Riff www.privacy-web.tk
Posted by aawindoze at 06/29/2009 @ 06:14am
The notion that Obama has ever been bipartisan or post partisan at any time in his life is ridiculous. We need radical healthcare reform, but the public option is a deal killer. Let this asinine notion go, so we can get something done. Dealing with private insurers is a pain. Trying to deal with a totally unresponsive government that can't be pressured or sued, and which is populated by callous civil servants, is frightening.
Posted by Steve851 at 06/29/2009 @ 07:06am
I gues there's no such thing as a Democrat involved in false bipartisanship, huh Kat?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/29/2009 @ 07:09am
*sighs*
And the only way to pass something via a 52-48 majority is via budget reconciliation.
So my question to you Ms. Vanden Heuvel is ... since whatever is PASSED via budget reconciliation can be GUTTED via budget reconciliation ... How far are you willing to go to make sure the Republicans NEVER regain control of both houses and the Senate?
How sure are you that the American people will never again have a "2004 moment"?
Pass it via budget reconciliation and it will ONLY last as long as the majority. 10 days after A democratic President swears in a moderate or a Republican. *poof* GONE and no filibuster to stop the complete cancellation.
And Pres Obama's legacy will be ... no President will ever again be able to count on anything he does lasting longer than his term in office.
Until such time as SOME President decides they WILL go that far to ensure the other party never gets back in power. Democrat ... declare being a registered Republican is by definition a crime against humanity and thus you are ineligible to vote for being a known felon. Republican ... declare a state of emergency and suspend the constitution.
In either case ... thanks to following the advice of one Ms. Vanden Huesel. America is ruled by the brownshirts.
And yes Ms. Vanden Huesel ... I consider you a brownshirt.
Posted by Chromehawk at 06/29/2009 @ 07:45am
Snowball-
Did you forget that Barack Obama used that very same Harry and Louis ad against Hillary Clinton in Ohio? Krugman: Obama's Harry and Louise ad: http://www.tinyfav.com/b1180313/ Of course, now his healthcare plan is what Hillary had originally proposed. Why does no one in the press bust him for hypocrisy? It's all political rhetoric- "just words" and the sooner we get balanced reporting the sooner we'll be able to work together to get all of these horrible problems solved. This good v. evil set-up is a no-win- Only the media benefits-this is not a sporting event-even though networks and cables are hiring sportscasters (and both had been fired under nasty conditions) like Olbermann and Schultz calling political play by play. Pathetic and shameful.
Posted by veritas3 at 06/29/2009 @ 07:47am
Katrina you and the liberals you represent won't be happy until the government controls everything.You started with forcing adults to wear seat belts, then you went on to banning smoking even in ones own business and now the government is going to decide who is going to be treated. You won't stop until we are all wearing smocks and walking around in sandals humming all day from our daily dose of paxil and forced to sit crossed legged every night meditating because the government has decided it's in our best interest. Your world is not the one I want to live in. What makes life fun is knowing the extasy of success from the agony of defeat. Life is not fair and there is nothing you can do about it. You will only change the people in favor from a market driven one to a government entitled one. Whereas only members of the ruling party will live a prosperous life
Posted by waldob at 06/29/2009 @ 08:04am
"Pass it via budget reconciliation and it will ONLY last as long as the majority."
Not if it's a GOOD idea, it won't, "Chromehawk." In this case, it has a good chance of becoming permanent.
On the other hand, if you really believe what you say, namely that what the Democrats are doing will be only temporary, why do you believe they are fascists? Fascists don't do "temporary" things. They do radically permanent things, things that may be reversible only by invading foreign armies, such as: suspend the Constitution, outlaw all other parties, imprison political opponents, and declare a "thousand-year empire."
Your accusation that Ms. vanden Heuvel is a fascist make you look more than a little paranoid, but mostly just ridiculous.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/29/2009 @ 08:09am
Posted by veritas3 at 06/29/2009 @ 07:47am |
I do recall that...but I must have missed Nader's spots.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 08:11am
Assuming Franken gets to accept the seat he won at some point you do have 60 votes to end debate, if you kindly remind those right-leaning Democratic Senators that this is the vote that will determine committee assignments and chairs next time around, and they don't have to vote for it, just allow debate to end, there is your bill.
I thought the column was nicely done, the point is well made that while bipartisanship sounds so wonderful, that is not how Congress operates. Furthermore, for the detractors, the minority always has a say in the Senate, it is the House that is the dictatorship of the majority, no matter who that majority happens to be.
Posted by Benadork at 06/29/2009 @ 08:28am
I want to know why a single payer plan modeled on Medicare is not on the table.
Taiwan has implemented the plan and is not having any trouble with it working.
We need and deserve universal health care.
Ted Lundgren
Posted by tplundgren at 06/29/2009 @ 08:44am
Your universal health plan that you promote sounds so compassionate. But you must realize the effects to people with chronic healthcare issues. My daughter has been fighting childhood cancer and it's treatment late effects for 14 years. I saw people from Canada bring their children to the US for treatment as they were told they had to wait 6 months for a bone marrow transplant for their child. Is this what you want? Universal health care will be great for everyone who has no real health issues, but for those who have critical health issues, we will see them start dying off rapidly. Maybe, that's what you want to bring down health care costs.
Posted by jjswink at 06/29/2009 @ 09:00am
The US is the only industrialized Nation that has failed to provide Health care for it's citizens. The article could not have put it better there should be no compromise on health care reform. If the current majority cannot pass it then it will become the resposibility of the voters to remove those who clearly are in the pockets of the insurance industry including democrats like Ben Nelson. And pass it in 2011. Obama has to give up the efforts at bi-partisenship, and have faith in those who have shown their faith in him. It's clear the "House Cleaning" is not over.
Posted by ROinReno at 06/29/2009 @ 09:17am
Uncompromised Health care reform would probably have a greater effect on Main Street stimulus than the stimulus bill. The hard fact is Health Care costs have no doubt caused as many, small business to close their doors as foreign competition and make competition much more difficult for those still hanging on. The unsustainable labor costs of Detroit are clear evidence of this, but it is nation wide. And the effort to reduce costs is always directed at employees take home pay not at the huge profits of insurance companies. Toyota for example hires part time and contract labor to whom they provide no coverage or retirement benefits what so ever. They do pay comparable wages but have a much lower labor burden as a result. Obama stated that Health care provided by business was a "tradition" when the reality it is evidence of the failure of the government to act on behalf of and "For the people". Instead opting to act "For the insurance companies". Those who oppose health care reform do so on behalf of insurance companies. Health care reform should be just as important to those who have coverage as to those 50 million who do not. It is important to literally every citizen of this country whether they realize it or not.
Posted by ROinReno at 06/29/2009 @ 09:45am
How many of the right-wingers claiming that Ms. Vanden Wuevel is proposing dictatorship complained about Tom DeLay's one-party, no-dissent-that-was not-punished regime in the House, or the lock-step discipline accepted by the "moderate" Republicans in the Senate on all but a few safe issues during the Bush years?
Posted by cka2nd at 06/29/2009 @ 09:53am
NYTimes today notes that there are 6 health care industry lobbyists for every single member of Congress.
Will they count for more than the 2/3s of the American people who want the public option?
Posted by sloper at 06/29/2009 @ 10:04am
More excerpts:
"...Let's cut through the veils of deception.
The simplest form of healthcare is to have some sort of single payer program.
...and doesn't that same U.S. Government pay 75% of all Federal Employees medical benefits (100% if you consider that federal employee contributions still come out of the US Treasury). Yes, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), our taxes pay for it all, in other words, a (U.S. Government) single payer program of a different sort.
...As for the so-called "need" for competition, and choice, there is none. It's a myth. The poor resort to government aid, the rest are subject to salary restraints (even with employer contributions), and the best quality of health care, as always, goes to the wealthiest.
...the greater crime is our lack of achievements. We set no standards for time except to call it the future, and the future has been stretched out into endless streams of meandering and wandering inside the fog of incompetence.
... if you want true change and see results, and at the same time expose the true imposters entrusted with your well being, then begin by petitioning to have all of Congress's health care benefits cut off...include all federal government elected and appointed politicians, even judges.
...Let's say, it's a cost cutting measure....if the President can force GM to eliminate waste, and trim their budgets, then allow him to do the same with Congress --- they who rant about the wicked evils of single-payer programs, they who "appropriate" the coffers of our Treasury to pay for their own healthcare, they who are covered by a "single payer program", funded by our taxes ---
... A simple straight line for the good of our country. Find a way to care for them all!"
Posted by onekoleso at 06/29/2009 @ 10:24am
"We have the upperhand so it's time to implement the socialist revolution before the people wake up and realize what we're doing"
"revolution"? good grief!
Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 10:39am
only in the mind of a paranoid right winger would "revolution" mean = giving the people what they want.
over 72% of americans want a public option.
that's a "socialist revolution" which would make "the kremlin" happy?
sounds like glenn beck.
Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 10:40am
Katrina,
I'm right there with you on this one. You go girl!
I hope they force the health care catastrophe and cap & trade down the Republicans' throats. Because at the end of the day (end of idiocy?), the Dems will own them both. And both will expand our economic woes. Now, how do you suppose that will play out in '10 & '12?
Posted by Mitty at 06/29/2009 @ 10:50am
It's smart and a good idea to abandon the public option.
It is troubling that bipartisanship is being redefined to mean -- railroad things through fast when you can before the American people wake up. Don't you think this reneging on the promises of Obama and Pelosi will escalate still further? Remember, your side will not always be in power. Or do you have that much hubris? And if you do, what's the big hurry?
Any way you look at it, what was to be the most ethical Congress in history, is not only becoming the most corrupt, but also the most partisan. Is that what you think the people voted for?
Posted by cheinick at 06/29/2009 @ 10:52am
jjswink,
You asked:
".....I saw people from Canada bring their children to the US for treatment as they were told they had to wait 6 months for a bone marrow transplant for their child. Is this what you want?....."
It would appear it IS what they want.
Stuff like that keeps getting mentioned over and over again, and over and over again those on the left will reply with how lousy they think our system is and how great Canada's is or the European systems are.
I pointed out the case of someone in Windsor, Ontario that could not get a particular kind of cancer treatement in Canada. The Canadian system will pay for his treatment in the U.S, but they require him to go to Buffalo, 4 hours away, rather than Detroit, 15 minutes away.
Apparently it cost Canada less for the treatment at Roswell Park in Buffalo than at the center in Detroit, but it was not substantially less.
But the person I was agruing with on these Nation blogs thought this was good, that the Canadian government was using common sense to have an ill person travel 4 hours for treatment available 15 minutes away, in order to cut costs!
And I guess this individual's treatment had gotten fouled up to begin with because of a mistake in paper work.
So I guess when you are dealing with ill people with cancer, it is important (but only to the government bureaucrats and the leftists that support them) to make sure all the reams of paperwork are correct.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 11:27am
"Focus on principles, tell compelling stories, move people emotionally and send clear messages." D.Westin and endorsed by KVH
This statement right here proves beyond any doubt that liberalism is based purely on emotion. Consequences be damned and results don't matter. Pitiful!
Posted by fram at 06/29/2009 @ 11:35am
Exactly HOW has Healthcare failed in this nation?
We keep hearing that... but it seems lime 70%+ are happy with their situation. Is the left listening to it's own Politically Correct line... feeding themselves until they think they 'really have something?"
What we really have, are some gaps in coverage due to a few basic reasons: 1.) Immigrants are not covered. 2.) Some people don't want to work and earn coverage. 3.) A few are in occupations that do not provide coverage, 4.) Some are in occupations that pay too little. 5.) Some just choose to not have it.
Each of the above can be addressed far better than by a "public option" or massive government involvement... " if " one is not bent on moving the country to socialism.
Posted by BillSanford at 06/29/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 11:27am |
"It would appear it IS what they want."
No, we just don't believe you, chicken-little.
"Stuff like that keeps getting mentioned over and over again, and over and over again those on the left will reply with how lousy they think our system is and how great Canada's is or the European systems are."
Compare our system with Germany and the Swiss.
"I pointed out the case of someone in Windsor, Ontario that could not get a particular kind of cancer treatement in Canada. The Canadian system will pay for his treatment in the U.S, but they require him to go to Buffalo, 4 hours away, rather than Detroit, 15 minutes away. Apparently it cost Canada less for the treatment at Roswell Park in Buffalo than at the center in Detroit, but it was not substantially less."
Which you heard on Rush, and it was $35k less in Buffalo than Detroit or 24% cheaper. That's substantial in my book.
"But the person I was agruing with on these Nation blogs thought this was good, that the Canadian government was using common sense to have an ill person travel 4 hours for treatment available 15 minutes away, in order to cut costs! And I guess this individual's treatment had gotten fouled up to begin with because of a mistake in paper work."
But he GOT the treatment and didn't have to pay for it out of pocket, unlike the case I cited for you where a woman paid $80k for her cancer surgery because she was covered but denied by her insurer because she was only 22 and the procedure was for people 26 or older only!?!
"So I guess when you are dealing with ill people with cancer, it is important (but only to the government bureaucrats and the leftists that support them) to make sure all the reams of paperwork are correct."
Still a problem in both systems.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:52am
I have been predicting for days now that the left would begin to castigate the "public option" because it would be an option.
As Ms VanDen Hueval clearly reveals, this group has never been enthusiastic about the public option because they desire a stateist Euro/Canadian style single payer system and banish all private health care from the US. For them the public opton is simply not an acceptable option. Since they lost that political battle with the administration they are beginning to turn on Pres. Obama because he has betrayed their trust in a Euro socialist future for the US.
While I am a vigorous opponent of the public option ( it can never be paid for with out denuding US GDP with taxes and costly regulation) I find comfort that at least there remain some grown ups in the DEM party.
Ms. VanDen Hueval comments remind me of some of the tantrums elements of my own GOP threw when GHWB, GWB, and even Reagan pursued what was possible and prudent at the expense of ire of fringe elements of the party.
To my DEM friends, there is no shame in being ragged on by Ms. Vanden Hueval and her friends. You go Max and Kent!
