Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs President Obama prepares to deliver a Wednesday address to Congress that must reframe the debate about healthcare reform, he is getting plenty of advice and counsel with regard to messaging.
Plenty of folks will tell the president that he cannot change course, that he simply needs to offer a better explanation of what's on offer.
Wrong.
The fact is that the president must change course.
And the wisest counsel on how to do so has come from New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Don't try to explain the "public option" one more more time.
The cure for what ails a healthcare system that leaves close to 50 million Americans uninsured and at least that many underinsured is not an "option."
It is genuine change that makes sense to Americans who are anxious and confused about what might be buried in a 1,000-page House bill or, worse yet, in the backroom where Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, is busy bartering away the public interest.
Instead of listening to the White House aides and advisers -- and congressional compromisers -- who have so ill-served the reform initiative that it is now imperiled, the president should consult a legislator who "gets it."
That would be New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, the Brooklyn Democrat who has emerged as a smart, steady advocate for a change that is realistic and comprehensible.
"As President Obama prepares to address the nation about his vision for healthcare reform, we should not overlook the last, best truly transformative change to our healthcare system: Medicare," argues Weiner, who explains that:
During the eleven town hall meetings I've held around my district, I've had some direct experience with the anxiety this debate has produced. Much of the fear comes from two groups: those who have Medicare and don't want it changed and those who have never had a government-run reimbursement system like Medicare and are worried about the impact it will have on their quality of care.In both cases, a calm, reasoned and vigorous defense of the American single-payer plan is just what the doctor ordered.
The truth is that the United States already uses single-payer systems to cover over 47 percent of all medical bills through Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Understanding that these single-payer health programs are already a major part of our overall healthcare system should help us visualize what an actual public plan would look like. These institutions also provide healthcare to millions of satisfied customers in every community who would heartily agree that the government can build and run programs that work quite well.
Weiner is not merely offering Obama and Democratic leaders a practical proposal. He is telling them how to get out of the political corner in which they placed themselves by trying too hard to satisfy Republican legislators and their insurance-industry paymasters.
"Medicare also provides us with a case study in the hypocrisy of our Republican friends who have built their party on a 44-year record of undermining this popular program. And now their Chairman sees no irony in ripping 'government run' healthcare while publishing an op-ed opposing changes to Medicare, argues Weiner.
"If Medicare has been such a success, why not extend it? Why not have single-payer plans for 55-year-olds? Why not have one for young citizens who just left their parents or college coverage?"
Weiner is not pulling punches.
He argues, correctly, that the president's attempts to answer core questions about reform "have simply not been very convincing."
And the New Yorker suggests that, "The real reason we haven't seen the Democratic Party embrace the obvious and simpler idea is that it boils down to pure beltway politics. We've been reluctant to tackle the real inefficiency in the current system, namely, the very presence of the private insurance companies. Too many in Washington would rather stay friends with the insurance and drug companies when real reform probably can't be achieved in a way that makes these powerful institutions happy."
Noting that insurance companies skim 30 percent profits from the current system in order to satisfy shareholders, Weiner says: "Let's leave it to the Republicans to defend those actions. I, and most Democrats, should not join the chorus that sounds like we care more about insurance companies than taxpayers.
"The same is true for Big Pharma. If Wal-Mart can pool its customers to be able to offer the $4 prescriptions, why shouldn't the federal government drive the same hard bargain on behalf of the tax payers so they too get the best prices under Medicare? I pose this exact question at every town hall meeting I attend and if my colleagues and the President did the same on Wednesday night, they would mix good policy with good politics. Instead we have watched a puzzling dance as policymakers have effectively limited the savings we would find in the enormous drug expenditures that are a fixture in our current system. Is it any wonder citizens are confused?"
Weiner is offering the president a way to address the confusion and to win the biggest domestic policy battle of his tenure:
I have no delusions about the muscle needed to overcome resistance from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. But I believe that for every American we may lose to a slash-and-burn TV ad funded by these businesses, we will gain five among those who are looking for a clear rationale for what we are trying to accomplish and an example for what it may look like.We also achieve something else: realignment of the political universe. Democrats understand the role of government and are proud of our signature achievement: Medicare. The Republicans care most about big business.
I'll take that fight any day. And I'm hoping that the president will tell us on Wednesday that he is willing to do the same.
Anthony Weiner's right.
This is a fight that Barack Obama can win -- not for himself but for the tens of millions of Americans who need healthcare and for the hundreds of millions of Americans who need a better healthcare system.
But he won't win it by taking advice from George Bush: "stay the course."
He will win it by taking the wise counsel of Congressman Weiner and offering America what the people understand and want: "Medicare for All."
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
Would take the winds out of the sails of both the "Keep your Gov't hands off my Medicare" Town Hollerers.....AND the Repubs who now declare that they will "shore up and protect Medicare".
How do they then say "No, Medicare is rotten socialized medicine...keep me away from it!!!!"???
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 10:12am
Let us hope that Obama and the Democrats will not be successful in trading our liberty for massive govt control over our lives-including the forced participation in a Fed govt system.
All of you supporters of this totalitarian proposal-try to explain how this isn't a massive take away of our constitutional freedom?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 10:16am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 10:16am
Keep in mind, Larry hasn't like any "Government interference" since Teddy Roosevelt went trust-busting and forced us all to eat clean food and use safe drugs....and they stopped letting 9 year olds work as canaries in the un-regulated coal mines of Kentucky.
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 10:17am
Besides the issues of freedom and liberty,
Medicare is not the all inclusive coverage that it is made out to be.
the following is from the Medicare guide
<What's NOT Covered by Part A and Part B?
Items and services that Medicare doesn't cover include, but aren't limited to, the following:
Acupuncture.
Chiropractic services (except as listed on page 27).
Cosmetic surgery.
Custodial care, except when you also get skilled nursing care in a skilled nursing facility, at home, or as part of hospice care.
Deductibles, coinsurance, or copayments when you get certain health care services. See pages 120–121 for these amounts. People with limited income and resources may get help paying these costs. See pages 82–84.
Dental care and dentures (with a few exceptions).
Eye exams (routine), eye refractions (exam that measures how well you see at specific distances), and eyeglasses (except as listed on page 30).
Foot care (routine), like cutting corns or calluses (with few exceptions). See page 31.
Hearing aids and exams for the purpose of fitting a hearing aid.
Hearing tests that haven't been ordered by your doctor.
Laboratory tests (screening), except those listed on pages 26–35.
Long-term care. See pages 102–104.
Orthopedic shoes (with few exceptions). See page 29 under Diabetes Supplies.
Physical exams (routine or yearly). Medicare will cover a one‑time physical exam. See page 33.
Prescription drugs (with few exceptions). See page 34. See pages 63–71 for information about Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D).
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 10:19am
Continued-What's NOT Covered by Part A and Part B?
Items and services that Medicare doesn't cover include, but aren't limited to, the following:
Shots to prevent illness, except as listed on pages 30, 31, and 33. Part D must cover all commercially-available vaccines (like the shingles vaccine) except those covered by Part B.
Surgical procedures given in ambulatory surgical centers that aren't included on Medicare's list of ambulatory surgical center covered procedures.
Syringes or insulin. Insulin used with an insulin pump is covered by Part B. Syringes or insulin may be covered by Part D.
Travel (health care while you're traveling outside the United States, except as listed on page 37).
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 10:20am
Nichols:
Medicare (35 million), Medicaid (49 million), Veterans (3.7 million), Iidian health Service (2.0 million), and Defense( 3-7? million) comes to about 97 million people. The Gov't spends about $1T for this population. US population is about 307M. How much do YOU think Medicare for all will cost?
Posted by sntauri at 09/08/2009 @ 11:35am
Nice post Mr. Nichols, / saw the video and this guy is sharp. Fast talking. Clear. Likable.
Tough call, however. How does Obama pull this off, when the media won't let him talk to students without the socialist charge?
In fact the corporate MSM is so happy with itself on this, that even neocon Laura Bush and neocon Newt Gingrich are trying to temper the message!
Obama would never have been elected if he endorsed this. We'd have Hillary or McPain. And if he makes this move now, the MSM would fry him.
If he passes anything with any teeth even without the bloody public option, it will be amazing, and I too will be pissed. But not at Obama.
Said another way,
Q: why is only one obscure congressman getting any play on a solution the public would gobble up of given the chance?
A: Precisely because, the public would gobble this yummy treat up of given the chance.
Posted by winyahn at 09/08/2009 @ 11:47am
IF given the chance
Posted by winyahn at 09/08/2009 @ 11:50am
"How much do YOU think Medicare for all will cost?"
sntauri, it *already* costs way more now than if we had single-payer. way more.
we already spend more on healthcare, under our current system, than any other industrialized country.
don't you understand? people need to see a doctor, sometimes, and for some reasons. and if you don't have insurance, guess who gets the bill? the taxpayers.
currently, we *already* pay for people who don't have insurance. and we pay *way* more for these people than if they were covered under medicare.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:06pm
62% of all bankruptcies in this country are medically-related, and get this, 80% of those people ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.
apparently, the antisocialists and the sntauris and jomammas just want put their fingers in their ears when they hear these brutal statistics.
you know, ok.
let's do it the conservative way: no public services for ANYONE. and no TAXES. period.
ok? let's try that.
but, if we do that, then you can't prance around and call yourself a "patriotic american" . because, if we get rid of the common-good, then there is no country left. there is no patriotism left. there is nothing left but a bunch of gated private estates, a massive private security force, and swarms of impovished, starving, unhealthy people trying to get inside....
that's the kind of country that antisocialist and jomamma want: a walled city, with the rich on the inside, and the poor on the outside.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:10pm
Iidian health Service (2.0 million),
what is that?
you left out gov't employees.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 12:16pm
Iidian health Service (2.0 million),
what is that?
you left out gov't employees.
medicare for all must be paid for by taxes. when you consider the amount businesses pay in health insurance for their employees, they can be persuaded to pay some or all of that in increased taxes. same with people who pay for their insurance themselves, such as I do. they too can hand over those premiums to the gov't in increased taxes.
to create one giant insurer takes advantage of the economy of scale.
it's not as though this thing has not been tried before. cosi fan tutti. they all do it. civilized nations that is.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 12:21pm
Hi Emile, I think that is suppose to be Indian health services'
Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:26pm
"it's not as though this thing has not been tried before"
bon jour, emile
do you actually think that republicans are going to look at the available empirical data on single-payer systems?
i don't.
they have one function, and one function only: to stand on a set of arcane principles, even when they so obviously betray those principles on a daily basis (medicare, medicaid, defense, etc).
today's modern republican is: old, white, straight, rich & stupid.
i'm sorry. but it's true.
they need to grow up and get on board with the rest of civilization. they're like the knuckle-dragging, early hominids of the beltway.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by Denise29 at 09/08/2009 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
a sloppy mind, in more ways than one.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 12:28pm
just to give you an idea of how stupid republicans are, michelle malkin posted a blog yesterday which stated "los angeles fire not started by global warming," and proceeded to pat herself on the back, proving that global warming is a hoax, etc, etc....
ok. how do you explain to someone, as stupid as michelle malkin, that global warming doesn't actually start fires. how do you do that?
global warming can seriously help *spread* fires (which it did, 226 square fucking miles, thanks to serious drought), but it doesn't actually *start* fires.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:31pm
That 30% skim off the top by the insurance profiteers should be understood by even the most addle brained tea party-ite.
