Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen Barack Obama assumed the presidency, there was talk that former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean might be his Secretary of Health and Human Services.
That would have made Dean the administration's point person in the fight for healthcare reform.
It also would have increased the likelihood that reform would be real.
But Dean was rejected.
And, now, the prospect of real reform is fading fast.
Dean said last week at the "Netroots Nation" gathering in Pittsburgh that the only thing that made healthreform legislation proposed by House committees (and apparently backed by the administration) worth doing was the public option. In that legislation, the physician and former Vermont governor argued, "the last shred of reform is the public option."
Just days later, however, the administration appeared to be shredding that last shred of reform.
The Associated Press reports that, "President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system."
The woman who got the HHS job reform advocates had hoped would go to Dean certainly seemed Sunday to be jettisoning the idea of creating a government-organized alternative to private health insurance Sunday.
Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union" program, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius dismissed the public option as "not the essential element" of the administration's healthcare agenda.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said pretty much the same thing when he appeared Sunday on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."
"What the president has said is in order to inject choice and competition. . . people ought to be able to have some competition in that market," said Gibbs.
Pressed on whether the administration was abandoning the public option, Gibbs would only say that, "The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done with a public option."
Startlingly, the clearest signal that the administration is preparing to jettison the public option came from Obama himself. Speaking at a town hall event in Colorado referred to the public plan as merely a "sliver" of his reform agenda and said: "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of healthcare reform."
On this, Obama is right.
The public option has already been so dumbed-down and neutered that it is little more than a sliver.
The problem is that it may be the only sliver of real reform in his program.
Even with a robust public option, the president's initiative looks a lot like a bailout for the insurance industry --in stark contrast to the a single-payer reform that would replace industry profiteering with a not-for-profit system like Medicare.
Without a public option, there is no real reform.
Dean argued in Pittsburgh that: "The public option is (incremental reform)... But there is no incrementalism without the public option."
In fact, without the public option, the Obama approach -- and that of compromise-prone Democrats in Congress -- looks increasingly like a step in the wrong direction.
That's because the "reforms" currently under consideration threaten to undermine Medicare and Medicaid -- with radical cost-cutting schemes -- while steering hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of for-profit insurers and the pharmaceutical industry.
This is not "change we can believe in."
This is change that serious reformers will find "very difficult" to support, as Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said Sunday on CNN.
Johnson explained that progressives would have a tough time backing legislation that did not include a public option.
"The only way we can be sure that very low-income people and persons who work for companies that don't offer insurance have access to it, is through an option that would give the private insurance companies a little competition," explained Johnson, a former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus who once worked as the chief psychiatric nurse at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Dallas.
Johnson's right.
Without a robust public option, what the Obama administration and compromised Democrats in the House and Senate are talking about is not "healthcare reform."
It's "healthcare deform" that does not begin to address the crisis created by insurance industry profiteering -- and that could well make the "cure" worse than the disease.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
When do you get to the part about this being "really" Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh's fault?
Or Dennis Kucinich's? Or John Conyers's? If they weren't such "utopians" maybe something could be done with COMPROMISE....
That's the usual line, si o no?
How much HMO/Insurance gangster cartel stock does Ms Vanden Heuvel own? I'd love to know that one.
Or maybe it's just loving a war-mongering coward and sadist because he has a light-coffee brown skin-suit?
John, and everybody else, you're not BLACK. You'll never be BLACK. Start from there philosophically and perhaps you'll discover the joys of peace, freedom and social justice.
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 11:05pm
Abandoning a government-run plan is good place to start.
The final bill must not include any provisions that:
(1) force people to buy health insurance; (2) force employers to provide health insurance for employees; (3) force some groups (wealthy, business owners, soda-drinkers, etc.) to pay for the health insurance of other groups; (4) force future generations of tax payers to pay for the health care of the previous generations; and (5) force insurance companies to write policies that offer coverage for specific conditions. In the spirit of bipartisanship, we also insist that the final bill ends protectionism for trial lawyers, health care professionals, and insurance companies.
The final bill must include:
(a) tort reform to minimize frivolous malpractice lawsuits; (b) ERISSA reform so that insurance companies are no longer protected from lawsuits and can be held accountable for their fraudulent nastiness; (c) provisions that allow individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance across state boundaries; (d) tax incentives for individuals to own their own insurance policies rather than being dependent on companies; (e) incentives for individuals to buy, and insurance companies to sell, policies that permanently cover pre-existing conditions; and (f) provisions that allow health care professionals to practice in all 50 states without having to be licensed in each and every state.
Dr. Gregory Garamoni Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine http://www.doctorsonstrike.com
Posted by drgreg at 08/16/2009 @ 11:10pm
Remember BHO's early campaigning....he is a blank (and black) canvas that you can project your wildest dreams/wishes/aspirations onto him.......hallelujah!
Well, now, it turns out, all that shine he carried around, all slick and teleprompted, is bouncing back all them dreams/wishes/aspirations.....so, eat it up, folks!
Posted by Happy at 08/16/2009 @ 11:18pm
DRGREG:
I live in country with Single-Payer health care and I think it's great.
I also think that you are absolutely entitled to express yourself and it would be wrong of you not to offer your opinions which I find well-reasoned even though I disagree with some of them. You seem like a person who has given this issue a lot of thought.
Just watch the disrespect you get here for thinking for yourself and having your own ideas.
I have come to so hate the reflexivity and hypocrisy of this magazine that I kind of ENJOY it in a weird way.
I live in South America and I kind of got sick of the Spanish-language blogs because no matter what ideology they had, they all are very, very anti-American. Latinos really despise Barack Obama no matter what the American corporate media tells you about "new beginnings." I got sick of indulging myself in the anti-Americanism because I believed that there were plenty of Americans of good conscience who didn't like war or supporting the "War On Narco Terrorism" down here.
I hope you are representative of that kind of thinking. [By the way, it's ONLY schoolmarms like the writers here who LIKE taxes!]
I would like to see any of the oh-so-evolved writers here last one day in the RICH part of Medellin, never mind where the ultra-violence goes on.
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 11:24pm
Da-le, HAPPY, da-le!
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 11:25pm
Universal is not the only method left of reform. That is a completely ridiculous assertion.
And may I ask why that bigot Happy is still shooting off? Does he think anyone here cares about his childish comments?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/16/2009 @ 11:52pm
How do you know whether Happy is a bigot or not? If the evidence is only that he is an Obama-dissenter, that's too ridiculous for words.
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 11:59pm
The American citizens realizing that the tax and spend Demoncrats now again in control of government have brought us to a moment in history when the nations checks are in severe jeprody of "bouncing" and their insistence on proposing future "check kiting" schemes will allow the nation to be the biggest baja California ever imagined!
Yea, that is to simple for the Obmanation and the Demoncrats to wrap their heads around but the elderly and the younger folks have no problem with the math or being able to evaluate the picture of our future these simply power mad idiots wish to paint!
Most of our politicians are too ignorantly myopic and steeped, or immersed, in "beltway" mindset to clearly view the big picture!
The townhalls may quieten down because of "packing the house" with Demoncrat and union stooges, but if you think the outrage, distrust, and fury over the socialistic nanny state mindset of the Demoncrat house and senate is quelled . Think again as it is the calm before the storms of 2010 and 2012!
Posted by BigPasture at 08/17/2009 @ 12:13am
We cannot let up on pressuring this leftist administration to keep out of healthcare.
Hopefully, the next president will have the courage to tackle phasing out Medicare.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 12:14am
A public-optionless bill will not make things worse. It will still eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination, recission, and the like, while providing some subsidies to help lower income people get insurance. And isn't there still something about a national-and-or-regional insurance exchange? Even if the public option doesn't survive, the final bill can be improved if progressives insist that Medicare Rx negotiation (Pharma deal or not) and the provision allowing for states to experiment with single-payer are kept...a more achievable goal in the Senate. Maybe the co-ops will have some effect on costs, maybe they won't. It wouldn't be comprehensive reform, but it could still be an improvement.
Posted by scottbp at 08/17/2009 @ 01:08am
I just don't get it –why isn't there a greater outcry from the"left" on the latest health care sell-out? I am a USA citizen who has been teaching in New Zealand for 14 years. NZ like EVERY other developed country has a public (single payer) health care system. Like nearly every other devolved country, the major indicators of health care (life expectancy and infant mortality rates) are better than the US, even though the per capital wealth here is 2/3 that of the USA. No one pays more than a few dollars for prescriptions. No insurance forms are needed and generally the system works quite well.
Indeed in the civilized world, public health care is considered a human right and government support is an asset (whether left, right or centre). It is no more "inefficient" than the "socialized" military, police and fire departments, libraries or highway departments. Indeed without issuance or pharmaceutical interference it is far more efficient.
Also, as in most countries, private insurance is widely available at a fraction of the USA cost. However most choose not to use it since the public health care system serves most families purposes. Doctors make very good wages. In addition, the Tax burden that pays for the system are lower overall than in the USA (no state tax, no social security tax, low property taxes since schools and police come from the federal tax, no capital gains or inheritance tax: http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au ).
The government does not control people's lives... it is objectively certainly less intrusive than the USA against its citizens. Who can, with honesty, argue against such system whose health indicators are far superior to that in the USA?
Posted by Brit at 08/17/2009 @ 03:15am
The ignorant republican who feel they need to lie in this forum should be treated as a liberal is in an all republican forum. KICK their coward asses out of here!! I am sooo sick of seeing your bullshit!! None of you is intelligent enough to comprehend that obama is a fraud, a non liberal Democrat who was elected because the media beat the living crap out of Hillary Clinton who BEAT obama in nearly every major primary state!!! He is got the shit kicked out of him in NY, CA, TX and so many more. obama should be impeached NOW!! He is a fucking liar and most definitely a COWARD!! He is not representing the Democrats!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/17/2009 @ 03:17am
I just don't get it –why isn't there a greater outcry on the latest health care sell-out? I am a USA citizen who has been teaching in New Zealand for 14 years. NZ like EVERY other developed country has a public (single payer) health care system. Like nearly every other developed country, the major indicators of health care (life expectancy and infant mortality rates) are better than the US, even though the per capital wealth here is 2/3 that of the USA. No one pays more than a few dollars for prescriptions. No insurance forms are needed and generally the system works quite well.
Indeed in the civilized world, public health care is considered a human right and government support is an asset (whether left, right or centre). It is no more "inefficient" than the "socialized" military, police and fire departments, libraries or highway departments. Indeed without issuance or pharmaceutical interference it is far more efficient.
Also, as in most countries, private insurance is widely available at a fraction of the USA cost. However most choose not to use it since the public health care system serves most families purposes. Doctors make very good wages. In addition, the Tax burden that pays for the system are lower overall than in the USA (no state tax, no social security tax, low property taxes since schools and police come from the federal tax, no capital gains or inheritance tax: at content/report/html/06_Chapter_4-07.asp ).
The government does not control people's lives... it is objectively certainly less intrusive than the USA against its citizens. Who can, with honesty, argue against such system whose health indicators are far superior to that in the USA?
Posted by Brit at 08/17/2009 @ 03:22am
@ BRIT:
You know the answer. There IS NO "LEFT" or even "CENTER" in the USA.
There is the far-right and the National Front. Both are American Exceptionalists, except the Nazi Right has balls.
The Obama "movement" is a bunch of rich, suburban, ladies-who-lunch and frightened senior-citizens in wealthy retirement communities. All those types know how to do is lecture and be square assholes. They LOATHE personal freedom because they are such cowards themselves they couldn't handle freedom.
If there were such a creature as an American "liberal" he or she sure as shit wouldn't be reading or commenting at THE NATION of all places. It's just a corporate Obama-luv site. Luv for war, capital punishment, labor oppression, the police state...all because they have this fantasy that luvving Obama makes them honorary BLACK PEOPLE!
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/17/2009 @ 05:17am
I think Gore Vidal made a famous quote once about the US having one political party consisting of the 'Reactionairies'(Repubs) & 'Conservatives' (Dems)...Obama would be considered 'center-right' in Europe... Who would Jesus deny healthcare? NO ONE. Insomuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my breathren, ye have done to me.-Mathew 25:40 www.raybawarchi.blogspot.com www.circlestheplanet.blogspot.com
Posted by jesuswasasocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 07:54am
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 11:24pm
CHIMI????
Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 08:06am
Military Industrial Complex or the Medical Industrial Complex, both have the MSM by their miniscule balls. They care little for anything but profit. All else is fodder to those ends. The righties here with health insurance serve their MIC masters and not themselves (unless they're being paid to spout inanity to deny others healthcare) and will never relent-- even after the USA becomes a 3rd world country where the haves and the have nots are all that remains; the middle class completely gone and stomped out for good by the rich elite corporate cronies.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 08:17am
er, ...where the haves and the have nots are all that 'remain';...
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 08:30am
The co-op idea is a useless diversion. We have a co-op here in Washington state. It is called Group Health. It is no cheaper than the other private healthcare insurance companies. But the care is worse because they require that you only use their doctors. People here call it Group Death. Speaking of competition, there are only three companies offering healthcare in this state: Blue Cross, Primera, and Group Health. They all offer the same plans at the same price (expensive!!!). Only a public healthcare plan will bring real competition and affordable healthcare plans. That is why the healthcare vampires are so scared of it. If Obama caves in and accepts a bill without a public plan, he will lose all progessive support. (I never trusted him- I voted for Nader. My fears are proving true.)
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 08:46am
except the Nazi Right has balls.
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/17/2009 @ 05:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
Uh huh....and they think with them.
Posted by jarshadow at 08/17/2009 @ 08:54am
I consider myself a 'progressive' and given a choice between Democrats and Republicans I'll take the Demos. But that is because I don't have another choice. I'm constantly frustrated with the Demos because they are a conservative party in a time when conservatism has been shown to be out-dated. Conservatives put forward the notion that an unregulated free market would lead the way to a golden shore. Wrong. It put forward the notion that US military action was the best way to deal with the rest of the world. Wrong. It said that the Government is the problem and that corporate America truly had our best interests at heart. Wrong, though Government is currently a problem, it doesn't have to be as it is. It can be changed, unlike corporate boardrooms, through voting. Government's biggest problem right now is that it is being dictated to by those very corporate boardrooms and is thus mired in conservatism. It's this conservative thinking that has led us to our current empire-state. A state that's killing us as a nation. The money we spend to prop up this empire is at the heart of our economic problems. Conservatives were not crying foul when we drove up the deficit by invading Iraq, though now many House and Senate conservatives say the Bush administration wasn't truly Republican because Republicans are fiscally responsible. They voted for these deficits, over and over again. Now that the deficit is rising due to the idea that regular Americans need help because an unregulated free market collapsed the economy or that regular Americans need access to health care, they're crying foul. The empire is more important than regular Americans.