Posted by BMarks at 06/29/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by BillSanford at 06/29/2009 @ 11:50am |
"Exactly HOW has Healthcare failed in this nation?"
50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses in the US.
"We keep hearing that... but it seems lime 70%+ are happy with their situation."
Buahaha...you're funny.
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
"Is the left listening to it's own Politically Correct line... feeding themselves until they think they 'really have something?"
No, but that does appear to be your bag.
"What we really have, are some gaps in coverage due to a few basic reasons:"
"1.) Immigrants are not covered."
Yes, they are, by emergency rooms, at great expense.
"2.) Some people don't want to work and earn coverage."
They're called paraplegics and the elderly.
"3.) A few are in occupations that do not provide coverage"
And why is that? Could it be the EXPENSE?
"4.) Some are in occupations that pay too little."
And give people too few hours to qualify for benefits...what a country.
"5.) Some just choose to not have it."
"Each of the above can be addressed far better than by a 'public option' or massive government involvement... " if " one is not bent on moving the country to socialism."
And how does this magically occur, oh wise sage of the 'free' markets?
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by ROinReno at 06/29/2009 @ 09:45am
Well said.
The economic benefits of a single payer health care systems is completely ignored by right. You would think big business would support it and so would they. I just think following orders from their leader (Rush) and trying as hard as they can for Obama to fail. To hell with the country... their goal is to see the president fail.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/29/2009 @ 12:09pm
But he GOT the treatment and didn't have to pay for it out of pocket, unlike the case I cited for you where a woman paid $80k for her cancer surgery because she was covered but denied by her insurer because she was only 22 and the procedure was for people 26 or older only!?!
"So I guess when you are dealing with ill people with cancer, it is important (but only to the government bureaucrats and the leftists that support them) to make sure all the reams of paperwork are correct."
Still a problem in both systems.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:52am
So in your view contracts mean nothing?
The more risk you cover the higher the cost. The woman you cite should have elected to go with an alternate procedure.
Why should taxpayers have to pay for these decisions?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 12:11pm
It's time to stop corrupt corporations from profiting from NOT providing health care. It's time for a public plan and I am none to happy with Obama's administration for being weak on this issue. I am sick of free market idealists' claim that the free market can fix everything. Greed is not the answer to everything... Greed is not a good motivator for providing care to others. It's like an oxymoron.
Posted by noxidereus at 06/29/2009 @ 12:15pm
snowball apparently 777 now instead of 666,
You never answered the question as to why the treatment is not available in Canada.
If there are places in Buffalo and Detroit, and if Canada is a modern industrial nation totally up to speed technology-wise, then why would there not have been a location for this person to go to in Canada, to get this treatment?
Hypothetical question, but what if someone in Edmonton needed this type of treatment, and it was not available (as it probably would not be) in Edmonton?
The Canadian government would probably pay for treatment in Seattle, 15 hours away.
So that ill person has to travel 15 hours, to get treatment!
Wouldn't it be better if it was available in Canada to begin with?
Suppose you tell me your theory why it isn't available in Canada.
About the woman that you say paid $80k for cancer surgery.....
I could swear I heard her say $8k, not $80k and I could swear I heard her say she could not pay it, so you are mangaling your facts.
I don't know the answer but I am asking you, what if she was Canadian? Is that type of surgery avaialable in Canada? If it is, then glory be she doesn't have to pay, but does she have to WAIT? And WAIT while her cancer got worse in the meantime?
Possibly so, but you leave that out also.
You need to fill in the answers to these considerations you have left unanswered, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 12:19pm
Let's see how a "bipartisan" compromise HC agreement that leaves 15 to 20 million people uninsured resonates with the American people.
Repubs will shine ecstatically over any plan weighted with denial. Meanwhile they will advocate eating more bean sprouts & jogging as a disease preventative for people who come tired from work in support of privileged lifestyles.
All the "hard work" that determined those positions is proof positive of moral superiority. As if upwardly mobile ambition has any relationship to basic human needs & a corresponding societal obligation.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/29/2009 @ 12:28pm
In clear speak.
There will be no healthcare reform. Obamabush and the devils own spawn have decided that the lack of a public option is not a dealbreaker, if it is not included in the final bill. The administration has been asked repeatedly if the president would not demand a public option as part of healthcare reform.
They have indicated that the president will not demand the public option. They are willing, it seems, to sign any bill that comes their way. As long as they can get "bragging rights" on healthcare.
Same for the energy bill.
The fix is in. Obama will claim that he fought hard for a public option, and will continue to fight for one. He will claim that this bill on healthcare is a good first step. And will get the political cover he needs. This joker is playing both side against the middle in hopes of snagging himself a second term.
No dice Obama. We are smarter than that. And if you continue to walk this thin line, you will find you are walking it alone. For one I have already abandoned hope and change. I will vote Green Party next election. Obama is an asshole. How long before those on the real left see this?
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:38pm
For something lighter, from blogger "Adam" at the ABC News story about Magic moving the goal post on his Pork bill:
(BTW: real or not, quite a few fessed up for voting for the Magic mushroom!)
Economic justice:
* America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized. * Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims. * They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government. * Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer. * The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about. * They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Hollywood cliches:
* Without capitalism there'd be no Hollywood - yet filmmakers hate capitalism.
* Filmmakers hate capitalism - yet they sue for unauthorized copying of their movies.
* They sue for unauthorized copying - yet on screen they teach us to share.
* On screen they teach us to share - yet they keep their millions to themselves.
* They keep their millions to themselves - yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
* They revel in stories of American misery and depravity - yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on conservatism.
* They blame the anti-American sentiment on conservatism - yet conservatism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible.
Posted by Happy at 06/29/2009 @ 12:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 12:19pm |
"You never answered the question as to why the treatment is not available in Canada. If there are places in Buffalo and Detroit, and if Canada is a modern industrial nation totally up to speed technology-wise, then why would there not have been a location for this person to go to in Canada, to get this treatment?"
1) They have other treatments for that cancer available.
2) It's already available in Detroit and Buffalo (were it not, they could certainly add that service in Canada).
3) Because your representative case has one of the most rare forms of cancer around.
"Wouldn't it be better if it was available in Canada to begin with?"
Sure, but that isn't exactly relevant to the 99.99% of people who don't have a rare metastatic melanoma.
"About the woman that you say paid $80k for cancer surgery.....I could swear I heard her say $8k, not $80k and I could swear I heard her say she could not pay it, so you are mangaling your facts."
You obviously have no idea how much surgery costs...you can't get anaesthetized for $8k in the US.
"I don't know the answer but I am asking you, what if she was Canadian? Is that type of surgery avaialable in Canada?"
Yes, the LEAP surgery is widely available in Canada.
"If it is, then glory be she doesn't have to pay, but does she have to WAIT? And WAIT while her cancer got worse in the meantime?"
Couldn't tell you. Ask, Frosty.
"Possibly so, but you leave that out also. You need to fill in the answers to these considerations you have left unanswered, eh?
You think people don't wait for surgery in the US? How about the people who NEVER GET the surgery in the first place, in the US?
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 12:39pm
How long will those who claim to be on the left continue to carry water for this pretender? Obama's health exchange is nothing but a forum for him to be another "insurance salesman".
I feel ill. When will we ever get somebody real?
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:45pm
Posted by Happy at 06/29/2009 @ 12:39pm |
"* Without capitalism there'd be no Hollywood - yet filmmakers hate capitalism."
I'm sure those blacklisted by McCarthy disagree.
"* Filmmakers hate capitalism - yet they sue for unauthorized copying of their movies."
No, they don't. They rely on it...half their business is using financing tricks to shield profits.
"* They sue for unauthorized copying - yet on screen they teach us to share."
"* On screen they teach us to share - yet they keep their millions to themselves."
But Anti says they pay 40% of the taxes in this country.
"* They keep their millions to themselves - yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity."
All those benefits and donations are for the booze?
"* They revel in stories of American misery and depravity - yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on conservatism."
Keeping your head in the sand is better?
"* They blame the anti-American sentiment on conservatism - yet conservatism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible."
No, unions do.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 12:52pm
You think people don't wait for surgery in the US? How about the people who NEVER GET the surgery in the first place, in the US?
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 12:39pm
I have to wait at least a month to see a specialist. I just waited 6 weeks to see an Opthalmologist. And I have what might be considered decent insurance through United Healthcare. Healthcare is already being rationed, even for those with supposed "insurance" and those without it entirely are really sucking hind tit.
And the CEO's of these "healthcare companies" are raking in like 1.6 billion dollar salaries. On the backs of people who are sick. Disgusting. They should be be hanged fron the yardarm. Bastards.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:56pm
And what is truly amazing to me is that "we the people" do nothing. We should be in the streets en masse.
That is also disgusting. Buncha cowards. No one is willing to fight. So we deserve being bent over the stump.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:59pm
And what is truly amazing to me is that "we the people" do nothing. We should be in the streets en masse.
That is also disgusting. Buncha cowards. No one is willing to fight. So we deserve being bent over the stump.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:59pm
dude, you either need to get in touch with reality or relocate to a country that shares your Trotskyist views. Chavez says he's a Trotskyist so you could find a good fit there.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 1:13pm
I'm not so sure there is a" false bipartisanship". On issues ranging from our war on the poor to our war on Iraq, there is rarely anything by the Democratic leadership beyond the half-hearted, "keep the dumb liberals happy" token efforts to move this country beyond neo-conservative politics. I'm even less sure that there is any connection between the government we vote for and the government we get.
Posted by DHFabian at 06/29/2009 @ 1:13pm
Just ignore the fascists and neo-humans that post here. Do not even respond to their posts. It gives them credibilty and takes up valuable time for us to debate these issues.
I will try my best never to respond to the cretins on the right again. I may fail though. It is difficult not to. But it is a waste of time. Thet have nothing to contribute.
Silence them by ignoring them. Do not however put them on "ignore". Watch them squirm through their posts. With their ever more provacative posts. When none will respond to their idiocy they will wither away..
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 1:16pm
With their ever more provacative posts. When none will respond to their idiocy they will wither away..
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 1:16pm
I don't think so. Reading the posts of nutjobs like yourself is better entertainment than television.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 1:25pm
Keep the faith.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 1:30pm
Incidentally, on health care, why do people think that we are restricted to either what we have here or what Canada has? Intelligent legislation would require considering the health care systems in a range of countries, seeing what works and what doesn't, and building a health care system that is most appropriate for the US today?
This country has got to come out of the nineteenth century already! It's time to close out the era of greed and begin thinking in terms of "the common good." Universal healthcare wouldn't merely be in the best interests of some people, but of the nation. It would significantly cut communicable diseases, enable people to obtain medical care before a problem grows massively expensive, and would go a far way toward restoring economic leadership by ensuring healthy students who can learn, and a workforce that is able to compete.
Posted by DHFabian at 06/29/2009 @ 1:37pm
We can communicate better without them. We have enough disagreements between ourselves to keep us occupied. Let's banish them.
Look at it like a quest. The one thing that evil can't resist is to muddy the water. To take a pure thought and attempt to sully it.
We have no time for that.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 1:42pm
Great post Kat....
There is no bi-partisanship, trying to pretend like there is is just a joke...
healthcare already seems socialist, i kn ow that ten years ago it was a benefit for working people and there families.... for what it's worth, i now pay almost ten grand a year to go visit urgent care maybee once or twice a year... and i still get jacked for deductables... There are no choices anymore... i need affordable healthcare... you can call it whatever you want...
Posted by PAULYG at 06/29/2009 @ 1:53pm
One of the main reasons health care costs are escalating is they it is abused. The GM and Chrysler auto plants are both closing here in Delaware. The companies and the unions are both to blame for agreeing to unsustainable contract terms; a large part of that being medical care. At my latest dental appointment I was talking about the economy and other things with my dentist when he told me this story. Some years back when both plants were still open, a GM employee told him he wanted crowns on every one of his teeth. My dentist told the man he didn't need them, but he insisted. He said it was totally paid for by his GM health care and he wanted it done. My dentist refused, but I'm sure he found some dentist to do it.
Posted by SPODSO at 06/29/2009 @ 1:56pm
Posted by DHFabian at 06/29/2009 @ 1:37pm
Many good points. On healthcare I see the French system as a decent model, with some tweaks in order to make it work here. The french seem to be quite happy with it.
To think in terms of the "common good" is a lefty sort of philosophy. Are we "me" people or "we" people. I think the latter. I think that most of us believe that we sink or swim together. That we should think in terms of the common good.
Those of us that are more fortunate in life have a responsibilty to care for and advance those of us who are less fortunate. That almost sounds "Christian" doesn't it?
I'm an atheist. Too bad Christians do not follow their own advice.
We are all in this boat together. As a buddhist I think we should all be concerned with the least of us, lest we forget where we came from.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 1:58pm
"Why should taxpayers have to pay for these decisions?"
because taxpayers want to feel like they actually live in a country where people CARE about each other?
gee, what a shocking idea!
Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 1:59pm
antisocialist's idea of a country:
"you're all on your own"
"don't ever ask for any help, ever"
so very christian of him!
Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 2:00pm
snowball777,
So you personally know that there are other acceptable treatments for the cancer that the man in Windsor has? You say there are other treatments available......
It looks to me like you are going out on a limb here a little bit......
It would seem to me that if there were other forms of treatment available for that cancer, AND if those were available in Canada, which your words imply that they are, that the Canadian government health care would stipulate the man in Windsor would have to get one of those treatments....
The gist of the article was that the man needed the kind of treatment available in Detroit or Buffalo and that it was not available in Canada...the implication was that this was the only thing that would do any good.....if there was an alternative available to this person in Canada then the issue would never have come up to begin with.
Then you say that if the treatment were not available in Detroit or Buffalo "they" could add the service in Canada....the implication is that since it is available in Detroit and Buffalo the Canadians do not need to add that service........
I do not buy that one bit...I do not think Canadians would want to "default" to an American service or capability to enable them to not have to have it in Canada.