But then again, maybe not. These are the people who work off the clock & without benefits in order to keep their jobs & gain the admiration of their employers.
Congressman Weiner's constituents have a very good man. I hope the entire nation is listening to him.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/08/2009 @ 12:36pm
Hooray! It's about time that somebody writing for The Nation finally gets it. Single payer would save money AND cover everyone. The other plans don't make any sense and are just ways of skirting the real issue -- which is that insurance companies skim off 30% of every health care dollar and so we have a very wasteful system.
Posted by oxfeld at 09/08/2009 @ 12:57pm
Hooray! It's about time that somebody writing for The Nation finally gets it. Single payer would save money AND cover everyone. The other plans don't make any sense and are just ways of skirting the real issue -- which is that insurance companies skim off 30% of every health care dollar and so we have a very wasteful system.
Posted by oxfeld at 09/08/2009 @ 12:57pm
"How do they then say "No, Medicare is rotten socialized medicine...keep me away from it!!!!"???"
BECAUSE IT IS BANKRUPT JUST LIKE MEDICADE, SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE POST OFFICE, AMTRAK...YOU NAME IT
BARRY SOTEROS POLL NUMBERS WILL TANK EVEN MORE AFTER TOMMORROW NIGHT BECAUSE REAL AMERICANS ARE VERY TIRED OF HIS MARXIST CLAPTRAP...COUNT ON IT!!!!!!
Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/08/2009 @ 1:03pm
WHAT THE FERAL GRUNTERS REALLY MEAN THEY GO APESHIT:
"Let us hope that Obama and the Democrats will not be successful in trading our liberty for massive govt control over our lives-including the forced participation in a Fed govt system OF CURRENCY (DOLLARS! DIMES! QUARTERS! AND MOST TYRANICAL OF ALL: HALF DOLLARS WITH AN UNASHAMED MARXIST-LENINIST'S BUST IMPRINTED UPON IT. FROM NOW ON, EITHER NO CURRENCY -- OR, RELATVISTICALLY SPEAKING, ONLY CURRENCY THAT BEARS SAINT SARAH'S IMAGE OR THAT OF SPEAKER GINGRICH OR DICK "9-11" & LIZ CHENEY!!!).
All of you supporters of this totalitarian proposal-try to explain how this isn't a massive take away of our constitutional freedom?"
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 10:16a
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/08/2009 @ 1:14pm
Single-payer is efficient as well as decent. Perhaps that is why there is so much hysteria surrounding it. Because something that is so obviously desireable, but will come in between a small minority and the profits that they make off of us being sick, can only be combated with hysteria. The reason Medicare-for-all is a good choice is because it is entirely within our rights. We have a right to life. No insurance company would be able to deny you your right to life and happiness simply because you cannot pay. We also have a right to make choices. It seems strange to me that the hysteria surrounding Single-Payer is that it will greatly limit our choices. As of now, our choices on healthcare are limited to what insurance we have, whether we can pay that insurance, and what practices will take that same insurance. So we are entirely limited based on money. Which some have a lot of, and many do not. Does that mean that those with money are the only ones who deserve efficient healthcare? No. Healthcare is a right for ALL. With out the profit motive and questions of whether or not a family can afford to get a loved on healthcare, citizens can be free of that fear. Single-Payer is cheaper, effective, and humane.
Posted by ragefororderx at 09/08/2009 @ 1:19pm
ragefororderx: "Single-payer is efficient as well as decent. Perhaps that is why there is so much hysteria surrounding it. Because something that is so obviously desireable, but will come in between a small minority and the profits that they make off of us being sick, can only be combated with hysteria."
--forget single payer options. universal health care is the only rational option.
ragefororderx: "The reason Medicare-for-all is a good choice is because it is entirely within our rights. We have a right to life. No insurance company would be able to deny you your right to life and happiness simply because you cannot pay. We also have a right to make choices."
--a consitutional "right to life" only applies to the gov't not putting you to death without cause. a constitutional "right to happiness"?--c'mon, you can't be serious? a constitutional "right to make choices"?--again, are you serious? oh, and by the way, how are your "choices" being infringed now, anyway? what you're arguing for is that all healthcare services should be affordable...I like that idea too, but it's on President and Congress to make that law (preferably with universal health care); there's no constitutional right to affordable health care.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:29pm
Sorry, Mr. Obamnation that makes desolation and Demoncrats but the American voter did NOT elect you to bail the unions out of their $10s of billions of dollars healthcare deficit by laying the burden on American taxpayers just so you could create more unionism which is the real goal!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 1:31pm
ragefororderx: "It seems strange to me that the hysteria surrounding Single-Payer is that it will greatly limit our choices. As of now, our choices on healthcare are limited to what insurance we have, whether we can pay that insurance, and what practices will take that same insurance. So we are entirely limited based on money."
--under the current system that's entirely "fair."--all those drugs and services ain't free. of course, the President and Congress are "free" to pass a law making healthcare affordable for all via universal health care--but don't hold your breath.
ragefororderx: "Which some have a lot of, and many do not. Does that mean that those with money are the only ones who deserve efficient healthcare? No."
--I agree that those who can afford health care aren't the only ones who "deserve" it from a moral standpoint (but in a free market "deserve" simply means what you can pay for)...besides, we have a government who can take it upon themselves to pass universal health care then this won't be an issue anymore. Again, don't hold your breath.
ragefororderx: "Healthcare is a right for ALL."
--it's only a right if the constitution expressly or impliedly says it is: it doesn't expressly say so and you won't find a judge (even the most liberal of judges) who says it's a constitutional right. But the federal gov't (or your state's assembly and governor) can make it a "right" by amending the U.S. constitution (or your state's constitution)--or, they don't even have to go that far; they are well within their power to essentially make healthcare a "right" by passing universal health care laws (nationally or in your state). Yet again, don't hold your breath.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:37pm
ragefororderx: "With out the profit motive and questions of whether or not a family can afford to get a loved on healthcare, citizens can be free of that fear. Single-Payer is cheaper, effective, and humane."
--Universal health care is even better. I want it. You want it. Many want it. Let's not all hold our breaths--the population would thin out in a hurry.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 1:39pm
I know there is no Constitutional right to make choices. I should have worded that better. I really meant from a moral standpoint. I just dont believe that, in ANY case, healthcare should be a for-profit system. I dont see any reason why healthcare should be treated any differently than, say, police or firefighters. Imagine those institutions privatized. Imagine having to buy "Police Insurance" or better yet "Fire Insurance" to the point where, if your house was on fire, the deciding factor on whether or not your house is worthy of saving is determined by money. Imagine your house catches ablaze, so you call your local fire department for help. Alas, they dont carry your insurance. Perhaps the department two towns over can help. Sounds ridiculous right? I view healthcare in a similar fashion. I know this is a highly technical debate, I am simply just trying to give the argument a human face. Or perhaps 40 Million American faces (those who are currently without health insurance). I believe the basic moral arguments have been brushed aside by numbers and statistics. I believe the well-being of the U.S. citizens should always come before profit.
Posted by ragefororderx at 09/08/2009 @ 1:56pm
All of you supporters of this totalitarian proposal-try to explain how this isn't a massive take away of our constitutional freedom?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 10:16am
Medicare is not the all inclusive coverage that it is made out to be.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 10:19am
Maybe your distorted view of single payer as "totalitarian" is not ANYTHING like you make it out to be?
------------
currently, we *already* pay for people who don't have insurance. and we pay *way* more for these people than if they were covered under medicare.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:06pm
that is it in a nutshell.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
" I believe the well-being of the U.S. citizens should always come before profit."
i'll take that a step further and say that if you don't believe in the above words, then you really can't call yourself an American.
if we all just wanna live here, and not take care of each other, then what's the point of calling ourselves American? why don't we just say, "mine is mine, and yours is yours" and just forget any concept of America?
but if we are, indeed, part of a Nation called America, the richest and most powerful on Earth, then why don't we act like we give a shit about each other?
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
ragefororderx: "I know there is no Constitutional right to make choices. I should have worded that better."
--fair enough. glad you acknowledged that; because many on the left are calling it a "right" and I believe that only weakens the case for universal health care.
ragefororderx: "I really meant from a moral standpoint. I just dont believe that, in ANY case, healthcare should be a for-profit system."
--I'm ok with drug companies, doctors, medicine/disease researchers of all stripes making money; but it's too costly for far too many people who use those services; and it's well within the federal government's power to create universal health care and make those services much more affordable (i.e., our tax dollars essentially become the insurance company). Make no mistake, this is a form of wealth spreading. It's dishonest to pretend it's not. But it's for the good of our country (just like spreading tax dollars to build missles and ships and buy guns and bullets is for "the good of our country")
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:36pm
ragefororderx: "I dont see any reason why healthcare should be treated any differently than, say, police or firefighters."
--agreed. or the military.
ragefororderx: "Imagine those institutions privatized. Imagine having to buy "Police Insurance" or better yet "Fire Insurance" to the point where, if your house was on fire, the deciding factor on whether or not your house is worthy of saving is determined by money."
--agreed. don't forget the military!
ragefororderx: "Imagine your house catches ablaze, so you call your local fire department for help. Alas, they dont carry your insurance. Perhaps the department two towns over can help. Sounds ridiculous right?"
--yes it does! but i'll make that trade and buy some hoses and a big old vat of water if I can buy that stuff with tax dollars I take back from wars our military fights that I don't support! oh, wait, that's unamerican!
ragefororderx: "I view healthcare in a similar fashion. I know this is a highly technical debate, I am simply just trying to give the argument a human face. Or perhaps 40 Million American faces (those who are currently without health insurance). I believe the basic moral arguments have been brushed aside by numbers and statistics. I believe the well-being of the U.S. citizens should always come before profit."
--people who provide services deserve to make money. my father's a retired policeman. he's not poor. but he would be if there was a 3rd party that charged the town for police services and took a huge chunk of the department's income...that 3rd party in the medical field, is, of course, the insurance companies.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 2:42pm
I have been with Kaiser for years, and I am still with them through Medicare. Kaiser is a non-profit provider, but there are a number for Profit Health health providers harassing me for my business. Medicare does not own any hospitals or employee any doctors who deal with the public. You can pick your own doctor or private plan. I have already communicated with my elected representatives on this subject.
Posted by pjcasey at 09/08/2009 @ 2:58pm
I have been with Kaiser for years, and I am still with them through Medicare. Kaiser is a non-profit provider, but there are a number for Profit Health health providers harassing me for my business. Medicare does not own any hospitals or employee any doctors who deal with the public. You can pick your own doctor or private plan. I have already communicated with my elected representatives on this subject.
Posted by pjcasey at 09/08/2009 @ 2:58pm
let's do it the conservative way: no public services for ANYONE. and no TAXES. period.
ok? let's try that.
but, if we do that, then you can't prance around and call yourself a "patriotic american" . because, if we get rid of the common-good, then there is no country left. there is no patriotism left. there is nothing left but a bunch of gated private estates, a massive private security force, and swarms of impovished, starving, unhealthy people trying to get inside....
that's the kind of country that antisocialist and jomamma want: a walled city, with the rich on the inside, and the poor on the outside.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:10pm
I dont see any reason why healthcare should be treated any differently than, say, police or firefighters.
Posted by ragefororderx at 09/08/2009 @ 1:56pm
I have not seen anyone argue that there is no place for govt services. What we argue for is the Constitution, otherwise known as the rule of law.
The US Constitution does not provide for the authority for Congress to legislate health services.
State and local govts have that authority.
