Here's What to Tell Obama, Congress About Real Reform

If you campaigned to elect Barack Obama last year, on the theory that doing so would deliver health care reform, it is likely that you will get a call next week.

The president himself might even be on the phone.

Obama is throwing his weight -- or, in this fit president's case, the proper word is probably "stature" -- behind a grassroots organizing effort to get 100,000 Americans to call Congress in support of health care reform.

When Obama is in New York Tuesday, he will use a Webcast to link up with active supporters of the political arm of his administration, Organizing for America, as part of the group's "Time to Deliver" push.

At OFA's "call parties," the group says: "We'll call friendly voters whose voices matter in this debate, talk to them about the President's plan, and ask them to call on their representatives to support reform."

OFA claims that the calls will "really shake up the debate in Washington."

Perhaps.

But not if people simply say: Support the president's plan.

The president does not have a plan.

He has some talking points that he has outlined, in vague and frequently shifting ways that have left most Americans confused -- and many Americans angry.

Sometimes the president's talking points are good.

Sometimes they are not.

Sometimes they're all about taking on the insurance companies and putting them in their place by creating the alternative of a robust public option.

Sometimes they're all about cutting deals with existing insurers and pharmaceutical companies and, if the Blue Dogs object, maybe getting rid of the public option altogether.

No one, not even members of the administration, seems to know precisely what the president's plan is.

Maybe the president will outline a plan before the "Time to Deliver" calls go out on Tuesday.

But if he fails to do so, the best response to a request that you call your representative with a message to "support the president's plan" is to ask: What plan?

If that starts a conversation, here are some suggestions for the president and the OFA team:

1. "Medicare for All" is still the best option.

Obama really was right during the campaign when he said: "If you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system (a government-managed 'Medicare for All' system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment) would probably make sense."

Obama's dodge now is that he is not "starting from scratch." The problem is that this keeps for-profit insurance companies at the public trough, and potentially in a position to define what is called "reform."

The wiser response is that of Michigan Congressman John Conyers, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner and other progressives who have proposed building on existing programs with a "Medicare for All" reform. Weiner's proposed a sound amendment that would replace the complex House plans with a workable single-payer system that builds on what's best about the current system while jettisoning the profiteers.

2. A public option is essential.

If single-payer is "off the table," then Senators Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, are right when they argue that, for a reform plan to be credible, it has to include a meaningful public option. This alternative must be sufficiently well-funded and well-designed to hold its own in competition with the for-profit insurers.

As Brown, Rockefeller and 28 other senators said in a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid: "We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that – absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment."

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold gets to the point when he suggests that, without a public option, we're really talking (at best) about insurance reform -- not health care reform.

3. Don't undermine Medicare and Medicaid.

Schemes to pay for the plan by squeezing Medicare and Medicaid or taxing the hard-won benefits of union workers are unacceptable compromises that penalize the working families, the elderly and states that have tried to weave together a health-care safety net.

4. States must be free to do more. Amendments to allow states to experiment with single-payer and other bolder responses to the health-care crisis must be retained in any final plan.

A federal "health-care reform" that is based on compromises should not compromise the ability of the states to rise above those compromises. This is a point that has been made in an amendment to the House reform legislation that has been sponsored by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and that has been the subject of smart, targeted calling campaigns by the Democratic group that has most aggressively advocated for real reform, Progressive Democrats of America.

5. Mandates on insurance companies should be written in stone.

There should not be any wiggle room. If the plan is to make sure that insurers will cover Americans with preexisting conditions, the mandate should read: "Insurance companies that seek to sell policies in the United States must make them available to all Americans, regardless of preexisting conditions."

That should be the beginning, middle and end of it. No 1,000-page plans with 2,000 footnotes.

The insurance companies are flooding Washington with lobbyists whose job it is to make sure that those pages and footnotes afford for-profit corporations new opportunities to collect federal dollars without delivering anything in return. The job of the White House and the Congress is to assure that they fail. But the only way to do that is with clear, unequivocal mandates.

The Organizing for America slogan, "Time to Deliver," is appropriate.

But the first person who must deliver is the president.

Obama needs to get specific about his plan. He needs to support a robust public option. He needs to protect Medicare and Medicaid and union plans. He needs to back real mandates on insurance companies. And he needs to let states build on what is accomplished on the federal level.

When he does that, it will be the right time to call Congress and tell representatives to support the president's plan.

Until then, this is the right time to contact Congress and tell representatives to support real reform -- with specific "asks" rather than vague talking points.

Comments (119)

1. Wow, the "SOMETIMES John Nichols is right" is popping into my head more often.....that is, until he got down to his "suggestions for the president and the OFA team"!

   The sun is rotating to come up from the west, soon!

   Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 10:16am

2. to intelligent people, a single-payer system is the only effective way to move forward.

   my european and canadian friends constantly ask me "darla, what is wrong with your country?"

   Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2009 @ 11:14am

3. 48 years ago, Ronald Reagan was making "educational films" talking about how the idea of Medicare was "socialized medicine"....today?

   Republicans promise to "shore it up" and "protect it from cuts that Obama wants to make to it" and their base protests with signs saying "Keep Your Gov't Hands Off My Medicare!"...

   Can you imagine what the GOP's position on "government-run health care" would be in ANOTHER 40 years???

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 10/15/2009 @ 11:18am

4. to intelligent people, a single-payer system is the only effective way to move forward.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2009 @ 11:14am

   Among people of below average intelligence, single payer is by far the most popular program.

   Intelligence has nothing to do with support for single payer.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/15/2009 @ 11:50am

5. President Obama,

   I would like to encourage you to follow the constitution.

   There is no constitutional authority for Congress or yourself to legislate and dictate the healthcare services that people utilize.

   As directed by the Constitution, health insurance is under the authority of each state who dictate what kind of health insurance may be offered and ensures compliance with state law by the providers.

   As a constitutional scholar, I would expect that you would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to influence state legislators and state insurance commissioners to address the issues you believe they are not currently addressing.

   4.During your presidential campaign, you stated that you were (correctly) opposed to mandates. You based that stand on the fact that there is no basis in the constitution for mandating that all Americans pay for a service they may not wish to use.