Many Canadians do not like the idea that they are just some sub-entity of the U.S. They have their own cultural entity and they like to feel they are distinct from our country.....and they bristle at any thought that they are not.....this is a non-medical and non-political aspect you are overlooking.....just like many people here urge consumers to "Buy American" the same applies north of the border as well...
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 2:16pm
Well, I can see already that some among us still find the bait irresistible. How unfortunate. To debate or crosspoint with morons only brings down the bar..
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 2:17pm
What's the point? The Congressional Democrats and Obama are pursuing a clear-cut fascist agenda on healthcare. Face it, Katrina, the Democratic party is now a party of the far right and "bipartisanship" is merely the new right-wing coalition. There are no decent healthcare proposals before Congress.
Posted by perryfellwock at 06/29/2009 @ 2:17pm
"They have their own cultural entity and they like to feel they are distinct from our country.....and they bristle at any thought that they are not...."
sorry, but canadians don't "bristle."
americans bristle.
canadians display far more calmness in conversation, in civil life, etc.
Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 2:22pm
snowball777,
I believe that in some aspects of Canadian life, such as in their broadcasting industry, there are laws mandating a certain percentage of Canadian content.
So I can not accept the argument that Canada would default to a service in Detroit or Buffalo for the sake of convenience.
The reason it is not available in Canada is that it has no doubt not been "approved" by the government, in the same manner as how in some of the socialist health systems in Europe some medicines have not been "approved" and thus they are not available at all.
(and in Sweden, a person can not buy one of those medicines and pay for it themself even if they have the money to do so- they are forbidden to do that).
You admit you do not know about the wait times and that I should ask Frosty.....I know that Frosty Zoom, even though from Windsor, would not give me a straight answer on that one.....because the wait times is one of THE BIG ISSUES about the socialist health care.
People have to wait, because the care is being rationed, and this causes them to be in distress while waiting for their condition to be examined, and it may and has caused conditions to worsen.
This is some kind of progress??
You say you don't know about the wait times- no surprise here.....you have been promoting the socialist medicine...it is no surprise you would totally ignore one of the big arguments why it is NOT the way to go.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 2:22pm
Typo,
Up above I said (about Canadians):
"They have their own cultural entity and they like to feel they are distinct from our country.....and they bristle at any thought that they are not...."
I should have said (about Canadians):
"They have their own cultural entity and they like to feel they are distinct from our country.....and they do not like any thought that they are not...."
Thank you Darladoon for parsing words and correcting me.
I have been to Canada a lot and I like Canada. This is not for the same reason that a lot of libs like Canada.
A lot of libs like Canada because it is not America.
Since I am not lib, I like Canada just because I like Canada.
So I will convey back to Darladoon what a Canadian would say in response to her word-parsing and nit picking, rather than what I would rather say which possible would involve use of the f-word.
Darladoon, take off, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 2:29pm
chaoszen,
You said above:
"....To debate or crosspoint with morons only brings down the bar...."
Darladoon is parsing my words, so I will parse your words....
Specifically, your use of the word "morons"...
The word "morons" refers to one group of people only...the people who share a football stadium, in the state of New Jersey, with the New York Jets.....
The people, who unfortunatley became the Super Bowl Champions the year before last only because the Super Bowl went 30 seconds longer than it should have.
The people who fortunately are no longer Super Bowl Champions.....thanks to Donovan McNabb and the Philadelphia Eagles who made sure during the most recent NFL playoffs that the morons would not repeat as champs.
The people who God willing will never be IN the Super Bowl ever again let alone win it.
In case it is not obvious who I am referring to, I am referring to the NY Football Giants. That is the only entity that the term morons applies to.
You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but you need to use proper terminology, and it did not appear you were referring to NFL football in your postings.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 2:22pm |
"So I can not accept the argument that Canada would default to a service in Detroit or Buffalo for the sake of convenience. The reason it is not available in Canada is that it has no doubt not been "approved" by the government, in the same manner as how in some of the socialist health systems in Europe some medicines have not been "approved" and thus they are not available at all."
An intelligent person would find out the answer, then post, but you, you are only capable of insinuation and supposition.
I wonder why they have "Single-Agent Interleukin-2 in the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: A Clinical PRACTICE GUIDELINE"
http://www.cancercare.on.ca/ common/pages/DownloadFile.aspx?itemid=34367
"People have to wait, because the care is being rationed, and this causes them to be in distress while waiting for their condition to be examined, and it may and has caused conditions to worsen. This is some kind of progress??"
As I'm currently, patiently waiting for the induction of my first kid to be scheduled by my healthcare, I say again: THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH BOTH PRIVATE AND SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 2:52pm
From Lefty "russell249" at some blog dreaming of a job-filled Christmas:
"I don't think we have begun to see the explosion of new industries that should happen because of the need for jobs......"
Tail wagging the finest of Dog!
Posted by Happy at 06/29/2009 @ 2:58pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009
Here is a question fir you sj? If our system is so amazing why do Americans go to other countries for superior treatment. You are making a bi deal out of a canadian coming to america for treatment. I personally know some, who went to a hospital in France to get a cancer treatment that wasn't capable of being done in the US. Why do US citizens go to other countries to get generic drugs? Why are some doctors no longer accepting healthcare plans?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 2:59pm
It's funny SJ, snowball has reamed whatever line you were trying to use to justify this to yourself yet you refuse to just acknowledge that ok maybe I was wrong at least about this guy. Maybe you should stop fighting this one and just acknowledge that you were wrong because to the rest of us we will go on thinking you are but a kool-aid drinker.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 3:09pm
Oh and by the way. One huge difference between the person I knew and the guy you are talking about, even though the Canadian had to go out of the country Canada was still willig to pay for his surgery. The guy I knew had some of the best medical care you can get in the US, he was a television executive at MTV, yet he had to pay out of pocket in another country.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 3:12pm
The queston of whether Americans want a system that covers every person through Gvernment agencies, a single payer plan or another type, one would think that the problem that the Democrats have with Republican input would be solved if the law provided for a REFERENDUM.A peoples vote!
Posted by usheryel at 06/29/2009 @ 3:54pm
What really needs ending is pretending we live in a democracy. The majority favors single payer. The fact that it's "off the table" according to you and Baucus and Pelosi says all you need to know about how broken our government is.
Congress intends either to pass nothing (GOP) or pass something that will not fix the problems (Dems), which will leave many Americans without health care, cause many preventable American deaths, and millions more bankruptcies. Not to mention the continued export of jobs to other countries where they don't waste so many of their health care dollars on advertising and paper pushers.
Posted by masussman at 06/29/2009 @ 3:55pm
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19
Sj and everyone who believes canadians are coming over here in huge numbers to reseive medical treatment. You should read this article. Basically it's a study done over 5 years found thAt less than half of one percent of canadians receiving medical care had to electively go to the US. It is a must read for anyone interested in facts instead of myths.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 3:56pm
SJ, this article basically disproves your entire argument about the superiority of private insurance to universal. In the end the need for out of country care is a myth. Then on top of that for the very very very few patients who actually do have to go out of country, the government still pays for their treatment. So if you are on a long wait list and your treatment can't wait, you get sent to another country where you won't have to wait for that particular treatment and the cost is still paid for.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:11pm
antisocialist's idea of a country:
"you're all on your own"
"don't ever ask for any help, ever"
so very christian of him!
Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 2:00pm
there's nothing Christian about surrendering control of your life to the govt.
Christians should always help others, but we don't need govt to do that.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 4:33pm
Oh and by the way. One huge difference between the person I knew and the guy you are talking about, even though the Canadian had to go out of the country Canada was still willig to pay for his surgery. The guy I knew had some of the best medical care you can get in the US, he was a television executive at MTV, yet he had to pay out of pocket in another country.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 3:12pm
Do you realize that you are not covered by Medicare if you receive medical services outside of the US?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 4:36pm
Do you realize that you are not covered by Medicare if you receive medical services outside of the US?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 4:36pm
Yes. Which is why the system needs to be reformed.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:40pm
Do you realize that you are not covered by Medicare if you receive medical services outside of the US?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 4:36pm
Medicare is no a very good system. Which is why we should have public option that covers everything, similar to the Canadian system.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:41pm
Cccomfo1 - "You should read this article. Basically it's a study done over 5 years found thAt less than half of one percent of canadians receiving medical care had to electively go to the US."
My point is that those with chronically ill conditions are THE 1/2 PERCENT! And they will be the ones dying off rapidly. Do we not care about them? My daughter was 1 of 500 children in the U.S. that is diagnosed each year with neuroblastoma. Children deserve to have the treatment they need and most of it is experimental clinical trial therapy that teaches doctors how to help adults, the majority who don't elect to participate in clinical trials. Can I see some of you bleeding heart liberals care about childhood cancer patients!!
Posted by jjswink at 06/29/2009 @ 5:18pm
snowball777 and Cccomfo1,
While I was drinking my kool-aid, I read the document snowball777 posted, about the IL-2.
The document said that the use of the IL-2 was recommended and that it is an approved therapy in the U.S. and Canada.
If this is the case, then why did the man not receive treatment in Canada?
You seem to have forgotten that I posted a link to the article in the Windsor Star about this.
That is a Canadian newspaper...thus you can not cite that it is some U.S. right wing bias.
The paper did not seem to be too happy about this situation the guy was in.
I can not imagine, unless perhaps the guy would have had to go to Vancouver, perhaps (except this was an Ontario document snowball777 provided), why the Canadian government would send somebody to Buffalo rather than perhaps Toronto.
It seems there is a shortage of this kind of treatment in Canada.
Maybe the government did not "disapprove" it. Maybe there is simply a shortage of that kind of treatment......along the same lines that I have heard a statistic that there are more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than in all of Canada.
Either way, it doesn't speak well for the socialist medicine, does it?
Cccomfo1 wants me to admit I am wrong. But if it turns out I was wrong because the reason the IL-2 was not available to this guy is NOT because the government disproved it but because of a shortage of it due to socialist medicine, then so what?
Just some thoughts while drinking my kool-aid.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 5:22pm
And what is truly amazing to me is that "we the people" do nothing. We should be in the streets en masse.
Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:59pm
You first.
Posted by twillie at 06/29/2009 @ 5:26pm
Yes. Which is why the system needs to be reformed.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:40pm
Medicare is no a very good system. Which is why we should have public option that covers everything, similar to the Canadian system.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:41pm
Since Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupt, how will you afford a "better system" that provides more services?
And one reason that both the US govt and private health plans do not cover medical care overseas is that a number of procedures and drugs are not approved here by the FDA and issues with medical records.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 5:28pm
I have so had with the false idea of of having the attributes of a citizen being assigned to corporations.
I wish somebody would show me a birth certificate for a corporation showing the time, date and place of birth. Or a SSAN. Or where they went to elementary school, high school or college.
We use birth certificates to establish citizenship. I want a corporation, any corporation, to show me their credentials that establishes them as a citizen.
Posted by thepeoplechoose at 06/29/2009 @ 6:10pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 5:22pm |
"While I was drinking my kool-aid..."
"You seem to have forgotten that I posted a link to the article in the Windsor Star about this."
That you found after Rush pointed you to it.
"That is a Canadian newspaper...thus you can not cite that it is some U.S. right wing bias."
Uh huh.
"...did not seem to be..."
"I can not imagine..."
"It seems there is..."
"Maybe there is..."
"...it doesn't speak well..."
Insinuation, supposition, and zero substance.
It 'seems' that you are unable to read (the answers I've posted several times already), and that you lack 'imagination', and that you are simply to dense to realize that you've latched onto a specious example of a failure of socialized medicine that doesn't prove anything that isn't just as true about private health insurance in the US.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:34pm
Oh, yea. The D's are just as corrupt as the R's having shared equally in the $46 million in insurance bribes.
Our Democrats have a problem. They have control and I don't think they want it. They'd much prefer that Republicans block progress, because doing what is right is now entirely up to them. If they don't succeed it is their problem and they'll be out of a job in 2010.
Jack Lohman http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
Posted by jlohman at 06/29/2009 @ 6:40pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 5:28pm |
"Since Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupt, how will you afford a "better system" that provides more services?"
By cutting out the middlemen who have zero 'value add', but take plenty of money for inserting themselves between skilled physicians and sick people.
By improving medical record keeping to reduce the overhead inherent in admins managing the details of hundreds of different insurance plans.
By providing preventive care to reduce the number of instances of chronic and avoidable diseases.
By reducing the incentive to run procedures for the sake of being paid to run procedures.
By incentivizing more students to enter medicine as a profession.
By reducing the incentive to purchase expensive private insurance because it's a write-off anyway.
By providing competition in a market which has little to none.
By insuring that people who need care don't resort to using the emergency room instead of the PCP's office because they don't have insurance or have insurance that isn't sensible to use (high co-pays, huge deductibles before they kick in, etc).
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:46pm
Since Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupt, how will you afford a "better system" that provides more services?
And one reason that both the US govt and private health plans do not cover medical care overseas is that a number of procedures and drugs are not approved here by the FDA and issues with medical records.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 5:28pm
By streamlining the system. Currently a lot of money is wasted in the medicare medicaid system. If you streamlined it you would reduce part of the cost.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:54pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 5:22pm
Did you bother to read the article I posted or just ignore it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:54pm
"Since Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupt, how will you afford a "better system" that provides more services?"
By cutting out the middlemen who have zero 'value add', but take plenty of money for inserting themselves between skilled physicians and sick people.
By improving medical record keeping to reduce the overhead inherent in admins managing the details of hundreds of different insurance plans.
By providing preventive care to reduce the number of instances of chronic and avoidable diseases.
By reducing the incentive to run procedures for the sake of being paid to run procedures.
By incentivizing more students to enter medicine as a profession.
By reducing the incentive to purchase expensive private insurance because it's a write-off anyway.
By providing competition in a market which has little to none.
By insuring that people who need care don't resort to using the emergency room instead of the PCP's office because they don't have insurance or have insurance that isn't sensible to use (high co-pays, huge deductibles before they kick in, etc).
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:46pm
By streamlining the system. Currently a lot of money is wasted in the medicare medicaid system. If you streamlined it you would reduce part of the cost.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:54pm 1
Both of you stated WHAT you want done, not how to accomplish it.