So I agree with Rageforordex that healthcare should be treated the same way as police or firefighters.
We take care of those services at the state and local level as the Constitution dictates.
So why do you liberals want to treat healthcare differently than police and firefighters?
Despite Darla's usual hyperbole, we are not advocating class warfare. That is what Darla and the left are engaged in.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 3:23pm
"So why do you liberals want to treat healthcare differently than police and firefighters? "- ANTI
Economies of scale.
Transferability.
If we allowed it to be run by the states it most likely would be like police in Ann Arbor compared to police in New Orleans. They both are policing agencies, but the ones in A2 come with better service, no bribes, less racsim and good wages.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm
--a consitutional "right to life" only applies to the gov't not putting you to death without cause.
bullshit. I'll say it again: bullshit.
who died and left you to interpret the constitution for us?
incidentally, the constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't guarantee you will catch it.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm
Maybe your distorted view of single payer as "totalitarian" is not ANYTHING like you make it out to be? ------------ currently, we *already* pay for people who don't have insurance. and we pay *way* more for these people than if they were covered under medicare.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:06pm
that is it in a nutshell.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 2:07pm
It is totalitarian govt when you are forced to have taxes taken to pay for a service that should be voluntary in a free nation and that you do not wish to use.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 3:59pm
Also, we have local police, State Police, Federal Marshals, the FBI, the CIA, DEA, INS and other federal "socialized" law enforcement agencies.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 3:59pm
It is totalitarian govt when you are forced to have taxes taken to pay for a service that should be voluntary in a free nation and that you do not wish to use.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 3:59pm
So the USA has been totalitarian since the forming of congress?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 4:01pm
Economies of scale.
Transferability.
If we allowed it to be run by the states it most likely would be like police in Ann Arbor compared to police in New Orleans. They both are policing agencies, but the ones in A2 come with better service, no bribes, less racsim and good wages.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm
Where in the constitution does it state an obligation to ensure "economies of scale"?
Same for transferability?
And if you really cared about competitition like the left currently states, let people migrate to the states that reflect the level and cost of healthcare services that meets their own determination.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:02pm
I never knew that people that don't drive were at the mercy of totalitarian tax policies. And that people without kids, like me, that pay property taxes for school funding were living in a totalitarian state.
This is a truly distorted view of the world.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 4:04pm
It is totalitarian govt when you are forced to have taxes taken to pay for a service that should be voluntary in a free nation and that you do not wish to use.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 3:59pm
So the USA has been totalitarian since the forming of congress?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 4:01pm
What personal choice services were imposed via mandatory taxation of wages by the Federal govt when it was formed?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:05pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 3:23pm </i>
Interesting...so you're in favor of this "socialist" move...so long as it's limited to the state level? If you're making the analogy to firefighters and police, that seems to be the clear direction of your argument.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/08/2009 @ 4:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:02pm
where in the constitution does it say that the FBI can look at my library records without telling me or allowing the library to seek legal counsel?
Where does it say that the federal govt can wiretap my phone without a warrant?
Where does it say that mercenaries paid by the US govt can be used to guard private individuals in a war zone?
You were for these things, you found ways to get around the constitutionality of those programs, heck, you even applauded them.
Where does it say that Medicare should exist at all? Yet it does. And it works. And people like it.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 4:08pm
me: "a consitutional "right to life" only applies to the gov't not putting you to death without cause."
emiledubois: "bullshit. I'll say it again: bullshit. who died and left you to interpret the constitution for us? incidentally, the constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't guarantee you will catch it."
--who died and appointed you dictator of The Nation?
save your hyperbole for someone who's new here and buys your "do as I say but not as I do" method of posting.
you come on these threads and declare things all the time, and of course, often what you're declaring as fact or truth is really just your opinion; but it's ok (to you) when you do it. other people do it; they're "offenders" of posting etiquette or some b.s. you make up when you merely disagree with the content of the post...which segues to...i'm not interpreting the constitution, i'm passing along my knowledge from reading the document and how it's been interpreted by people whose intepretation of the document matters (i.e. judges).
do you know of a different meaning of "right to life" from the constitution? if so, please share.
and the constitution does guarantee the pursuit of happiness (why you brought this up I don't know), but since you did...I wonder if anyone in the history of this country has ever successfully sued the gov't for preventing them from "pursuing happiness"....hmmm...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:10pm
--a consitutional "right to life" only applies to the gov't not putting you to death without cause.
they would have said so if that was their intention.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 4:15pm
the gov't not putting you to death without cause.
we had this right long before the constitution. it's called habeas corpus.
you are not nearly intelligent enough to wrestle with me, as you have repeatedly shown.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 4:17pm
Santi- If we say the state of Minnesota,for example has the constitutional right to legislate health services I have two separate points of view for you. The state could then have a public option insurance plan. It could tax people to pay for it and you would find it acceptable. My second part is would you agree with our governor to remove 35000 of the poorest and mentally unstable from the plan so it could save money. I guess that was "class warfare" practiced by our Republican governor.
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:19pm
Interesting...so you're in favor of this "socialist" move...so long as it's limited to the state level? If you're making the analogy to firefighters and police, that seems to be the clear direction of your argument.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/08/2009 @ 4:08pm
No, I've answered this before.
I'm not in favor of any healthcare system, private or public.
All I've stated is that it is within the constitutional authority of the states to implement healthcare services if their citizenry wish to do so.
And in answering another blogger's question why it should be different, I merely noted agreement that it should not be different (federal vs state and local). Police and Fire protection are constitutionally and most efficiently determined at the state and local levels.
Healthcare services likewise are not considered essential to the continuation of the Republic itself and thus are the province of individuals and the states as indicated by the 10th amendment.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:24pm
...incidentally, the constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't guarantee you will catch it.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
People catch all kinds of things while pursuing happiness...
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:26pm
where in the constitution does it say that the FBI can look at my library records without telling me or allowing the library to seek legal counsel?
Where does it say that the federal govt can wiretap my phone without a warrant?
Where does it say that mercenaries paid by the US govt can be used to guard private individuals in a war zone?
You were for these things, you found ways to get around the constitutionality of those programs, heck, you even applauded them.
Where does it say that Medicare should exist at all? Yet it does. And it works. And people like it.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 4:08pm
1. wiretaps-4th amendment as upheld by SCOTUS which says that not all searches without warrants are unreasonable.
2. Mercenaries-Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution-Letters of Marque and Reprisal, used to authorize private mercenaries since President Washington
3. I am against Medicare as unconstitutional and believe it should be ended. Liking something does not make it constitutional.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:29pm
Noting that insurance companies skim 30 percent profits from the current system in order to satisfy shareholders, Weiner says:
That is stunning ignorance.
He is implying that health insurance has a 30% profit margin. How can anyone will themself to believe such a ridiculous statistic is possibly correct.
30% of liberals are cop killers.
30% of union teachers sodimize the children of Republicans.
30% of Democrat voters never hold a job and spend their entire lives on welfare.
None of my three examples is half as ridiculous as Weiner's claim.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 4:30pm
If we allowed it to be run by the states it most likely would be like police in Ann Arbor compared to police in New Orleans. They both are policing agencies, but the ones in A2 come with better service, no bribes, less racsim and good wages.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And, the parking tickets in Ann Arbor are way the hell cheaper!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:32pm
incidentally, the constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't guarantee you will catch it.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 3:57pm
No, the Declaration of Indepences declares the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right.
The Consitituion guarantees freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, of association, to be secure in one's papers, equal protection, The right to bear arms, etc.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 4:33pm
Santi- If we say the state of Minnesota,for example has the constitutional right to legislate health services I have two separate points of view for you. The state could then have a public option insurance plan. It could tax people to pay for it and you would find it acceptable. My second part is would you agree with our governor to remove 35000 of the poorest and mentally unstable from the plan so it could save money. I guess that was "class warfare" practiced by our Republican governor.
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:19pm
As I've noted to others, my statement on constitutionality does not equate to promotion of such a policy.
the states have the right to pass laws mandating maximum highway speeds of 25 miles per hour on state highways. But I don't think I would like such a law as that. Yet they have the constitutional right to do so.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:35pm
Santi -that is a total dodge of the question which I realize was unfair but the point is are we going to sit at the edge of the property and argue about Constitutionality? My first question was very clear. In other words you are saying "NO". On a different subject,Libs are Freaks guy,please get back to the proper level of medication.
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:41pm
emiledubois: "a consitutional "right to life" only applies to the gov't not putting you to death without cause. they would have said so if that was their intention."
--they did. the gov't has to prove a case before it can put you do death. re: habeas corpus; it, like many laws, pre-existed the constituiton, but, of course, the important part is whether or not it was included (it was); and, even more important, that habeas writs fit perfectly with what I said is meant by right to life: i.e., the gov't has to prove their case; and habeas writs--which means a defendant has a right to go in front of a judge--were put in place to prevent the gov't from punishing someone w/out a trial; and they don't just apply, currently or historically, to capital punishment crimes. see, your deal is you thought I wouldn't know this stuff--how wrong you were (and so often are)
emiledubois: "you are not nearly intelligent enough to wrestle with me, as you have repeatedly shown."
--oh, right, that's how it works with you, I almost forgot: you declare yourself a "winner" and someone who disagrees with you is "stupid" and suddenly, magically, it is so! i love, love, love that "debate" tactic--declare yourself a winner even though you can't possibly be neutral since you're a participant!
who died and made you the Judge?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 4:49pm
Debunking another Leftist Lie about Health Insurance Company Profits
<Noting that insurance companies skim 30 percent profits from the current system in order to satisfy shareholders, Weiner says: >
<In the early 1990s, health insurers spent more than 90 cents of every dollar collected on patient care, but that has been declining. In 2007, national publicly-traded health companies spent about 81 cents of every dollar on patient care, according to a PriceWaterhouseCoopers report.
It points to the industry's ranking as 35th on Fortune's report on most profitable sectors returning a 2.2% profit in 2008. (In 2006, the sector ranked 21st and averaged a 7.1% profit.)>
http://tinyurl.com/na9x3q
Looking at the data, only one health insurance company had a profit of more than 5% in 2008, and that was a very small company.
http://tinyurl.com/kkmobr
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 4:50pm
One thing that drives most of the opposition to real health care reform is the idea that the health insurance industry would no longer have a place in the system. That isn't actually true.
Most people who qualify for Medicare also purchase supplemental plans from the companies, which are highly regulated by the government. The plans must offer specific benefits, and the claims are passed on to the company after Medicare pays their share, eliminating the paperwork. If everyone in this country was covered by Medicare, most of us would buy a supplemental policy, too.
The insurance giants might not make as much profit on these plans, but they certainly make enough to encourage them to offer them to their older customers. If there was no profit, they wouldn't bother to sell these plans. Since the administration costs of these policies are so low (you don't even need a calculator to pay the claims, the customer service reps actually understand the contracts, and there's no underwriting department) the companies might actually make a handsome profit on these policies.
What they do lose is power and control. And that's the one thing they aren't willing to give up without a fight. Even if it turns out, in the end, to be in their best interest.
Posted by artistforhealth at 09/08/2009 @ 5:02pm
emiledubois: "incidentally, the constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't guarantee you will catch it."
darinthebigfattroll: "No, the Declaration of Indepences declares the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. The Consitituion guarantees freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, of association, to be secure in one's papers, equal protection, The right to bear arms, etc."
-- woah, looks like emiledubois is "not nearly intelligent enough to wrestle with darinthebigfattroll, as he has repeatedly shown!"