   I am hopeful that you will steer this debate back to one that is constitutional in nature rather than base politics. Remember the words of the founder of your party.

   "I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."

   Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825.

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:56am

6. The "individual mandate" is clearly unconstitutional for the Federal authority, but not for the States. I predict that if they pass it in the current form, everything will fall apart within a few years. I hope they know better than to try, but I have my doubts.

   Secondly, experience in the five states that have tried it indicates that the "pre-existing conditions" exclusion is critical to maintining a workable system. Without that in, cost control is not possible.

   If passed, there will still be time to correct it by repealing the garbage portions.

   John D. Froelich

   Posted by balataf at 10/15/2009 @ 12:53pm

7. I have been very disappointed in the President Obama. He has been wishy-washy, buy playing Washington game under the tutelage of Rahm Emanuel with 90s thinking behind it. He has not shown leadership on the issue and has compromised away the central pieces of the reform even without being asked. He has not any appetite for fight on any policy issue.

   Posted by kevin99999 at 10/15/2009 @ 12:53pm

8. my european and canadian friends constantly ask me "darla, what is wrong with your country?"

   Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2009 @ 11:14am

   They have the wrong question as usual.

   they should be asking "how can we become as great a nation as the US"?

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 1:16pm

9. Worth a try, if it includes a push for a public option.

   If not, yet another chink in the armor of the man being positioned as Failed Leader, one who'll be seriously challenged in '12 & who will not have the core support of many progressives who backed him in '08.

   Continuity instead of change has been the dominant characteristic of this admin, at home & abroad.

   Posted by sloper at 10/15/2009 @ 2:02pm

10. Among people of below average intelligence, single payer is by far the most popular program.

    Intelligence has nothing to do with support for single payer.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/15/2009 @ 11:50am

    This IS the `trick' comment of the day, huh?!

    Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 2:36pm

11. I have been very disappointed in the President Obama. .... He has not any appetite for fight on any policy issue.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 10/15/2009 @ 12:53pm

    As I counselled sloper on another thread, applies to you as well. Better get back on the plantation.......fast, Kool-aid is better than bullets at the air strip as you try to flee.

    Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 2:37pm

12. >> "Medicare for All" is still the best option. <<

    Best for what?

    You scoundrels refuse to face the fact that our medical costs crisis dates to Medicare and Medicare. Those programs began in 1966. They were wonderful for the aged and the indigent who were relieved from worry about medical bills. But it also relieved the medical industry.

    It no longer had to consider the public's ability to pay. The govt was now paying for everyone who was not wealthy or did not have insurance. Medical providers could now charge top dollar, pile on the tests and scans, treat every obscure tick, the most banal aches, every hiccup, try problematic modalities, schedule benign warts and carbuncles for surgery, medicate fallen arches, prescribe unnecessary hearing aids and $3000 electric wheelchairs for disabilities of just a few weeks.

    Conditions that can be treated in a human being are endless, even in the healthiest. If the govt is paying, why not? If there is a mistake in a bill, what do you care, it is the insurance, not you who is paying. Nothing is too good for you and your family, if you don't have to pay for it yourself.

    And this single payer is what the administration thinks is ideal. It is ideal for bankrupting us, and forcing controls against abuses which before long have the govt running the whole shebang.

    That is what they are after. Not a public option but giving the public no option, because Barack and Michelle want to make things safe and easy for the incompetent population, and if, in the process, that controls everyone, that is not their worry.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/15/2009 @ 3:34pm

13. Correction:

    Our medical cost crisis dates to the introduction, in 1966, of Medicare and Medicaid.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/15/2009 @ 3:35pm

14. BS,there won't be REAL REFORM,no without public option,Obama want to pass any bill so he can take credit for it.Obama,Big Pharma,etc,etc.Obama,WH,they are undermining reform from the inside with triggers and extrange things,even NYT is pushing triggers.Is Obama on the phone? so what? is his turn now to tell congress and senate to support reform with STRONG PUBLIC OPTION,not mine, i've worked in his election,now is his job to deliver real reform and he is delivering NOTHING,NOTHING!!!only rhetoric.

    Posted by robert-o at 10/15/2009 @ 4:29pm

15. Why the rush? Healthcare reform is a now a given so slow down and get it right. Public option is no option. Medicare for all is a be careful of what you wish for. We all pay for it now and it is in financial trouble with just the seniors. It doesn't pay for routine care, it has an annual deductible, and when it pays it only pays 80%, leaving the balance to the patient. It you covered everyone, provided routine care which we must have and pay 100% without a deductible, the total cost cannot be imagined.

    The President needs to setp back, find a smart, creative manager with a track record of getting things done and give him/her a team, some money and a year to develop a program. We cannot let congress, whose number one priority is getting re-elected, develop a healthcare program. That is just crazy. If we need to do this, and we are going to do it, do it right.

    Posted by wredner at 10/15/2009 @ 4:32pm

16. It's so absurd to dismiss Obama's pragmatics. The past two administrations provide 16 years of evidence of the near guarantee of 1- not getting elected in the first place, and 2- of gridlock once in, had Obama pushed for single payer. The MSM almost swiftboated him over and over for sins such as being a Muslim, celebrity, racist. Nichol's is so far from reality on this. So gleefully dismissing the power of the MSM to dumbdown, oversimplify, scare, to maintain a hollow, hot, hyped up echo chamber where fear and false equivalence and scorekeeping rule. Where even the "liberal" media echos the neocon talking points - Obama can't talk to school kids. Yeah, right, he should have campaigned on single payer! He'd be our little Nader / Kuccinich right now. Oh but he'd be pure as the driven black snow. He can't turn on a dime. The country can't. Maybe you can in your own life. But this country can't. Neither can Iran or Ireland. Crazily complex inertia. The Nation is stuck in it's historical idealistic rebel role. Change comes in waves. Sure maybe shock doctrine can work in the positive direction too. Maybe. But I think you're putting a lot at risk with this rigid, repetitious angle. You need buy in. You know the dreaded teabaggers. It's their country too.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2009 @ 4:40pm

17. DTBFT, that is just simply horse pucky, paaleeease, single payer people are less intelligent? WTF? Hey Darla, quote of the day!