For instance Snow,
<By cutting out the middlemen who have zero 'value add', but take plenty of money for inserting themselves between skilled physicians and sick people.>
what middlemen would you cut out of the Medicare system unless you make all healthcare employees Federal employees? that puts us back to a socialist system.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:22pm
"there's nothing Christian about surrendering control of your life to the govt"
so, by that logic, you are currently "surrendering your control" to insurance companies, telephone companies, utilities, etc. and those guys are.....of course......all about giving "control" back to the customer.
and, btw, to say something is "run by the government" is not necessarily a criticism.
but i would not expect a republican to know that.
Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 7:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:22pm
By creating a public option. Dissolve medicare and medicaid and add in a public option. If I knew how to take care of every single detail I would be working for the government. In my imagination you take would be taxing for it like everyone else.
Here's my question to you. You say that capitalism is always the superior option. That in the face of competition prices will be kept reasonable. Why then has the cost of medical insurance simply continued to rise? If capitalism is the answer then why has it worked in reverse when it comes to medical care? What is your solution to the rising cost of medical care which is beomcing more and more unreachable for the average American? How are we supposed to continue to be called the greatest country in the world when it will come to a point where if you are poor you are condemned to die because you can't afford the cost of a simple medical treatment?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 7:32pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:22pm
The problem with medical care is they have no REAL competition for prices. A public option would add an aspect of competition and force them to drive their prices down and begin to actually compete.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 7:34pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:22pm
I know you are rabidly antisocialist but can you at least admit that the current system of medical insurance is not functional and that if prices continue to rise it will be a detriment to everyone?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 7:37pm
By creating a public option. Dissolve medicare and medicaid and add in a public option.
Here's my question to you. You say that capitalism is always the superior option. That in the face of competition prices will be kept reasonable. Why then has the cost of medical insurance simply continued to rise? If capitalism is the answer then why has it worked in reverse when it comes to medical care? What is your solution to the rising cost of medical care which is beomcing more and more unreachable for the average American? How are we supposed to continue to be called the greatest country in the world when it will come to a point where if you are poor you are condemned to die because you can't afford the cost of a simple medical treatment?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 7:32pm |
1. How is Medicare not already a "public option" for seniors? I don't understand why you treat it as if it's not operated by the Govt?
2. I don't know of anyone (myself included) who believes that capitalism is a perfect system. However, it is far superior to socialism.
Secondly, as I have addressed many times, we have a problem with healthcare costs due to several very correctable factors.
A. Lifestyle choices-fast foods, no exercise
B. Most people want healthcare to keep them alive no matter the cost-that doesn't come cheaply and is a change from 30-40 years ago.
You don't have a right to try and live forever.
C. Lawsuits and the cost of Medical Malpractice Insurance
D. Back when I first was raising a family, our medical costs were cheap. We had no insurance, and paid cash. So you only went when you actually needed to; not when you had the sniffles.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:46pm
I know you are rabidly antisocialist but can you at least admit that the current system of medical insurance is not functional and that if prices continue to rise it will be a detriment to everyone?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 7:37pm
there cannot be true competition between private enterprise and the govt. Not unless you take away the ability of the govt to print money and run deficits.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:49pm
"1. How is Medicare not already a "public option" for seniors? I don't understand why you treat it as if it's not operated by the Govt? "
I'm talking about a public option for everyone not just seniors.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 7:58pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:46pm
All your points are true. But the problem is I don't think that would bring the cost of medical care down. I think the reason medical insurance is so pricey is because the firms are price fixing. There is no competition of prices. Especially if you have a pre-existing condition because your insurance provider knows you can't leave.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 7:59pm
Healthcare in the U.S. is not only expensive, it is inferior to other countries who provide healthcare for all.
As an example, during a trip to Spain my husband cracked his tooth biting an olive, splitting it all the way to his jaw bone. He underwent oral surgery in an outpatient clinic including the infusion of liquid bone into the fractured bone. The tab? $300.00
The same procedure would have cost thousands of dollars in the U.S. and probably would not have turned out as well.
Posted by nursevic at 06/29/2009 @ 8:16pm
Side note to Katrina:
Good job standing up to Tancredo's idioccy today..he doesn't merit TV time.
And just a sidenote:
It's Sotto-May-OR, not ER.
Thanks
Posted by hrayovac at 06/29/2009 @ 8:17pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:46pm
Also anti I want to ask you how old are your children and how long ago are you talking about because medical insurance has gone up by leaps ad bounds and the cost of treatment has gone up. Like snowball said you can't get any type of even minor surgery done at an achievable price anymore. If you tear something playing a sport your going to go bankrupt.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 9:05pm
<i>Posted by thepeoplechoose at 06/29/2009 @ 6:10pm </i>
First off, they're not treated as citizens, they're treated as persons. That's why the Privileges and Immunities Clause doesn't apply to them.
Second, though they probably shouldn't be persons in every respect, removing personhood entirely would be disastrous:
1) Couldn't sue corporations
2) Corporations couldn't own resources as entities...much more difficult to form
3) Complicates business relations tremendously; with what precise entity are you dealing?
And that's just for starters.
<i>Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 7:25pm </i>
The substantive point he's trying to make is that good is much more valuable when you actually do it than when you just cast a ballot and wait for someone else to deduct some of your wages and do it. Which makes sense to the extent that these are mutually exclusive options. In many cases, though, they're not.
And now this part is to antisocialist:
Moreover, if government's just some entity out there, why bother debating policy questions? Why talk about these issues to begin with? If things are always better when personalized, why not personalize as much as you possibly can? We could start with the military; after all, people with fire in their blood going to fight in private militias is much more conducive to bravery than government-managed units, isn't it?
Except you won't defend that because you know that there is a realm for the government to act on the compassion and the needs of its citizens, particularly where a simple aggregation of individual efforts won't solve a problem. If you're going to use religiously-based arguments for government policy, you also have to believe that collective compassion is relevant here too. Amos 5:24= just words?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/29/2009 @ 9:42pm
There is no question by now that in order to go past the opposition in Congress to include Single Payer as an possible answer to the present, corporate, dehumanized, expensive, self serving and not effective to international standards (even 3rd world countries), we the people will have to stand up and be heard. It is the only way that Obama will accept to include what is a moral obligation to be an acceptable "option". This is the state of present affairs. It is an example of what is to be expected. There is no compromising in hopes that it will be turned around in the future. If it's not placed on the table now, it will be a metaphor for how easy it is to tease Americans in order to win elections with no intention to deliver. I predict the beginning of the end of delusion fed by hope. Maybe the awakening of civil consciousness in a country that has lost it's ability to stand up and recognize it's own power. That of the individual as consumer... with a powerful voice (if he or she acts on it). There is no tomorrow without today.
Posted by Gustav at 06/29/2009 @ 9:55pm
Unbelievable. This thread has been a trip through the world of absurdity.
Gustav is right in addressing part of the problem. But the real issue is the lobbyists and their puppets --- the politicians.
The system itslf is based on the foundation of corruption: Power, Hate, and Greed. And this unholy trinity is being nurtured by the smoke and mirrors of the media --- the gaggle of fools recruiting new fools.
And electing new politicians Doesn't work either because only the names change, not the character.
You should all re-read what's been said and instead of nitpicking the pettiness ask yourselves, why doesn't everyone in this country have health insurance. That is the real issue, and it shouldn't even be an issue. ( Remember?..." those that have it don't really care.")
We are supposed to be intelligent caring human beings, unlike our ancestral savages that were bent on destroying each other for survival. Yes, that still happens in this world, but we in this supposedly civilized United States of America are supposed to have left that behind and worked for the good of its citizens. "We the People,,,"
So I dare all of you to find a way to make it happen. Instead of exposing your lack of caring with insults to reason., discuss the solutions not the delusions.
Posted by onekoleso at 06/30/2009 @ 12:07am
Katrina Vanden Heuvel opened the door, as she has many times to public discussion, exposing issues that provoke response. I salute that and honor it by trying to not diminish the quality of the argument... humbly. I find it difficult often not to fall into either the trap of claiming truth or veering into impassionate speeches that can walk the thin line that borders with self absorbed propaganda. None of us knows the whole truth but some facts point unequivocally (to the best of our ability to judge) to a conclusion. I don't mind risk loosing face (to myself) in the assumption that it looks likely that we the people are not being considered in any form other than consumers in any and all decision making process by our government. That the issue of Health Care reflects this assumption, sadly. Humanity no longer holds value or is considered in poetic ways. It's just a commodity. Can that be changed? Can we own and feel we deserve to be honored by our "Leaders"? I hope I am not too far off the subject...
Posted by Gustav at 06/30/2009 @ 02:01am
"Focus on principles, tell compelling stories, move people emotionally and send clear messages." D.Westin and endorsed by KVH
This statement right here proves beyond any doubt that liberalism is based purely on emotion. Consequences be damned and results don't matter. Pitiful!
Posted by fram at 06/29/2009 @ 11:35am
Dear confused "Fram" - "principles" and "clear messages" are RATIONAL not emotional. Put down your Ayn Rand book and think for yourself.
Posted by racetoinfinity at 06/30/2009 @ 02:09am
"Focus on principles, tell compelling stories, move people emotionally and send clear messages." D.Westin and endorsed by KVH
This statement right here proves beyond any doubt that liberalism is based purely on emotion. Consequences be damned and results don't matter. Pitiful!
Posted by fram at 06/29/2009 @ 11:35am
Dear confused "Fram" - "principles" and "clear messages" are RATIONAL not emotional. Put down your Ayn Rand book and think for yourself.
Posted by racetoinfinity at 06/30/2009 @ 02:10am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/29/2009 @ 11:27am
Oh, and health care here is just wonderful!
Let's see, two options here: One, you have ZERO coverage just like millions of Americans. Two, you have your standard insurance through your job where you spend most of your time getting dicked by a mutli-billion dollar company that is essentially STEALING from you. Or you have to suffer through having a cobra, where you get dicked for ten times the price.
Apparently you've never had the privilege of paying for "poor man's" insurance, just so your coverage can be dropped, immediately, as soon as you actually need to capitalize on all those payments.
Hey, maybe you're uber-wealthy, and have great health care that you don't have to worry about, in which case, cheers for you.
Unfortunately a vast majority of the country are LUCKY to have any insurance PERIOD. And it's horrible, bureaucratic, and inept.
You seem to make the assumption that it could possibly get worse. If you ask me, it's already at the bottom.
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 02:22am
Grrr, damn socialist-hippie-commie-liberal scum! Wanting to be able to take their kids to the doctor without having to sell their house first!
WHERE THE HELL DO THEY GET OFF!
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 02:23am
All of those here that have lost a loved one due to a greedy, murderous, evil insurance company, or greedy inept medical staff, raise your hands!
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 02:26am
Sorry little Johnny, Daddy's insurance provider decided to stop covering your leukemia treatments, and now we're $200,000 in debt just trying to keep you alive, and the treatments aren't working anyway.
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 02:28am
Exactly!
So how can this health issue be cured?
It can't under the present circumstances.
I guess this generation isn't smart enough to figure out the solution.
As for the next generation, we've already showed them how to fail.
So it's the same old over again and again....
Posted by onekoleso at 06/30/2009 @ 02:56am
TexasFlood,
Excellent postings, as usual. You are skilled at what you do, putting forth this "rage" and "anger" at all the wrongs in this country that play well here in liberal land.
Well done!
Your postings show something else, as well, besides your writing skill and obvious command of the facts.
They show you are a complete jerk.
You pose the question as to whether I am "uber-wealthy".
I am the opposite - there are periods of time that I have not had medical insurance.
But I know that taking down our system into mediocrity by installing socialist medicine so everything is "equal" and all people are "covered" is not the answer.
I have mentioned previously how there are some lousy conditions with the NHS in Britain. The government put in a "requirement" that patients have to be seen within 4 hours of arriving at an ER. So, what happens now is that ambulance drivers (with a sick patient) will drive around for a while and then go to the ER only when they know the patient will be seen within 4 hours, in order to meet the requirement.
We are supposed to have that here? This is better for people? Are you going to tell me that if our system falls under government control that this kind of absurdity won't happen here?
Your phony rage you exhibit (and have before in your posts) is misplaced and off of the mark - especially when your assumptions are totally wrong - it gets a lot of mileage here at The Nation, I am sure, but it proves nothing.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 03:27am
On the ground of simple humanity a truly remedial health insurance plan has to be passed. But even further, for the sake of this country's economy, such a bill must be passed and signed into law. The cost of our present non-system is monstrous. Its annual inflationary pressure is driving our economy south fast. And qualitatively it needs major improvement, not technically but in almost every other way. A shiny new insurance system cannot of itself overhaul the power of Big Pharma over doctors , and the lawyers' constant threat of lawsuits to doctors, and the lack of patient history and treatment follow through from private doctor to hospital bedside staff, and the endemic plague of treatment error that kills enormous numbers of patients every year. And will the plan that emerges from Congress pay for the other health care modalities that presently redeem some of the inadequacies of mainstream medical care? The opportunity of a lifetime is in our hands to produce for the United States a revolutionary universal healthcare plan. But Congress is already reducing this grand enterprise to mediocrity.
Posted by CHForbesSr at 06/30/2009 @ 04:17am
Right on Katrina. Its now or never. Robert G. Mac DonalM.D. St. Sauveur,Qc
Posted by RobertGMACDONALDMDB.A.M.D. at 06/30/2009 @ 06:51am
Thank God for the Internet and Google.
Libs will claim victory with the post above, a Canadian agreeing with Katrina vanden Heuvel, and thus obviously in support of socialist health care.
But it appears this person is not exactly un-biased.....the comment below off of the Internet shows that, even though Canada is obviously a free country, he thinks it is not and is all bent out of shape about Queen Elizabeth.
What is wrong with Queen Elizabeth? Yes, her son Charles is a bit of an oddball (he is gung-ho for the global warming stuff), but he probably won't ever be King anyway, it more than likely would go to one of his (and Diana's) sons, William or Harry.
So this Dr. MacDonald is a Canadian version of someone like Katrina vanden Heuvel. He sounds like a bit of a wingnut whose head is in la-la land, which in his case is not Los Angeles but north of Montreal.