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 5:03pm
darinthebigfattroll: "No, the Declaration of Indepences declares the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. The Consitituion guarantees freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, of association, to be secure in one's papers, equal protection, The right to bear arms, etc."
what about the right to life bit? tell Sandwich the news too.
I, like many others, conflated the two. mea culpa.
Sandwichboy. you're getting shrill, a fatal mistake in debate.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 5:08pm
Anti, is that profit margin or return on capital?
If it's profit margin, that is misleading. The biggest companies don't "insure". They pay "health insurance" companies to administer claims for a fee of 2% to 3%. At most this would be a 2% to 3% profit, but 90% of that is spent on labor and IT systems.
Because of arcane, technical accounting rules, service contracts don't get counted as revenue, only the fee does, so that would distort any measure of profit margin.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 5:10pm
If these stats are true how did Bill Mcguire accumulate $1.4 Billion in salary and stock options over a 5 year time period from United Health? Were the stock options considered an expense? Premium payments don't sit in the passbook accounts that little people have. Where are all the investment experts that generate the insurance company revenue. You are not saying that these people doing the study missed this too are you. It sounds like the overhead at insurance companies is eating away at their profits. Either that or Bernie Madoff was their investment manager. Santi, I believe you were better served being a spectator in this insurance mess.
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 5:20pm
emiledubois: "what about the right to life bit? tell Sandwich the news too."
--why don't you tell me how I was wrong, since you think so emily?
emiledubois: "I, like many others, conflated the two. mea culpa."
--notice the cushioning the blow of being wrong, rather than simply saying "I was wrong"
emiledubois: "Sandwichboy. you're getting shrill, a fatal mistake in debate."
--yeah, I suppose your ad hominem attacks (like calling my "sandwichboy" rather than urmygyro) aren't "shrill" at all, right emily?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 5:22pm
Anti, is that profit margin or return on capital?
If it's profit margin, that is misleading. The biggest companies don't "insure". They pay "health insurance" companies to administer claims for a fee of 2% to 3%. At most this would be a 2% to 3% profit, but 90% of that is spent on labor and IT systems.
Because of arcane, technical accounting rules, service contracts don't get counted as revenue, only the fee does, so that would distort any measure of profit margin.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/08/2009 @ 5:10pm
Darin, those were reports from Forbes and Morningstar on the Health Insurance Companies (ie, Cigna, Humana, Aetna, etc).
And you may have missed that the reports show they are paying 81% of revenue directly on the costs of healthcare.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 5:24pm
Trivia question (but not a trivial answer):
Who processes Medicare claims?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 5:29pm
What they do lose is power and control. And that's the one thing they aren't willing to give up without a fight. Even if it turns out, in the end, to be in their best interest.
Posted by artistforhealth at 09/08/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Just another marxist wanting all power and control over the lives and deaths of citizens to be at the sole discretion of the bureaucrats of government; what an unamerican, unconsitutional, and entitleist idea.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 5:29pm
Trivia question number 2 (again, not a trivial answer):
What Federal Program has been rated by the GAO as High Risk for undetected Fraud?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 5:31pm
Answer; medicare medicaid approaching $70,000,000,000 in red ink with probably 50% or more in undiscovered fraud!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 5:35pm
Little p- what country did you do a dissertation on that was Marxist? In my 51 years I can't think of a Marxist country. The Soviet bloc wasn't Marxist,it was the ultimate power elite. Same went for Red China. Too bad you got just educated enough to spout off about theories that have never been applied. The group that came closest to being Marxists were our forefathers who were equals because of shared circumstance.
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 5:44pm
emiledubois: "what about the right to life bit? tell Sandwich the news too." --why don't you tell me how I was wrong, since you think so emily?
you assigned it to the constitution. same as I did.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 5:54pm
emiledubois: "what about the right to life bit? tell Sandwich the news too."
me: "why don't you tell me how I was wrong, since you think so emily?"
emiledubois: "you assigned it to the constitution. same as I did."
--yes I did. You made the same exact error I did. Yet you claim superiority (snicker).
But go ahead and tell me how I was wrong about defining what "right to life" meant in the constitution. I've explained it in a couple of posts; you merely claim I'm limiting the definition, that it's broader. Show me how it's broader.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 6:05pm
Little p- Why is your RNC chairman telling "seniors" that the Democrats are going to hurt their" entitlement",Medicare? Is he just a shill for your party or is this the latest short term scam the Republicans are pulling? Wait a minute ,he's just another Marxist wanting power and control. He's un American, he's the RNC chairman ! Sounds like you are mixed up or is it your party. Little p you had better take some time to figure this out.
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 6:06pm
Nice job, Nichols.
Weiner's even better than my Rep., Tammy Baldwin.
It mystifies me that right wingers use freedom talk to deny the superiority of for profit insurance. It's just coded language to defend the indefensible: a system that makes huge profit off of human suffering.
We need to end that with Medicare for All, or there is no reform.
Posted by neaguy at 09/08/2009 @ 6:13pm
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Reading may be a fundamental skill, but comprehension can't be forced, try again!
Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 6:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Like I told you before as an Independent I've no idea what you are talking about?
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:35pm
to deny the superiority of for profit insurance.Posted by neaguy at 09/08/2009 @ 6:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You won't find any majority of rightwingers that disagree with that !
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:37pm
Perhaps the most blatant "disinformation" being promulgated in the health care debate this year is that there are only two choices for American health care: putting the federal government in charge or allowing insurance companies to run the show. While the President, congressional Democrats in charge, and, to a degree, the media have done all they can to shut out Republican ideas, the truth remains that there is a third path, a correct path.
First, all people should have the financial wherewithal to purchase private, personal health plans. As cost is the biggest barrier to coverage, H.R. 3400 employs a hybrid tax structure to ensure that there is no financial reason for a person to go without coverage. Based on factors such as income and family size, the legislation offers tax credits and deductions, which are advanceable and on a sliding scale, so the less wealthy and those without employer-provided plans will be able to purchase coverage.
A true market for Americans to purchase this personal private coverage, however, does not currently exist. For patients to have real choices, we must create a functioning marketplace for all to gain coverage they select. To achieve this, under the Empowering Patients First Act, all Americans would be able to use pre-tax dollars to buy coverage on the open market, leveling the playing field with employer-provided care that already receives this benefit. And to provide Americans greater purchasing power, the legislation allows for robust pooling mechanisms so that people can come together freely to drive down prices.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:41pm
These pools will provide a place for those with pre-existing conditions to find coverage at an affordable price. And there is the opportunity to purchase health insurance across state lines, which is currently barred.
Finally, we cannot fully bring down costs without addressing the runaway medical liability crisis. From exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums to the remarkably expensive practice of defensive medicine, it is my experience that the current culture of litigation costs patients hundreds of billions of dollars. And these costs do nothing to provide better care, but rather serve only as a defense against unyielding personal injury lawyers. H.R. 3400 tackles this problem with the creation of new health courts that trust the expert opinions of medical professionals. When malpractice suits are brought through specialized courts and viewed through the perspective of medically appropriate care, rather than a lottery mentality, we will see a decline in frivolous lawsuits and the need for costly defensive medicine.
*Patients in Charge
But providing access to affordable care only gets us half way to our goal. A 21st century American health care system should put the customer -- the patient -- in charge of the system. To truly transform American health care in a patient-centered way, we must give control and ownership of health coverage to individuals -- to patients.
Currently, most people receive their care from their employer or the government. This makes someone else, not the patient, the customer. H.R. 3400 offers people the option to utilize a system that would put them in charge.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:42pm
This means that employers could provide their workers with the opportunity to purchase the care that best fits their individual needs, rather than just what is offered at work. Building on the new marketplace previously discussed, we can give patients seemingly limitless coverage options. What's more, if a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary would prefer a private, personal plan, they would have the option to move their resources and purchase whatever coverage they believe best suits them and their family. And all of these purchasing decisions will be made easier with the transparency created by new health plan and provider portal websites where patients can compare rates and information about coverage options and treatment.
All of these things give patients choices, portability, and control. And when patients are empowered with the ability to vote with their feet, we will, by necessity, see insurance companies become much more responsive to our personal needs.
Finally, all this can be accomplished without raising taxes a single penny. On top of the cost savings associated with lawsuit abuse reform, greater competition, and reining in waste, our plan is fully paid for by reducing spending, which has gotten way out of control. Instead of growing government, the Empowering Patients First Act says that Washington must once again set priorities in our budget -- just like American families do every single day.
*The Third Path
Rather than a government takeover of medicine or allowing the unsustainable status quo to persist, there is a third path.
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:43pm
No bureaucrat -- one from either the government or an insurance company -- should get between you and your doctor. By empowering patients, we can preserve what is good with our current system and improve what ails it, all without threatening the world class quality of care that we enjoy in America. So the next time the President asks what Republicans want to do for health care, we must all respond: empower patients!
Yea, seems there are some alternatives the socialistic Demoncrats and the Obmanation won't consider!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 6:45pm
And the Trivia answers are
1. <Medicare contracts with regional insurance companies who process over one billion fee-for-service claims per year. In 2008, medicare accounted for 13% (386 billion) of the federal budget. In 2010 it is projected to account for 12.5% (452 billion) of the total expenditures. For the decade 2010-2019 medicare is projected to cost 6.4 trillion dollars or 14.8% of the federal budget for the period.
2. The Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vulnerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems. Fewer than 5% of Medicare claims are audited.>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 7:20pm
Why are the Republicans so in LOCK STEP since the days of GINGRINCH? Because they have found unity to be a winning political strategy.
What other explanation would there be for ultra-free "get outta my face" TAX HATING LIBERTARIANS to be fraternizing with "in your government face" BLEEDING HEART PROLIFERS to be in turn fraternizing with MILITANT 2ND AMENDMENT FREAKS who bring guns to political town hall meetings, who are the in turn fraternizing with CORPORATE GIANT PLUTOCRATS that exploit everyone?
To be fair, many in the Republican party are not the extreme radical faces that we have seen recently, but they are guilty by association. They have accepted this guilt as a means to their own respective end.
It now is time for the Democrats to be in E PLURIBUS UNUM LOCK STEP behind a great bill that will effectively be MEDICARE FOR ALL. If they do not, it is not the left wing of the Democratic Party that will suffer in the next election, but the Blue Dogs who will be attacked as a do nothing Congress.
If however, they vote in LOCK STEP, a good bill will pass and IT WILL WORK! Republicans know this and that is why they are in with such strange bedfellows. MEDICARE FOR ALL WILL WORK GREAT! GUARANTEED! That's why it's extremely popular with old people so far and the Republicans are deathly afraid of this. 20 years from now, the Republicans again will use selective amnesia and fight against another peoples' rights issue and say "DON'T TOUCH MY (insert earlier Democratic program)."
BLUE DOGS BEWARE OF INDEPENDENTS PROMISING RE-ELECTIONS. Look where bipartisanship got Obama this summer. If the Democrats lose the healthcare argument, you will be the first to go & rightly so. Ask Arlen Specter.
TIME HAS COME: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1aMTWdQnzo&feature=fvw
Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 09/08/2009 @ 7:30pm
US News and World report conducted exit interviews during the September 2009 primaries and found that Republicans' IQs are 9 points below that of Democrats.
Why should we listen to the moronic GOP? Forget them - they are irrelevant and maginalized and they hold no American values.
Single Payer today, single payer tomorrow, single payer forever!