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/15/2009 @ 4:47pm

18. Posted by Mask at 10/15/2009 @ 11:18am

    Excellent -- yes, and then there's David Cameron, opponent of liberal Obama pal, Gordon Brown.

    Cameron, the British Bush. Cheers mate!!

    The conservative renewal soon to go down in Britain. Our closet ally.

    Cameron. Arch supporter of single payer.

    Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2009 @ 5:19pm

19. Congress does not listen to us. It listens to its campaign funders. Have you sent $25,000 to your local representative? How about $100,000 to your senators?

    Save your time; unless you want to vent some steam.

    "'Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us'", the great man said.

    Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 5:34pm

20. Again the 2 Sentence crowd comes forward. Brings the racist Droop along because he can't help himself. I am tired of the conservatives for this,When Medicare became law 8 Senators voted in the affirmative. Since then the Republicans have stripped coverage and wrote legislation disallowing federal government negotiating on the behalf of seniors with Big Pharma. Now the Republicans are telling seniors Democrats are going to take their benefits away. What a pile of shit. I have read numerous posts on numerous topics from states rights people to racists . What is the solution? The public option is what? It seems like a four year window for anything and everything to happen. Big insurance already is trying to intimidate the nation with its pronouncements. The central questions to me are,why not in effect by late 2010 and why are the Dems afraid to explain how program is paid for. I have no problem holding Dems accountable for the public option now. Why can't all Americans pay for this insurance plan. Everything as I read and think about it is based on private insurance plans.Either this is going to be the biggest scam in American history or there is no actual model to put ther program in place. Why do I get the feeling this is a 3 year legislative process. Is it now Harry Reid to the rescue,oh boy!

    Posted by whatozz at 10/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

21. "That should be the beginning, middle and end of it. No 1,000-page plans with 2,000 footnotes."

    verily is the devil in the details and the devil's earthly slaves (satano-aynrando disciples) do ever attempt to sneak their master into any effort at reform and progress.

    oh homo inferior! your parasitic cleverness never ceases to toil at preserving your parasitism!

    and what more satanic parasites than the for-profit health care racket!!!

    how many millions have suffered needlessly for decades as a direct result of your wicked efforts to preserve your wicked profiteering? how many productive lives have been cut short because of your niggardly profiteering and defense of your parasitic existence?

    verily oh verily life is but a sigh, and the sooner your unfortunate customers die the fatter your purses and the more wicked your lie! snarl at mr. grayson, you merchants of suffering! the truth is holy water and even a mere drop is enough to elicit hell bound howls and screeches.

    alright, enough of the hyperbole (though not so hyperbolic, really)...

    the facts are these...

    1. contrary to the lies of the parasites, our system of health care is a train wreck - inefficient, heartless, mean spirited, and expensive.

    2. in order to compete in this world we need a better system, a healthy population.

    3. leaving things as they are is tantamount to abiding evil.

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

22. 3. leaving things as they are is tantamount to abiding evil.

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

    govt control is a greater evil IBB.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 5:50pm

23. Our medical cost crisis dates to the introduction, in 1966, of Medicare and Medicaid.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/15/2009 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    do you really believe that lie? our health care crisis began when private insurance companies learned how to turn politicians into their lackeys and propagandize the marching morons in order to retard progress.

    your silly satano-aynrando ideology is based on a poor understanding of history, society, economics, and even human nature itself (except for the myopic ideologues who follow it, of course).

    all the clever justifications and reality refracting bullshit of the mercenary minds that find refuge in anarcho-libertarian think tanks cannot remake the reality of the needless suffering and waste of resources endemic to our system.

    the marching morons are getting sick and losing everything as a direct result of the actions of your ideological heroes. you should be ashamed for your small part in enabling this self destructive wickedness.

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 5:52pm

24. Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i find nothing inherently evil in "government" nor in "business". either can be perverted by the sociopathic powerful.

    indeed the governments of nazi germany and soviet russia were abominations to the human spirit, but to claim that all government is bad and vice versa is to me a bit of a stretch.

    its like the fallacy of depraved moral equality. if one side in a two sided struggle is wicked, so is the other side equally wicked. for decades this little lie, so touted by the wicked(er) has kept the average schmuk ignorantly benighted and regularly voting for his/her own destruction.

    unfortunately the universe does not tolerate a big lie for ever - nor a parasite. the results of wickedness work to destroy it inexorably - but often after far too much suffering, and the decent cannot escape the stain of sin by ignoring and doing nothing.

    how you doing, shepherd?

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:02pm

25. "your silly satano-aynrando ideology is based on a poor understanding of history, society, economics, and even human nature itself (except for the myopic ideologues who follow it, of course). "

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 5:52pm

    That is, until you look at the relationship of the medical price index to the consumer price index. It followed in a parallel pattern until the introduction of Medicare/medicaid at which point health care prices began to separate from the CPI. Prices increased further with the advent of HMOs. However, the separation between the two indexes became glaring once government started under-reimbursing hospitals and physicians, forcing private insurers to make up the difference.

    Posted by plainbruce at 10/15/2009 @ 6:45pm

26. Posted by plainbruce at 10/15/2009 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i'll buy that. sounds reasonable, but again i look at single payer systems (including one under which i lived) and cannot find a shred of evidence, based upon facts, that such is inherently inferior to our piratical anarchic excuse for a system - quite the opposite, in fact.

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 7:21pm

27. Barack Obama needs a "New Heal", you know like FDRs "New Deal". The "New Heal" will do for Health what the "New Deal" did for poverty and old age retirement.

    Contrary to most Libertarian propaganda, many people are far too short-sited and involved in the present to be concerned with future illnesses, as they were with future retirements prior to FDR. Libertarians calling themselves Conservatives and Republicans are really "irrelevant existentialists" who are really only concerned with their own pre-and-post death salvations.

    They live for today and don't care about tomorrow, which is OK if it they were to live on an island, but not if they walk our public streets, use our public spaces and rely on the commonwealth for public utilities, safety etc, and at the same time to expect us to take care of them if they falter and fail economically and health-wise.