If any libs start piling in and saying that his opinion has some validity, and maybe they won't now, one has to take into account the type of political ideology this person appears to have.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!
=============================
Canada should always be a proponent of human rights for all. How about some for Canadians. 1. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a foreign Queens Monarchy. 2.We are not free. If we were we would not pledge allegiance to the Queen of England. 3. Our politicians are weak.We should get rid of all connection to the British empire.But no one has the courage to say boo. I am ashamed to be regarded by the world as too weak to establish itself as a free country,fully independent. Robert G. Mac Donald.B.A.M.D, , St.-Sauveur,Qc
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 07:57am
In case libs post in saying there is no similarity between this Canadian lib MacDonald and libs here, lets look at his post.
1. MacDonald says Canadians don't live in a democracy and are not free. Many Libs in the United States say the same things about our country (the United States).
2. MacDonald is phobic about the connection to the Queen and the British Empire. The implication is that Canadians are under the thumb of Britian. Libs here in the U.S. think that Americans are under the thumb of corporate America, the "neocons", "bigPharma", Karl Rove, the oil companies, etc. etc. etc.
3. MacDonald does not want to pledge allegiance. Same as libs here. One difference - libs here have engineeered it so that in some venues those who do want to pledge allegiance can't either! It appears MacDonald is not as far along on this item.
4. MacDonald is ashamed of his country. Libs here are ashamed of the United States. One difference, though, he feels Canada is regarded as weak and he obviously feels that is not good. Libs here in the U.S. WANT America to be weak and compliant and subserviant to the rest of the world.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 08:15am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 7:46pm
Also anti I want to ask you how old are your children and how long ago are you talking about because medical insurance has gone up by leaps ad bounds and the cost of treatment has gone up. Like snowball said you can't get any type of even minor surgery done at an achievable price anymore. If you tear something playing a sport your going to go bankrupt.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 9:05pm
My youngest is 30 and my oldest is 37.
but as I said, the factors I listed and the introduction of the HMO system drove up prices.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 10:50am
antisocialist is completely dodging reality, and is eternally beholden to an outmoded, failed ideology.
while we should all respect his dedication to it, it's obvious that he is getting old, and stubborness that goes along with that keeps growing and growing.
it is the same for maasch, rio, et al. their movement failed, was rejected (twice), and now they are clinging to the worst of the worst to justify awful, antiquated policies.
Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by Thrawn at 06/29/2009 @ 9:42pm
Sometimes you take on the character of a Maskian series of questions.
At no time have I ever suggested that "govt is just some entity out there". What I have demanded is govt that abides by the powers, limitations, and delegations that the constitution mandates. There are certain roles for the Federal govt and all other powers and authorities are left to the individual states and the people.
As the Founders stated, the Fed role is limited and the role and the authorities granted to the states are expansive. Madison stated it as well as it can be stated in Federalist 45.
<"James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.">
Thus the states are fully empowered to address education, healthcare, welfare for the needy, and any other social issues.
As to collective compassion and Amos 5:24:
What needs to be separated is that we don't have a theocratic govt (no do I want one) and so the collective response in the new covenant of Christianity is from the community of believers and not govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 03:27am
It sure seemed to work pretty well on you, judging by your long-winded and rambling "reply" where you do nothing but words in my mouth.
Oh and do you really want to speak of assumptions? You ASSUME that I think a single payer system is the answer.
Please show me where in the world I EVER said that, or where in the world I ever said I was that evilest of evil, a liberal.
Run along now child, and get back to me when you find the answer.
And trust me little man, my rage is entirely genuine.
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 11:06am
antisocialist is completely dodging reality, and is eternally beholden to an outmoded, failed ideology.
while we should all respect his dedication to it, it's obvious that he is getting old, and stubborness that goes along with that keeps growing and growing.
it is the same for maasch, rio, et al. their movement failed, was rejected (twice), and now they are clinging to the worst of the worst to justify awful, antiquated policies.
Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:00am
I agree I am old so that's one for you.
I also agree that I stubbornly hold to an ideology known as the US Constitution. but I consider it neither outmoded, nor failed.
Every week the leftists here argue with me against my view that we should uphold the Constitution and leave the issues like healthcare and education to the states as the Constitution provided. And each week, the leftists argue that the Constitution is either outmoded or can mean whatever each generation says it means.
And I summarize again as I do each week that the only logical conclusion one can form from this obstinance on the part of the left is that they don't like the Constitution and simply want a "democratic socialist' govt in it's place.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 11:12am
"I also agree that I stubbornly hold to an ideology known as the US Constitution"
(most vapid and meaningless statement of the day)
if you're such a believer in the rule of law, anti, then how could you have supported bush for 8 years?
Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:30am
TexasFlood,
2 comments -
1. If your rage is genuine, then you need to wipe the foam off of your mouth and go get a rabies shot.
2. Since I may be part Canadian by absorption (I like Canada except for the socialist health care), then may I express to you my thoughts in the manner that Darladoon would prefer I do:
TexasFlood, take off, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 11:36am
"I like Canada except for the socialist health care"
(second most vapid and meaningless statement of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 11:36am
Aw, what's that? You can't find anywhere to back up your post full of conjecture and stupidity? Poor guy, that must be frustrating : (
By the way, I'm not going anywhere. Like I said, I'm no liberal, and the hippy-dippy whiny nonsense like "let's go to canada to escape all the oppression" has never really been my style.
It's MY country, why don't you get out before you're made to leave?
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 11:47am
Also, since when does anger imply a lack of rationality.
If you're not angry you're either lazy or not paying attention. In your case, I'm going to just go ahead and guess that it's both.
Ah, what a wonderful start to my vacation! Cheerio!
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 11:52am
Watch out SJ!!
The socialist horde is on it's way to foist you and the other "real americans" out of your homes and into the gulag!
RUN!
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 12:01pm
Whenever articles about the need for a better health care system for our country is articulated, the fact that Bill #676 has been presented to Congress by Congressman Conyers is never mentioned. It is gaining more and more support and should be advertised more. Many organizations are organizing demonstrations, meetings across the country on behalf if #676 and its counterpart for the Senate. It is an all encompassing bill for Universal - single payer health care which has been on the books for over 60 years!
Posted by pvolkov at 06/30/2009 @ 12:02pm
TexasFlood,
No need to run anywhere.
3 and 1/2 years from now, January 20, 2013 to be exact, someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., a new resident at that location, will be saying:
Lookie here, my first day on the job and I have already stopped the "socialist horde", you betcha!!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 12:14pm
if you're such a believer in the rule of law, anti, then how could you have supported bush for 8 years?
Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 11:30am
As I have repeatedly posted over the past 4 years here, Bush did not violate the constitution. In fact he has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts.
In three cases where the courts ruled against him, they were completely wrong in the instances as the dissent opinion written by Scalia clearly demonstrated (Rasul v Bush and Boumediene v. Bush, regarding Habeas), and debatedly wrong in the second (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), where precedent showed that the Commander-in-Chief did hold the authority for Military Tribunals.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 12:19pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 12:14pm
A fine indication of your inability to make good choices, by hoping that twit is someday in a position of authority.
The woman can't even raise her children and you want her running the executive.
Good idea!
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 12:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 12:19pm
LOL!
I actually mean it, that post made me laugh out loud.
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 12:22pm
"As I have repeatedly posted over the past 4 years here, Bush did not violate the constitution. In fact he has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts"
no, he hasn't.
and then you say:
"In three cases where the courts ruled against him, they were completely wrong"
how funny is that?
anti, you are such an awful debater, that i simply have to ignore you now. i'm just tired of this...
<click>
Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 12:27pm
TexasFlood,
Hoping?
Where above in my postings do you get the impression I am hoping about who will be President January 20, 2013 after the noon hour?
I didn't indicate I was hoping about anything.
I AM looking forward to it, I don't have to hope for it.
(No Mask, I am not going to put money down on "pay pal" in a bet with you)
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 12:29pm
"As I have repeatedly posted over the past 4 years here, Bush did not violate the constitution. In fact he has been repeatedly upheld by the Courts"
no, he hasn't.
and then you say:
"In three cases where the courts ruled against him, they were completely wrong"
how funny is that?
anti, you are such an awful debater, that i simply have to ignore you now. i'm just tired of this...
<click>
Posted by darladoon at 06/30/2009 @ 12:27pm
Darla,
You may have put me on hold (?), but just in case:
It is not violating the law when either a president issues an executive order which is subsequently struck down by SCOTUS, or a law passed by Congress that is subsequently struck down by Congress.
It is only violating the law if you go against an existing ordinance of law. That is not what was at place in these instances. Otherwise every time SCOTUS strikes down an existing law or Executive Order, there would be a criminal action. That's not how our system works.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 12:32pm
'A critically ill Hamilton preemie .. is all alone in a Buffalo intensive care unit because her parents don't have passports to get across the border....
Her parents, Natalie Paquette and Richard Stinson, couldn't follow their baby because as of June 1, a passport is required to cross the border into the United States. They're having to approve medical procedures over the phone and are terrified something will happen to their baby before they get there.
....
In the meantime, the priority is getting Paquette and Stinson reunited with their baby. The Canadian consulate in Buffalo is providing advice and guidance to the first-time parents. Hamilton Centre MP David Christopherson is working to arrange emergency passports but that will take until at least Monday afternoon.' -- Hamilton [Canada] Spectator -- 27 June, 2009 -- http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/590540
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/30/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 12:29pm
Aww, you're delusional as well : (
You must be paying a lot for your meds. Sure you don't want that single payer health care to lighten the load?
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 1:03pm
"male, pale and stale."
I like it. Descriptive and honest without being offensive.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/30/2009 @ 1:05pm
Although don't get me wrong SJ....
After watching how the American people were cowed by Obama's speeches, and how they managed to scare themselves into re-electing GW, I pretty much believe the American people to be capable of any level of stupidity.
Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 1:17pm
Why do some people think that 2009, when a newly elected President with majorities in both houses of Congress tries to change the health insurance system, will be any different from 1993, when a newly elected President with majorities in both houses of Congress tried to change the health insurance system? Can anybody here tell me what change the 16 year interval has brought?
Posted by Mistral at 06/30/2009 @ 2:14pm
conservatives like sj, anti and happy who so adamantly distrust the government would rather see for-profit insurance companies decide for us which doctors to use, how much paperwork to fill out, when to deny coverage, how much we should pay out of pocket with outrageous co-pays and deductibles and medication, etc. etc. etc. So the profit motive of the insurance industry/big pharma/AMA provides us with better health care than a non-profit government run universal healthcare.
oligarchy = good socialism = bad
i'll gladly side with socialism.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
i'll gladly side with socialism.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
No surprise that you are willing to give the govt control of your life.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 2:25pm
yeah that's right anti, every morning when i wake up i call the white house to ask them what i should eat for breakfast, what i should wear to work, what kind of car to drive, which church to attend, how to part my hair.... you got me figured out.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 2:36pm
i see you have no response to the meat of my post, just that i would side with universal healthcare over profit motivated healthcare. i mean socialism over corporatocracy.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 2:39pm
i see you have no response to the meat of my post, just that i would side with universal healthcare over profit motivated healthcare. i mean socialism over corporatocracy.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 2:39pm
there is no serious response to an inane posting.
What you presented can be considered either a false dilemma or a Morton's Fork
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
Either way, it is not a realistic suggestion of the solutions available.
Nor was it even a fair representation of the two choices your offered. Both of your choices have their pros and cons, yet you offered them with vitriol dripping from the private choice and bland and innocuous description of the Govt role.
In other words, you are not up to a serious debate because you appear incapable of even defining the options.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 2:48pm
Can we please get past what Canada or Europe does? Or Zimbabwe, for that matter?
Can we talk about the fact that in our country, there are MILLIONS of people who have no one to turn to for health care? Where are the compassionate conservatives (not that I truly believe there were any)? Is EVERYTHING about profit with you guys?
I understand all the arguments for and against a single payer option or a "public option" but what is YOUR solution to fixing the simple problem that AMERICANS ARE DYING without decent health care?
Instead of getting caught in the minutiae of the insurance companies, or how long someone would have to stand in line in a single payer system, or whether a profit based health care system is even MORAL (something I have yet to see ANY conservative discuss...and you guys are the "morals" party, right?), can we instead focus on the fact, the undeniable FACT, that America, with all our money and technological resources, should be able to provide adequate, if not outstanding, health care to every single citizen of our nation!
For all you Pentagon defense spenders, I have one question for you: without a healthy nation, what exactly are we spending all those trillions of dollars (throughout the years) defending?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/30/2009 @ 2:50pm
I understand all the arguments for and against a single payer option or a "public option" but what is YOUR solution to fixing the simple problem that AMERICANS ARE DYING without decent health care?
Instead of getting caught in the minutiae of the insurance companies, or how long someone would have to stand in line in a single payer system, or whether a profit based health care system is even MORAL (something I have yet to see ANY conservative discuss...and you guys are the "morals" party, right?), can we instead focus on the fact, the undeniable FACT, that America, with all our money and technological resources, should be able to provide adequate, if not outstanding, health care to every single citizen of our nation!
For all you Pentagon defense spenders, I have one question for you: without a healthy nation, what exactly are we spending all those trillions of dollars (throughout the years) defending?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/30/2009 @ 2:50pm
I repeat Stephen,
There is no right to healthcare.
It is not the responsibility of the Federal govt to make everyone healthy (not that they can even with unlimited funds). People are healthier in some other nations because they live healthier lives and make better lifestyle choices.
Secondly, many people are dying because that's what happens to the human body. And many die early because of the choices they make.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 2:55pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You imply that we do not have a healthy nation and that Pentagon Defense Spending is moot without a healthy nation.
1. That is your opinion we do not have a healthy nation - and your cure for making the nation healthier than it already is apparently is socialism, rather than finding market oriented ways to help people who can not afford medical insurance get the medical insurance.