Posted by DavidDurham at 08/17/2009 @ 09:08am
The only real healthcare reform is a single payer expansion of Medicare that allows anyone to buy into it or not. If somebody is happy with their current for profit healthcare plan and really likes the idea of making greedy social psychopathic CEO's rich, more power to them.
Even a comprehensive "public option" would be a half measure and not real reform. Although it might lead to single payer. But the lack of a single payer expansion of Medicare or a comprehensive "public plan" is economic and political suicide for the weak kneed sellout Democrats and the nation. We will not be able to compete with other nations economically that have single payer programs. (Along with sane trade policies).
We have been had again. And like I have said before, I believe it was all planned ahead of time. ObamaBush is no friend of the American people. We no longer live in a Democracy, we now live in a Totalitarian Corporatocracy. And have been for most of the last 30 plus years.
I think the American People are finally waking up to this fact, however slowly. We are in the midst of a Populist Rebellion. But it has not yet jelled into a common purpose. Many Americans are confused as to whom is friend or foe.
The last Hope of our country now lies soley in the hands of the people. But the people must unite behind a common goal and set their differences aside for the moment. The Oligarchy will attempt to pit us against each other to prevent us from banding together to defeat them.
These Economic Royalists will stop at nothing to maintain their power and wealth. Starting wars and jailing dissidents will begin as soon as they see any sign of organizing.
In 2007 half of our economic wealth was concentrated in the hands of the top 1%.
Continues:
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 09:15am
Dr. Gregory Garamoni Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine http://www.doctorsonstrike.com
Posted by drgreg at 08/16/2009 @ 11:10pm
Dr. Greg
Your reforms will only make things better for the people who already have insurance. It won't address the problems of the 30 million Americans (and 15 million illegal aliens) who don't have insurance to start with.
Of those 30 million Americans, most can't afford the care they need. Some can afford it but choose not to puchase it knowing that if they get sick someone else will be forced to subsidize their care.
The current debate is how to subsidize the needy and force the free riders to pay thier own fare.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:24am
This has not happened since the age of the robber barons. Many Democrats are already abandoning the Democratic Party and registering in the Green Party. They feel they have nowhere else to go other than to register Independent. Which is full of Libertarians and dissatisfied Republicans. Talk about a big tent..
It is time for anyone who cares about the future of this country to join an organization of some kind. And to devote all the time you can to organize your neighbors. If we don't stand up now, we must resign ourselves to tyranny and slavery.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 09:24am
Hey Zen, speaking of single payer:
Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors:
The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
...
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/ article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:28am
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/17/2009 @ 03:17am | ignore this person | warn this person
get over it, chump. Obama will be president at least until Jan 2013.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 09:32am
Tiger2lover: I agree with you that Obama is a fraud, but he wasn't elected; He was handpicked and groomed to continue the Bush dictatorship and was annointed not elected;Throughout history dictatorships have never ever relinquished power through democratic means. Hillary would have performed the same function and Diebold was standing by just in case something else4 happened.Here are some of the missing records that he has prevented the poublic from accessing (his "birth" certificate is merely proof that he was born): 1. Columbia College admissions, financial aid, grade records 2. Columbia University Thesis 3. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth 4. Full disclosure of all information on Barry Soetoro, the name he went by for many years. 5. Harvard College admissions, financial aid, grade records 6. Harvard Law Review articles published. 7. His US and Indonesia passports. 8. Illinois State Senate records. 9. Illinois State Senate schedule. 10. Law practice client list and billing records/summary. 11. Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers 12. Medical records. 13. Occidental College admissions, financial aid, grade records. 14. Parent's Marriage Certificate. 15. Record of baptism. 16. Records of his adoption by his step father in Indonesia. 17. Release Chicago Annenburg Challenge documents. 18. Selective Service Registration. 19. Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007. 20.University of Chicago scholarly articles. The elderly are too expensive to maintain, and Medicare WILL be phased out and social security eradicated (so says Rahm's "deadly doctor" brother Ezekiel, who feels that doctors are much too serious about the Hippocratic oath and too much money is spent on the elderly and infirm: http://w
Posted by mystic at 08/17/2009 @ 09:45am
Posted by drgreg at 08/16/2009 @ 11:10pm
I have not looked into your background yet. But I will before the end of the day. Your corporate spewing of bullcrap indicates that I will probably find some interesting things.
For anyone interested in a legitimate group of Doctors who are actually doing something productive check out "Mad as Hell Doctors.com" Just type it into Google.
They will leave Portland,OR on 9/08/09. And arrive in Washington D.C. on 9/30-10/1. I will be joining them in Des Moines on 9/15. You can see the entire itinerary at their Website. They want to deliver a message to Washington that is simple and elegant. "HEALTH CARE FOR PEOPLE- NOT PROFIT. These are Doctors advocating Single Payer Healthcare.
I would be interested to know if anyone would like to join me in this quest. Don Quixote's welcome. Let me know and we can work something out. I will open a dedicated email account for this purpose.
We have to start somewhere.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 09:51am
DARIN_THE FAT_TROLL: A recent nationwide poll in Canada showed that more than 70% of Canadians are satisfied with the Canadian healthcare system. I recently visited Vancouver, and I asked many people if they would prefer the American healthcare system. I DID NOT FIND ONE PERSON THAT WOULD. You are refering to the Canadian doctor association, who have some greedy doctors that envy the huge income made by American doctors. That is not a relevant opinion.
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 09:51am
All the confusion and hype from both sides of the health care debate are continuing to obscure the realities of health care in America and this great magazine/website/blog continues to do its share of the obscuring. And the reason is simple, both the conservatives and the liberals are in the pocket of the health care industry (i.e., HMOs, insurance companies and the foreign investment banks of Wall St.) For anyone wishing to cut through the conservative & liberal lies on the health of Americans, you can start by reading The Nation's contributor Alex Cockburn's article (on his website CounterPunch), "Health Plans and Death Plans" at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08142009.html.
When will the rest of The Nation's writers & editors stop being mouthpieces for the DNC, White House and the Pelosi/Reid congress. The purpose of the left should be to speak truth to power not parrot the power. The Nation did a great job of truth telling during the reign of Bush/Cheney, but now under Obama/Emanuel/Reid/Pelosi regime all The Nation seems to be able to do is to discover that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy. I think we knew that. The Nation's readers deserve better. Americans need the real truth, not the same old lies of the conservative vs. liberal paradigm that we see in every blog on this issue on this website. Otherwise, in the end there can be only one and that one will be the same old power running health care in this country. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/17/2009 @ 09:55am
Posted by mystic at 08/17/2009 @ 09:45am | ignore this person | warn this person
you are a nutcase. er, correction, an ignored nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 09:58am
If "Obamacare" goes down in flames, or passes without meaningful reform, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, John Conyers, Howard Dean and like-minded Demos should resign from the Democratic Party and form a truly progressive party that has has the health, welfare, and economic stability of the American people at heart. No bailouts for Wall Street, free higher education for those qualified, single-payer health-care, a truly green energy policy, protection of our food supply, disengagement from needless wars. Those are issues that are easy to understand and will resonate with the people.
Posted by desertrat at 08/17/2009 @ 09:58am
<i>Posted by mystic at 08/17/2009 @ 09:45am </i>
A liberal birther? I didn't realize those existed. Moreover, this point is dumb:
<<He was handpicked and groomed to continue the Bush dictatorship and was annointed not elected>>
What does this even mean?? Your point here, if it means anything, has to mean that Obama did not actually win the majorities that put him on the Democratic ticket and then won him the election over McCain. In other words, for your point to mean anything, it has to be so absurdly contrary to evidence as to be laughable.
Conspiracy theories really can get old, especially when there's no explicit statement of who the alleged conspirators are. Wait, wait, don't tell me...Mossad?? The "Israel Lobby" whose members have yet to be actually defined by anyone in any coherent fashion?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 10:00am
As usual The Nation tip-toes around the powerful. What matters here is not single-payer, the public option, etc. What matters --and it should be demanded loudly-- is that whatever will be created to compete with the clepto-medical complex i) be strictly non-profit, ii) be forbidden to pay out-of-control salaries to its execs, employees, and doctors, iii) be large enough to have Walmart-level bargaining power (i.e., de facto extortionary power) over the physician leeches and the pirate peddlers of fantasy-priced medical supplies, iv) have legislative foundations that cannot be perverted by future caveman administrations, and v) not be allowed to exclude anybody from coverage or to charge different fees to different people.
We should never forget that the final goal of any worthy reform of the health-care system is to attain what is above, i.e., to stop the parasitizing of the national economy by the clepto-medical complex and to abolish the stone-age relict of universal coverage not being guaranteed from birth on to everybody. The police and the army are non-profit and they (are supposed to) protect everybody from the moment of birth on...
Posted by erplus at 08/17/2009 @ 10:04am
I agree that the robber barons are in power again, our current state as a country is much like it was in the latter part of the nineteenth century. I'm also reminded of late eighteenth century France. The wealthiest people in America have become as arrogant as any royal court or Roman emperor's inner circle. So we get bread and circuses and the bread appears to be running out. As the richest 10% of the country dances in their penthouses the basements are burning. We've become a country of impatient procrastinators, gun-loving wimps and macho whiners. We're angry, but since we have no patience we don't steel ourselves to the hard work and discipline that change for the better requires. Instead we flail, flap our arms and shout down those we oppose. And this opposition isn't brought about by thought, but by belief. We seem to all pick a single news source and that's where we get our truths in which to believe. We long ago gave up on homework, that would require thinking and we don't have time to think. Other people do our homework for us and we just believe. The health care system must change. To ask how we'll pay for it is a good question. But, as a country, we're not having a dialogue regarding this question. We're going to our one news source and getting our single talking point and screaming at each other and no one is listening. This isn't democracy, there is no democracy in a mob. This is all happening because we're scared. And that is what those folks dancing in their penthouses want, for us to fear. Fear trumps thought and breeds reaction, reaction deeply connected to belief. A mob full of believers is more easily controlled than a group of thoughtful, disciplined protesters exercising democracy.
Posted by DavidDurham at 08/17/2009 @ 10:08am
get over it, chump. Obama will be president at least until Jan 2013.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 09:32am
you are a nutcase. er, correction, an ignored nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 09:58am
And would you care to comment on the following provision of HR3200? Your opinion does carry weight.
§1203(a)(1)(iii): For purposes of applying this section,an individual shall be permitted to apply on the basis of self-certification of income and resources; and matters attested to in the application shall be subject to appropriate methods of verification without the need of the individual to provide additional documentation, except in extraordinary situations as determined by the Commissioner.
Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 10:11am
Posted by desertrat at 08/17/2009 @ 09:58am
Yeaaaaahhh.....I'm thinking they won't.
Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 10:15am
I suspect it is entirely possible that those who have insurance and have opposed all of this are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. As Obama said recently insurance companies are not going to make any changes like getting rid of pre-existing conditions if they aren't the recipients of a fresh pool of the young and healthy. So if there is a mandate, those who really cannot afford any insurance will be forced to get insurance or pay a penalty. Maybe they will offer a small amount to help you pay for a policy you still cannot afford. So the end result could very possibly be people without any health care paying an additional tax or penalty to the betterment of those who have it. Seems fair.
Posted by skippersmom at 08/17/2009 @ 10:17am
We don't need any conspiracy theories to understand that Obama is just Bush Light, Bush with a friendly face. Just study Obama's HISTORY and understand that the liberals are really no different from the conservatives when it comes to the hard issues. (Ralph Nader, who has done more for this country than any politician alive, has been telling us this for years). One such study is "Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography" (available from Amazon). I don't agree with the author's political economy analysis (there really is no substantive split in the international oligarchy that controls both Bush and Obama) but his display of historical facts in Obama's history is illuminating.
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/17/2009 @ 10:19am
So Obama says that the public option will keep the private insurance companies competitive, after all UPS and Fedex aren't hurting because of the U.S. Postal service. But my question is: How much money did the U.S. Postal Service lose last year? Aren't they considering cutting services?
Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 10:34am
How much money did the U.S. Postal Service lose last year? Aren't they considering cutting services?
Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 10:34am
A mere detail. You are just focusing on the wrong thing. The President wants you to not fear that the Gov't will pose a competitive threat to private insurance. You are not supposed to make the connection to the Post Office financial situation. Please pay more attention to what the President wants you to hear in the future, and you will be a more contented citizen.
Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 10:39am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:28am
Canada as well as the rest of the world is experiencing a sickness in their economy. The stress of all this affects the health both mental and physical of everyone. These stresses also manifest themselves in the health of any population. More stress equals a larger demand for healthcare due to stress related illness. This puts a strain on any healthcare system.
The CMA is attempting to find solutions to the increased demand for healthcare as a result of this economic stress. They are searching for ways to improve their system and deal with it.
They are not looking to adopt a hellish for profit system of healthcare like we have. They are searching for ways to improve the system they currently have.
The 2009 report card grade of public perception of health services was 67% of respondents giving the system an A or B grade compared with 66% last year.
That means that they are succesfully dealing with the problems associated with the current economic crisis. Unlike us.
Also, I don't know why I bother to respond to you other than as a vehicle to inform others as to the Truth.
Oddly, you work out as a great foil for the dissemination of the Truth because of your penchant for lies...
Funny how that works. Eh Troll?
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 10:42am
Please pay more attention to what the President wants you to hear in the future, and you will be a more contented citizen. Posted by sntauri
Do I have to pay a fine for what I said?
Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 10:46am
Of those 30 million Americans, most can't afford the care they need. Some can afford it but choose not to puchase it knowing that if they get sick someone else will be forced to subsidize their care. The current debate is how to subsidize the needy and force the free riders to pay thier own fare. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
+++
I keep reading the number 50 million uninsured Americans. But no matter. Mr Troll, do you have some proof that there are more than a handful of people who "choose not to purchase" insurance because they know "someone else will be forced to subsidize their care"?