    "Irrelevant Existentialists" are happy to promote CasinoCare and risk everything including house and home as an alternative to pooling our risks and resources for a truly safe and conservative social health care system.

    Obama's "New Heal" will apply they same principles to the problem of runaway health care costs, that FDR applied to rampant poverty and old age insecurity. Nothing less, nothing more.

    Obama's "New Heal" will guarantee that all Americans have "health security", from cradle to grave. any one of us can get sick or maimed anytime throughout our lives, through no fault of our own, without warning or prior notice. If such an event occurs without the proper care, we could thus be doomed to a life of living hell of pain and financial bankruptcy.

    I wish Obama would appeal to the best in us, to guarantee protection to all Americans from unpredictable pain and bankruptcies due to current CasinoCare.

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/15/2009 @ 7:46pm

28. Intelligence has nothing to do with support for single payer.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/15/2009 @ 11:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

    But greed and corruption certainly have everything to do with keeping the status quo of the present system.

    Posted by jarshadow at 10/15/2009 @ 8:06pm

29. dexter666 at 5:52pm said:

    >> our health care crisis began when private insurance companies learned how to turn politicians into their lackeys and propagandize the marching morons in order to retard progress. <<

    In what year did they learn that, and why then and not earlier?

    Do you really think insurance companies became interested in maximizing profits only recently, and that purchased politicians is a new phenomenon?

    No, the critical year is 1966. Before then increases in medical costs were in line with inflation and with cost hikes across the economy. It was subsequent to '66 that medical costs began to skyrocket, out of line with anything else in the economy. Before '66 insurance companies were as interested in profits as after, lobbyists were working Congress as diligently as now. Something special happened back then to produce this crisis. It does not date back to Columbus or Peter Stuyvesant, or Benedict Arnold. It began at a specific point for a specific reason. I have given you that point and that reason.

    You can disagree, you can tell me why my date is wrong, why my reasons fail, why a different date and different reasons are the true or better explanation. But you do none of that. You just to call me a liar and dismiss my argument as "silly satano-aynrando ideology". In effect, you stick out a tongue and offer a fart. That is your idea of an argument. You are not capable of an adult conversation.

    Actually, it goes beyond you who are obviously mentally impaired. None of the lefties on this board and at The Nation are capable of arguing cogently and thinking clearly and honestly.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/15/2009 @ 8:55pm

30. >>to intelligent people, a single-payer system is the only effective way to move forward. <<

    Only to the hard core leftwing ideologue that simply uninformed does single-payer make sense. A few reasons why it will be a disaster for our country if it happens:

    1) We are bankrupt. We cannot even afford to pay existing Medicare and Social Security obligations. Just the interest on our national debt is around $350 billion. With all the debt being piled on and the fact that rates WILL rise at some point in the future, what will those interest payments be in a few years? Our nation is headed for a fiscal catastrophe that will sink our economy into the abyss and the ignorant morons in Congress continue to heap on the spending.

    2) Rationing. With limited resources, there is no possible way the government can avoid rationing. There simply isn't enough money to go around. One woman in Oregon applied to the state health system to get an expensive new medication for her cancer. Know what happened? They denied her request and offered to cover assisted suicide instead. THAT'S what happens under single-payer health care.

    3) More control over your life. Do you really like depending on somebody else? Is that admirable to you? Or is it more admirable to depend on yourself for your needs? Why would you want to depend on government for your health care? I DON'T WANT gov't to take care of me. I can do it far better. Do you really want some nameless bureaucrat having a say in your health care decisions? Do you want to give the opportunity to deny you care for fiscal reasons to some idiot bureaucrat?

    If you understand all this already, yet you still push for single payer, you are a FOOL, pure and simple. Please don't drag the rest of us into your socialistic hell with you.

    Posted by mroberts2 at 10/15/2009 @ 8:58pm

31. 'Among people of below average intelligence, single payer is by far the most popular program.'

    This would come as a surprise to the Australians, the British, the Canadians, and the French.

    It would also have come as a surprise to the nineteenth-century British philosopher John Stuart Mill, who once remarked:

    "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

    There. "Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll" has posted his anecdotal, groundless claim, and I have posted mine.

    Can either one of us provide any empirical evidence at all?

    I think not.

    Intelligence, by the way, is notoriously difficult to measure. Only very, very smart people can do it, and who among us average folks can distinguish the geniuses from the insane? About the only intelligence that we can measure with some confidence is at the lower end of the scale, that is, what we now politely call developmental disability. Even here, it is hard to draw the dividing line.

    Surely the ability to speak in complete sentences, as our president today can and as our president before the election of last November could not, should count for something.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/15/2009 @ 8:58pm

32. exactly:

    "Don't get me wrong: My complaint is not that the Obama administration has not been liberal enough. My complaint is that the Obama administration, so far, has not been devoted enough to good policy--to the good technocratic policies of what I used to see as the bipartisan center--and has been unwilling to use any leverage at all against a congress that is underbriefed, unfocused, and easily captured by special interests."

    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2009 @ 9:17pm

33. I have been very disappointed in the President Obama. He has been wishy-washy,

    Posted by kevin99999 at 10/15/2009 @ 12:53pm

    i prefer wiggly wobbly.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2009 @ 9:19pm

34. they should be asking "how can we become as great a nation as the US"?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 1:16pm

    CDSs?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2009 @ 9:20pm

35. We need to redefine the common notions associated with healthcare. Obviously, healthcare is not just being treated by a doctor. Good nutrition is a form of healthcare. Physical exercise is a form of healthcare. National defense is also a form of healthcare. We need to protect our bodies from harmful bacteria, viruses, invading armies, and terrorists. If we, as a nation, are willing to fund national defense initiatives to protect American lives than we should also be willing to federally fund decent healthcare for all Americans to protect their lives.

    As a nation, we are obviously willing to spend tremendous human and monetary resources to defend us from external forces. Just considering the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- we have lost many lives; many more have been physically and mentally injured; we have spent billions of dollars on waging the wars; and we have diverted precious human and physical resources away from more economically productive endeavors. In the Iraq war alone, over 4,000 soldiers have died and over 30,000 American soldiers have been injured. By a conservative estimate, the United States military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost our nation well over $900 billion and the cost is steadily increasing.