2. Thus your cure for the "unhealthy" nation is to make the nation less healthy through socialist medicine, but at least everybody, though less healthy than before, will be "covered"
3. I do not agree that Pentagon defense spending is unrelated to the nation's health. There are 2,751 people who came down with a medical condition in New York City a few years ago that rendered them quite unhealthy (probably because they were quite dead) - but the Pentagon defense spending along with other things also related to the nation's health (such as the Patriot act) at least kept other people from coming down with the same condition in the intervening years.
So some things that you don't even think of are totally related to the nation's health, but one thing you think is (the socialism) very clearly is not.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 3:17pm
reverend, you think i am here to debate you? you must have me mistaken for someone who gives a crap about what you think. i'm only here to post my opinions. you don't like it, then don't respond me. but you're not really here to debate anyone, you just want the attention and found the forum to do so. i hardly take offense to someone like you calling me inane, as you arrogantly post a link to wikipedia like some sort of educational tool for me. clearly you are under the false impression that I am intellectually inferior to you.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 3:19pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 2:55pm
Larry, I would argue: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Believe it or not, those words are my definition of "freedom," what I base most of my political arguments around and in my opinion, are based on the teachings of Christ.
Yes I know, they are not in the Constitution, but in the document the preceded the Constitution...sort of that "statement of purpose" known as the Declaration of Independence....
The first of the three words is "Life."
If that doesn't guarantee a "right" for adequate health care to all Americans, then I would argue that it certainly sets a GOAL for America and I would argue, American government, especially considering that government is for, by and of the People, not the insurance companies.
Perhaps the concept of "perfecting the union" could include providing "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" too ALL its citizens, not just the ones who can afford insurance. You know, those things our Founding Fathers fought the tyranny of the British Crown to achieve. The Liberty to choose...a public option, or a single payer option. But Congress won't give us that, because of the insurance companies.
Your solution for health care seems to be to let the insurance companies do whatever they want, let everyone fend for themselves....every man, woman and child on their own. For a man who doesn't believe in evolution, you sure are all about "survival of the fittest" (which is just evolution writ small).
But, since Jesus never said anything about health care for all, that must mean he was against it, right?
The pure calculated coldness of your Christianity offends me. Have you no compassion for those who aren't as blessed as you?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/30/2009 @ 3:32pm
reverend, you think i am here to debate you? you must have me mistaken for someone who gives a crap about what you think. i'm only here to post my opinions. you don't like it, then don't respond me. but you're not really here to debate anyone, you just want the attention and found the forum to do so. i hardly take offense to someone like you calling me inane, as you arrogantly post a link to wikipedia like some sort of educational tool for me. clearly you are under the false impression that I am intellectually inferior to you.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 3:19pm
Obviously then I took your question way too seriously then as it looked like a debate challenge
<i see you have no response to the meat of my post, just that i would side with universal healthcare over profit motivated healthcare. i mean socialism over corporatocracy.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 2:39pm>
And just to deflate your ego, I certainly was under no presumption that you are here to debate me.
Finally, I apologize for assuming a greater level of intellect on your part when I posted the link to Morton's Fork. That presumption on my part was that you would recognize from it the deficiency in your previous challenge. I obviously assumed more than you were capable of.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 3:33pm
you are truly full of crap reverend.
oh, and you want to talk inane: "Secondly, many people are dying because that's what happens to the human body. And many die early because of the choices they make"
i had a friend die at 24 due to cancer - non-smoker, healthy lifestyle, just got cancer. did he choose that? do people with down's syndrome choose "that lifestyle"?
you must preach at the church of satan because you are certainly no christian.
adios
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 3:46pm
The Wikipedia entry says "Morton's Fork" is the opposite of "Buridan's Ass"
Thank you, we now return you to your regularly scheduled 24/7 Michael Jackson coverage.
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/30/2009 @ 4:11pm
Anti,
We seem to have missed a huge difference in the system. You negated to mention before the rise of the HMO. It is precisely the problem. Those are the people who are price fixing. Those are the people who have a lack of competition. And typically when people complain about their insurance the biggest culprits are usually HMO's because they are normally the shabbiest of them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 4:16pm
SJCHERMARK,
Did you bother to read the study I posted or just completely ignore it because it doesn't jive with your deluded reality?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 4:17pm
Cccomfo1,
What is this nonsense. I read it...I didn't reply--- so what?
Who are you to demand I reply to everything on here, when you know full well most others do not, including you.
I will get to that in a moment.
As for your article, it is to "disprove" the "myth" that a lot of Canadians are coming over here for health care.
I do not remember myself contending that....It seems to me my comments about Canadian health care have been along the lines that some kinds of treatments are not available in Canada because of socialist medicine, which is true and is not refuted by your argument, and that there are horrendus wait times, which is true and is not refuted by your argument, and I also posted articles about the abysmal conditions in some ERs, which is true and not refuted by your arguement.
I do not ever remember discussing the quantity of Canadians who do or do not seek care over here in the States.
What I HAVE mentioned from time to time is that if a Canadian is wealthy they can afford to come over here and purchase care that is better than they get back home if they want - and this deflates the lib arguments about "equality" and "fairness" because one of the lib objectives of the socialism is that capitalism is not "fair" and wealthy people can get things or better things, etc......yet with socialist medicine in Canada the wealthy can get better if they want at the price to the rest of Canadians of a dumbed down and problematic system.
As far as you, how about responding to two things from several months ago now?
to be continued....
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 4:33pm
i had a friend die at 24 due to cancer - non-smoker, healthy lifestyle, just got cancer. did he choose that? do people with down's syndrome choose "that lifestyle"?
you must preach at the church of satan because you are certainly no christian.
adios
Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 3:46pm
I read, re-read, and re-read again and somehow I can't find the sentence where I said ALL. Either that or they have changed the dictionary meaning of many-when did this happen?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 4:41pm
Cccomfo1,
Quite some time ago now you expressed disgust at the "anti-Obama" sentiment expressed at the McCain-Palin rally in Scranton where somebody yelled "Kill him" (supposedly about Obama).....
Except I posted the link to the article in the Scranton newspaper where the Secret Service had determined a couple of days later that nobody yelled "Kill him"....in other words, it did not happen.
Never heard any further comment from you.
Another time, you lectured me on not believing automatically everything I read, in response to my comments about an article (the subject of which I can no longer remember).
I posted back and pointed out to you that the particular item you took exception to was not something I read and believed automatically, but was my own additional comment beyond what had been mentioned in the article....it was something the author of the article never mentioned, it was my own add on.
Thus, your lecture was misplaced. If you were taking issue with what I said, that is one thing, but you were lecturing me about believing something somebody else said, except that was not the case.
Yet, never a reply from you.
The problem I have is that you have in the past shown a distaste for anything other than deep weighty political discussion, and a distaste for "partisanship" or insults, etc.....but you of course are as partisan as they come and engage in the same behavior when the mood suits you.
I do not have a problem with that but it gets hypocritical when you posture yourself as the discourse policeman on the information superhighway......yet you only patrol the "right" lanes for violations, you never pull anybody on the "left" side of the highway over, including writing summonses on yourself.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 4:43pm
"Except I posted the link to the article in the Scranton newspaper where the Secret Service had determined a couple of days later that nobody yelled "Kill him"....in other words, it did not happen"
So a bunch of people in the crowd heard it and just because the SS didn't that make it untrue?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:00pm
"Thus, your lecture was misplaced. If you were taking issue with what I said, that is one thing, but you were lecturing me about believing something somebody else said, except that was not the case. "
If you can be a little more clear about this exchange then I might be able to appropriately respond. However I can't remember the incident in the least so I can't appropriately respond.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:01pm
Cccomfo1,
Nobody ever provided any credible information that someone actually said that.
Did the "bunch of people in the crowd" really hear it? How do you know? Why are you automatically buying into that?
The Secret Service investigated it and found no evidence that someone actually did say that.
That does not absolutely prove it did not happen, but no one has offered up any real evidence it did, either, yet you automatically believe it.
Is that because it fits the "lib template" of who Conservatives are?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:04pm
"As for your article, it is to "disprove" the "myth" that a lot of Canadians are coming over here for health care. "
You just went on a long rant about how this person had to come over here for treatment and this is abhorrent. I posted a few comments. Some treatments aren't available in the US. I posted an example of someone I knew who had to go to Europe for cancer treatment. So the problem is singular to socialist medicine it even occurs in the great USA. On top of that yes SOME treatments aren't available in Canada, which is common to all medical systems, but if it was as many as you are trying to make us believe it is there would be a lot more case of people going accross the border for treatment.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:04pm
Nobody ever provided any credible information that someone actually said that.
Did the "bunch of people in the crowd" really hear it? How do you know? Why are you automatically buying into that?
The Secret Service investigated it and found no evidence that someone actually did say that.
That does not absolutely prove it did not happen, but no one has offered up any real evidence it did, either, yet you automatically believe it.
Is that because it fits the "lib template" of who Conservatives are?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:04pm
If they didn't say it they didn't say it. There was plenty of demonstrated racism at McCain rallys too. Would you like to pull up:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/ mccain-palin-rallies-the_n_134474.html
(space between / and mccain)
Here's a bunch of McCain-Palin supporters calling Obama a terrorist. Is it that hard to believe that someone who would call a presidential candidate a terrorist wouldn't make the call to kill him?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:10pm
Cccomfo1,
Some treatments for some things are not available in the U.S. and people do go elsewhere, but the question of treatments in Canada or other socialist systems like Europe goes beyond just specific treatements and their availablity or non-availability, it is the rationing of the health care altogether.
This can manifest itself in treatments not approved, or medicine not approved, or in abysmally long wait times, or in care being denied.
So the real concern is rationing, of which the treatment issue is but one symptom......
As opposed to the question of a treatment being available or not here in the U.S., which is not tied in with rationing but more often than not because of lack of FDA approval....because the safety of the treatment has not been determined yet thorugh enough trials.
So it is the question of a treatment not being available here because it has not been determined to be safe yet, with those going elsewhere at their own health risk to get the treatment, versus socialistic systems where the unavailablity of treatments are not based on safety concerns but because of rationing and bureaucratic nonsense.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:11pm
See it has nothing to do with believing everything I read, it has everything to do with examining past evidence and being able to, because of that evidence draw logical conclusion. Once again you say I dislike conservatives but like I said to anti I have posted positive comments about the conservative movement in the past and continue to believe it is important to this country. I have conservative friends and believe that the majority of conservatives are not racists. But like any political rally they draw out the loons on both sides. It should be McCain and Palin who are attempting to squash the calls of terrorist and kill him, not letting it go.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:13pm
"This can manifest itself in treatments not approved, or medicine not approved, or in abysmally long wait times, or in care being denied. "
All myths. I have heard of plenty of American cases of care being denied. Treatments are also not approved in the US. There can also be long wait times in the US for treatments because of low availability. These are all problems that people have in our "superior" system. The reason you only choose to focus your ire towards the canadian system because you want to disprove it, your not stopping to look at the fact that all of that exists in places in our system too. Even the dirty ER's.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=24068
You have a very good chance of coming out of US hospitals with a staph infection for instance.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:16pm
CCcomfo1,
You are making a judgement call that someone who calls Obama a terrorist would make a call to kill him.
You are entitled to your own logic, your own opinions, your own theories.....
I would point out to you, however, that it is that same kind of thought process that much of the left condemned over and over and over and over again with the subject of Iraq and George W. Bush/Tony Blair.
They, and others, saw situations that existed and concluded that Saddam posed a severe threat and needed to be stopped. And people like me have pointed out that their judgement proved correct because we know now Saddam would have started WMD production once left off of the hook, and would have given it to terrorists that he was known to be cultivating stonger ties to, and that millions would have died as a result.
This was their logic (Blair/Bush) and my logic and I have repeatedly said that was a logical conclusion to the situations that existed.
And just as repeatedly libs say on The Nations blogs that my theories are "suppositon" and you do not "shoot up a country" based on "coulda, woulda, shoulda" or something like that.
I didn't necessarily mean to divert into the topic of Iraq, per se....I am just pointing out that the logical process you are using is the same logical process that most on the left condemn when Conservatives like me use it.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:18pm
As opposed to the question of a treatment being available or not here in the U.S., which is not tied in with rationing but more often than not because of lack of FDA approval....because the safety of the treatment has not been determined yet thorugh enough trials.
So it is the question of a treatment not being available here because it has not been determined to be safe yet, with those going elsewhere at their own health risk to get the treatment, versus socialistic systems where the unavailablity of treatments are not based on safety concerns but because of rationing and bureaucratic nonsense.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:11pm
While the rationing may at times be true, A. I would bet if you truly researched it you would find it's much less prevalent than you think it is. B. A lot of the surgeries that are "rationed" are elective surgeries. I had to wait a month to have a 10 minute surgery to have a cyst remove. Which happens here.
There have also been many notable cases in the US of patients having to wait and work things out with their medical insurers because they don't want to pay for their treatment.
On top of that you don't have to worry about going bankrupt in Canada in order to get your surgery.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:21pm
Cccomfo1,
Others have said on this site that wait times in the U.S. can be long, as well.
I have no personal knowledge of that...I have the opposite...where there were times a close family member needed to see a doctor and got in to the office the very same day of the initial call.
And staph infections are unfortunatly a by product of hospital stays that seems independent of how clean the hospital is.....it seems they are hard to prevent....even in places that do not match the conditions like that described for some of the Canadian ERs.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:23pm
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-87314_ITM
Looks like US citizens wouldn't mind mind much waiting a little longer for their healthcare since wait times for non-elective and non-emergency treatments is about the only plus of US medical care.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:24pm
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/response_to_the_sena.php
Looks like the Canadian doctors that anti-socialized medicie people are taking their "facts" from disagree with them. Here is a better source for your "facts" the doctors themselves.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:27pm
You should try cutting through the BS and get to the heart of the matter. The "facts" that your side seem to be using are the "target" wait times. The actual wait times tend to be shorter it would seem.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:28pm
Cccomfo1,
I can tell you that a self generated "fact" that is very important here is that I used to work for the Government, and I have also worked in the private sector.
And I can not even begin to imagine why someone would want to turn something over to the Governement when they do not have to.