Posted by LarryB at 09/08/2009 @ 7:30pm
Oops - that's the September 2008 primaries.
Posted by LarryB at 09/08/2009 @ 7:32pm
"Based on factors such as income and family size, the legislation offers tax credits and deductions, which are advanceable and on a sliding scale, so the less wealthy and those without employer-provided plans will be able to purchase coverage"
hmmm, the government offering MONEY to citizens to buy health insurance?
how is that any different than a doctor/hospital sending the government the bill for a citizen's healthcare?
either way, the government is involved. so when you claim that government should "stay out of healthcare", it rings really, really hollow, now that you offer up this solution.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 7:39pm
"Based on factors such as income and family size, the legislation offers tax credits and deductions, which are advanceable and on a sliding scale, so the less wealthy and those without employer-provided plans will be able to purchase coverage"
--I love the euphamism "less wealthy"..."poor" is more accurate.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:48pm
Regardless of what Mr. Obama does tomorrow, -the- question liberals have to ask themselves is: Why didn't he advocate (even better*) Medicare for everyone from the beginning?
For years now liberals have deluded themselves into believing that switching from Red to Blue leadership is the key to "change we can believe in." If, against all odds, a third option was offered, they helped beat it down (e.g., knocking Ralph Nader as egotistic and blaming him for the Republican win in 2000--if that were true, it might have gotten the Democrats an inch off the dime).
The current Blue leader's "bipartisanship" (definitely to be heard as a double entendre) is a symptom of eight years lost to progressive politics, to opening up a closing political system (one in which money--for campaigns, lobbying, propaganda, the revolving door between government and corporations--overwhelms voting, and "spoiler" can be thrown at agents of change).
"Expect nothing and you'll never be disappointed." Is that what liberals want as their slogan?
Focus on the system. Succeed in changing it (e.g., by getting public financing for public elections) and real change we can believe in will follow.
* for instance, by assuring that premiums are not a barrier, drug prices can be negotiated, long-term care is provided, likewise dental treatment, etc.
Posted by fragen at 09/08/2009 @ 7:48pm
fragen: "Regardless of what Mr. Obama does tomorrow, -the- question liberals have to ask themselves is: Why didn't he advocate (even better*) Medicare for everyone from the beginning?"
--because he's a coward
fragen: "For years now liberals have deluded themselves into believing that switching from Red to Blue leadership is the key to "change we can believe in." If, against all odds, a third option was offered, they helped beat it down (e.g., knocking Ralph Nader as egotistic and blaming him for the Republican win in 2000--if that were true, it might have gotten the Democrats an inch off the dime)."
--leadership takes time; as in, at least two terms. if a person could be president for 3 terms obama would be a coward for at least the first two. incumbency is king.
fragen: "Expect nothing and you'll never be disappointed." Is that what liberals want as their slogan?"
--are you picking on obama? that's not fair here!
fragen: "Focus on the system. Succeed in changing it (e.g., by getting public financing for public elections) and real change we can believe in will follow. * for instance, by assuring that premiums are not a barrier, drug prices can be negotiated, long-term care is provided, likewise dental treatment, etc."
--universal health care is "pie in the sky"...the progressives here are "realists"
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 7:56pm
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 7:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
excellent point, incisive.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 8:05pm
I love how the right wants to put "Patients in Charge" but want to junk the jury system in "Health Courts." So, the public should be trusted in selecting their health care and health care insurance, but not in judging the provision of health care or health care insurance?
Posted by cka2nd at 09/08/2009 @ 8:09pm
US News and World report conducted exit interviews during the September 2009 primaries and found that Republicans' IQs are 9 points below that of Democrats.
Why should we listen to the moronic GOP? Forget them - they are irrelevant and maginalized and they hold no American values.
Single Payer today, single payer tomorrow, single payer forever!
Posted by LarryB at 09/08/2009 @ 7:30pm
Better have your IQ checked mr Lib. There were no primaries in September 2008. Obama and McCain both had their acceptance speeches in August of 2008.
Be careful when you throw mud, it sometimes comes back in your face.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 8:11pm
"Based on factors such as income and family size, the legislation offers tax credits and deductions, which are advanceable and on a sliding scale, so the less wealthy and those without employer-provided plans will be able to purchase coverage"
hmmm, the government offering MONEY to citizens to buy health insurance?
how is that any different than a doctor/hospital sending the government the bill for a citizen's healthcare?
either way, the government is involved. so when you claim that government should "stay out of healthcare", it rings really, really hollow, now that you offer up this solution.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 7:39pm
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 7:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
excellent point, incisive.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 8:05pm
Appears to be two of Larry B's equally challenged friends.
Tax deductions and tax credits are not offering money. The are about letting you keep your own money.
This is a familiar mental shortcoming of some liberals who equate tax cuts and tax reductions as a govt giveaway or other govt expense program rather than the actual fact that it is simply letting people keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY-NOT THE GOVERNMENTS!
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 8:15pm
"The are about letting you keep your own money"
wrong. if the government is giving money *back* to citizens, in the form of tax deductions, then that means only one thing: the government is lowering its own tax revenue.
antisocialist would rather have the citizen give that money to private insurance companies, whose only interest is in protecting the profits of its shareholders.
the government could use that same money more efficiently, as other countries' health systems demonstrate.
but, being "antisocialist," larry is not interested in the available empirical data on public healthcare systems, he is only interested in defending an arcane, failed set of principles.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:12pm
darladoon: "antisocialist would rather have the citizen give that money to private insurance companies, whose only interest is in protecting the profits of its shareholders."
--I agree with you darla on the principle of universal health care; but you can't accuse larry of what you wrote above, because he doesn't want any of his money going to them...his objection is forced participation in a system he doesn't avail himself of. whether that's a fair reason is a different argument, but what you attribute to him above is incorrect.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:14pm
"This is a familiar mental shortcoming of some liberals who equate tax cuts and tax reductions as a govt giveaway or other govt expense program rather than the actual fact that it is simply letting people keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY-NOT THE GOVERNMENTS!"
actually the "familiar mental shortcoming" is that citizens who receive tax reductions or rebates will somehow be able to save money. as soon as these citizens get sick, they'll give it right back to the obviously profit-oriented private insurance companies (who charge way, way more than what the government would charge for the same service).
antisocialist seems to be living under the illusion that since the government is giving people back their money, that these people will somehow not get sick, and therefore save money. wrong. these people will (at some point) get sick, and give it insurance companies, who don't care about anything but profit.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:22pm
brainless hannity actually asked a guest last night: why is profit (in healthcare) a problem?
uh. yo. hannity. think about it.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:23pm
US News and World report conducted exit interviews during the September 2009 primaries and found that Republicans' IQs are 9 points below that of Democrats.
Posted by LarryB at 09/08/2009 @ 7:30pm
Must be all those blacks, browns, high-school drop outs too smart to work....so they vote for pols to take the dumb Republicans' money! I like it!
Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 9:24pm
"...his objection is forced participation in a system he doesn't avail himself of"
there is ultimately "forced participation" in any sort of healthcare system. here is why:
even under our current system (supposedly "unforced participation"), antisocialist will STILL end up footing the bill for: medicare, medicaid, social security, and, most importantly, the bankruptcies incurred from citizens whose healthcare bills sent them under.
there will always be forced participation in the form of taxes incurred on the citizenry.
a single payer system merely spreads the risks across the entire population, thus lowering costs. it's really not that difficult to understand, and other countries who have adopted such systems demonstrate that costs go down. this cannot be disputed.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:27pm
antisocialist seems to be living under the illusion that since the government is giving people back their money, that these people will somehow not get sick, and therefore save money. wrong. these people will (at some point) get sick, and give it insurance companies, who don't care about anything but profit.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--again, he doesn't care; he doesn't avail himself of expensive medical treatment.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:27pm
"--again, he doesn't care; he doesn't avail himself of expensive medical treatment."
huh?
you don't quite get it: either under all private, or all public, everyone foots the bill. everyone.
but under our current system, there are many individuals who are unfairly treated, there are many individuals uncovered, etc, etc....
why not go all public, and lower costs, treat everyone, etc.
sure taxes go up, but then again, the benefits are much greater.
either way, you pay. why not pay less?
apparently, antisocialist would rather pay more, and he's also a fraudulent christian for wishing to preserve a system that doesn't covere everyone...
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:30pm
there is ultimately "forced participation" in any sort of healthcare system. here is why: even under our current system (supposedly "unforced participation"), antisocialist will STILL end up footing the bill for: medicare, medicaid, social security, and, most importantly, the bankruptcies incurred from citizens whose healthcare bills sent them under. there will always be forced participation in the form of taxes incurred on the citizenry. a single payer system merely spreads the risks across the entire population, thus lowering costs. it's really not that difficult to understand, and other countries who have adopted such systems demonstrate that costs go down. this cannot be disputed.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I agree with all those reasons darla. all i'm saying is antisocialist would abolish medicare, medicaid, social security, etc....he's a bad example to use b/c he sticks by what he says. he's principled. i don't agree with all of them, but he's not your poster boy, it won't work for your argument.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:30pm
"Three Words Mr. President: "Medicare for All" posted by John Nichols on 09/08/2009 @ 10:07am"
I have 3 more words that should be shouted louder than any other today....
WE ARE BROKE.....
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/08/2009 @ 9:30pm
". all i'm saying is antisocialist would abolish medicare, medicaid, social security, etc"
ok, then.
what a retard.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:31pm
". all i'm saying is antisocialist would abolish medicare, medicaid, social security, etc"
ok, then. what a retard. Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--well, he also thinks federal income tax is unconstitutional. he's for limited gov't (except for military of course). for what it's worth, he thinks the states have every right to enact single payer.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:42pm
WE ARE BROKE..... Posted by YourJomamma at 09/08/2009 @ 9:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and why is that? Bush tax cuts and Bush wars is my guess.
incidentally, this recession is far worse than anything during the much reviled, by you, Carter presidency.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 9:43pm
US News and World report conducted exit interviews during the September 2009 primaries and found that Republicans' IQs are 9 points below that of Democrats.
Posted by LarryB at 09/08/2009 @ 7:30pm
Must be all those blacks, browns, high-school drop outs too smart to work....so they vote for pols to take the dumb Republicans' money! I like it!
Posted by Happy at 09/08/2009 @ 9:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person -----------------------------------
What is even funnier is the IQ level of the koolaid drinking leftwingnut that believes IQ tests are a credible and usable tool of exit polling! Bwhahahahaha
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 9:48pm
I agree , Medicare for all. Pay into Obamacare for the next 40 Years while you maintain your own insurance coverage and in 40 yrs you can begin to file claims. Thats what Medicare does.
Posted by Dencal26 at 09/08/2009 @ 11:39pm
YOU rebublicans.... yes rebublicans are idiots. You had nothing to say as bush stole the presidency. You had nothing to say as bush raped this nation of it's dignity and freedoms and civil rights. When you talk about the Constitution, what kind of drugs do you take? You actually supported a person who violated Constitutional laws with no regard and now you complain about the Democrats.. Bottom line people.. rebublicans are impotent and always will be. You did it to yourselves!!!!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/09/2009 @ 01:00am
What is even funnier is the IQ level of the koolaid drinking leftwingnut that believes IQ tests are a credible and usable tool of exit polling! Bwhahahahaha
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 9:48pm
We know youfailed your IQ tests BigPasture. Get over it and move on. There's a place for people like you too in this world.