    The military expenditure of human resources and monetary capital has been massively expensive. However, the actual cost is largely a secondary consideration mainly because our nation has been galvanized to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks. We are very motivated in our battle to save American lives from external forces. And because lives are at stake, our national defense has been performed without any notion of budget deficit neutrality. We have demonstrated minimal fiscal discipline to fund our ongoing wars.

    National defense is a form of national healthcare. We are quite willing to spend whatever is needed to protect us from external threats. Unfortunately, as a nation, we're unwilling to protect all of our citizens by providing healthcare for them. Each year many people in this country die because they don't have healthcare coverage at all or because they don't have adequate healthcare coverage. Two reputable studies report we currently have either 20,000 or 45,000 people in the US dying each year because of a lack of healthcare coverage (Institute of Medicine study – "Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality" and Harvard study - "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults"). If we average the total deaths per year from the 2 studies, that's 32,500 people dying each year just because they don't have healthcare coverage.

    To most of us, the fact that 32,500 people needlessly die each year is a flat statistic. Please allow me to animate this statistic. The total number of people in the US each year dying for lack of healthcare coverage is approximately the same as the total number of students enrolled at one of our large universities. If this degree of mortality occurred at one university each year from 2001 through 2008, it's like all the students at the University of Iowa died one year; all the students at the University of Utah died the next year; all the students at Boston University died the next year; all the students at the University of Tennessee died the next year; all the students at George Mason University died the next year; all the students at the Colorado State University died the next year; all the students at the University of Kansas died the next year; and all the students at San Diego State University died the next year. This represents more than 230,000 people who've died in 8 years simply because they didn't have healthcare coverage. This is a grotesque disaster!

    President Obama and many members of Congress have stated they want a healthcare reform bill that will not increase the federal deficit. Given the massive number of deaths occurring each year, how can we ever begin to consider that this healthcare problem should only be solved in a manner that doesn't increase government spending?!? Have we as a people and our democratically-elected representatives lost our minds? I'm outraged at this type of short-sighted and mean-spirited solution. Stop the needless suffering and dying in this country by supporting decent healthcare coverage for all – even if we have to spend some money to do it. It is worth it.

    Posted by DonGib at 10/15/2009 @ 9:52pm

36. Intelligence, by the way, is notoriously difficult to measure.....

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/15/2009 @ 8:58pm

    Perhaps `Aptitude' is more accepted as an inference?

    Here's something from the Daily Princetonian.....

    http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10 /12/24103/

    Asians may face tougher college admission process, study finds

    By Melanie Jearlds Staff Writer

    Published: Monday, October 12th, 2009

    Asian applicants may face discrimination in the admission process at many elite universities, according to data from a recent study conducted by sociology professor Thomas Espenshade GS '72.

    According to the data, not all races are considered equal in the college admissions game. Of students applying to private colleges in 1997, African-American applicants with SAT scores of 1150 had the same chances of being accepted as white applicants with 1460s and Asian applicants with perfect 1600s.

    The results of the study come three years after Jian Li, a rejected Princeton applicant, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.......

    ================

    Note the shockingly low SAT scores of AA applicants, at 1150, vs. that of whites/Asians' 1460-1600!

    Those of us who have worked with AA graduates in top-tier companies (two Fortune 100 companies in my case), know that many don't belong, even if they have degrees from fancy-name colleges!

    Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 10:24pm

37. Why are we still talking about 'public option?'

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 10:58pm

38. For someone to continually be a racist pig is unacceptable. Droopy you prove that on almost every post. You would have said something stupid to GW Carver when eating peanut butter toast with him. Is that how the other Joint Chiefs felt when they discussed policy with Colin Powell? On health care reform I want conservatives to tell us why the greed shown by the insurance companies is o.k. Does the increasing economic polarity of our society make it o.k? How can CEO pay be out of sight at the Big insurance companies and they say they make 3-4% profit? How many conservatives denied coverage will it take for them to see the light?

    Posted by whatozz at 10/16/2009 @ 05:12am

39. Among people of below average intelligence, single payer is by far the most popular program.

    Intelligence has nothing to do with support for single payer.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/15/2009 @ 11:50am

    Coming from an abject moron like Da Troll that is quite complimentary, Darladoon.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/16/2009 @ 06:32am

40. What surprised me yesterday while listening to the MSM is that most if not all commentators have no clue as to how a bill becomes law.

    Chris Matthews for instance was rambling on about how Democratic Senators can't count. He was saying if a public option was included in bill consolidation there would not be 60 votes to pass it.

    The truth is if the final bill has a public option in it, it will take and amendment to take it out. If the final bill does not have a public option in it it would take and amendment to put one in. So it is much better to have a public option in the final bill going in. Which will trigger a fillibuster. Once a fillibuster starts it will take 60 votes for "cloture". Many Senators who will not vote for the bill itself, will vote for "cloture" as cover.

    So it should not be too difficult to get 60 votes for "cloture". After debate is ended and the Bill hits the floor for and up or down vote it only takes 51 votes to pass the Bill, not 60.

    So it would be stupid not to include a public option in the final bill going in.

    But Harry Reid is not the sharpest tool in the shed and is bought and paid for.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/16/2009 @ 06:53am

41. This would come as a surprise to the Australians, the British, the Canadians, and the French… "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

    There. "Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll" has posted his anecdotal, groundless claim, and I have posted mine.

    Can either one of us provide any empirical evidence at all?

    I think not.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/15/2009 @ 8:58pm

    I think so.

    But first, I need to qualify my remarks. I was speaking about people in the USA. You are quite right that in other cultures support for single payer probably doesn't vary much by intelligence. But in the US it does. This is related to cultural values regarding independence.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 07:54am

42. Secondly, I need to address your point that IQ is hard to measure. I've read Gould's book, "The Mismeasure of Man". I wasn't impressed. Gould didn't say that intelligence doesn't exist or that it is unimportant. As near as I can tell, his point is that intelligence is not a physical thing and thus any measure is subjective.