There is considerable idiotic waste that occurs in Government. Twice to three times the amount of paperwork to perform a task as a Govenment employee than a private sector employee would have to do to perform the same task.
There is no excuse or reason for this. I can not even begin to imagine the dollar value associated with this waste, or how to compute it.
Over and over again in this country people acting out of their own initiatve have done much better meeting people's needs than command-economy economics.
In the Soviet Union, separate from the political communism, the economic communism caused there to be warehouses full of things people didn't want and shortages of things people needed.
The economy of India at it's inception was a command economy (government run) and was lousy...when India went to more of a free market system conditions improved.
And even the Chinese, political communists beyond belief who deny their people freedom, have ditced their economic communism.
If there are problems in our system they should be fixed with market reforms to make care more affordable for those who can't afford it, or assistance to those who can't afford it.......but turning it into a government run system helps nobody....govenment is inefficent and non-responsive and wasteful and has been proven so over and over again.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:37pm
Cccomfo1,
I have to leave the computer now if I do not get back to you it is NOT because I am ignoring you.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:39pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 2:55pm </i>
Your response to sirhicus puts you in a rather difficult position. The whole point is that a substantial number of people who get very ill do so NOT because of choices they have made but because of things like genetics or terrible fortune. That means that you still have to, in some way, account for those individuals.
You can address this on two levels:
1) The moral debate, i.e. whether it is the government's place to provide insurance for health-care
2) The practice debate, i.e. whether a system involving the government works better than either the status quo or an alternative that you defend
(1) strikes me as a very difficult area for you to engage. Since it's apparent that Congress can constitutionally do this (tax-and-spend clause AND commerce clause are independently sufficient grounds), your only argument would be that the government should simply stay out. It's worth noting that "self-reliance thumbs-up" isn't sufficient argument here, since you're clearly OK with government intervening greatly in other areas (ex: military).
(2) is easier, and in previous threads you've started to do that. This links back into the moral debate because a system that fails to help people is inferior, all else being equal, to one that does so substantially better.
Thus, for your point (or the opposition's, for that matter) to prevail, you have to prevail on at least one of those two grounds.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2009 @ 5:43pm
If there are problems in our system they should be fixed with market reforms to make care more affordable for those who can't afford it, or assistance to those who can't afford it.......but turning it into a government run system helps nobody....govenment is inefficent and non-responsive and wasteful and has been proven so over and over again.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:37pm
You are on more even ground here than posting false facts about Canada's system. Not it's a philosophical debate. However the fact the medical system works elsewhere proves that it can be done.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:49pm
I have to leave the computer now if I do not get back to you it is NOT because I am ignoring you.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 5:39pm
My problem wasn't with you leaving the system. It was with posting multiple comments after I had posted my article in response, and not ever responding to it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:50pm
You have a very good chance of coming out of US hospitals with a staph infection for instance.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 5:16pm
And govt payments will do what to change this?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 6:49pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 2:55pm </i>
Your response to sirhicus puts you in a rather difficult position. The whole point is that a substantial number of people who get very ill do so NOT because of choices they have made but because of things like genetics or terrible fortune. That means that you still have to, in some way, account for those individuals.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/30/2009 @ 5:43pm
That still places no responsibility on the US govt and taxpayers. you have yet to make an argument as to why a limiting document like the Constitution should be used for every whim of Congress and taxpayers.
there is no right to healthcare in the US constitution. Thus I do not have to account for those individuals unless the individual states determine to assume this issue as they have the right to do.
Other countries have that specific right stated in their constitutions. That is why Jesse Jackson Jr introduced a Constitutional amendment to make healthcare a specified right.
The US govt must protect the right to speech, assembly, religion (or not)commerce between the states, travel between the states, the right to a system of courts, and the right to be secure from invaders.
Health is a broad and general term and thus should never be left to the govt to define.
I recommend this article by Joseph Sobran to better understand constitutional principles
<The original plan was as Madison and Tocqueville described it: State government was to be the rule, federal government the exception. The states' powers were to be "numerous and indefinite," federal powers "few and defined."... As Madison asked, why bother listing particular federal powers unless unlisted powers are withheld?>
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 7:05pm
I disagree with him on many issues, but I give Cong Jesse Jackson Jr credit for understanding the constitution better than most liberals.
<A Health Care Constitutional Amendment: Its Meaning And Implications
A Large Job Creation Proposal As Well
By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL-2)
The proposed amendment is House Joint Resolution 30.
H. J. Res. 30, states:
Section 1. All citizens of the United States shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
1. Like the first ten amendments to the Constitution - the Bill of Rights - this amendment provides every American with an individual right.
2. It's an individual right that is universal - it applies to "all citizens" of the United States. It's the only absolute 100 percent solution to our health care dilemma and crisis! It's the only proposal that actually and in reality covers everyone and "leaves no American behind." No other plan, Democratic or Republican, guarantees that every American will have a right to high quality health care.
3. H.J. Res. 30 uses the terms "shall enjoy." That means it's a positive and affirmative individual right as well as a societal and governmental obligation. Most current amendments to the Constitution are legitimate limitations on the government and provide individual protection from the government. They tell you what government cannot do. Government can't interfere with your right to free speech, your right to peaceably assembly and protest, your right to privacy, and your right to engage in the religion of your choice or to choose to practice no religion at all.
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 7:14pm
Healthcare constitutional Amendment continued
<4. H.J. Res. 30 puts "the right to health care" in the Constitution. It means the human and moral right to health care would become a legal right that can be realized through legislation and enforced in a court of law. The Constitution would be affirming that every individual American is entitled to health care - that health care, like free speech and freedom of religion, is a new American citizenship right.
5. The amendment says that every American is entitled to health care "of equal high quality." The amendment doesn't merely say "equal," because "equal" could lead to a "zero-sum" outcome - that is, lowering the highest standards and raising the lowest standards to meet in some amorphous middle. That would satisfy no one. The standard in this amendment is "equal high quality," which means that every American would be entitled to the best health care the American economy, the medical profession, and the health care system can provide. As the economy grows stronger and medical science advances, all of the American people would benefit - to the degree possible and on a continuous basis, and for as long as the country and the Constitution exist.
6. The second part of the amendment assigns Congress the power and the affirmative responsibility to write legislation that will provide every American with health care of equal high quality. Without the amendment, no member of Congress has a legal mandate to draft or fund universal health care legislation, and no court has a constitutional basis to enforce any comprehensive health care plan that is offered by Congress, whether Medical Savings Accounts, single-payer or something else.>
http://tinyurl.com/dhfffk
If only all liberals would be this honest.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 7:17pm
And govt payments will do what to change this?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 6:49pm
My point wasn't that government payments will change this, my point was that SJ is basing his entire argument on things that are problems in both the US and Canada. My point was that our system is in no way superior to theirs it is just the same.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 7:32pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 7:17pm
So you would support it if the Constitution was amended?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/30/2009 @ 7:40pm
No Taxation without representation. It has been a long time, oh thirty years or so, since I have felt that my government cared about me a middle class person. There has been no fairness and when it does occur it is because you have to fight for it. I feel entitled to decent health care and it should'nt come down to choosing between my grocery bill, my mortgage and making my monthly health insurance payment of $ 1,200 a month with an individual $2,500 deduction before it kicks in. It's disgusting that Centrist Democrats are as complicit as Republicans in wanting to maintain the staus quo. Is this a great country or what?
Posted by fabricmaven at 06/30/2009 @ 10:59pm
US military deaths in Iraq war at 4319 BEFORE we started to cut and run.
"Iraq celebrated the withdrawal of American troops from its cities with parades, fireworks and a national holiday on Tuesday as the prime minister trumpeted the country's sovereignty from American occupation to a wary public. "
Posted by winyahn at 06/30/2009 @ 11:08pm
What people want (free healthcare on demand with no limits) is not what people will get with government care (rationing, a gov goon making your healthcare decisions). The seniors will be the worst off. "Well grandma, your awful old, we think it is not cost effective to treat you for this particular fatal illness but we can give you pain pills." Obama suggested this solution in a speech. The real problem is universal care is a very complex problem and will not surrender to simple minded one-size-fits-all government solution. I read a lot of people on this blog bragging how they could just force it through. Go ahead, you will end up with a furious populace out to seek a vingence on the idiots who screwed it all up. Enjoy!
The only way to do this is to hold public hearings and just hash it out - it will take a lot of time and be very messy but it is the only way it will be accepted by the nation as a hole. One-size-fits-all will never work.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/01/2009 @ 12:28am
Posted by pyeatte at 07/01/2009 @ 12:28am
Agreed, different people require different kinds of care.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/01/2009 @ 12:35am
"What people want (free healthcare on demand with no limits) is not what people will get with government care (rationing, a gov goon making your healthcare decisions"
i don't know anyone who believes that, under a single payer system, healthcare will be "free."
and as for your second point, there already IS rationing, and decisions ARE being made by health insurance companies.
how shallow and out of touch with reality can pyatte possibly get?
Posted by darladoon at 07/01/2009 @ 10:12am
you must preach at the church of satan because you are certainly no christian. adios Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you heard it here first.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:41am
you must preach at the church of satan because you are certainly no christian. adios Posted by sirhcus at 06/30/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you heard it here first.Can anybody here tell me what change the 16 year interval has brought? Posted by Mistral at 06/30/2009 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the inadequacies of our "system" have become more evident.
Obama is not Clinton.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:45am
Can anybody here tell me what change the 16 year interval has brought? Posted by Mistral at 06/30/2009 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the inadequacies of our "system" have become more evident. Obama is not Clinton.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:45am | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:47am
After watching how the American people were cowed by Obama's speeches,
the people were not cowed, they were inspired.
inspired to elect an intelligent black man for president of the united states.
works for me.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:58am
'It is impossible to accept that a president who owes so much to movements for civil rights and social justice, never mind the Obama of 1996, believes in such right-wing bigotry; the only plausible explanation can be one of political calculation. The memory of Bill Clinton...' -- Richard Kim -- The Nation -- 24 June, 2009 -- http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/kim
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/01/2009 @ 11:33am
emile,
You say "Obama is not Clinton"
I say no kidding!
I think that is quite obvious, because of things that do or do not happen on the White House property.
1. Interns at the White House can concentrate on their jobs, and not worry if the President is prowling the halls looking to arrange meetings.
2. I doubt Obama has had his wife Michelle throw a lamp at him in the living quarters.
3. He may have (and does have) plenty of other faults, but Obama's vice president Joe Biden is not declaring that there is no controlling legal authority telling him he can't do illegal things.
4. I would assume the staff at the White House travel office has not had to fear for their jobs, or find themselves having to defend themselves in court on false charges.
5. I would assume that under Obama, as was no doubt the case for each and every President of the U.S. except one, that there is a manner of decorum and respect in the White House. I doubt that come Christmastime that the Obamas will put pornographic ornaments on the White House Christmas trees, and I would imagine that White House staff are dressed neatly and don't make a mess of their offices. Under Clinton, White House staff acted like spoiled flower children, dressed sloppily, and did not clean up their offices after eating, with spilled coffee and trash left on their desks.
6. I have to admit I don't know, but I doubt that if a White House employee is changing a lightbulb and Michelle Obama happens to be in the hallway, that the White House employee would get a tounge lashing.
7. I have to admit I don't know, but I would be willing to bet the Obamas treat the Secret Service and security staff with respect.
Obama is not Clinton. No Kidding!
Posted by sjchermak at 07/01/2009 @ 12:16pm
Technical typo,
My statement #5 above is slightly inaccurate, the White House did not exist until the Presidency of John Adams.
It should read "as was no doubt the case for each and every President of the U.S. who has lived in the White House except one"
Posted by sjchermak at 07/01/2009 @ 12:22pm
FREE BERNIE MADOFF
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 12:53pm
...LIMIT ONE TO A CUSTOMER
Posted by Mistral at 07/01/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/30/2009 @ 3:17pm
I did not imply that we have an unhealthy nation; I simply stated that there are millions of Americans who do not have adequate health care. That's not an implication, that's a fact. Because of that fact, many Americans are dying or being denied healthcare that might save their lives. NOT ONCE did I advocate what YOU call "socialist" medicine. However, if 70% of Americans want it, who are YOU to tell them they can't have it? I just want the public option to LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE, instead of the insurance companies.
As for your point #1: What "market oriented ways" do you (or any Republican) suggest? I'm listening. The problem has been around for years and I haven't heard a single suggestion from that side of the aisle that doesn't amount to: keep the status quo and to hell with those who can't afford it.
Your point #2: Absurd. "socialist medicine" (which isn't what I'm even advocating) doesn't make a nation "less healthy." If you think it does, prove it. And do it without mentioning waiting in long lines.
Your point #3: I did not say Pentagon spending wasn't releated to health care. What I asked was, "Why do we bother spending so much money on killing people (which is what Defense spending is ultimately for) if we don't have a nation that has adequate health care for all its citizens?" Ultimately, a nation that has only guns and no health care will fall...not from without, but from within.
~continued on next post~
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/01/2009 @ 2:17pm
~continued to jschermak
Also, your argument about 9/11 is also absurd. I have no problem fighting terrorism, and I know someone who died that day. I think we're going about fighting terrorism all wrong (upon which you and I will have to agree to disagree), but remember, ya'll LOST the election, so I would argue more Americans agree with me than you...but that's a different point.
I think your overall point was meant to be along the lines of: the health of the nation is benefited by the Patriot Act, excessive Defense spending, etc.
That's not what I was discussing at all. My point is this: without health people that make up a nation, there will BE no nation which to defend.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/01/2009 @ 2:24pm
The US people will never get socialized medicine.. There is no money in it.. Would you really want the government to run our health care? Look how well they've done with the police and fire dept let alone the military... That and the people in government care more about getting elected than helping the people. Dem or Repub...Bread and circuses...go rome...
Posted by MplsStyme at 07/01/2009 @ 3:11pm
The US people will never get socialized medicine..
quite a few americans have "socialized medicine" now.
all gov't employees, including the military. the old, the poor.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:23pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You said ".....Your point #2: Absurd. "socialist medicine" (which isn't what I'm even advocating) doesn't make a nation "less healthy." If you think it does, prove it. And do it without mentioning waiting in long lines....."