And since you can't get in a doctor's office without having insurance, and with a "provider" the doctor's office deigns to do business with, where are all these freeloaders getting cared for? (And don't say "the ER," because that claim has been debunked many times.
Posted by Citizen54 at 08/17/2009 @ 10:53am
Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 10:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
thank you for the probably undeserved compliment.
there is as of yet no finished bill. these are all drafts, which politicians are running up the flagpole, seeing who salutes it.
as far as your question is concerned, I have to submit tax returns for my health insurance, to prove that I am indeed low income. I don't have a problem with that.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:00am
And since you can't get in a doctor's office without having insurance,
this is certainly NOT true.
before I had health insurance, I paid for my doctor's services. I remember vividly a bill for a complete physical being $900 plus more for the lab fees.
my doctor never stopped advising me to get health insurance.
I did have health insurance before.the birth my son, whose C section etc, cost $20,000, plus. we paid off the wonderful surgeon in a few years, as the insurance did not cover his entire fee.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:06am
Why do we require everybody who drives to have car insurance, then subsidize those who cannot pay, but we don't require health insurance for everybody who breathes?
Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 11:13am
are there really subsidies for car insurance? first I ever heard of it.
the two situations are only barely comparable. you don't need a car to survive. you do need health care to survive.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:18am
I will be interested to see how many of you just talk the talk. And how many of you walk the walk.
"Mad as Hell Doctors.com" is a legitimate and possibly far reaching Caravan of Protest from Coast to Coast. With a 22 city itinerary. A Caravan can turn into a truly impressive "Convoy" that will demand media attention.
Will you actually do something? Or do you just want to sit there at your computer and argue with morons?
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 11:19am
If anyone from the Nation Magazine is reading this, perhaps you should also do your part in this endeavour. Maybe a post concerning this? If the Nation is truly grassroots they will support this protest.
I will be filming as much of this as possible. Although I am rather an amateur.
Any help you can give to promote this would be a great help indeed. Thanks in advance.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 11:27am
If the Democrats fail to provide real affordable healthcare with a public plan option, then this Democrat majority will have failed progressives completely. They are supporting and funding the endless expansion of the Afghan war and the Iraqi occupation; they have bailed out Wall Street banks while Mainstreet struggles; they have again voted for an obscenely larger military budget. This may be the final straw for progressives. (I voted for Nader.)
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 11:47am
(I voted for Nader.)
Nader has never been elected to anything.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 11:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
can you explain why that is so?
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:58am
Hopefully, the next president will have the courage to tackle phasing out Medicare.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 12:14am
Third Rail, Larry. When you have the biggest generation in American history entering into its senior years, after having paid into Medicare it's entire adult life, ain't NO ONE gonna be able to touch Medicare.
I wrote an email to the White House last night (and I'll write another tonight...and tomorrow, etc.), essentially telling our President that he needs to fight the lies, the innuendos, the malicious rumors about killing granny, and whip the Democrats into shape to get a strong public option in the bill. If the Republicans in the Senate want to filibuster, then let them. As one Republican once said (much to his chagrin), "Bring it on!"
I am tired of the Kent Conrad's of the Democratic party who are so hell bent on getting re-elected that they forget what they were elected to do in the first place.
When explained to them rationally by people NOT screaming at the top of their lungs, the VAST majority of Americans welcome a strong public option. That VAST majority cannot and will not be drowned out by a raucous few who chant Nazi slogans against "socialism" (without understanding what it is) while actually working for the fascists.
I do not want compromise on this issue - Barack has compromised more than enough in his time in office so far and what have the Republicans given him in return? Absolutely nothing. It is because they are selfish, selfish, selfish people who have truly lost any compassion they might once have had.
The saddest part about all of this is that the Republican Party, a once proud party with grand traditions, has become nothing more than a white bloodsucking leech on the body of America.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:14pm
the two situations are only barely comparable. you don't need a car to survive. you do need health care to survive.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:18am
Not that I disagree, but to play devils advocate and channel my inner antisocialist. He would absolutely argue that you don't need healthcare to survive, just living right, eating right, drinking gallons of acai berry juice, and a tremendous amount of prayer, oh, and lotsa luck.
However, If our leaders drop the government plan from healthcare reform. No one should support the healthcare bill, as it will not contain any reform. Without the potential for any competition with the corporations nothing will change.
Posted by Extraneous at 08/17/2009 @ 12:16pm
When the rancor, butt-kissing and back room shenanigans are over, we will either have NO REFORM at all, or something so watered down and ineffective that we should not have bothered in the first place.
You think LAST Christmas was bad? Just wait.
Posted by hivanh at 08/17/2009 @ 12:17pm
FYI. "Doctor" Gregory Garamoni has a degree in Clinical Psychology. The industry he associates himself with is in Mental Health Care.
He spent his first 10 years in this capacity in "corporate settings" in human resources with such companies as Citibank, GTE, and PepsiCo. Seems he had quite a few jobs in this first 10 years. Wonder why?
During his "Second Phase" which apparently lasted another 10 years he pursued graduate and post graduate training in clinical psychology. Providing therapy and testing services to children and adolescents. Sounds like after his whirlwind tour of corporate entities he decided he needed more education. Maybe it was just that he had not quite found his niche yet.
His third faze apparently began 17 years ago when he went into private practice in Ponte Vedra Beach. And is (or was)anjunct professor at the University of North Florida.
So we have a "Psychologist" with a seemingly varied past as the founder of an organization called. "Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine".
A clinical psychologist. Not a physician.
Hmmmmm.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 12:20pm
Posted by perryfellwock at 08/17/2009 @ 10:19am
RALPH NADER WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT.
GET OVER IT.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:23pm
Without a robust public option, there is no healthcare reform. The insurance companies own our government, and they are winning again. Only money talks in this nation anymore. The people have no voice. People at the top of the economic latter will continue to enrich themselves as they run this country into the ground. Progress cannot be achieved through conventional channels. The system is corrupt and broken, and the only way the people can get their government back is by working outside the system, hopefully without violence.
Posted by raaustin at 08/17/2009 @ 12:31pm
Not that I disagree, but to play devils advocate and channel my inner antisocialist. He would absolutely argue that you don't need healthcare to survive, just living right, eating right, drinking gallons of acai berry juice, and a tremendous amount of prayer, oh, and lotsa luck.
you could step off the curb and rupture your Achilles tendon. happened to my wife. or break your wrist playing touch football. happened to my son. you WILL need a colonoscopy. happened to me.
there are a million things that could happen to you, where prayer and all that other jazz will be of no help. \
Liverty is a nutcase, who gets far too much attention around here. but then again, tastes vary.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:36pm
Nader has never been elected to anything. Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:55am |
+++
As Miles Davis said: So what? Being elected doesn't make one right about anything. Hitler was elected.
Nader looks more right every day of this current admin. Remember his line about Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum?
(I voted for Obama.)
Posted by Citizen54 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:38pm
or you could have your rectal cancer misdiagnosed as hemorrhoids at age 63 and be dead by age 65. happened to my mom.
again liverty is a nutcase whose hold on reality is tenuous at best.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:39pm
Being elected doesn't make one right about anything.
being right don't mean shit.
except maybe in conversation, like on these threads.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:40pm
Miles Davis? great artist. heroin addict. crack addict who spent his last years in a dark room with hookers and crack.
not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:42pm
Miles didn't actually say "so what". that was the title of one of his tunes.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:43pm
apropos Nader. someone forgot to tell him that pres of the USA is not an entry level position.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:44pm
or you could have your rectal cancer misdiagnosed as hemorrhoids at age 63 and be dead by age 65. happened to my mom.
again liverty is a nutcase whose hold on reality is tenuous at best.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--and if there was a public option/universal health care system in place that will be the end of misdiagnoses?
i'm for universal health care. your arguments aren't illuminating the need for it.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 12:45pm
No one yet has even commented on my call to actually "pick up the mantle" of healthcare reform. Words are easy. Actions are much more difficult.
If you are not willing to take action. Then you are no better than the brainwashed and self interested trolls that also post here.
I plan on joining this legitimate protest, of which I have previously posted. If it costs me my job. So be it. My employer does not seem to be understanding at this point of my wish to have 3 weeks off..
That is O.K. with me. I can always find another job. But one thing is for sure. I can't easily find another country...
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 12:45pm
Thank you DavidDurham, Stephen_Carver1 and raaustin for being the voice of reason in this otherwise rant-filled comment section.
chaoszen, good luck in all your endeavors, it's more than most of us are doing.
The disappointment I feel about this country is overwhelming, to the point where I don't even see where the ship can be righted. Paranoia, ignorance due to ingrained fears, and a hatred for any kind of positive change in this country seems to strongly limit what any kind of "liberal-leaning" president could accomplish. Too bad the "tension" this debate has caused is making reform almost impossible.
Posted by momo67 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:51pm
How do you know whether Happy is a bigot or not? If the evidence is only that he is an Obama-dissenter, that's too ridiculous for words.
Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/16/2009 @ 11:59pm
Oh no if you read Happy's previous posts not even about Obama you can tell he is a bigot.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:52pm
apropos Nader. someone forgot to tell him that pres of the USA is not an entry level position.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:44pm
...As Obama is proving daily...
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:57pm
apropos Nader. someone forgot to tell him that pres of the USA is not an entry level position.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:44pm
...As Obama is proving daily...
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:57pm
Yet....
"I have not ruled out a vote for Obama. I don't really know jack about Palin. None of us really do."-----Posted by freiheit1 at 09/12/2008 @ 11:18am
Palin: "You Can't Blink!" And She Didn't posted by John Nichols on 09/11/2008 @ 8:42pm
Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 1:04pm
It is has been argued that third parties are not viable option for voters, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that "main stream" political parties are also not viable for defending the interests of American voters. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are owned by big business and could careless about the American people. I would suggest voting against any mainstream member of Congress who sold out on a public health plan. If you are still a registered Democrat or Republican, vote against the incumbent in the primary, and, if they are not defeated, go with the third party of your choice in the general election. You can only get their attention by throwing them out of office. You have to make them very afraid to get their attention. I really would like to eliminate the Senate and go with a unicameral Congress.
Posted by pjcasey at 08/17/2009 @ 1:04pm
Too bad we don't get much discussion of what is actually in HR 676, which is Conyers single payer proposal. Obama tells us that Gov't won't take over the Health Care System. If that is true, why would Conyers write in the following:
7 (e) FIRST PRIORITY IN RETRAINING AND JOB 8 PLACEMENT; 2 YEARS OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.-- 9 The Program shall provide that clerical, administrative, 10 and billing personnel in insurance companies, doctors of11 fices, hospitals, nursing facilities, and other facilities 12 whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration-- 13 (1) should have first priority in retraining and 14 job placement in the new system; and 15 (2) shall be eligible to receive 2 years of unem16 ployment benefits.
Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 1:10pm
the two situations are only barely comparable. you don't need a car to survive. you do need health care to survive.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:18am
you don't live out west. I don't need healthcare to survive, but I could not survive long without a vehicle. there are days I have to travel 200-300 miles round trip to see a prospect or a client. To see my children, I have to drive either 180 or 220 miles roundtrip in 2 different directions, and all but one live here in Southern California.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
another GOTCHA!
actually, not even one that makes sense. sad.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:14pm
apropos Nader. someone forgot to tell him that pres of the USA is not an entry level position.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:44pm
Well, considering the people who have run for and been elected to the presidency recently, Mr. Nader might not be so far off in assuming that it's an entry level position.
Of course, on the other side, there are numerous examples, from James Buchanan to Warren Harding to Lyndon Johnson, of how experienced politicians have produced debacles.
Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 1:15pm
Barack has compromised more than enough in his time in office so far and what have the Republicans given him in return? Absolutely nothing. It is because they are selfish, selfish, selfish people who have truly lost any compassion they might once have had.
The saddest part about all of this is that the Republican Party, a once proud party with grand traditions, has become nothing more than a white bloodsucking leech on the body of America.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:14pm
What compromise? there have been no compromises from Obama (and I'm not expecting any).
Do you honestly believe that compassion only comes through a govt agency?
As to the GOP, what they are experiencing is the results of years of conservatives demanding they return to their conservative roots and stand up for constitutional govt. They aren't there yet, but they are moving slowly back towards a center-right position. You are coming so far from the left that the center seems rightwing (as it does to most of the leftists here).
And a rather racist final statement on your part "white bloodsucking leech"?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 1:20pm
Mask, just curious. How does my truthful comment stating my having not ruled out a vote for Obama in Sept of last year, pertain to Obama showing inexperience in his job every day now?
You seem to have a need to throw that quote at me and I'm not sure why. I didn't vote for Obama, but I didn't rule him out with a closed mind either.
Wouldn't your time be better spent showing examples of where he's showing experience and seasoning as a leader of not only the Democrats, but of the nation? Oh, wait, I see... Never mind.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:21pm
you could step off the curb and rupture your Achilles tendon. happened to my wife. or break your wrist playing touch football. happened to my son. you WILL need a colonoscopy. happened to me.
there are a million things that could happen to you, where prayer and all that other jazz will be of no help. \
Liverty is a nutcase, who gets far too much attention around here. but then again, tastes vary.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 12:36pm
What you choose doesn't equal must for everyone.
I fractured a knee-no doctor visit
I had a heart attack, no doctor visit (I did have it verified by a doctor friend at the insistence of my daughter-in-law 3 weeks later, but no treatment and a second EKG shocked him because he said the heart attack not only no longer showed up but my heart was no performing like that of a 16 yr old).
I've never had a colonoscopy and have no need to ever have one. Hint, eat 4-5 Jalapenos daily and lots of spice, your colon will always be clean.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 1:24pm
Johnson did more for americans than Nader. he also did worse for americans than Nader. he was however elected to the Senate and elected as vice pres.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 1:27pm
one thing Nader never had was power. he also did not have to compromise to get something done.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by momo67 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:51pm
All one has to do is engage anyone you meet on the street in conversation about health care reform and you will know immediately where he or she gets their news from. That's the nature of discourse in today's America. For this we can thank first, television, then cable televison and finally the net.
There once was a time in this country when people actually read something newsworthy. It's true, people are much more informed these days but it is the accuracy of the information that's notable. If you watch any of the liberal networks regularly, you'll lean left. On the other hand, if you fill your appetite for news and issue oriented debate by listening only to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, then you will definitely lean right. If you listen to all sides you will probably do better in sorting out fact from fiction.