Posted by Shingo at 09/09/2009 @ 01:22am
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/09/2009 @ 01:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
Tirades that are total unsubstantial are so sterotypical leftist traits. Why don't you try investigating relevant facts and applicable constitutional laws to attempt to back up your misinformation for a change?
Posted by BigPasture at 09/09/2009 @ 01:57am
We know youfailed your IQ tests BigPasture. Get over it and move on. There's a place for people like you too in this world.
Posted by Shingo at 09/09/2009 @ 01:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
Do you always get so loney and loony outside of your hate Zionist Jews of the world comfort zone ?
Posted by BigPasture at 09/09/2009 @ 02:03am
>brainless hannity actually asked a guest last night: >why is profit (in healthcare) a problem?
>uh. yo. hannity. think about it.
Profit in healthcare is not really a problem. But since insurance companies do not provide healthcare yet still skim billions (trillions?), that is a problem.
Insurance companies
DO NOT PROVIDE HEALTH CARE!
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:03am
and why is that? Bush tax cuts and Bush wars is my guess.
incidentally, this recession is far worse than anything during the much reviled, by you, Carter presidency.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 9:43pm
A good guess, but not right...
First..tax cuts do not cause revenue short falls...they increase economic activity and reveunes increase...history proves this..an additional secondary proof...increase taxes or threaten to tax the those who already pay heavy taxes and they REMOVE themselves and their job producing capital to safe places..look at those bailing out of Maryland with millionares taxes, look at California industrys bailing out ...punitive taxes in the eyes of the taxpayer, not your eyes, will kill revenues flows everywhere...
Wars?... Yes very expensive and Bush screwed the pooch...
so your answer is to spend 10 times more on new programs when the old ones will collapse because of unfunded mandates ? Do the math JR..
If your wife spent you into debt and beyond...and your answer is to spend even more?
WE ARE BROKE AND CANT AFFORD BUSH...AND WE CANT SURVIVE OBAMA NOR THIS CONGRESS. THEY WILL INFLATE US INTO 2ND WORLD STATUS.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 07:03am
WE ARE BROKE.....
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/08/2009 @ 9:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
We are not Broke. We are tight, very tight, and the conservative economic policies of the last 30 years are the reason.
It's time to raise income taxes on the top earners. They are stealing all of the money and laughing all the way to the bank as people like YourJomamma defend the practices that got us here.
Thanks YourJomamma! Not get back to work, their is a trust fund baby that needs your labor.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:10am
First..tax cuts do not cause revenue short falls...they increase economic activity and reveunes increase...history proves this..an additional secondary proof...increase taxes or threaten to tax the those who already pay heavy taxes and they REMOVE themselves and their job producing capital to safe places..look at those bailing out of Maryland with millionares taxes, look at California industrys bailing out ...punitive taxes in the eyes of the taxpayer, not your eyes, will kill revenues flows everywhere...
BULLSHIT!
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:13am
And you may have missed that the reports show they are paying 81% of revenue directly on the costs of healthcare.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 5:24pm
What I was pointing out is that for their largest clients, the billions they spend on claims are not counted as revenue nor claims. They are "deposits on account for the benefit of others" or something like that.
The SEC changed the rules some years ago. If you counted those billions as part of revenue, the 81% would be much higher.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 07:16am
Thanks YourJomamma! Not get back to work, there is a trust fund baby that needs your labor.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:10am
You must be new here. (And your moniker is oddly fitting.) We don't use the term "trust fund baby" disparigingly around here because KVH is one. It's considered rude.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 07:19am
so what are you Darin, the PC police? I thought that was a liberal thing.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:20am
"Medicare for all" points neatly to Nichols' ignorance and foolishness.
Has he ever asked himself, when did this medical cost spiral begin? It surely did not come over on the Mayflower. There was a time in this country when medical insurance was affordable, when the average four day hospital bill in this country was not $20,000, when doctors even had time to make house visits. When did all this change, and why?
It changed as of July 1966 when Medicare and Medicaid came into effect. Those were terrific programs. They relieved the aged and the poor from having to worry about paying their medical bills. But it also relieved medical providers from all restraints. They no longer had to take their patient's ability to pay into account. Now the govt was paying and they could pile on the tests and scans and procedures and charge ever more. One can see how the shares of stocks related to the medical industry began to grow fat from 1966 on. And one can see how from that date on doctors stopped making house visits. Moreover, that was when insurance premiums began to skyrocket. The private insurers were being presented with much bigger bills and had no choice.
The answer to all this, for a genius like Nichols, is an even larger govt medical insurance.
The real answer is to find a way to impose new restraints on costs. I would require medical providers publish all their charges, the way a supermarket must clearly label everything on its shelves. I would also publish the medical equivalent of weekly advertising flyers with which shoppers decide between prices and bargains offered in neighborhood stores.
If insurers then shared with patients the savings from using the less expensive medical providers, that would create a competitive incentive to lower costs.
Posted by Pirovano at 09/09/2009 @ 07:25am
YourJomamma says "First..tax cuts do not cause revenue short falls...they increase economic activity and reveunes increase"
so in 1980 the national debt stood at about 1 trillion. Before Obama took office it was approximately 10 trillion.
My question is this; if revenue was increased, yet debt increased by an order of magnitude, what was the money spent on? Defense surely increased...what else? Welfare was gutted in the 90's so that's out. ...hmmmmm
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:30am
WE ARE BROKE AND CANT AFFORD BUSH..."--------Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 07:03am
Hmmm...slightly different tune just a few months ago?
"Just a wild guess here, but I would guess that military spending has probablely spawned more private sector jobs and lead to more consumer products that led to private jobs in after markets ...
same with NASA...despite $ 600 hammers that all govt projects are infested with...."----Posted by YourJomamma at 07/15/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:38am
military spending definitely created big piles of rubble!
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 08:06am
Insurance companies
DO NOT PROVIDE HEALTH CARE!
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
--Doctors...don't work for free!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:25am
yourjomamma: "First..tax cuts do not cause revenue short falls...they increase economic activity and reveunes increase...history proves this..an additional secondary proof...increase taxes or threaten to tax the those who already pay heavy taxes and they REMOVE themselves and their job producing capital to safe places..look at those bailing out of Maryland with millionares taxes, look at California industrys bailing out ...punitive taxes in the eyes of the taxpayer, not your eyes, will kill revenues flows everywhere..."
knownothing: "BULLSHIT!"
--brilliant knownothing...I'm convinced of the intellect and thoughtfulness behind your argument now!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:29am
Thanks YourJomamma! Not get back to work, there is a trust fund baby that needs your labor.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:10am
You must be new here. (And your moniker is oddly fitting.) We don't use the term "trust fund baby" disparigingly around here because KVH is one. It's considered rude.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 07:19am | ignore this person | warn this person
--gold darin, gold!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:30am
WE ARE BROKE AND CANT AFFORD BUSH..."--------Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 07:03am
Hmmm...slightly different tune just a few months ago?
"Just a wild guess here, but I would guess that military spending has probablely spawned more private sector jobs and lead to more consumer products that led to private jobs in after markets ...
same with NASA...despite $ 600 hammers that all govt projects are infested with...."----Posted by YourJomamma at 07/15/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
--GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA....I save posts from months, even years back, and when I see any inconsistency, I post the words side-by-side and dance the GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA dance....and I can do this with impunity because: 1--I, Mask, say nothing substantive that someone else can use against me, and 2--Only I, Mask, am really that lame and sad to create files on other anonymous interweb blog commenters....GOTCHA GOTCHA GOTCHA!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:34am
My question is this; if revenue was increased, yet debt increased by an order of magnitude, what was the money spent on? Defense surely increased...what else? Welfare was gutted in the 90's so that's out. ...hmmmmm Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
good question. my hunch is that the cost of the wars has been low balled and hidden.
the sooner we get rid of these wars, these albatrosses around our necks, the better.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:05am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:34am
Hey, here's a "substantive" answer to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, urmy...
My position is the paelestinians and jews will never find middle ground to agree.
Agree?
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 09:07am
--brilliant knownothing...I'm convinced of the intellect and thoughtfulness behind your argument now!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:29am
Well thank you urmygyro. I've always thought it best to be direct.
I of course could ask which time in history it has been beneficial to cut taxes and then point to the enormous increase in federal debt in the 1980's after Reagan cut taxes, or the repeat when W did the same. Or even to the reduction in debt that occurred under Clinton when he raised taxes on the highest incomes. But why bother; nuance does not sell, and it isn't near as fun. So I resort to a simple one word reply...BULLSHIT.
I think it gets my point across.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:21am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 08:34am
Hey, here's a "substantive" answer to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, urmy...
My position is the paelestinians and jews will never find middle ground to agree.
Agree?
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 09:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
--copying something I said and hoping I'd say you're wrong just b/c you're oh-so clever...oh, wait, you're not.
--what's your substantive view on the best health care system?...besides paying for them with eggs, of course...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:31am
Well thank you urmygyro. I've always thought it best to be direct.
I of course could ask which time in history it has been beneficial to cut taxes and then point to the enormous increase in federal debt in the 1980's after Reagan cut taxes, or the repeat when W did the same. Or even to the reduction in debt that occurred under Clinton when he raised taxes on the highest incomes. But why bother; nuance does not sell, and it isn't near as fun. So I resort to a simple one word reply...BULLSHIT.
I think it gets my point across.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
--cut taxes and stop the wars...no one ever thinks of that
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:32am
--cut taxes and stop the wars...no one ever thinks of that
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
How about stop the wars, pay off the debt and THEN cut taxes. After all, one of the top 6 outlays in the federal spending is for interest on the debt.
I suspect (though i do not have the figures), that interest on the debt accounts for 2-3 trillion of the debt.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:40am
"[1] WE ARE BROKE
[2]...THEY WILL INFLATE US INTO 2ND WORLD STATUS."
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 07:03am
If [1] is so -- tendentious in itself, although they're are clearly deficit troubles -- then YJ fails to take his fair share of credit.
If we are broke, it is largely because suckers for a hoax, any rightwing hoax, like YJ shit their pants in fear with mudslide/avalanche force everytime George W Loser and his goons said "Saddam says 'Boo!'". Three trillion dollar invasion, shit-for-brains, and with YJ's name on it.
Concerning [2], YJ should just leave America if he is content to be part of (indeed, the source of) )the problem and not the solution. I have previously offered to fly him to Baghdad and to give him "Thank you, Goerge W Loser, for democracy" tee-shirts to wear through downtown. He huffily refused to take credit for what his two votes (2000, 2004) purchased. But there are many other destinations for the disgruntled, hateful brooders & breeders who want our own government in USA to fail by their own admission.
How can YJ and his ilk hate America so much, yet still not reach the threshold for leaving it for good?
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/09/2009 @ 09:42am
apparently, antisocialist would rather pay more, and he's also a fraudulent christian for wishing to preserve a system that doesn't covere everyone...
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 9:30pm
Christianity has no doctrines or teaching about govt healthcare systems.
Nor am I interested in either the public or private healthcare systems since I do not participate in either one.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 09:42am
The SEC changed the rules some years ago. If you counted those billions as part of revenue, the 81% would be much higher.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 07:16am
Darin, if that is the case then your complaint is with the SEC and Morningstar Reports, not me.
I simply reported what Morningstar reported based upon filings with the SEC.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 09:46am
Nor am I interested in either the public or private healthcare systems since I do not participate in either one.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 09:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
What happens if you get hit by a car? Do you want us to cover you?