Here it is, as you have requested. Three articles about how cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. for people who have been diagnosed with cancer, then in other locations. These other locations cited in the articles are Canada and the Western European countries.
These articles do pose some possible factors as to why - and they are the things associated with socialist medicine that seem to be prominent (regarding lower survival rates in Europe).
If there is a lower survival rate for people diagnosed with cancer in places where there is socialized medicine, and the attributes of socialist medicine are cited as the main reason, then doesn't that kind of indicate that people are less healthy under socialist medicine?
And one of the articles did mention that more people here in the U.S. get screened for cancer to begin with.
=========================
U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One No. 596 Thursday, October 11, 2007 by Betsy McCaughey http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596
Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States Zosia Chustecka http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
UK's Bad Medicine: Why US Has Better Odds vs. Cancer November 05, 2007 By David Gratzer http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ miarticle.htm?id=3004
Posted by sjchermak at 07/01/2009 @ 3:36pm
Stephen_Carver1,
I have to admit I am depressed about my previous post. Here is why:
1. I wish I had found these articles before - they are a pretty solid indictment of socialist medicine.
2. Despite #1, it doesn't matter anyway. You will be posting in with statements why these articles or my opinion in the post is invalid. What reason will you give? I don't know yet, I will have to see your next post to find out. I know, however, it will be coming.
3. Also, it will be about time again for snowball888 (was 666, last I knew was now 777 but maybe by now is 888) will also be posting in declaring what I posted is invalid. I will probably see all kinds of stuff.....declarations that I found these because Rush pointed them out for me........declarations that these things don't matter because people are constantly having their insurance denied by the big, bad insurance companies so whenver anybody gets sick they find the insurance won't pay for it.....declarations that these are just narrow examples.....declarations that life expectancy in the U.S. is lower, ignoring that the life expectancy is due to a lot of factors, not just the type of health care available.......I guess I should stop guessing why my posts will be invalid accoring to snowball999 and just wait and see what comes in.
4. Mabye Cccomfo1 will post in and say I am bigoted and stereotyping.
5. It is probably about time for Mask to hop in and say that John McCain says socialist medicine is good and then Mask will ask me who I voted for.
So there is plenty to be depressed about even though socialist medicine is not a good idea and the facts prove it. Facts proving something and libs conceding the facts have proven something are two different things and the second is rare on The Nation.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/01/2009 @ 3:45pm
The US people will never get socialized medicine..
quite a few americans have "socialized medicine" now.
all gov't employees, including the military. the old, the poor.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:23pm
I'm always glad when a leftist mentions military healthcare as a "good" example of socialized medicine.
Military personnel get that healthcare because they surrender a number of their freedoms in service to the country.
Is that what you wish for all Americans? To surrender their freedom of movement, area of residence, freedom to choose where and when to work, surrendering your freedom of time, speech, accepting limitations on the right to assemble?
I just want to be sure JR; Is that the kind of freedom you think all Americans are willing to surrender for socialized healthcare?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/01/2009 @ 3:57pm
Conservatism? - What's that? - How about 'preservatism?" The progressive movement has many faces, Marxism, Communism, Socialism and Obamanism - They are all the same, and all of them emerge from an intellectual shortcoming so severe that it defies reason. Leftist-Progressive thought is a sociopathic condition that places pragmatism above principle, passionately believing that securing a desired political outcome is more important than questioning it's motivational continutity with self-evident truth. Our founding fathers attempted to articulate timeless, self-existent social responsibilities emerging from self-evident truth. All forms of socialism, are anti-natural, anti-self-evident and anti-constitutional. When self-serving pragmatism abandons self-evident principle, tyranny takes hold. Welcome Obama and company.
Posted by jsevorgno at 07/01/2009 @ 5:38pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/30/2009 @ 7:05pm </i>
You're right; nothing I posted gives any argument why the government should be responsible. It wasn't meant to. All I was trying to do was set up a sort of framework for the discussion itself, and weed out some arguments that can't be made.
For instance, let's look at the Constitution. You may be right that the original vision was for the federal government's action to be the exception, and I think there's something to be said for the idea that letting the government define health is dangerous. That said, the constitutional argument can go one of two ways, though. Either:
a) The Constitution denies the federal government the authority to have national health insurance. I've already shown why this is blatantly false; two independent clauses (commerce, & taxing/spending) of the Constitution make that plainly obvious because both of them manifestly can include health insurance
OR
b) The founders didn't want the federal government to do something like this. This argument can be relevant in that it can inspire us to look at WHY they felt that way, and certainly that's significant, but let's be clear and not that that alone isn't authoritative. The American people are perfectly entitled to disagree with portions of the Founders' philosophical or policy vision.
That leaves, as I argued, two real arenas of conflict:
a) Which option, on its face, is morally superior?
b) Which option works better?
Those are the two arenas where the debate should actually take place. The constitutional arena is strictly a distraction because the Constitution neither compels nor forbids national health insurance.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/01/2009 @ 6:50pm
I have to admit I am depressed about my previous post.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/01/2009 @ 3:45pm
Haven't read the articles yet, but (much to your surprise) I will. Just had to respond with:
I spent eight years being depressed when your guy was in office (and amazingly, nothing got done about the health care system during the six years your team controlled everything...but I digress).
All's fair in love and politics (which your side seems to think are the same thing...at least in Argentina), so while I would never wish depression on someone - even someone with whom I consistently disagree with on political issues, but I guess you'll just have to do one of two things:
1. Get used to it, or
2. Go see a doctor...and hope your insurance covers depression. I hear it's a pretty expensive treatment, and not every plan covers it, because it's pretty easy to fake.
:)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/01/2009 @ 7:00pm
Posted by jsevorgno at 07/01/2009 @ 5:38pm
I think you forgot Onanism.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/01/2009 @ 7:02pm
Bi-partisanship-We don't need it. We need non-partisanship where people cast aside party allegiances and just do what right for their country.
As for why a public option for health care is so feared-there are two main reasons:
1) It is because people think that their doctors will be employed directly by the federal government and won't be qualified because they couldn't possibly be qualified if they were receiving low federal salaries. They don't understand that we are not talking about federalizing doctors, but about creating a federal bureaucracy that would operate in a non-profit fashion for processing claims and referrals instead of the profit-driven privately owned insurance bureaucracy that inflates medical costs like charging $800 for a two-mile ambulance ride; and
2)People equate a federal health care program with socialism, equate that with communism, and ultimately really equate that with dictatorship. So, in the minds of many Americans a public halth care option is really the frist step on the way to dictatorship.
Someone really needs to explain this to Americans in simple terms they can understand.
Posted by nycbread at 07/01/2009 @ 8:00pm
Posted by sjchermak at 07/01/2009 @ 3:36pm
I have nothing to say about bigotry. I do have one thing to say about your article though. The reason it is suspect is because it takes Europe as a whole in stead of going country by country.
"still differ markedly, and probably unacceptably, between countries in Europe."
This is from you article. You have demonstrate that all countries are lagging behind not just some. Even if there is ONE country where socialized medicine works perfectly then it shows that it can and does work. So this article doesn't really help your case all it says is that if you take into account a couple of dozen countries with radically different medical systems, school systems, philosophies towards life, approaches to medicine in general, then you will get a figure that lags behind a 1 country that only has one approach to medicine.
Now I would like to see the figures broken down by country to see if any of the countries in Europe have a higher or equal survival rate and what systems they are under.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/01/2009 @ 9:37pm
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/ 2007/09/surviving-cancer-us-vs-europe.html
(Space between / and 2)
SJ,
here as a brief explanation of the data found in the study you posted. Basically it lists positives and negatives. Basically they say the reason American's tend to survive cancer more often is because our doctors order more tests, which is a good thing for people who actually do have cancer, but the negative is it produces a lot more false positives which lead to unnecessary extra testing and surgery which in turn costs more and drives the cost of health insurance up for everyone. So you have to ask yourself which is the lesser of the two evils? This is coming from someone who lost my grandfather to an extremely rare form of cancer that was untreatable. So I am not being cold and emotionless here it's just you have to stop and ask what is for the greater food?
Like Larry said earlier. The reason healthcare costs are up is because people want to live forever. If people went to the doctor less our rate of cancer would go up but the cost of health insurance would go down so a false positive would not lead to bankruptcy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/01/2009 @ 9:44pm
you have to stop and ask what is for the greater food?
greater food? you're on the wrong thread. try the food independence thread.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:26pm
you have to stop and ask what is for the greater food?
greater food? you're on the wrong thread. try the food independence thread.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:26pm
Didn't get much sleep this morning. Hate working nights.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 01:15am
Posted by sjchermak at 07/01/2009 @ 12:16pm
Key giveaway to spotting a ditto-head-
Clinton Derangement Syndrome (in detail, of course)! I guarentee in 2020, two decades after he's left office, guys like Chermak will still be fretting over him. (because "The Boss" still will be)
Posted by Mask at 07/02/2009 @ 06:19am
I think of my corrections as a kind of jest, made in a humorous vein.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 08:50am
Call it what it is: SICKNESS CARE.
And then admit that we in the U.S. have no intention of taking care of sick people unless large corporations are making HUGE profits by delivering management to the ills of the sick people.
Maybe then we can have an intellectually honest discussion of "sickness-care REFORM."
I happen to be a healthy 67-year old on Medicare who stayed healthy for many years of my life with no health insurance and not enough money to do anything other than obtain a prescription for medicine if I got a sinus infection. No PAP smears, no NUTTIN'. And finally the expense of THAT got so high that I had to seek financial assistance for it. Now I am dealing with doctors who can't wait to find something wrong with me, and perhaps they will; and then I will be thrown into the ever-increasing pool of SICK PEOPLE, and be providing untold riches for the corporate moguls who take huge profits at the top of the so-called HEALTH CARE "industries."
The reason the U.S. will not ever truly REFORM its medical care system is due to these private corporations who are taking gigantic profits from "managing" sickness. And at the mention of a "public program," meaning one that is government run and NON PROFIT, they all shudder and decry socialism. We've have socialism in public schools, and until we allowed private corporations to bully in, they weren't all that bad. Now the private schools and private "donations" to public schools make them unequal, degrading those that don't have the "corporate contacts." And so it is with my health. I don't have the money to pay for a fitness center, so if I do all that walking I have to drive to a mall, or walk in on unsafe streets in an unsafe community.
Give me a break, people. NOBODY cares about me until I get sick.
Posted by erainh2o at 07/02/2009 @ 08:52am
Mask,
Emile was the one that first mentioned Slick Willie, saying Obama is not like Slick Willie.
I was just expanding upon it.
You say two decades after Slick left office people like me will still be fixated on him.
On the other hand, very likely 100 years from now some liberal will blame something that has gone wrong then on some policy or action of George W. Bush 100 years before!!
And there will still be liberals calling for his impeachment.
Posted by sjchermak at 07/02/2009 @ 11:10am
I see no mention of a couple of facts here. first, we are spending 17.5% of GDP on healthcare now. Around the rest of the modern world, they are spending an average of 10% GDP, but remember, they are giving access to healthcare to all citizens. We only grant that access to about 82%. So as you can see, the difference of 7% GDP is quite substancial. Plus the fact that in most of those countries, incuding Canada, the people outlive Americans by three years or more. Isn't that the ultimate test of a healthcare system? One other little caveat, in those countries with single payer, not one person or family went bankrupt from healthcare bills, not one. Single payer is the answer, and remember, it doesn't have to be government run, but it does have to be non profit. Let Blue Cross Blue Shield run it. We don't want INsurance, we want healthcare!!!
Posted by willhort at 07/02/2009 @ 12:37pm
blue cross used to be a not for profit organization.
they managed the legislature to let them go for profit, in exchange for setting up a fund to provide lower cost insurance to the working poor, those who earn too much for medicaid.
my spouse and I are covered by such a plan, which costs us $600 A MONTH.
adding our 19 year old son will bring it up to $1,000 A MONTH.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 1:24pm
Posted by willhort at 07/02/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
very fine post, I neglected to mention.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 2:03pm
As usual, this is an interesting post, but I think it is wrong to have any faith whatsoever in the so-called "public option". This is the ace in Obama's 3-Card Monte game he is playing with the public. At the end of the game, it will not be there. He has as much as said this, by admitting he will sign a health care bill without the public option.
If there is a "public option" in the final Obama plan, I guarantee it will not be an option for the likes of you and me - only a mildly expanded Medicaid to cover unprofitable segments of the population (too poor or disqualified by prior condition to buy private insurance), leaving ripe cherries for the insurance industry to be picked by mandate. Their guaranteed profits will cost us all a fortune!
Otherwise, the same compromises keeping single-payer off elite political tables will also keep any true "public option" (expanded and improved Medicare For All) off those tables as well. The insurance companies, and their kept politicians, will see to that.
It is time to relegate the concept of "health care insurance" to the historical dust heap. Except for supplemental insurance for optional features (private ward, elective cosmetic surgery, etc), most of the world already has.
Why waste breath repeating the "politically unfeaseable" mantra devised by others when you could be pointing out that nearly all social advances that have challenged deeply entrenched interests have been so characterized? Social security, labor organization, abolition of Jim Crow, Medicare in its present form itself, to name a few. The public has to redouble its efforts. Damn the politicians, full speed ahead!
Let's demand a Congressional Budget Office costing of HR-676 before any health care decisions are cast in concrete.
Posted by diacad at 07/02/2009 @ 2:48pm
Katrina, I just had to write and tell you that you are my hero. I'm so glad you are becoming a regular on The Ed Show. We need you! Keep fighting with such class and tact, but not pulling any punches!
Bipartisanship has not been seen in a long time. Only obstructionism and dirty dealing. We need to put pressure on our senators and reps to represent our interests. There will be a Public Option, or people will be voted out, and that's just that. Some may heed the warnings, and some may learn the hard way.
Dems who turn a deaf ear to their constituents and support the big interests are not indispensable.
Can't wait till 2010 elections to see some spankings!
Posted by CherokeeGirl at 07/03/2009 @ 11:27am