Then of course their is that segment of society that shows up in all the opinion polls as 'don't know.' Whatever.
Public option? In America? I think not. Medicare is providing care for the elderly who paid into it since 1965 and beyond. We need to keep Medicare and Medicaid financially sound into the far future. As for people who don't have health care because of being too poor or too undesireable to be hired for whatever reason, how does that become the working man's problem? We're already a welfare state.
Here's an idea. Anyone who wants to provide these people with free health insurance should put their money where their mouth is and create a fund especially for that purpose. Then everyone who runs around crying about people who have no health care can fund the system directly. The private insurance companies and the government would welcome that solution. Any takers? I didn't think so.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:38pm
If the Republicans in the Senate want to filibuster, then let them. As one Republican once said (much to his chagrin), "Bring it on!"
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:14pm
Stephen, Perhaps we need to review a few basic facts:
Republicans do not have the votes for a filibuster. They aren't the ones standing in the way. The left has a filibuster-proof majority. Get it, now?
If the VAST majority (as you say) favors a public option (as you say) then getting the "strong public option" should be a cake walk, right? It seems the "VAST majority" you speak of is somewhat shy of being the vast majority. In fact it's short of being a majority at all.
Posted by fram at 08/17/2009 @ 1:38pm
Were it not for a public option (the VA), I'd have no coverage at all. My position went away while I was deployed as a mobilized reservist. I took a job with a small company who had every intention of providing employer-sponsored health coverage. It proved too expensive for such a small company though and the VA is all I have now. And, other than having to drive a ways to see them, I'm pretty satisfied with it so far.
Sen Baucus has been the sole force behind the shut-out of a single payer system from the beginning, refusing even to allow it to be discussed. He has taken more contributions from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries than any other member of congress. Now, what seems likely to pass is some sort of "Insurance COOP" that we'll all be forced to buy into. What is clear is that we are not the customers in this system and we haven't been for a long time. We are conduits for their real customers: the stakeholders. Its one more golden egg of many given to big business at our expense. Dem or Rep, it doesn't matter (except that repubs are honest about their corruption) . They just keep giving our money away to fat cats who never had any intention of helping us with it.
The point to a two party system is to achieve some level of balance in our government. Unfortunately, what Max Baucus represents to me is what can only be described as a single party system. That balance is gone. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
Given the actions of people like Max Baucus and the failure of the dems to deliver anything they promised, even with the super-majority, I am switiching my allegiance to the Greens. While I can't tell any of you what to do, I certainly hope you'll consider what I've said.
Posted by Fitz97 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:41pm
chaoszen, good luck in all your endeavors, it's more than most of us are doing. Posted by momo67 at 08/17/2009 @ 12:51pm
Thanks for that at least. I was starting to think my posts were not being posted.
That just doesn't happen. Usually I get a plethora of attacks. Or some affimation from my supposed "leftie" compatriots.
Apparently, no one is willing to sacrifice anything at all for all the grand arguments they post here.
The insane right is not responding to my posts because they just want to see what will happen. They are gauging if these supposed left side "caring individuals" are really worth their salt, or just a bunch of pretenders.
Now they know. Now they know that the majority of the posters here are not willing to sacrifice anything. And just want to play with words that have no real meaning without action.
I'm ashamed of them. I mistakenly thought I was among some like souls who would take action.
Instead, I find a den of cowards, who are no better than their antagonists.
Now I'm really depressed.
Is there no passion left in this forsaken place?
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 1:43pm
Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 1:10pm
Why is it "all or nothing?" A Public Option would simply force the big Insurance companies to actually be competitive with the government for the same group of customers (i.e. US Citizens not covered by their employers). The government will be able to negotiate things that big Insurance doesn't really want, like health coverage for all, and be able to do it cheaper than Big Insurance currently does.
OMG! It's government subsidized Capitalism at work...which is what we already have in the medical insurance industry!!
The section you cite simply states that, because we KNOW the first thing big corporations do when forced to change is lay people off (instead of say, cutting executive salaries and perqs). Those laid off people have first shot at getting the new jobs created by the Public Option, because they will bring their health insurance experience to the matter. So, to a certain extent, it's jobs neutral, because any jobs lost by the big insurance companies will be offset by the growing public option jobs.
What's so difficult to understand?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:57pm
chaoszen--how are we to know you'll actually "do" something? you're an anonymous handle. we don't actually "know" you. you could simply be saying you'll do something with no intention of doing something, but you want to grab some sanctimonious high ground, like you're a man of action and no one else is. you spend oodles of time anonymously posting here. perhaps you should stop, since it's just a waste of time!
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:58pm
While I can't tell any of you what to do, I certainly hope you'll consider what I've said.
Posted by Fitz97 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:41pm
You served your country and you are entitled to your benefits from a grateful nation. However, a public option is being proposed to give some people who've contributed absolutely nothing to this country except to sponge whatever they can from it. You folks know who you are. So please do not confuse your status as a veteran with these people. The point is you EARNED it. Thank you for your service.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:00pm
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 11:27am
Totally support you! Just saw the route map...wish ya'll were coming to La La Land...
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:00pm
I like to, at times like this, refer to Bill Clinton's former campaign speeches. He would say, (paraphrasing), If you work hard, study hard, pay your taxes and play by the rules you can make it in this country.
Now, everyone take a deep breath and think about the guy who doesn't want to work, or the welfare queen who keeps having more and more babies so she'll get a bigger check every month, or the illegal alien who think that they are entitled to ANYTHING in this country. Do you really want to pay one penny of your hard earned mony to support these people?
Sound cruel? Not in this century. The better part of the last half of the last century was spent bleeding working Americans dry in the name of reparations or compassion or whatever term was used to pick your pockets.
I, for one maintain, and I think most people would agree, that we need to care for our elderly, our veterans, our crippled and our indigent. Our faith would guide us to make the right decision in those cases. But for those who want to steal from this country because of laziness, indifference, sense of entitlement or just outright uselessness, I say listen to Bill Clinton's words and get some direction.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:10pm
I've never had a colonoscopy and have no need to ever have one.Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 1:24pm
I'm wondering if you have ever had a prostate exam? Or if you just eat Jalapeno's and hope for the best.
I'm not sure how old you are, but every male will aquire prostate cancer if they live long enough. And most people (no matter how many jalapeno's) will develop polyps in their intestines over time that will eventually result in colon cancer if not treated early.
Both Prostate Cancer and Colon Cancer are easily treated if discovered early. But some people are embarrassed by the procedures required to access prevention for these risks. And end up costing the healthcare system enormous amounts of money.
I assume that you would rather have someone who has no access to healthcare,(or knowledge of your Jalapeno wundercure) coughing up tuberculosis on you or your family. Than to insure that those around you had proper access to healthcare.
Anti, you are the pentultimate dumbass.
You criticise a Single Payer Healthcare System. Did you know that the federal goverment is prevented from financing Abortions by the Federal Government?
And that 83% of all for profit healthcare companies currently pay for Abortions?
If someone has Blue Cross Blue Shield for example they are covered for abortion.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:20pm
EMILE: my vote for Nader is a protest vote against the two wings of the corporate party. Obama proves me right every day. I feel good about my vote. The Democratic Party has nothing for principled progressives. To all you anti-socialists: Medicare, w2hich is very popular with seniors, is socialized medical care. So is the VA. Medicare, by the way, has a lower rate of cost inflation than private health insurance. I would prefer extending Medicare to all Americans. Cutting the military budget for the Empire would pay for it.
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 2:22pm
Tint your social media profile pic purple to show your support for Health Care Reform (#iamturningpurple)
Posted by ahoving at 08/17/2009 @ 2:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 1:20pm
Obama has tried again and again to get even token Republican support only to have it thrown back in his face because you're all bowing (bending over?) to Rush, Beck and the illiterati.
No I do not believe that "only" government agencies show compassion, but the Republicans have shown nothing but contempt for America using the "compassionate conservatism" banner; it's time for some compassion towards the people, not big business.
The GOP is currently running around like a chicken with its head cut off, spewing blood and filth everywhere (or maybe it's just a turkey farm with Sarah Palin giving a speech in front of the bloody event), primarily because during the last eight years you had everything you wanted (Congress, the Senate, the Presidency and the Court) and STILL you managed to screw it all up. Pity da fools!
As for my previous final statement, I believe you meant to call me a "reverse-racist" since my comment was disparaging of white people. But thanks for calling me on that because this white Texas boy completely forgot to add: Republican Southern White Trash Bloodsucking Leeches Party.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:33pm
Enough! Enough of being suckered by the Democrats! They have the power to pass this! The only thing left us is to sit out the 2010 elections and the Obama re-election. What difference does it make? We have the same policy's now as under Bush. No Single Payer/No Votes for Democrats! WTF? The repugs are running the country as the minority party anyway; why continue to live an insult? The Change You Can Wipe Your Ass With is the American Voter and in particular we on the Left! Fooled and used again! Not next time!
Posted by warpheads at 08/17/2009 @ 2:38pm
the two situations are only barely comparable. you don't need a car to survive. you do need health care to survive.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 11:18am
You don't need a car, but you do need transportation. As a child, the school busses you to class. Beyond that, you need groceries, to get to work, the doctor, to get to the voting precinct, to get to court if you are called for jury duty.
Transportation is far more essential to life than healthcare. Many can go years without truly needing to see a doctor (when young).
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 2:43pm
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:58pm
Mister winky. You are also an anonymous poster here. And your intentions and political associations are clearly known.
I am doing something. I am trying to convince people to actually do something about the problems that face this country. While all you can do is produce a colon and quotation mark as a simile of a wink and a knowing smile.
Disgusting? Yes! Anything else? No!
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:44pm
Steve, how is providing "free" health care to 40M uninsured an example of compassion?
So, for example, we have a restaurant already full and expensive and we want to now dump another 40 million very hungry customers into it with the expectation they are at an "all you can eat" buffet?
And you view that as compassion? I sure don't. The result will be a total collapse - which I'm sorry to say is the real goal here.
On the upside, you are a very articulate useful idiot.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:47pm
Hey hebrewhepour, Little bitch aren't you, if you hate it here so much, please go somewhere else, OK. Your not helping.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:49pm
you should stop, since it's just a waste of time! Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:58pm
Sadly, I must agree with you. You are right. The majority of posters here are in no way serious about anything.
They are just a collection of worthless jabberwockeys.
I'm sorry I ever posted here. And it took someone like you to point that out.
Weird..
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:53pm
We are already a 3rd world country, check out the free health care in LA last week, one of the most powerful messages sent and one of the saddest things I've seen.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:53pm
Bye.. What a waste of effort..
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:55pm
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:53pm
Denise, have you ever been to the third world? If you have, I am surprised you can even jokingly compare any aspect of life in the US to a third world country.
You don't need to answer, of course. You know if you have experience in the third world, or if you are just parroting what you've been told.
Do you question authority? Or is that something we should also nationalize?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:58pm
I have never felt so alone..
oh well, I suppose I asked for it.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 3:00pm
I'm wondering if you have ever had a prostate exam? Or if you just eat Jalapeno's and hope for the best.
I'm not sure how old you are, but every male will aquire prostate cancer if they live long enough. And most people (no matter how many jalapeno's) will develop polyps in their intestines over time that will eventually result in colon cancer if not treated early.
Both Prostate Cancer and Colon Cancer are easily treated if discovered early. But some people are embarrassed by the procedures required to access prevention for these risks. And end up costing the healthcare system enormous amounts of money.
I assume that you would rather have someone who has no access to healthcare,(or knowledge of your Jalapeno wundercure) coughing up tuberculosis on you or your family. Than to insure that those around you had proper access to healthcare.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:20pm
I'm 60 years old.
And when I get prostate cancer as all men do, it will probably stay contained. Even if I get both cancers, so what? Either the cancer is healed or I die. It's as simple as that. I'm prepared for both.
If cancer were to consume my body, I would do as I have outlined in my living will. I would utilize natural pain relievers and enjoy whatever time I have left as best I can while I prepare to go home to G-d.
As to communicable diseases, Article 1, Section 9 empowers the govt to suspend habeas for public safety. That would seem to include quarantine of someone with turbulosis if necessary. So that again has nothing to do with me being required by the govt to pay either the govt or an insurance company for healthcare.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:55pm
Cheer up. This is nothing more than an opinion blog. It is fun, interesting, and can sometimes even be enlightening.
I don't understand how you can let it get to you. It is not a waste of time if it helps you understand what you really believe.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 3:03pm
Chaoszen, good for you and hopefully good for all of us, I wish I could join you, but, you know, I can't afford it!
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 3:05pm
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 1:58pm
Mister winky. You are also an anonymous poster here. And your intentions and political associations are clearly known.
I am doing something. I am trying to convince people to actually do something about the problems that face this country. While all you can do is produce a colon and quotation mark as a simile of a wink and a knowing smile.
Disgusting? Yes! Anything else? No!
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--"disgusting"? haha! please. you spend as much time as anyone here. maybe if you spent less here and more in the real world you'd get what you want.
maybe...
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 3:08pm
For today's enjoyment, we ask the question about what you do if you don't like a decision about your treatment under HR3200.
Tucked into several pages of HR3200 are various "limitation on review" provisions. They are designed to vest President Obama with unilateral, non-appealable control over available treatments and their costs. That is, Americans will have no recourse to challenge errant or capricious executive-branch decisions in the courts.
For example, let's say you're hospitalized for some condition or procedure and are discharged, but you relapse and need to go back to the hospital. Not so fast. Under Democratic health-care reform, the government will be rationing hospital treatment. You will not be readmitted unless Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (or one of her anonymous minions) has decided enough people suffering the same ailment have been discharged -- freeing up whatever HHS, in its infinite wisdom, sees as adequate resources to allow you a second bite at the apple.
To what conditions or procedures does this rule apply? As Duke professor John David Lewis notes, it's any "condition or procedure selected by the Secretary." As if that weren't bad enough: The bill states that "there shall be no administrative or judicial review" of the readmissions measures. It's the Sebelius way or the highway.
Now, now, I can hear the retort, "but that's what the insurance companies do now." But shouldn't a brand new shiny system be better?
Posted by sntauri at 08/17/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 2:53pm
Hey Zen, you've got to chill. Yeah, America has problems, but it's had problems for the last 100,000 years it has been inhabited by people. It will continue to have problems for the next million years. Nobody expects you to solve them all this week.