    But beauty is not a physical thing either. Are you prepared to argue beauty doesn't exist? Of course you aren't. Gould's point is that for intangible items the choice of measurement is subjective. While that is true, every conceivable system designed for measuring beauty will produce the same order between George Clooney and Michael Moore, and between Angelina Jolie and Andrea Dworkin. Just because different systems will produce different rankings for Jolie and Megan Fox doesn't mean all ordering systems are worthless.

    Psychologist, when talking about intelligence, refer to "g" for general intelligence. This "g" is a weighted average of the seven components of intelligence. Howard Gardner maintained (1985) that intelligence is comprised of seven components: musical, bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.

    Measures of "g" effectively amount to different weighting systems for combining these components. But studies have show that these components are all highly correlated so different weights only change rankings of very similar items; not disparate ones like Clooney and Moore's beauty. (Correlation is not causation and there are individual exceptions. There is the "idiot savant" who can play any tune on the piano, but cannot write his own name.)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 07:54am

43. Now, back to the main point, which is my conjecture that support for single payer is disproportionately high among those with less than average intelligence. Which groups favor single payer? I can think of two main ones, blacks (90+% Dem) and the poor.

    Well, the average IQ of American blacks is about 90. This is not a racist statement. It is a scientific fact that for the last century, all psychological studies have shown a difference that has narrowed from about 1 standard deviation to about .07 standard deviations in IQ. As to the poor, Murray and Herstien demonstrated that among Anerica's white population, income is correlated with IQ. Therefore, as a group, poorer people, have lower IQs, and these are the people supporting single payer.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 07:55am

44. Coming from an abject moron like Da Troll that is quite complimentary, Darladoon.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/16/2009 @ 06:32am

    Having different values from you doesn't make me stupid.

    The clinical definition of "moron" is a person with an IQ between 50 - 69.

    My IQ is between 130 and 140.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 07:58am

45. Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 10:24pm

    yep,

    them niggrahs is just plain dum.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/16/2009 @ 08:05am

46. My IQ is between 130 and 140.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 07:58am

    can you cook?

    can you fix a transmission?

    can you grow sweet potatoes?

    can you play "giant steps"?

    can you show compassion for your fellow human?

    can you control your intake of high-fructose corn syrup?

    intelligence has many forms. an iq test is bullshit.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/16/2009 @ 08:07am

47. Frosty, I have rebuilt an automatic transmission. I can show compassion for my fellow humans. All the others are no.

    I am not saying IQ is a measure of human worth, which seems to be Liberals' biggest complaint regarding IQ. Furthermore, regarding economic "worth" IQ is correlated with income, not wealth.

    Also, IQ is not a measure of wisdom. Wisdom pertains more to values. What's that quote about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing?

    One's potential for productivity is postively correlated with intelligence. Insofar as IQ is between 50% and 80% an accident of birth, that is not fair, but it is a fact of life.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 08:45am

48. Big insurance already is trying to intimidate the nation with its pronouncements. The central questions to me are,why not in effect by late 2010 and why are the Dems afraid to explain how program is paid for. I have no problem holding Dems accountable for the public option now. Why can't all Americans pay for this insurance plan. Everything as I read and think about it is based on private insurance plans.Either this is going to be the biggest scam in American history or there is no actual model to put ther program in place. Why do I get the feeling this is a 3 year legislative process. Is it now Harry Reid to the rescue,oh boy!

    Posted by whatozz at 10/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

    Agreed. Everyone now knows that Goldman Sachs was too big to fail, and evidently the insurance industry is too big for the government to take on. Here's a thought. Anti-trust measures. Break the damn insurance companies up into smaller ones. Allow real competition including a government option. I would be more than happy to pay into a government run insurance plan versus a private one. More oversight would take place and I'd have a much better chance of getting care when I need it. As it stands, these friggin insurance companies collect your premiums while you are healthy, and then when it comes time to pay the piper, they ditch their customer on whatever grounds the greedy slimy aholes can come up with. Anybody heard the term "breach of contract"? Sounds like the insurance companies are guilty as charged of this time and time again. Only most patients don't have the time or money to fight the deep pockets that they have to hire teams of attorneys to defend themselves.

    Republicans call this justice? Give me a break.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/16/2009 @ 08:51am

49. Anti-trust measures. Break the damn insurance companies up into smaller ones. Allow real competition ...

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/16/2009 @ 08:51am

    Wolfie

    In the US, there are two types of insuance companies: (1)life insurance, and (2) property and casualty insurance (P&C). Both of these types of companies can sell health insurance. There are 2000 different life insurance companies in the US. I don't know how many P&C companies there are.

    How much more competition do you think we need?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 09:09am

50. No, the critical year is 1966. Before then increases in medical costs were in line with inflation and with cost hikes across the economy. None of the lefties on this board and at The Nation are capable of arguing cogently and thinking clearly and honestly. Posted by Pirovano at 10/15/2009 @ 8:55pm | +++

    In your next educational comment, please provide a link or reliable reference to your claims regarding 1966 as the year the sky began to fall.

    As for lefties arguing coherently, one cannot argue coherently when your opponent has been brainwashed.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 10/16/2009 @ 09:18am

51. In fairness, many of the 2000 companies are affiliates of each other. I think about 20 companies represent about 80% - 90% of the life insurance market. Of the

    I've gathered some data on Health insurance companies. I found a list of the biggest 125. This was misleading because BC/BS of NY was separate from BC/BS of CA. I combined all of the Blues (20 out of 125).

    This list of 125 companies represented $521B out of $571B (91%) of health insurance premiums. Now, one-seventh of our economy is $2 trillion (estimated healthcare), so this is about 30% of all that is spent. Medicare is approximately $300B. Medicaid is approximately $275B.

    Anyway, BC/BS is #1 with $78B in premiums representing 13.5% of all private premiums.

    BC/BS is a non-profit. This is exactly the public option government model that President Obama spoke of.

    How much more competition do you think we need?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 10:32am

52. The top 6 companies are 50% of premiums

    BC/BS 13.5%

    United Healthcare 11.5%

    Wellpoint 9.8%

    Kaiser Foundation 7.7%

    Humana 3.8%

    AETNA 3.8%

    Kaiser Foundation is also a non-profit so 21% out of the top 50% (so it's really 40%) are non-profits.