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am
Urmygyro,
Thanks for your series of posts correcting Darla about my actual beliefs vs her false assumptions.
I have been consisten and clear about my beliefs and yet it amazes me that some people still attempt to misrepresent what I believe.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
your nom de plume does not do you justice. fine post.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:53am
What happens if you get hit by a car? Do you want us to cover you?
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am
Nope. If I'm driving, I have auto insurance should I choose to have medical attention.
If I'm a pedestrian, the other person's insurance must pay for any medical attention, if I choose to receive any.
Finally, there is my Living Will which states that no life sustaining medical attention should be given to me if I am unable to expresss that decision for myself due to incapacitation.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:00am
I of course could ask which time in history it has been beneficial to cut taxes and then point to the enormous increase in federal debt in the 1980's after Reagan cut taxes, or the repeat when W did the same. Or even to the reduction in debt that occurred under Clinton when he raised taxes on the highest incomes. But why bother; nuance does not sell, and it isn't near as fun. So I resort to a simple one word reply...BULLSHIT.
I think it gets my point across.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:21am
Actually, you did nothing of the kind.
During the Reagan years, revenues nearly doubled following the taxcuts.
The problem was that the Democratic controlled Congress led by Tip O'Neill, lied to President Reagan about their gentleman's agreement to cut domestic spending.
Where I fault Reagan and Bush both is for not vetoing more budgets in response to out of control spending by Congress.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:03am
"I have been consisten and clear about my beliefs and yet it amazes me that some people still attempt to misrepresent what I believe."
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am
In case anyone is wondering what the self-pitying "misunderstood" ANTISOCIAL believes, a primer would include his stated insistence that...
* ... self-hating State-worshipping drunkard Joe McCarthy was a "great American";
* Climate Change is a hoax and people who cite endless Nobel prize winners on the topic like LILLIAN are, in a word, "liars";
* Regardless of any existential or other threat to ourselves, the US should have deployed nucleur devices against China although it would have vaporized 10,000,000 people. In fact, for ANTI, it would have "saved" them from, communism (why not kill them all, in that case? ANTI wouldn't say...);
* ANTI has died in motorcycle accident...and come back to life hours later!!!;
* Rapture? You bet!
While he has made effort to seem like a "moderate", if you put out the call to Central Casting for a "rapid & rigid rightwinger with incorrigibly and insufferably pompous tendencies and self-regard as an 'intellectual' who is violently allergic to the truth despite threadbare trappings of concern for it"...you would get ANTISOCIAL back, as he fits the role as if made to order for it.
But since ANTI is so insistent on defending his beliefs, one may wonder about this. Why did someone who claims to have fought the Soviets at the Artic Circle in 1970 do so when totalarian programs like Medicaire/Medicaid has already been implemented in the USA by 1970? Why take up arms FOR this extra-constituional grab at tyranny with no meaningful distinction from the governance by hammer-and-sickle???
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/09/2009 @ 10:05am
During the Reagan years, revenues nearly doubled following the taxcuts.
The problem was that the Democratic controlled Congress led by Tip O'Neill, lied to President Reagan about their gentleman's agreement to cut domestic spending.
Where I fault Reagan and Bush both is for not vetoing more budgets in response to out of control spending by Congress.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
Revenues increased due to a little think called inflation. That and growth driven by a bunch of deficit spending.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 10:19am
--cut taxes and stop the wars...no one ever thinks of that
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 09:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
How about stop the wars, pay off the debt and THEN cut taxes. After all, one of the top 6 outlays in the federal spending is for interest on the debt.
I suspect (though i do not have the figures), that interest on the debt accounts for 2-3 trillion of the debt.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 09:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
--if your numbers are accurate, then cut $2-3 trillion worth of gov't programs too
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:31am
Urmygyro,
Thanks for your series of posts correcting Darla about my actual beliefs vs her false assumptions.
I have been consisten and clear about my beliefs and yet it amazes me that some people still attempt to misrepresent what I believe.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
--you're welcome larry. my name is russ, by the way.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:32am
antisocialist-It is easy for you to want to abolish medicare,social security,etc. because you have your veterans benefits to fall back on just as you do not need health insurance for the same reason.You get medical care free of charge.Of course,you have no idea if you will need the veterans hospitals since not everything is covered by a living will and you could find yourself in one..
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 10:44am
Revenues increased due to a little think called inflation. That and growth driven by a bunch of deficit spending.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 10:19am
An absolute falsehood. Why don't you learn some facts instead of the propaganda you've been fed.
Inflation was double digits under Carter. Under Reagan it was reduced to below 4%
Look at the budgets during the 80's and then try and engage in honest debate.
And the deficit spending was driven by the Democrat Congress under Tip O'Neil.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:50am
antisocialist-It is easy for you to want to abolish medicare,social security,etc. because you have your veterans benefits to fall back on just as you do not need health insurance for the same reason.You get medical care free of charge.Of course,you have no idea if you will need the veterans hospitals since not everything is covered by a living will and you could find yourself in one..
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 10:44am
but the difference is that I live my beliefs. I don't use the VA nor do I use any doctors or hospitals.
You just don't get it that there are people like me who don't believe in the medical system.
Nor do you understand that I'm not afraid of dying. In fact, I look forward to it.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:52am
--you're welcome larry. my name is russ, by the way.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:32am
Thanks Russ. I appreciate your honest debate here with both sides.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:53am
"--if your numbers are accurate, then cut $2-3 trillion worth of gov't programs too"----Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:31am
Got a substantive and detailed way of doing that?
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 10:59am
antisocialist-Your response had nothing to do with my post.You are not always in control of your situation and there are ways that you could end up in a hospital.Actually,I have known a fair number of Christian scientists and do not go to doctors myself, as I have stated numerous times on here.What that means is that I do realize that there are people who do not believe in doctors.You do not know if you are afraid of dying since that has not come up.Obviously.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 11:03am
You just don't get it that there are people like me who don't believe in the medical system.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 10:52am | ignore this person | warn this person
--by the same token larry, there are plenty of people (like me) who don't believe in the massive deficit spending to fight two wars (especially as long as they've been going on). I applaud you for being principled and not personally accepting medicare or VA benefits while complaining of gov't run health care...but your principle is not a policy reason for the country...I have a friend back home from the fisrt Gulf War who accepts medical help from the VA; it does a lot of good...
My mother, thankfully, had great health insurance (she's a town assessor--a gov't employee) and survived colon cancer 10 years ago and liver cancer 5 years ago...she's doing very well...but if she didn't have good medical insurance (or none at all) her and my father could have lost everything they worked their whole lives for (they both worked my whole life--except for the 3 straight years she was pregnant with me and my 2 brothers--were big time savers, we didn't go on expensive vacations when I was a kid, lived in a modest house, etc).
It's stories like my gulf war buddy and my mom that makes me realize gov't run healthcare is good for the country; and universal health care would be best...I know you don't agree, but I don't think it would be the "totalitarian" nightmare you see it as.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:04am
antisocialist says - Inflation was double digits under Carter. Under Reagan it was reduced to below 4%
In 1981 inflation was over 10%, in 1982, 7-8%, after that you are correct, it was in the 4% range. Now do the math and you will see that inflation accounted for approximately 45% of the increase in tax revenue. Then there is population growth (i.e., more taxpayers). Then there was substantial deficit spending, much of it went towards military spending that created growth.
It is a complete fallacy to say that cutting taxes alone increased revenue.
Please identify the spending that Tip O'Neil forced Reagan to do.
The primary culprit of the deficits were tax cuts and a huge increase in military spending.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 11:07am
antisocialist-Your response had nothing to do with my post.You are not always in control of your situation and there are ways that you could end up in a hospital.Actually,I have known a fair number of Christian scientists and do not go to doctors myself, as I have stated numerous times on here.What that means is that I do realize that there are people who do not believe in doctors.You do not know if you are afraid of dying since that has not come up.Obviously.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 11:03am
1. I'm not a Christian Scientist. This is just personal belief.
2. Yes, a living will is a legal document and must be followed by medical authorities.
3. on death, you are mistaken. I was dead for 6 hours in 1972 from a motorcycle accident. I also was technically dead in 1973 when I was electrocuted in an industrial accident. The paramedics were unable to restart my heart and it was restarted after I arrived at the hospital.
Now, you may think that is a contradiction, but I didn't have a living will or the full development of my personal beliefs on healthcare until approx 8 years later.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 11:26am
Now, you may think that is a contradiction, but I didn't have a living will or the full development of my personal beliefs on healthcare until approx 8 years later.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 11:26am | ignore this person | warn this person
--but larry, think of all the good you've done since then...perhaps the higher powers that be want us to get medical help when we need it so we can go on living...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:33am
antisocialist-A living will does not cover most things that can put you in a hospital.I met a few of those Christian scientists when they were patients in a hospital I worked in.Even they can end up in a hospital.I have been pronounced dead 4 times,but I do not know if I fear death or not because I was not thinking about the subject when I was dead and do not know what I was feeling.So,your heart was restarted in a hospital by doctors?You are alive because of a hospital and doctors?
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 11:39am
I think it was little Phil Sheridan who said "The only good Republicans I ever saw were dead." And that list is short - Linclon, TR, and Ike.
BTW, GOP miscreant Mark Foley, former US Rep convicted of doodling little boys, was given a talk show.
Amazing this country we live in. Next, let's release Bernie Madoff to do a finance show on FOX -
...or better yet, dig up Nixon and Henry Kaiser and let them describe how their private sector health care plan is such a success.
Posted by LarryB at 09/09/2009 @ 12:01pm
antisocialist-A living will does not cover most things that can put you in a hospital.I met a few of those Christian scientists when they were patients in a hospital I worked in.Even they can end up in a hospital.I have been pronounced dead 4 times,but I do not know if I fear death or not because I was not thinking about the subject when I was dead and do not know what I was feeling.So,your heart was restarted in a hospital by doctors?You are alive because of a hospital and doctors?
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 11:39am
But as I have matured from my 20's, I have developed a different perspective on life.
I am not a person who holds this life so dearly. I am someone who eagerly awaits the next life.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 12:19pm
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/ better-ways-to-reform-health-care/
Again, {Obama] tried to make insurance companies into boogeymen, accusing them of greedily "raking in the profits" -- "inflated profits" -- even though the 3 percent average profit margin of insurance companies in recent years is one of the lowest margins of any major industry in the country.
***************************************************************
So the profit margin is 3% not 30% like Rep Wiener(head) claimed.
Say what you will about the feminists: At least when they lie about rape statistics they have the decency to only lie by a factor of two or three, not a factor of ten!
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 12:20pm
"I was dead for 6 hours in 1972 from a motorcycle accident. I also was technically dead in 1973 when I was electrocuted in an industrial accident. The paramedics were unable to restart my heart and it was restarted after I arrived at the hospital. "---Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 11:26am
TWO resurrections.....ha! Take that Jesus, you slacker!
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 12:28pm
So the profit margin is 3% not 30% like Rep Wiener(head) claimed.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 12:20pm
Which was what I was posting yesterday
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 12:29pm
antisocialist-as we get older it is not unusual to have a more casual view of death since we are closer to dead than birth.Some get more scared then,but most do not.Of course,it is not until you know that death is close that you will know how you really feel about the subject.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 12:36pm
-as we get older it is not unusual to have a more casual view of death since we are closer to dead than birth.Some get more scared then,but most do not.
how do you know this? sounds like a huge crock to me.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 12:43pm
emile-I know that from watching and talking to people,working with older people, and from the fact that I am,now, in that age group..Do you really believe that a 15 year old is going to see death in the same way that a 70 year old person who lives in constant discomfort will?