Your solution makes perfect sense from your perspective, which was developed from your tiny little conner of the world.
My coner of the world is very different from yours. I see aspects of the problem you don't. I have a different experience with human nature than you do which leads me to believe that your solution (single payer) will create more problems than it solves.
Whether I'm right or wrong, from my corner of the world, it is plainly clear that the majority of Americans are unwilling to try your solution.
I'm here trying to focus people's attention on the real problem (poverty, and the best way to subsidize the poor) not the imagined problems (greed, capitalism, insurance)
you keep trying the same thing and getting the same disappointing result. Maybe if you'd open you mind to what I'm saying, you might gain a better understanding of why your solution keeps failing.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 3:12pm
It pains me in a way i cannot describe to see profits constantly put before human rights. In the United States we have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can one even BEGIN to think of these things where there is no guarenteed health care? The United States was one of the last nations to abolish slavery, far later than most of Europe. We eventually came around and those responsible for abolishing slavery are hailed as heroes. At the time though, many southerners were afraid and were willing to die to prevent "government intervention" into their personal lives by taking away their slaves. I view the current healthcare debate in a similar light. Most of the industrialized world has taken up public healthcare options and it has not only worked, but has been praised. It is time for the United States to once again live up to its promise and grant people the healthcare they deserve as part of their right to life. The Declaration of Independence does NOT only apply to those who can pay for it. It applies to ALL. Public healthcare being indicitive of "socialism" and "government tyrany" is hype. The care and delivery would remain private, while helping the economy, as well as living up to the promise of life as a human right.Better late than never, the U.S. can, like it did with slavery, still rise to the occasion and put human well-being before profits.
Posted by ragefororderx at 08/17/2009 @ 3:36pm
Is it possible that Obama really isn't paying much attention to all this? Remember that Bill Clinton suffered painfully when he tried to grasp the healthcare nettle, and ended up re-elected comfortably. What do you think Obama's worried about more, the economy, the war or the healthcare bill(s)?
Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 3:36pm
Medicare, w2hich is very popular with seniors, is socialized medical care. So is the VA. Medicare, by the way, has a lower rate of cost inflation than private health insurance. I would prefer extending Medicare to all Americans. Cutting the military budget for the Empire would pay for it. Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you heard it here first. I have been propounding these things for years in these pages.
politics is the art of the possible.
Nader has struck me lately as an egomaniac.
a protest vote? what kind of a protest is a secret ballot?
I was in the streets marching then as now, against the war. THAT is a protest.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 3:44pm
Posted by ragefororderx at 08/17/2009 @ 3:36pm
Again, a very compassionate person who cannot even comprehend the unexpected consequences of a health insurance "right".
Profit is what supplied every bite of food you enjoyed today ragefororderx. Profit produced the vehicle you rode to work today and profit is why you work.
Yet, you see profit as evil. Hmmm. So from that I can only surmise you are not a producer. You are probably a student, or a low income earner who has absolutely no responsibility for anyone's income or health insurance currently.
You have absolutely no skin in the game whatsoever, except your compassion.
How does that count?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 3:48pm
Compassion is not an opinion that other's should pay for your health insurance, is it?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 3:58pm
But the companion to profit is loss. Without loss how can the market economy function? If General Motors, Goldman Sachs or AIG are in trouble, how can we say that profits are part of the system, but losses must be funded by the law firm of Obama, Pelosi & Reid?
Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 4:00pm
Now, everyone take a deep breath...
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There it is, the deep breath.
Posted by jarshadow at 08/17/2009 @ 4:00pm
Freiheit1, ever been to Tuba City, or the Hopi rez? Don't tell me about what 3rd world countrys exist, ever been to Nogales? I could go on but hopefully you get the picture, and the scene in LA was incredibly sad.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:01pm
Compassion is exactly what is missing from the equation. Politicians talk endlessly about this and that without ever really getting to the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter is the more than 40 million Americans who have no health care because the race for profits have shoved them to the bottom. I recently watched an interview with a citizen of a single-payer country who was asked "does it not bother you to have to pay for the healthcare of others?" and he responded "not at all because that is what they do for me. That is how it has always been and we want to keep it that way" It is a constant give and take system. One based on cooperation rather than competition. Lack of compassion is what turns human lives into mere statistics. While compassion may not amount to much in dollar signs, it amounts to alot in humanity. I dont not claim to have all of the answers. I just know injustice when I see it.
Posted by ragefororderx at 08/17/2009 @ 4:08pm
I prepare to go home to G-d. Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 3:01pm
You prepare to go home to GOD? Yet you haven't even the courage to say GOD? Let alone YHVH or Elohim. YHVH. The Ineffable Name or Unutterable Name of God. Four simple Hebrew letters. The Tetragrammaton which means "four letters". Yod, Hey, Vav(u), Hey.
I learned about this when i was a young boy. The name YHVH bespeaks the utter trancendence of God. You always post, along with others G-d. How infantile. I was brought up in "The Golden Dawn" and the likes of Franz Bardon and Aleister Crowley. Along with a heavy dose of the Buddha and Tibetan Buddhism.
I grew my philosophical eye teeth with the likes of Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts and W.E Butler.
I am not afraid to speak words.
What I am afraid of, is those that won't.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 4:11pm
What matters here is that whatever will be created to compete with the clepto-medical complex i) be strictly non-profit, ii) be forbidden to pay out-of-control salaries to its execs, employees, and doctors, iii) be large enough to have Walmart-level bargaining power (i.e., de facto extortionary power) over the physician leeches and the pirate peddlers of fantasy-priced medical supplies, iv) have legislative foundations that cannot be perverted by future caveman administrations, and v) not be allowed to exclude anybody from coverage or to charge different fees to different people.
Obsessing about single-payer, the public option, etc, should not let us forget that the final goal of any worthy reform of the heath-care system is to attain what is above, i.e., to stop the parasitizing of the national economy by the clepto-medical complex and abolish the stone-age relict of universal coverage not being guaranteed from birth on.
There should be the only two criteria that progressives should let Obama know he will judged by. i) He has to bring down health care expenditures to less than 7% of the GPD --to match the average of the other developed countries-- and he has to make coverage universal while improving the quality of care to match that of the UK and France.
Posted by erplus at 08/17/2009 @ 4:12pm
Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
simplistic.
we helped GM, as we helped England 70 years ago.
saving GM and the banks is a good strategy. when they return to health, they can pay us back.
the reason we saved the banks is because they have all our money. they go down, we go down.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 4:14pm
Hey Freiheit1, you need to take a deep breath and just keep holding it.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:16pm
EMILE: Regarding the old line about "politics being the art of the possible"...that is the excuse of cowardly sell-outs. When FDR decided to pass Social Security, he used the full power of his personality and his office. The Republicans called his plan "socialism". He slapped them down and got it passed. When Lyndon Johnson committed himself to passing Medicare, he did the same. These giants of politics were not deflected by the label "socialism" or by slimy Republican attacks. And they made progressive history for this country. But Obama runs scared, ready to give in and make a deal with the devil that would destroy any real progress. He makes me sick.
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 4:24pm
Posted by ragefororderx at 08/17/2009 @ 4:08pm
Nice sentiment but you will be paying for others who AREN'T with a public option. Now the argument is that we pay anyway. There's your compassion.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:26pm
Let me add: He makes me sick, and I am without healthcare.
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 4:26pm
. Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 3:01pm
You carry your "religion" as if it were a badge. Your Hubris is astounding. You claim GOD? You have not a clue. You know nothing of Love. You miss the point entirely. You are just a selfish dogmatic old man who wishes to spread your personal disease to others.
When you die. Let me know. So that I can bear witness to your need for education in matters concerning your soul. You are a young one. And will need segregation for a bit of alone time with counseling before your rebirth.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 4:26pm
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 4:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Nader never passed nothing.
did FDR pass all these in the first 6 months?
oh, and what would McCain do?
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 4:27pm
and I am without healthcare. Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is a risky situation. especially if you're 50 or more years old. you have my sympathy.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 4:29pm
I have never felt so alone..
oh well, I suppose I asked for it.
~chaoszen at 3:00pm
You aint as alone as you may think.
Just poppin' in here for a sec.... the place got a little too stale so I've been on a bit of a sabbatical.
Peace out,
~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:30pm
How much money did the U.S. Postal Service lose last year? Aren't they considering cutting services?
Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 10:34am
Absurd. The Postal Service should be paid for by taxation of those who can afford it. A service that everyone needs and profits from should be provided by taxation and not be dependent upon capitalism. The idealogues who want to contract out everything are blind to reality. The best economies are "mixed."
The health care debate should be between those who want to expand Medicare to create a single payer system like Canada, and those who want to expand the Veterans Health Administration to cover everyone, like the system in Great Britain.
We can't have a system like France or Germany where private insurance companies are part of the picture. Our government is too corrupt for that to be a realistic solution here.
Posted by heavyrunner at 08/17/2009 @ 4:35pm
This truly is a question without a simple answer. It is something I agonize over often. But, like I said, I don't have all the answers. Nor do I think it is possible to. But it is a testament to the first amendment that we can even have this discussion. So thanks for the opposing viewpoints.
Posted by ragefororderx at 08/17/2009 @ 4:38pm
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:16pm
Thanks Denise, in other words, you wish my death?
You know Denise, I wonder if you will stop to think about how that fits into your compassion model. I wish you could comprehend that opposition to a plan that is misguided is not the same thing as have no compassion for those less fortunate.
Here's the debate from my perspective in simple terms. We have a fire and you want to put the fire out to save those who are threatened. Your solution is to throw gasoline on the fire. I want to stop you because I know it won't result in saving those threatened, not because I don't want the fire out, just like you. Instead of realizing I share your concern, but disagree with your methods (gasoline instead of water), you accuse me of not caring about those who are threatened.
And you recommend I die of self-inflicted asphyxiation.
[Sigh]
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:39pm
I have never felt so alone.. oh well, I suppose I asked for it. ~chaoszen at 3:00pm
I can't understand that. you have plenty of company on my ignore list.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 4:39pm
Chaoszen, what b_kool_66, said, I will be there with you in spirit, I promise.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:47pm
The United States ranks 37th in the world in healthcare. We rank just a hair above Slovenia and a hair below Costa Rica.
The other 36 countries that rank above us are Costa Rica, Dominica, Denmark, Chile, Australia, Finland, Canada, Morroco, Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Cyprus, Sweden, Colombia, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Luxemborg, Iceland, Greece, Monaco, Portugal, Norway, Japan, Austria, Oman, Spain, Singapore, Malta, Andorra, San Marino, Italy, and France(1st).
Yeah, we have the best healthcare in the world!!! If you ignore the other 36 countries.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 4:56pm
<i>Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:39pm </i>
See, that's what she probably meant. What her post actually said, though is "keep holding that breath." You know what happens when you hold your breath for too long? You pass out. You know what happens then? You start breathing again.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 4:57pm
Well, Emile...Nader could not get elected in our corporate big money AIPAC- dominated political system. So of course he has not had the chance. I am a 58-year-old self-employed professional guitarist. In my state of Washington, there are only three companies offering healthcare:Blue Cross, Primera, and Group Health Cooperative. They are all very expensive. This puts the lie to those compromisers who promoto the "healthcare co-op" as an affordable alternative to a public plan. Group Health is just as expensive as the others, but they require that you see only their doctors. So you have even less choice. That is what Obama is trying to sell. It is a scam and an outrage. It is no solution.
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 4:58pm
If you really want to see how a well done healthcare system and basic social safety net works.
Ask the French!
You can eat all the "freedom fries" you want. But the fact remains that the French have this problem dicked...
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 5:00pm
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 4:56pm
Well, for starters, I wonder if Denise can identify the third world country on the list of 37, seeing as we are, in her opinion, a third world country when it comes to health care.
And secondly, Chaoszen, what criteria? What was used to determine our rank at 37th? Access to care? Was it infant mortality rates? Life spans? 4th grade math scores? What?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:02pm
Posted by Thrawn at 08/17/2009 @ 4:57pm
Ahh, you are absolutely right. Good call. Thanks.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:04pm
Absurd. The Postal Service should be paid for by taxation of those who can afford it.
Posted by heavyrunner
How about having it paid for by the people who use it. Or is that just absurd. Is postal service also a right endowed upon us by our creator?
Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 5:04pm
I can't understand that. you have plenty of company on my ignore list.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 4:39pm
And exactly why would you want to ignore me? I thought we had reached an agreement? I ignore no one. If I did that, I would think of myself as someone who would plug both ears and say: "I Can't Hear You!". "I Can't See You!" and "I Can't Speak You!"
That would be a terrible mess. People who place others on ignore, are often unsure of their own positions, No?
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 5:11pm
Posted by philbq at 08/17/2009 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
another guitarist, hurrah. I am a huge fan of the "classical" guitar and its repertory.
as far as the health care thing, it's early in the day.
in my case it was the state, NY, who came to my rescue, it made Blue Cross give something back for the privilege of going for profit.
we all have a big stake in this discussion.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 5:13pm
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you're still posting here?
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 5:16pm
And secondly, Chaoszen, what criteria? What was used to determine our rank at 37th? Access to care? Was it infant mortality rates? Life spans? 4th grade math scores? What?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually, it was determined by the WHO (World Health Organization). But to be fair they have not provided this information since the year 2000.
It apparently is a very complicated task, considering. They consider all parameters, including all the ones you mention.
It is a statistical nightmare. But the last time all those parameters were considered, those were the results.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 5:18pm
--you're still posting here?
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 5:16pm
No not me, It is my evil twin.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 5:21pm
I think, Chaoszen, what complicates things even further is the dubious agenda of the WHO.
Do you actually believe what is in the best interests of the american citizen is important to the United Nations system and their health arm, the World Health Organization?
I contend both are dedicated to the destruction of the United States and the establishment of a global ruling order based on collectivism.
Now, granted, I imagine you see that as a good thing. I don't.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:29pm
Peace out,
~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:30pm
Thanks b_kool. Would you like to join me in the "Mad as Hell Doctors" cross country caravan?
You "Peaced Out". But thanks. Check out "Mad as Hell Doctors.com" then let me know. I will pick you up if you are somwhere on the itinerary. I am going 9/15. I have a van with many ammenities.
Let me know.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 5:35pm
--you're still posting here?