    The top 20 companies are about 70% of the total market and include Metropolitan, which is also a non-profit (Mutual technically).

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 10:42am

53. As it stands, these friggin insurance companies collect your premiums while you are healthy, and then when it comes time to pay the piper, they ditch their customer on whatever grounds the greedy slimy aholes can come up with. Anybody heard the term "breach of contract"? Sounds like the insurance companies are guilty as charged of this time and time again. Only most patients don't have the time or money to fight the deep pockets that they have to hire teams of attorneys to defend themselves.

    Republicans call this justice? Give me a break.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/16/2009 @ 08:51am

    We already have a mechanism for controlling insurance companies. They are called State Insurance Commissioners

    Every state right now controls who can sell, what they sell, and how they are priced. They have complaint boards who take action ranging from penalties, restoring service, ordering payment, banning agents, barring companies from future business, and imprisonment.

    I keep asking libs why you don't go after the State Insurance commissions and the State legislators who approve the laws governing health insurance in each state?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 10:56am

54. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 10:42am |

    TR Reid is someone many on the left quote regarding Single Payer. I watched this seminar with him recently on Link TV (a leftist site).

    He was asked about the Kaiser model of nonprofit healthcare and had praise for them. He even stated that they would be a good model to follow.

    It's over an hour but worth watching

    http://tinyurl.com/yccokte

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 1:22pm

55. Wow, nothing like one or two facts to bring debate to a screeching halt.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 1:36pm

56. Wow, nothing like one or two facts to bring debate to a screeching halt.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 1:36pm

    We both know that the left doesn't want to hear about the very viable alternative of nonprofit healthcare providers to their dreams of big govt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 1:59pm

57. How can anyone support a plan that will FORCE EVERYONE to buy health insurance, even if they don't want it, or can't afford to buy it. This is insane! Our GOVERNMENT if forcing this on every American!

    Has anyone that supports this bill stopped to even ask "how much is this going to cost each person?". Somehow I think that every supporter thinks this will be free. Well not only will it cost real dollars...it will cost us our freedom.

    DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM! Look at all of the elements logically and no one in their right mind could support this intrusion on our freedom.

    Posted by BobSr85 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:43pm

58. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM! Look at all of the elements logically and no one in their right mind could support this intrusion on our freedom.

    Posted by BobSr85 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:43pm

    I agree, to me the biggest fault of the whole program is forcing everyone to buy private insurance or face government fines.

    There are no guarantees of affordability or even adequate coverage, yet we are going to be forced to pad the pockets of insurance company CEO's and shareholders or face a fine. To me this looks really bad, I am waiting to see what else in the the bill, as there has been little opportunity for the public to truly review what is being proposed.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 2:58pm

59. How much more competition do you think we need?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 10:32am

    Good point, just more evidence that even with non "profit" heath insurance already active in the market we still are seeing out of control healtcare costs. Sure tort reform could help, sure big pharma is a problem.

    However, to me this just supports a shift to single payer.

    Btw, the bc/bs ceo of MA recieved over $4m in compensation last year, about average across all the states. Which would total over $225 for the US in only BC/BS CEO compensation. BC/BS of north dakota funded over 15m in bonuses last year, and spent a quarter million on a sales associtates trip to the Grand Cayman. North Dakota! whats the population base there? Just makes me a little dubious about the not for profit claim... and what that really means.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 3:30pm

60. How can anyone support a plan that will FORCE EVERYONE to buy health insurance, even if they don't want it,

    Posted by BobSr85 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:43pm

    I agree, to me the biggest fault of the whole program is forcing everyone to buy private insurance or face government fines.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 2:58pm

    Of the many different reforms included in the various bills, Mandatory coverage is one I support the most.

    If we as a society were callous enough to allow the irresponsible to die if they couldn't afford healthcare, I would feel differently. But we insist on treating everyone whether he can afford it or not. As such, we have a "free rider" problem. These problems can only be fixed with mandates.

    We mandate that every single driver have insurance if he drives a car because his actions could potentially cost others money. If you choose to give up your car, you still pay for insurance every time you pay a fare to ride a bus or train, or pay local taxes to fund public transportation.

    In the Backus bill they backed off on the penalty. The smartest thing you could do would be to give up insurance and pay the penalty. Then if you are in an accident the hospital will treat you for free and if you get cancer, you can buy insurance them. This way you force the rest of society to subsidize you.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 3:40pm

61. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 3:40pm

    Darin. If you can't afford insurance now, nothing about mandating you buy it in the future insures that you can afford it.

    Where is the bus fare or bike path of health insurance? When I see that maybe I will agree with you. Affordability is the primary issue, I understand the argument that if everyone buys in, then the costs will come down. Well, im a bit skeptical when dealing with corporations. If they could tell me that if everyone who pays in will have an affordable plan with decent coverage, it would not disturb me greatly. But as it stands now there is no guarantee of affordability or adequate coverage.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 4:25pm

62. "If we as a society were callous enough to allow the irresponsible to die if they couldn't afford healthcare,"

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 3:40pm

    IRRESPONSIBLE? FUCK YOU! Try telling me that when you lose your job and your health insurance and would rather provide shelter and feed your kids than pay $800 a month for COBRA or a private plan. How ignorant are you?!

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 4:29pm

63. Extraneous at 4:29pm wrote:

    >> IRRESPONSIBLE? FUCK YOU! Try telling me that when you lose your job and your health insurance and would rather provide shelter and feed your kids than pay $800 a month for COBRA or a private plan. How ignorant are you?! <<

    When you lose your job and are scratching to pay the rent and feed your kids, then you don't need to buy medical insurance because you are eligible for Medicaid. That is what it is for.

    In short, if you did less spitting and sputtering in your own fat you might not be the irrelevant sausage your handle advertises.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/16/2009 @ 5:10pm

64. Max Baucus is determined to set up a sweetheart deal for his insurance industry contributors. If the free-market is always best for everything, what fear do they have of competing with a supposedly inefficient federal insurance option? What happened to the "market-based" system that was supposed to solve this mess 15 years ago? -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 10/16/2009 @ 5:41pm

65. Posted by Pirovano at 10/16/2009 @ 5:10pm

    Spitting and sputtering in your own fat...Irrelevant sausage, nice one, an 8.9 on the creativity scale.