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 12:55pm
emile-In many cultures older people would get tired of it all and went off and died,but not too many 20 year olds did that.I have heard numerous older people say that they have raised their families,lived good lives,and are ready to check out,but I have never heard a 20 year old say that, except for ones locked up in a mental hospital..It seems to be quite logical that a person would fear death more if they had most of their life ahead of them than most of their life behind them.I know that I have a more casual view of death now than when I was younger,although I do not know how I will feel if I know that the moment is near.Of course,younger people will engage in more life threatening things than older people,usually,but that is not because they do not fear death more.That is because we tend to see ourselves as invincible when we are young.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 1:21pm
antisocialist thus recuses himself from the debate:
"but the difference is that I live my beliefs. I don't use the VA nor do I use any doctors or hospitals.
You just don't get it that there are people like me who don't believe in the medical system.
Nor do you understand that I'm not afraid of dying. In fact, I look forward to it"
et voila, c'est tout!
Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2009 @ 1:37pm
emile-I know that from watching and talking to people,working with older people, and from the fact that I am,now, in that age group..
this is an awfully small sample to justify such sweeping pronouncements, don't you agree?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 1:50pm
emile-I added to it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 1:51pm
-In many cultures older people would get tired of it all and went off and died
in most of those cultures people died far earlier and far more frequently.
in our culture too that was the case. children died at a huge rate. in the 18th century for instance. Johann Sebastian Bach had twenty, 20, children, with two wives, in succession, of which ten survived childhood.
in contrast to our society death was everywhere, and most people died at home.
I have also studied the phenomena called "the Dance of Death", which was not an actual dance, but in part consisted of drawings and little poems, most of which said: so soon? don't take me yet, Oh death.
my plan is to tell the grim reaper to come back later, as I am expecting a pizza delivery.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 1:57pm
emile-I did not say that all people will have their fear of death lessened as they age,but most seem to or, at least,talk that way.Could be false bravado with many,I suppose.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 2:02pm
Could be false bravado with many,I suppose. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person |
that was going to be my next point.
you are on firmer ground when you speak about yourself.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 2:12pm
emile-I still wish to live for a good long while..I just noticed that I do not seem to fear the reaper as much now that my kids are grown,have done most everything and still survived,but still have plans to do lots more.Interestingly enough,even though I fear the reaper less I no longer engage in high risk actions on a regular basis like I did back when I seriously feared the reaper..
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 2:13pm
Gyro, you've bowed & scraped in your Court of St. Louis way with antisocialist so much that the two of you must have suffered terrible head abrasions by now.
Anti is on my ignore list. I only read his comments as a prelude to the grist mill thrashing he takes from those who can stomach to rebuke him.
Still looking for a "fair & balanced" approach from you vis a vis our winger opponents. Unleash your considerable talent for debate on the most conspicuous of our enemies.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/09/2009 @ 2:16pm
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1224631.html
Eleven people hired to register potential voters in Miami-Dade County before last year's presidential election were being sought Wednesday for falsifying hundreds of voter registration cards.
The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office issued arrest warrants for each of the 11 suspects, all of whom worked for the local chapter of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, (ACORN).
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 2:18pm
My question is this; if revenue was increased, yet debt increased by an order of magnitude, what was the money spent on? Defense surely increased...what else? Welfare was gutted in the 90's so that's out. ...hmmmmm
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 07:30am
Govt spending soared and rates of increases in spending also soared. Reagan never squeezed Tip for promised spending cuts..
As for the trust fund nonsense and the rest of of your post...
your posting name ...covers it all.
You and Phil should be room mates.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 2:30pm
your posting name ...covers it all.
You and Phil should be room mates.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/09/2009 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ouch! Got me yourJomomma..i need a new moniker. maybe YourJoPoppa. Is Phil cute? I hope Phil is short for Phyliss.
Now to the post...Defense Spending increased...what else? Do you have answers or just insults?
Use a little common sense; cutting taxes for those at the very top does not increase revenues just like you getting a lower paying job does not increase your income. Cutting taxes for those at the very top fosters greed and has resulted in the largest disparity in wealth since the Great Depression. Oh and by the way, Reagan doubled the Social Security Tax. That's why it is currently solvent. If damn politicians (on both sides) would keep their hands off the trust fund, it would have been solvent for a long time.
Posted by knowNothing at 09/09/2009 @ 3:09pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/09/2009 @ 2:18pm
Anybody not on his Ignore, ask Darin...
WHO turned in those ACORN miscreants?
Hint...starts with A...ends in a CORN.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:29pm
ah the infamous locked box.
certainly a good idea. instead Bush emptied the trust fund and gave it to the wealthy, who really needed it badly. Clinton emptied it too, that's how he got the surplus, which he passed on to the subsequent administration, which gave it to the wealthy, well you know.
now when I say empty, it doesn't mean they just took it. they left IOUs, the same kind of IOUs we gave to China in return for their textiles etc, to Japan in exchange for their flat screen TVs and most of all, cars, to Saudi for the oil. so we owe everybody. plenty.
what we didn't spend it on is the health and welfare of our citizens. we spend plenty on the health and welfare of Iraqis and Afghanis, both positive and negative. it cost a lot of dough to diminish the health of a person to the point of death.
so now the gov't borrows to support our citizens, bankers, I approve, bankers have all our money. the car companies, I approve, there are too many jobs at at stake should they fold.
they seek to borrow to create jobs for our people, the ones that aren't contractors in Iraq. in Afghanistan we are still creating jobs for contractors and grunts. I'm sure we're paying for the health care of our contractors, along with the obscene pay. certainly our grunts just love the contractors. doing the same job at one tenth of the pay or less.
they seek to borrow to make sure everyone has access to health care, even undocumented workers, I approve, it is essential at a time of pandemics, and epidemics etc. also if they get sick, who will pick our produce? certainly not college students as someone here recently suggested.
improving the health of our people has economic ramifications, the positive kind. productivity and mental health will increase.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 3:37pm
antisocialist-as we get older it is not unusual to have a more casual view of death since we are closer to dead than birth.Some get more scared then,but most do not.Of course,it is not until you know that death is close that you will know how you really feel about the subject.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 12:36pm
As a Pastor, I have been with many people as they spent their final moments. Without exception, I've yet to see a Christian who really loves and trusts in Jesus who has faced death with any fear.
In fact, there is a very good reason why they don't have fear. G-d always sends Angels to escort them home. they also minister to them to remove any fear that may arise.
I have had a number of these people share with me that they can not only hear the Angels, but see them and feel their presence. I have almost always felt their presence and on two occasions I have seen them in the room with the dying person.
That is part of G-d's love in that he assures those who love Him that they should not fear death which is merely laying down this physical body.
I know the skeptics will have a field day. But I know what I know and have experienced.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 3:44pm
antisocialist-What medications were those Christians on when they were dying before your eyes without fear?There are Christians who screamed for their mommies while dying on no medications and others who have shown obvious fear.There are non believers who have shown no fear while dying as have people from other religions.Of course,we have no idea what is going on inside the person as they die or at what point extreme fear turned into a more peaceful feeling.Non believers and believers in other religions who are dying have reported seeing a white light,hearing peaceful music,heard a beloved dead relative call to them,etc... Funny things happen as people die and what religion you believe in seems to matter little.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 4:00pm
antisocialist-What medications were those Christians on when they were dying before your eyes without fear?There are Christians who screamed for their mommies while dying on no medications and others who have shown obvious fear.There are non believers who have shown no fear while dying as have people from other religions.Of course,we have no idea what is going on inside the person as they die or at what point extreme fear turned into a more peaceful feeling.Non believers and believers in other religions who are dying have reported seeing a white light,hearing peaceful music,heard a beloved dead relative call to them,etc... Funny things happen as people die and what religion you believe in seems to matter little.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 4:00pm
Your response did not surprise.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 4:05pm
big shout out for suicide bombers, who have the courage of their convictions.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 4:10pm
antisocialist-I stated facts and asked a relevant question,which you avoided.I'm quite pleased that you were not surprised that I would respond with facts and ask a relevant question.Thank you for assuming that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 4:14pm
antisocialist-I stated facts and asked a relevant question,which you avoided.I'm quite pleased that you were not surprised that I would respond with facts and ask a relevant question.Thank you for assuming that.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 4:14pm
I was avoiding your dismissive attitude towards the experience of others.
Was I also on medications when I saw and felt the presence of Angels in the room?
Do you dispute or deny that G-d might send Angels to escort believers to heaven?
Do you dispute or deny that a loving G-d would not want the approach of death to be a moment of fear for His children?
Do you think that these points are somehow not representative of what a loving G-d would do for His children?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 4:33pm
antisocialist-I was not dismissing others experience.In fact,quite the opposite.I stated that others had similar experiences,but just pointed out that not all were Christians..All humans are Gods children,but many,including many Christians, die in fear.Others do not seem to have much fear.I have no doubt that you have experienced feelings of a presence,but so have others who do not share your beliefs.Just like with prayer,it is not just Christians who experience these things.That is the only point I was making.Funny things frequently happen when people are dying.They can say strange,but interesting, things.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/09/2009 @ 4:47pm
Death/life insurance - - perfect for those who want to guarantee a hand-out for their offspring, for those who don't take a proactive approach, don't demonstrate personal responsibility and planning, fortitude and courage. Insurance companies create nothing! Through their clever death panels feed on the fear of these inferior, socialist weaklings with their gimmicks and nice sounding "products":
Posted by winyahn at 09/09/2009 @ 5:12pm
Universal, whole & term, etc. Not 'death' when a death payback is the essence of it. Thought neocons were ready to call a spade a spade:
death tax
death panel
Posted by winyahn at 09/09/2009 @ 5:18pm
Death/life insurance - - perfect for those who want to guarantee a hand-out for their offspring, for those who don't take a proactive approach, don't demonstrate personal responsibility and planning, fortitude and courage. Insurance companies create nothing! Through their clever death panels feed on the fear of these inferior, socialist weaklings with their gimmicks and nice sounding "products":
Posted by winyahn at 09/09/2009 @ 5:12pm
you're a sick person.
I'd love to take you with me when I've taken a check to a widow with children who just lost her husband. you can spout this idiocy to that grieving widow and her children and see what they think about it.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 5:46pm
you are on firmer ground when you speak about yourself. Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--says the guy who makes sweeping pronouncements about entire cultures and countries "back home" and constantly berates the people on the opposite side of the political spectrum in this country from he...
what else ya got hypocrite?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 5:49pm
sorelish: "Gyro, you've bowed & scraped in your Court of St. Louis way with antisocialist so much that the two of you must have suffered terrible head abrasions by now."
--don't know what a "court of st. louis" is but your veiled blow job joke is clear...bravo!
sorelish: "Anti is on my ignore list. I only read his comments as a prelude to the grist mill thrashing he takes from those who can stomach to rebuke him."
--seems like you should take him off your ignore list; you're interested in him still...
sorelish: "Still looking for a "fair & balanced" approach from you vis a vis our winger opponents. Unleash your considerable talent for debate on the most conspicuous of our enemies."
--concerning?...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 5:53pm
Medicare cost for all is possible , if the Obama pulls US forces Iraq and Afghanistan.The sooner ,the better.Both wars are going to lose.
Posted by Dastu11 at 09/14/2009 @ 09:00am