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 5:16pm
No not me, It is my evil twin.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 5:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--ah, a stab at humor! good to see you're not hysterical and suicidal anymore...also glad to see you've assuaged the part of your brain that was telling you to stop wasting your time here...what'd you have to do to shut it up?--some alcohol? drugs? fast food? cigarettes? having to go out in the heat?
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 5:36pm
Now, granted, I imagine you see that as a good thing. I don't.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:29pm
I grow weary of the clueless. Suck on the neck of some other hapless victim.
I'm almost done with the like's of you.
Where there is no hope.
Live in your nightmare. I choose another path.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 5:40pm
Your path IS the nightmare.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:45pm
Freiheit1, you come of as a conceited, full of yourself blogger who has all the answers. I don't wish anyone death, including you, but you did push a button, and I answered out of anger. Sorry.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:52pm
You prepare to go home to GOD? Yet you haven't even the courage to say GOD? Let alone YHVH or Elohim. YHVH. The Ineffable Name or Unutterable Name of God. Four simple Hebrew letters. The Tetragrammaton which means "four letters". Yod, Hey, Vav(u), Hey.
I learned about this when i was a young boy. The name YHVH bespeaks the utter trancendence of God. You always post, along with others G-d. How infantile. I was brought up in "The Golden Dawn" and the likes of Franz Bardon and Aleister Crowley. Along with a heavy dose of the Buddha and Tibetan Buddhism.
I grew my philosophical eye teeth with the likes of Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts and W.E Butler.
I am not afraid to speak words.
What I am afraid of, is those that won't.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 4:11pm
Perhaps you've missed my previous explanation on why I post the as G-d. I do so out of respect for any orthodox bloggers. As a Christian, I write to other Christians without any such abreviation, or when writing to someone I know is not an orthodox Jew. I don't understand why it should bother anyone like yourself.
I have an intimate relationship with G-d and we converse daily as all believers are called to do. I experience His love daily.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 6:01pm
Chaoszen, good for you and hopefully good for all of us, I wish I could join you, but, you know, I can't afford it!
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 3:05pm
That is a lame excuse. Can you afford not to? I can't afford it either really.
What city do you live in? I might be able to arrange something. If money is an issue. If you want to be a part of something important, and feel strongly about it, there is always a way. I am putting my job on the line.
And am willing to help out anyone who wants to be a part of it. I will do whatever I can.
These are desperate times.
"Gentleman, if we do not hang together. then we shall surely hang apart."
-Ben Franklin- 300 years ago.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 6:02pm
Am I really conceited and full of myself? Or do I just bug you because I disagree with you and contend you don't have any answers?
That's the fun here Denise. I have my beliefs stomped to s**t on this blog all the time. From collectivist health insurance to rent control to the minimum wage I fight that the unintended consequences of such harmful policies wipe out all good intent. I've pointed out how little liberals like you really understand about economic law, the Federal Reserve and the role it plays in our lives.
But you know, I learned here that in truth the Framers of the US Constitution would not have condoned the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That contradicted my support of both actions, and I had to look in the mirror and realize I was wrong.
So I'm sorry I come across to you as conceited and full of myself. Truth is, I'm learning new things everyday. And the more I learn, the less I know! But I do know some stuff.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:14pm
Here's an idea. Anyone who wants to provide these people with free health insurance should put their money where their mouth is and create a fund especially for that purpose. Then everyone who runs around crying about people who have no health care can fund the system directly. The private insurance companies and the government would welcome that solution. Any takers? I didn't think so.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:38pm
Ooooooo...how magnanimous of you; showing such incredible compassion towards your fellow human beings. May god have mercy on your soul.
BTW, setting up social services is one of the main reasons we pay taxes. It's called a 'social compact' whereby everyone pays taxes and every shares certain services, like roads, schools, firefighters, police, etc.
Or did you think that national "gunslinging" by codpiece wearing Presidents, like we do in Iraq, is all that your tax dollars go towards? In case you didn't know, your tax dollars currently go towards a single payer health care system: it's called Medicare and I would bet that someone in your family (perhaps parents or grandparents) is currently on it.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:15pm
Obama wears a codpiece?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:22pm
obama is a coward. It is time to IMPEACH this coward. He was never qualified to lead this nation and the media looked the other way as it bashed Clinton he was a much better candidate for president. obama has no spine and and would sell anything to be pc. He makes me sick.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/17/2009 @ 6:24pm
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/17/2009 @ 6:24pm
And, according to Stephen, he wears a codpiece to boot! Maybe you're right, he should be impeached!
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:27pm
Republicans do not have the votes for a filibuster. They aren't the ones standing in the way. The left has a filibuster-proof majority. Get it, now?
If the VAST majority (as you say) favors a public option (as you say) then getting the "strong public option" should be a cake walk, right? It seems the "VAST majority" you speak of is somewhat shy of being the vast majority. In fact it's short of being a majority at all.
Posted by fram at 08/17/2009 @ 1:38pm
fram,
No offense, but you're an idiot. The Dems have a THEORETICAL filibuster proof majority, but if push comes to shove, then the Dems do not have a filibuster-proof majority because we have Democratic Senators who might just let it happen...the Republicants (perhaps I should start calling ya'll Replicants) only need one and I'm thinking Max Baucus, Kent Conrad or Joe (I used to be a Democrat) Lieberman might fit the bill. We won't know until it happens which is why Dems should force them to do it.
As for the vast majority, evidently you don't know how to read my post, either. I stated that the media/big business/insurance company love-in that we are currently experiencing is only showing the raucous town halls; not the ones where people ask polite questions and get correct answers, because the media thinks those are boring. Thus, the American people are getting a skewed perception (esp on Faux News) as to how many people there are out there with actual objections (or who even know what they're talking about!).
The Republicants are Lying and the media is playing those Lies, instead of doing its job and reporting the news, because real news is boring; people screaming is good TV...ask any TV news editor.
And you are supporting the fascists. Feel good, do ya?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:29pm
Ya freiheit1, I do learn stuff here and sometimes I even learn something from you or Happy or Anti, but I'm still for healthcare for all and behind Obama, maybe I am naive, but I'd rather have some hope than such anger and bitterness like some here.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:36pm
Ah Chaoszen, I would love to go with you, but there are reasons that I would rather not go into here for why I can't, suffice to say, its one of the reasons I'm so passionate about healthcare.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:39pm
I have an intimate relationship with G-d and we converse daily Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 6:01pm |
If you pretend that God has an intimate relationship with you. And that you speak daily, you are most likely a victim of narcissistic arrogant tendencies. A common symptom of schizophrenia. And perhaps an epileptic condition.
Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) violently persecuted the followers of Jesus. He was a killer. On the Road to Damascus he he had a vision and was temporarily blinded. A common occurence in Eplilepsy.
On returning to Jerusalem he apparently met with James and Simon Peter for 15 days.
Paul never knew Jesus prior to his execution. He was not an apostle. And was rejected by James and Simon Peter.
It is quite likely that he murdered James.
Anyone who claims to speak with God on a daily basis, or any basis. Is as crazy as Paul.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 2:47pm
Not talking about restaurants, or Italian food, or eating your way through the Atlantic Ocean.
We're talking about health care, something which every other industrialized nation has determined is a right for their citizens; yet we, supposedly the "leader" of the free world, have to resort to Anti's and Darin's and your arguments that "it's a privilege, not a right."
Hogwash!
The health of ANY country in history can be easily measured by the health of its individual citizens. Just this past week, in this nation's second largest city (Los Angeles) doctors who normally provide free service to third world countries were providing free service to American citizens who can't afford health care. There were literally thousands of people lined up. Aren't you Republicants ashamed of that? Have you no national or civic pride? Or is it all wrapped up in bombastic slogans about flag waving, war and rifles?
You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I don't know what any of you profess to believe about the afterlife (except Anti's rather limited views on who gets in), but I cannot imagine any of you getting points on "compassion." You think an insurance company's profits are more important than a human being's life.
I am all for capitalism, but capitalism that allows a nation to let its citizens die without adequate treatment is a nation that is truly and completely unhealthy. No unhealthy civilization can survive for long; but then again, perhaps that is truly what you all want, since most of you think Jesus (or whoever you believe in) WON'T ask you, "So, what did you do for your fellow men while you lived?".
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:47pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:15pm
I see you haven't read my posts. You just shoot from the hip. Maybe you should change your name to gunslinger2.
People who are old enough to be collecting Medicare now, paid into the system for years. Thats the social compact you're referring to. We already have welfare in this country to help the poor. If you bothered to read my previous posts you would have found that it's the abusers who scam the system that I object to.
My soul is intact. But what about your brain?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:51pm
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/17/2009 @ 6:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it gives me great pleasure to know that you will be sick for at least another three and a half years.
four more years.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/17/2009 @ 6:53pm
Obama wears a codpiece?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:22pm
Nice try at humor. Too bad you failed.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:57pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:51pm
No, I read your posts. (I only ignore Pig Pasture). Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't have a brain.
Yes, there is some abuse; there will always be some abuse. But health care for everyone, at the expense of the rest of us, is not a bad thing to ask for.
Medicare works. Yes, there are a few problems. Why should it only be for people over 65? Why not people over 25?
Private insurance doesn't work; there are lots of examples of why it doesn't work. This system is broken and is being run by greed, not by anything related to the Hippocratic Oath, more like the hypocritical oath (otherwise known as the Republican mating call).
Medicare for everyone is what I'd like to see. That would FORCE the insurance companies to lower their costs and stop removing people form their rolls.
We're not gonna get Medicare for everyone, so I then would like a strong public option.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 7:07pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:57pm
I wasn't trying to be funny. The fact Obama hasn't done anything to get us out of Iraq and is escalating our actions is Afghanistan isn't humorous.
And yet, you believe handing the health insurance industry to the same politicians and incentive structure who gave us two recent wars and trillions of dollars to Wall Street is equal to "compassion"?
Stephen, you are sadly duped. Your attacking people against this bill in the same way warmongers attacked the patriotism of those against the invasion of Iraq. And you can't even see that.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 7:21pm
Paul never knew Jesus prior to his execution. He was not an apostle. And was rejected by James and Simon Peter.
It is quite likely that he murdered James.
Anyone who claims to speak with God on a daily basis, or any basis. Is as crazy as Paul.
Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 6:41pm
As I've said before Chaoszen, like many non Christians you know very little about Christian history and scripture.
Paul met and was taught by the resurrected Jesus. All of the apostles believed that and contrary to your claims, accepted Paul as an apostle. Peter even wrote that Pauls letters were to be treated as scripture.
James was not killed by Paul, that's nonsense.
In AD44, the apostle James, brother of John and son of Zebedee, is beheaded, and Peter imprisoned on the orders of King Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-3). In the same year, this same Marcus Julius Agrippa died as stated in both the bible and the history of the Jews written by Josephus
As to speaking with G-d on a daily basis, it is at the heart of the promises of Jesus and as Paul wrote, anyone who doesn't have that kind of relationship with Jesus and the Father stands accursed of G-d. I don't know of any truly devout believers during my life who didn't or don't have daily conversation and intimate relations with G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 7:34pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 7:07pm
Ok. I'm glad you explained yourself better. I respect your opinion and I apologize for the brain comment. I felt insulted by the soul comment you made.
I just disagree about paying for everyone whether they deserve it or not. There's too much room for there for waste and abuse. I don't think that we should become socialists. We're supposed to be the great experiment here. We're not supposed to follow Europe's lead. We broke away from that mentality 233 years ago. Americans have always worked to build this country. Where the hell did this entitlement mentality come from.
I'm not totally against health care reform. I've spelled out what I feel needs to be done but I think you are going to find insurmountable resistance to a public option. People are fed up with being called insensitive and uncaring. I'm talking about people who are working two and three jobs to make ends meet and they do not take kindly to paying for someone who rapes the system or sits on their ass and collects welfare checks. Those days are over or at least with Obama's election, there's more of an awareness now. Barack Obama does not have the power to change their minds. His best option is compromise. And he knows it.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/17/2009 @ 8:46pm
chaoszen--antisocialist praying to god to make a difference in his life is no different than you thinking you will successfully pressure obama to push for a single payer or public option. obama's not risking his 2nd term for you. but enjoy your little road trip
Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 9:27pm
Boy urmygyro, well thats a good reason for not putting money where your mouth is, aren't you helpful, hasseling mask and going on your merry way, at least chaoszen is doing something constructive, and your doing what? are you sure Obama is not going to risk his 2nd term? We shall see, but in the mean time, chaoszen has every right to fight for what he believes in with out your demeaning comments.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 10:00pm
And chaoszen's g-d or god is as important as Anti's.
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 10:06pm
What's left?
That's easy to answer.
A granfalloon -- as Kurt Vonnegut would say.
"If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon."
[ie. nothing but air]
Or in Obama's case, air with a great big gift wrapped Okie Doke.
Alan MacDonald Sanford, Maine
Posted by amacd at 08/17/2009 @ 10:28pm
2 Cor 3:17 "the Lord is the Spirit"..... cool hey
Mark 6:3 lists Jesus' brothers and sisters, in juxtaposition to Jesus' claim to a virgin birth and Mary's status as a virgin mother.... cool hey
Posted by winyahn at 08/17/2009 @ 11:04pm
And yet, you believe handing the health insurance industry to the same politicians and incentive structure who gave us two recent wars and trillions of dollars to Wall Street is equal to "compassion"?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 7:21pm
No no no no no no. I am not handing anything to the politicians. There is already a proven government (actually, there are two models) healthcare system that works. You can deny it till your brain turns blue, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. The VA works. Medicare works. Yes, there are problems. I get that. But there are MORE problems with the private model. A bunch of bureaucrats will be doing the same thing that a different bunch of overpaid bureaucrats are currently doing. However, there will NOT be a profit motive for taking away people's coverage. It really is THAT simple!
Insurance companies that use YOUR medical treatments to make THEIR profit is wrong in a civilized world. It's morally wrong, it's ethically wrong (which is why most doctors want a change), and most of all, I find it to be offensive to use the economic theory of capitalism, which is a fine theory, to deny care, sometimes lifegiving care, survival care, to our oldest and weakest citizens, or yes, even to those who cannot afford coverage.
Compassion in this country has been lost due to a political system that truly no longer serves the good of the people. I would like to see compassion return to the public sphere and I have had enough of the conservative "every man or woman for themselves." Because in the America my father fought in WWII for, Americans help the poor, the weak and the downtrodden. Read the Statue of Liberty lately? That's what it's all about.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 11:43pm
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
That just doesn't say government bureaucratic managed health insurance monopoly to me. Sorry.
Just like minimum wage laws and rent control, nationalized helath insurance will end up harming the most vunerable and poorest amongst us in the name of big government power.
Compassion in this country has not been lost. You are wrong. And you should consider the history of unintended consequences caused by well-intended government programs. Just look at cash for clunkers. And consider your perspective if you ran a charity dependent on old automobile donations...
The US Constitution is a document LIMITING governmental powers for a good reason Stephen. It protects us from you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:57am
I just e-mailed this to the WH:
This is not so much about policy, as body parts.
Where I come from, the one Washington politican we always thought was inadequately endowed, was Harry Reid. In fact, we routinely refer to him as Harry Grow-A-Pair Reid - all spoken as one word.
Now, we see that Reid-itis has spread across town. In fact, it appears that the ENTIRE West Wing - not to mention the inhabitant of the Oval Office - needs to, in the vernacular - GROW A PAIR!
Apparently, the One political leader in that town who HAS a pair is Nancy Pelosi! And isn't THAT ironic? Perhaps you can send the White House Photographer over to the Hill to take a picture and show the rest of you what they look like? Or maybe there is a pair hidden someone deep in the bowels of the EOB that you just forgot you have? Because right now, we can't see a shred of courage or determination in this Administration - although there are lots and lots of you who know how to "walk back" a position better than a Michael Jackson moonwalk!
Show us you have some! Take the HELP Committee bill and use the dam' reconciliation rules to get it done! How HARD is that?? Shall we come down there and show you?
What an incredible disappointment you are to the millions of us who donated to your campaign. Don't expect THAT to happen again - but I guess your outreach to PhRMA and the Insurance Lobby signifies that you aren't expecting that, are you? How many more campaign promises are you planning to break? Let's see - transparency, GTMO, out of Iraq in 18 months, military tribunals, public option, DOMA... I'm too disgusted to go on.
So. Public Option. You got game, or not? You got a pair? I'm doubtin' it seriously - the political "operatives" have got yours locked up.
Posted by sjduskin at 08/18/2009 @ 01:57am
CAPITALISM -- FREEDOM TO COMPETE FOR EXCESSIVE WEALTH
Capitalism being the reverse of equality, surely our for-profit healthcare system is the greatest tool for keeping a people vulnerable, insecure, fearful and in submission to authority the world has ever known.
Posted by Alabama_john at 08/18/2009 @ 06:33am
"Dr. Gregory Garamoni Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine"
Gregory, you consume paragraphs and paragraphs of our time in your post, but talk only about money...money...money...
But what is best for people, and the good health and well being of people, has absolutely nothing to do with money.
And in view of the fact that 99% of illness in America is caused by a high fat nutrition poor diet, in view of the fact that doctors say nothing to patients about diet, maybe if all doctors went on strike forever, the health of us and our economy would be much better.
Say, we hear that virtually all doctors retire millionares. Is that true?
Posted by Alabama_john at 08/18/2009 @ 07:09am
"The US Constitution is a document LIMITING governmental powers for a good reason Stephen. It protects us from you."
Yes and "us" being conservatives who love to conserve excessive wealth.
For the u.s. constitution is the most perfect tool for creating a fake morality the world has ever known, it being the deceitful words of a bunch of slave owners who were in a big hurry to be the first government. For most of the farmers in New Jersey were organizing big time and about to beat them to it.
For what part do we the people have in a government created by the rich, or in their politicians not elected but selected by the rich?
Posted by Alabama_john at 08/18/2009 @ 07:47am
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:21pm
The point is....there was nothing that you knew about Obama's experience when you were "not ruling him out"...that isn't known now.
Ergo your "not ruling him out" was false and a cheap throwaway line to try to make yourself seem "objective"...when you had no intention of voting for him from the beginning.
That is, unless you can explain in detail, why a "principled conservative" like yourself would would even CONSIDER voting for Obama?
Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 08:10am
<i>Posted by Alabama_john at 08/18/2009 @ 07:47am </i>
Since you clearly despise the current Constitutional system...I'd be quite curious to see your more perfect alternative. Perhaps you could lay it out for us?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 08:26am
Oh boy...two statements on this thread make it ridiculously tempting to spend multiple posts challenging them, and though it might derail the thread a bit, I'm sorry everyone...I can't help myself.
<i>As to speaking with G-d on a daily basis, it is at the heart of the promises of Jesus and as Paul wrote, anyone who doesn't have that kind of relationship with Jesus and the Father stands accursed of G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 7:34pm</i>
I'll start with one simple response: show me where in the Bible that specific statement may be found. Even the ones you rely on, interpreted in the strictest way possible, only establish belief as a precondition.
The other response is, quite simply, perhaps you could explain some of the verses below to me:
"But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."- John 12:32
"For God has locked all people in the prison of their own disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."- Romans 11:32
"For God has locked all people in the prison of their own disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."- John 10:16
And the real theological kicker, where I think Paul's reasoning clearly departs from your position...
"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."- 1 Corinthians 15:22
Note the parallelism here. The "all dying in Adam" refers to original sin, the notion that sin and some form of separation from God was a universal condition. The parallel structure of this statement means that the same "all" in the first part is the "all" in the second part, meaning that the condition of "being made alive by Christ" is universal, not merely potentially, but actually. I don't know how this verse, or reason, lets you conclude that only Christians go to heaven.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 08:34am
<i>Posted by chaoszen at 08/17/2009 @ 6:41pm </i>
Here is the other side of "too tempting to stop myself." Antisocialist has already listed a bunch of the flaws here, so I'll just follow with a couple more.
1) Epilepsy has no credibility as an explanation here. We can start with the fact that Saul had apparently never experienced such blindness before (otherwise it would hardly have been life-changing in the way it was in this instance). It can be added that epilepsy is not exactly conducive to good leadership or the support of a population.
2) There is no evidence whatsoever to support your position of epilepsy. You certainly have offered none. In fact, you've offered nothing more than speculation that descends into the absurd (Paul killed James??)
I've seen you make far stronger arguments than this.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 08:39am
at least chaoszen is doing something constructive
Posted by Denise29 at 08/17/2009 @ 10:00pm
Are you sure about that? The islanders thought they were doing something constructive when they would sacrifice virgins to the volcanoe god.
Zen has a secure job with the US Postal Service. "Jeopardizing" that (his word) seems kind of pointless to me.
I read about a book on giving (it was a Jewish book) that described 9 "levels?" of giving. The first was giving in an ostentasion manner so that everyone saw the person giving. The "purpose" of the gift wasn't to benefit the recipient of the gift, it was to draw attention to the giver and elevate the giver's social status. The highest level of giving was an anonymous, purely altruistic gift for the benefit of the recipient.
Maybe there are analogus levels of sacrifice. Some people whip themselves and offer a "pain" sacrifice. The old testament version of burning a fat calf seems more like animal cruelty than productive sacrifice. Any sacrifice that reminds us of the gifts God has given us is somewhat productive, but not as productive as a sacrifice that directly benefits the impoverished or needy.
I don't mean to be condescending, but skipping work to go on a road trip that will not make any difference what-so-ever in the ultimate legislation that is passed, doesn't seem life a very high level of sacrifice, in-so-far as sacrifice is measured by achievement, not just pain felt.
Rather than risk your job, (the thing that provides you and your family with healthcare) I'd advise you to find another way to use your spare time to "prostelyze" and shame the comfortable into creating the political will to subsidize those who cannot afford the healthcare they need.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 08:43am
Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 08:10am
That's not true. Obama presented himself as much more of a moderate than he is turning out to be.
It boils down to this, Mask. At that time Obama appeared as the lesser of two evils. Couldn't then and still am frustrated with McCain. In hindsight,without Palin, McCain would have lost to Obama by six touchdonwns. And don't try to say Obama didn't run a very compelling campaign. And both he and McCain voted for TARP, so what was really the difference between them again?
Furthermore, as I've stated here on numerous occasions, I don't believe American troops should be dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think Iraq, specifically, is unconstitutional. You'll recall in September there was significant rhetoric from Obama on how he would wind down both conflicts. That made him worthy of consideration in September 2008.
So, if you want to "gotcha" me, get me on my Iraq war turnaround. Not on my consideration of Obama.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 08:54am
Posted by Alabama_john at 08/18/2009 @ 07:47am
It is only because our political landscape has ignored the Constitution since 1913 that what you say has even a shred of credibility. It is not because of the Constitution.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 08:58am
Posted by Alabama_john at 08/18/2009 @ 07:47am
But don't get me wrong. You post is evidence you are a complete classist knucklehead. Your cool professor would be proud of your hatred for our country.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 09:04am
The VA works. Medicare works. Yes, there are problems. I get that. But there are MORE problems with the private model.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 11:43pm
(The economics of) The VA works because it is part of the military compensation system. (Note that it is imperative to have substantial emergency medical capabilites when job hazards routinely include getting shot and being in the proximity of explosives going off.) In-so-far as the emergency medical services are required for the military, it is cost efficient to maintain the entire apparatus for vets as part of their compensation structure.
(The economics of) Medicare works because when it was started it was trivial. It didn't offer as much as it does today when it was started. It has been exapanded several times (most recently under President Bush with the addition of the prescription drug plan.) But these expansions have conincided with increasing societal wealth such that the cost was never material.
However, improved medical technology, increased life expectancies, and declining birth rates have dramatically impacted the democraphics of American and is making the cost of Medicare as a percentage of GDP ever increasing.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:04am
No offense, but you're an idiot. The Dems have a THEORETICAL filibuster proof majority,
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:29pm
No offense, but look in the mirror.
Democrats have an actual filibuster proof majority. There are sixty Democrat senators. If Democrats are united on an issue, Republicans are powerless to prevent cloture thus mandating a vote.
However, in order to be competitive in more conservative states, Democrats have had to accept more conservative candidates.
No longer are "Democrat" and "liberal" synonomous. I think your point is that there is not a filibuster proof Liberal majority.
That doesn't make fram an idiot.
One of the realities that is sometimes forgotton is that Conservatives outnumber Liberals 2:1 in America. I know that may be hard you understand since all your friends are Liberals, but it's true.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602
Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either "conservative" (31%) or "very conservative" (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are "liberal" and 5% who say they are "very liberal."
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:17am
And both he and McCain voted for TARP, so what was really the difference between them again?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 08:54am
Justice Sotomayer
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:20am
"That's not true. Obama presented himself as much more of a moderate than he is turning out to be. "-------Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 08:54am
Really???
Could you name some of his pre-election moderate positions that you agreed with?
Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 09:23am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:17am
BTW, Darin, something you probably would NOT consider about that poll....
60% of Americans do NOT want to be identified as conservatives either.
(I know, I know..he's got me on Ignore.)
Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 09:25am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:20am
True enough. Souter wouldn't have retired, though, had McCain won the election, I think.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 09:25am
There are sixty Democrat senators.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:17am
Sixty-one if you include Specter. There are 60 that were elected as Democrats.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:25am
Sixty-one if you include Specter. There are 60 that were elected as Democrats.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:25am
Well, 59 that were elected, and one that was close enough to steal the seat after 6 months.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/18/2009 @ 09:27am
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 08:34am
Paul's position is no different from mine since I and most theologians are in complete agreement with Paul. It is instead your lack of understanding as I have repeatedly stated of basic hermeneutics, and Biblical Greek.
I have explained this to you previously on the requirement for intimacy. I begin by framing it with 1 Corinthians 16:22
"If anyone does not love the Lord, that person is cursed. Our Lord, come!"
There are 3 words in the greek used at that time for love, eros (physical or erotic love), agape (the self sacrficing love), and phileo (the love of an intimate bond of friendship). This verse uses phileo to describe the mandate that Jesus Himself called us to. Cursed is anathema which clearly describes a state of rejection.
I will post the series of passages I have posted before where Jesus describes what a relationship with Him will be like for all believers. BTW, logically, the absence of a such a relationship means that someone stands in a different state of relationship with G-d. That would be a status of accursed (anathema).
Lambert Dolphin and Ray Stedman do an excellent job of addressing a number of aspects to the requirement for a personal and intimate relationship
http://ldolphin.org/bornagain.htm
more to follow and apologies to others not interested in Thrawns questions.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 09:34am
Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 09:23am
Transparency in govn't and limitations on revolving door for former officials and lobbyists. Tax credits for job creation.
I'd need to look up others at this point. And on an emotional level, you must admit, Obama talks a great game. He came across as very level and reasonable. A lot's gone on since Sept. Also, Mask, you recall the divisiveness of the Bush years. Even I grew weary of the negativity in the media and culture.
So my statement in Sept wasn't mendacious, as you claim. But it certainly was indeed stupid, so I can see why you like to rub it in my face.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 09:44am
continued response to Thrawn
Spurgeon does an excellent job of explaining the "all"
<"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts--some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).>
So, back to your position on all; As Dolphin and Lambert note, Jesus made it clear who are the ones that enter the kingdom of heaven. The verse you cite in 1 Corinthians 15:22 is further explained by the verse following in line with Matthew 7:21-23.
Jesus said not everyone enters the kingdom, not even those who did miracles in His name, but those who did His will.
He repeats this theme in the parable of the maidens and their oil lamps in Matthew 25, telling the maidens who did not keep oil in their lamps (representative of the Holy Spirit), to depart, that He does not know them. Here the greek form of know is eidon which deals with perceptive knowledge. Jesus is declaring to them that in effect, they are strangers to Him.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 09:55am
More to Thrawn on his questions
Here are passages which speak to Jesus describing what the relationship will be between He and all who believe and trust in Him. (all translations here from the Amplified Bible)
John 14:21-23
The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who [really] loves Me; and whoever [really] loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I [too] will love him and will show (reveal, manifest) Myself to him. [I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him.]
Judas, not Iscariot, asked Him, Lord, how is it that You will reveal Yourself [make Yourself real] to us and not to the world?
Jesus answered, If a person [really] loves Me, he will keep My word [obey My teaching]; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home (abode, special dwelling place) with him.
John 16:13-14
But when He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the Truth (the whole, full Truth). For He will not speak His own message [on His own authority]; but He will tell whatever He hears [from the Father; He will give the message that has been given to Him], and He will announce and declare to you the things that are to come [that will happen in the future].
He will honor and glorify Me, because He will take of (receive, draw upon) what is Mine and will reveal (declare, disclose, transmit) it to you.
The resurrected Christ promise to those who believe; Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears and listens to and heeds My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will eat with him, and he [will eat] with Me
Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 10:00am
I don't doubt Mr. Nichols sincere commitment to this issue, but I think he's making the same mistake the left has made throughout this struggle. By rejecting half a loaf, we get nothing.
Whether or not millions of people get access to health care, whether or not preexisting conditions are banned makes a huge difference in the concrete lives of people who are suffering now. Denying us even that minimal change would be unconscionable.
I agree, without a public option I do not see how costs can be contained. But that can be the next fight. Once we get everyone insured without discrimination against the sick and disabled, then try to take it away from them. It will be as impossible as eliminating Medicare.
Since the 19th century leftists have reasoned that reform is a trap because it shores up a fundamentally bad system and makes real change impossible. Well the revolution hasn't come and it isn't coming. Real change is made in the trenches fighting and clawing for every inch of ground.
To suggest we'd be better off coming back and addressing health care again in another 10 or 20 years is wrong headed. Doing nothing will sentence millions to unnecessary suffering and in some cases death. Get what we can, then prepare for the next fight.
Posted by redzeno2 at 08/18/2009 @ 10:36am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 10:00am </i>
I first of all wonder whether the first translation from John can be correct, because what is described there is indistinguishable from works-based salvation. It is a love based specifically on keeping the commandments, i.e. fulfilling a set of works.
Moving to the "all" question, though, I don't think the Spurgeon analysis really applies. He says that "all" means different things in different contexts, but I don't think that works for the verses in Paul I cited for a couple of reasons:
1) Spurgeon's analysis only applies if there is a strong prior reason to think that an unqualified "all" means something other than its plain, natural meaning.
2) I'm not aware of any situations in which Paul uses the word "all," with no prior caveat of "all Gentiles" or "all Christians," and still means something less than "all human beings."
3) Spurgeon's analysis certainly doesn't apply to the specific verses of Paul I cite. Paul is plainly constructing parallel relationships between the first half of a statement in the second half, which means that "all" has the same class of referents in both halves. The first halves of both plainly refer to all people, which means the second halves must as well.
Here is another thought for you. What about the thief on the cross? All the thief said was "this man doesn't deserve what he's getting." At no point did he say "he's God," and there's certainly no indication that he made any confession whatsoever of Jesus Christ as Lord or followed his commandments during his life. In short...he met none of the tests you lay out. And yet...Jesus turns to him and unmistakably says "today, you will be with me in paradise."
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 10:39am
"Transparency in govn't and limitations on revolving door for former officials and lobbyists. Tax credits for job creation."---Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 09:44am
So on the basis of that (and the stuff you'll have to "look up")....you "didn't rule out" Obama over McCain and overlooked the OTHER stuff Obama was saying that was less "moderate"?
Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 11:00am
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 10:39am
It is not works based love. It is the genuinness of the love. This seems to be such a stumbling block for you in understanding the nature of G-d and the plan of redemption in Christ.
Peter addresses this issue to explain why believers endure trials. It is says Peter to prove out the genuine nature of our faith. It separates those who truly believe and trust in Jesus from those who merely profess it.
Spurgeons explanation is dead on correct. He thoroughly shows how all doesn't necessary mean all people. And Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians that you cite is explained in the verses following as that all who trust in Christ are those raised at the rapture. Not all mankind.
All the rest of mankind will be resurrected at the judgment, including those who die during the tribulation. They will then enter into their judgment, either heaven or hell.
There are simply too many passages dealing with many going to hell for you to have any legitimate theological position of universal salvation.
As to the thief on the cross, you leave out an important point. The thief confessed Jesus as Lord (Luke 23:42)
Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:11am
Trial is over Mask. I've nibbled all the bait off your hook.
I suppose the good news here for all of us is that in 2012 Obama will actually have a record. (Downside being his very own body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
And "Without a robust public option, what the Obama administration and compromised Democrats in the House and Senate are talking about is not "healthcare reform."
So, no healthcare reform. Troops dying in the ME. Trillions to Wall Street with nothing to show. A possible middle class tax hike. Deficits that make Bush look prudent. A very divided electorate...
Well, at least he appointed Sotomayor!
I think the real harsh dilemma for the hard left might be figuring out how they throw Obama under the bus without appearing racist!
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/18/2009 @ 11:33am
I am continually astonished that so many passionate commentators, here and at all other on-line dialogues, respond in secrecy - cloaking their identities in eccentric soubriquets. Are you not serious about the views you publish or ashamed of who you are? So at the outset let me provide my identity (Bill Cohen), location (99 Brown Hill Rd, Bow, NH) and profile: my background is in accounting, property analysis and affordable housing. I work as an independent contractor so rely on my wife's job for our family health insurance. I strongly favor a single-payer solution; for efficiency, universality of coverage and the economy it will yield by decreasing administrative tasks. Nonetheless, I am concerned that a single decision-making national healthcare entity would not possess that great soup of private know-how that enables a pure capitalistic market to acquire a universality of information that enables optimal decision making. However, what we now have in private health insurance is remote from a pure capitalistic market and is closer to a corporist system. Reliance on President Obama to direct a path to healthcare reform may prove wasted, as he may not be the man we thought we elected. As evidence: his recent sidestep from the public option; continuing to contract with Blackwater; an appetite for signing statements; defending "don't ask, don't tell" in court; massive troop employment in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end goals announced; no restoration of the CDBGs cut by Bush; and sadly no plans for a renewal New Orleans.
Posted by cohen5747 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:47pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:11am</i>
Hearing no objections to the parallel paths of discussion, I guess I'll continue with some line-by-line analysis.
Any standard which relies upon good deeds is by definition works-based. Following the commandments CANNOT be a standard for getting into heaven...because no one does or can meet that standard. Paul himself said "the things I do not want to do, I do." This is why you either have a system entirely based on grace or entirely based on works; no middle-ground is rationally conceivable. If your position is to prevail, you have to establish that God is either unwilling or unable to save a single person who does not become a Christian before the heart monitor flatlines. I do not defend universal salvation, as I said; I said that salvation belongs to all except for those that choose to reject the offer.
Moreover, your explication of 1 Corinthians is simply false; I have gone back through the chapter and nowhere have I found the clarification you describe. Not only that, it would be extremely difficult since the statement itself is not ambiguous. It's a clear analogy; the first part really means "all" so the second must as well. Nowhere in the following verses does Paul EVER say that only those who believed in him and confessed him as Lord will be in heaven. The clear implication of Paul's statements is that no one who goes to hell does so as punishment for their sins.
Here's the interesting kicker: even YOU don't believe that only Christians can be saved; you don't believe that everyone who came before Jesus is automatically going to be in hell. Their informational situation is no different from someone who lived halfway across the world during Jesus' life, or even many people today.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 2:42pm
Bill, can we look at the positive side? saving the financial system from meltdown? addressing the health care fiasco? restoring civility in the world at large? talking and best of all listening to our friends and adversaries?
I think the glass is half full.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 2:44pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 2:44pm </i>
Yeah; you have to look at the entire picture. Though I've heard analyses saying that a second wave of foreclosures is approaching, I think there's at least some indicators that Obama's moves have had a positive effect on the economy.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 2:42pm
I find it interesting that you ignore the words of Jesus, when He makes it clear that even doing miracles and calling Him Lord is not sufficient to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Yet as I've said repeatedly and most of Christian theology shares my view over the centuries, this is not a contradiction with grace. The evidence of salvation is marked by our fruit. The fruit doesn't earn us salvation, it demonstrates that our conversion was real.
Nowhere have I said that following the commandments gets you into heaven.
Your conclusion that I must somehow defend a position I do not hold that G-d is either unwilling or unable to save a non believer before death is frankly ludicrous. Mankind rejects G-d, mankind deserves death. These are the facts, not your strange conjecture. G-d is able to save anyone who comes to Him. However the fact is that most do not. One of the problems with your attempt to have this very strange theology which has few adherents, seems to be your rejection of Jesus as "G-d in the flesh". Jesus clearly said that NO ONE comes to the Father, except through HIM. John and Paul are consistent with each other in proclaiming that Jesus is the express image of the invisible G-d to mankind.
And Jesus clearly made a large number of statements, some of which I have posted making it clear that it is not enough to simply say you believe. Your actions must reflect the reality of your words, as either truly saved, or truly deceived (or deceiving).
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 5:41pm
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 2:42pm
Contrary to what you claim the passage in 1 Corinthians is quite clear. However I would add that you seem to fail to put all scripture into it's context with other scripture. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 13:5 Paul calls upon believers to examine themselves to see whether their relationship with Christ is genuine or they have disqualified themselves; To put the passage into even greater context, you merely have to go to 1 Thessalonians 4 to see that those who are raised up are those who are in Christ. Chapter 5 then comforts those who are in Christ as being separate from those who remain in darkness and subject to the wrath to come (the great tribulation).
Then proceeding further to answer your question, Paul makes a clear distinction of groups in 2 Thessalonians 1. There are the fellow believers who suffer for the kingdom (as Christ called us into); there are then those who reject Christ, and those who claim Him but do not obey Him (2 Thess 1:8).
More commentaries with the same theological position as mine
http://tinyurl.com/n7mrjy
http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bb1cor12.html
Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 5:44pm
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 2:42pm
And in this commentary on 1 Cor 15:22,23
<For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, etc. All the race in Adam became subject to death; so in Christ all the race shall be raised from the dead to appear at the bar of eternal judgment. The passage does not affirm the final salvation of all, but the final resurrection of all. There is a "resurrection of the just and of the unjust." 23. But each in his own order. In his own rank or division. The first order or division is Christ. The second division is "they that are Christ's," who will be raised at his coming. The time of the third division, the wicked, is not named, but hinted at in the beginning of the next verse (verse 24). "All that are in the grave shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." John 5:28, 29. This is what Paul teaches here.>
http://tinyurl.com/pvn2nr
Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 5:45pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 5:41pm </i>
First, an overview. The binary I place on you is not "ludicrous," it is logically necessary. There are only two possible reasons why God would not save someone: lack of power or lack of willingness. The underlying reasoning seems relatively straightforward: the only reason you refrain from taking an action is if you are either incapable of doing so or simply unwilling to do so. That dichotomy can be used to analyze any action, so it clearly applies here. For your position to hold, then, God must be either unwilling or unable to save non-Christians. I've yet to see any compelling argument to make either coherent.
So let's go to the words of Jesus, because I think they're actually quite interesting. First, the "no one comes to the Father except through me" is very easy to deal with. Being saved by Jesus and being saved by BELIEF in Jesus are distinct concepts; the only one that follows inescapably from John 14:6 is the former, NOT the latter. Second, the oil in lamps story is actually rather interesting. Honestly, I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. To begin with, it seems to have nothing to do with belief. Arguably, the flaw with the unprepared virgins wasn't that they didn't have enough oil, but that they left to buy more rather than just staying there anyway. It seems to clearly preference readiness...but I don't think that proves your position.
John also doesn't say what you're implying he says, namely that the Father only loves those who are Christians. If that's actually true, God hates those who are not Christian, and that's plainly false. So those passages can't mean what you seem to imply they do. Also...God not making an abode with someone doesn't mean they go to hell, I don't think.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 9:07pm
On the Revelation passage, this and some like it have a wide variety of interpretations on how far they reach. Is it only those who explicitly affirm the name of Christ who hear his call and respond? Or can someone respond without entirely realizing it?
Let's go to Corinthians, because I don't think that the analysis works. Moreover, even if you're right about what Paul said, the argument he seems to develop seems pretty compelling. Why does he mention Adam? Because Adam was the foundation of original sin. Why mention Adam in the same analogical context as Christ? Because of the Atonement. The idea is that by dying on the cross, Christ took ALL (not some and not provisionally, ALL) of the sin of the world upon himself and bore it. That's why he's called the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. If the penalty for sin has already been paid, it's already been paid. Whatever hell is, then, it's not a punishment for sin. If it is, the atonement was only partial.
You missed the point about those born before Christ. At the very least, if impossibility of hearing the gospels matters then, it also matters for people in distant lands.
One other thought: Scripture clearly tears the predestination/"predestined partial Atonement" theory to ribbons. When Paul says "...so He may be merciful to all," that at least means that there was no one who from the beginning was predestined for hell. An Atonement limited by predestination is the only way I know of for a punitive hell to make sense with the atonement, and since it's clearly false...I'm not sure what your position becomes.
I freely admit that some of these passages are hard, and that you make a lot of good points. At the end of the day, my faith in a gracious God makes it extremely hard to buy your position.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/18/2009 @ 9:15pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 5:45pm </i>
First of all, I think the "just and unjust" thing is interesting given Jesus' description of a banquet to which the "good and the bad" alike are invited.
Second, it took me a little while to realize just how bad this "life=resurrection of SOME FORM" argument is. The problem, as I see it, comes down to what the definition of "death" (in, for example, "the wages of sin is death")is in this passage. Either way, I think there are issues.
One possibility is that it literally means dying, i.e. losing consciousness forever. The implication of that is pretty stunning: before Christ, the punishment for sin was just that you die. NOW, it's worse: it's INFINITE. If death was the just punishment, infinite punishment is then, by definition, ridiculously cruel.
The other possibility is that death is used as a stand-in for hell. If that's what the passage means, then my view is true by definition. If "being made alive" means "going to heaven," the passage literally declares universal salvation (which, ironically, is even further than I would go).
I don't think the former meaning is really right because it makes the passage make no sense. The whole reason Adam and Christ are put in there to begin with is that according to Paul, Adam introduced original sin and Christ absolved it; Christ literally undid sin not by removing it from the world, but by taking the full penalty for it. If the full penalty has been paid, then the full penalty has been paid...meaning there's nothing left to pay.
If I remember right, JP Moreland in the Case for Faith says hell is a monument to free choice. The only way that makes sense is if the ONLY way to lose heaven is to turn it down.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/19/2009 @ 11:10am
emile duBois
Are you just stupid, or a chump as you like to call people? Are you just another blind obama ass kisser who cannot see the person for what he truly is, a fraud, a poser!!! He was my Senator and he did nothing special. You are just another follower, not a leader. The Democrats need a strong leader, not a coward.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/21/2009 @ 08:00am