    I have family in the situation I described above, he lives in Oregon a state that does not have a medically needy provision and he does not qualify under the categorically needy provision. He has enough money to not be poor enough, but if he does not want to lose his home he can't afford COBRA the ONLY thing he qualifies for. Medicaid won't cover him. Accusing him of being irresponsible is what sparked my ire and the reason for the F bomb, I generally try to avoid that. But you can continue to wallow in your own bile for assuming you know all the circumstances.

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 6:18pm

66. Pirovano, have you ever tried to get medicaid? I know people who desperately needed it and you have to be practically destitute to get it, by then its usually too late.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/16/2009 @ 6:24pm

67. "If we as a society were callous enough to allow the irresponsible to die if they couldn't afford healthcare,"

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 3:40pm

    IRRESPONSIBLE? FUCK YOU! Try telling me that when you lose your job ...

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 4:29pm

    I deserved that.

    I was typing too fast and I didn't mean that.

    I should have been more deliberate with my words and said:

    "If we as a society were callous enough to allow THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO SELF-INSURE to die if they can't afford the healthcare they need."

    This assumes the free market makes available policies that will pay for healthcare in certain contingencies, such as stroke, cancer, broken bones, mental health (if you choose to pay that insurance), chiropractic (if you choose to pay that insurance), etc.

    If you can't afford insurance, then you are not choosing to self-insure and Medicare, Medicaid, or some other program would subsidize the needy.

    It is the people who choose to spend their insurance money on cigarettes, booze, eating out, new cars, $3000 bicycles, unnecessary clothes, new purses, and the like that the mandate is for.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/16/2009 @ 6:52pm

68. Pirovano, have you ever tried to get medicaid? I know people who desperately needed it and you have to be practically destitute to get it, by then its usually too late.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/16/2009 @ 6:24pm

    That is nonsense. Go without medicaid then. pay cash for a doctor visit if you think you have to depend on doctors.

    And if things get serious, you cannot be denied service at a hospital for lack of insurance or money. That is federal law.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 7:08pm

69. So geniuses, if all is hunky dory, then why are "60% of Bankruptcies Caused by Health Problems - Most victims are middle-class and have health insurance" http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06/ bankruptcy_medical_costs.html

    I have an IQ of 140+ but I feel like an idiot when I read right wing illogic. You know kinda like Spock freaking out ILLOGICAL when someone says something way out there, like the Republicans all the time.

    Half logic, partial truth, simplistic jingoistic solutions, all result in imbecilic conclusions, whether they're from the mouths of geniuses or morons. Geniuses can act like fools too! At this point most Republicans are effectively morons and complicit in all obstructionist and idiotic "death panel", "break the bank" discussions of health care reform. The bank has already gone bust as a result of free market libberrtarians, not Medicare or Social Security. Talk about stupidity!

    I really get a kick out of Dick Armey thinking that he is smarter than most Democrats. Sarah does too! OH MY! I think one more round of Republican political dominance will put us fully into a RIGHT WING IDIOCRACY. Why don't you guys go out and buy a Monoploy Game and play it with your beloved friends for about a week? Then imagine that this game be used as a model for a society, and make sure you bring your guns, cuz you'll need them next time you hit one of those real Utilities (public or otherwise) and don't have the money to pay it.

    It would be great watching you squirm & I'd say "sweet" like Glenda Beck the good witch! Oh such entertainment! Or maybe Rush Limberger's "rugged individualist" going broke, losing and taking a few hits of unpaid oxy and going directly to jail for a few rounds. Yah, that's it.

    ILLOGICAL, ILLOGICAL ILLOGICAL ,ILLOGICAL!

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/16/2009 @ 9:13pm

70. nataline sarkisyan

    The case for a public option rests.

    Posted by jarshadow at 10/16/2009 @ 9:27pm

71. This thread was starting to sound like the ramblings of group of Mensa wannabe's.

    IQ tests or psychometrics can be very misleading. They are only one measure of intelligence. Emotional and Social considerations also contribute to the difficulty of determining intelligence.

    My IQ has been tested twice, once on the Stanford-Binet Scale and once on the Wechlsler Adult Scale. Both measured 148.

    I work as a truck driver and I smoke. I've been divorced twice and I was a Heroin Addict for seven years. How smart is that? A "high" IQ is apparently no measure of common sense or a guarantee of success in life..

    Your mileage may vary..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/17/2009 @ 05:44am

72. The case for a public option rests.

    Posted by jarshadow at 10/16/2009 @ 9:27pm

    May it Rest in Peace!

    SINGLE PAYER NOW!! (I'm getting older by the minute)

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/17/2009 @ 05:56am

73. I work as a truck driver and I smoke. I've been divorced twice and I was a Heroin Addict for seven years. How smart is that?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/17/2009 @ 05:44am

    "Smart" is not a generic synonym for "good".

    "Smart" or "intelligence" speaks to one's ability to learn or solve problems.

    It doesn't speak to one's ability to develop "good" habits.

    It doesn't speak to one's ability to defer gratification.

    It doesn't speak to one's values system.

    It doesn't speak to one's ability to behave in a selfless manner.

    One the playground, the taunts, "You're stupid/ugly/fat" is effective because smart/pretty/svelt are all unquestionably good things. It is a pet peeve of mine with liberals/progressives, who believe they are so much smarter than the entire rest of the world, attempt to win an argument over values by declaring the argument is over intelligence.

    I've met too many liberals/progressives who smugly assert that they are so much smarter than me and they don't even have a fucking clue what intelligence means.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 08:36am

74. So geniuses, if all is hunky dory, then why are "60% of Bankruptcies Caused by Health Problems - Most victims are middle-class and have health insurance" http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06/ bankruptcy_medical_costs.html

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/16/2009 @ 9:13pm

    TBNT, your study is a political hack job. There are two main problems with it.

    One, do you know the difference between health insurance and disability income insurance?

    In this study, the pro-football player who is making and spending $5 million a year who blows out his knee and is out of the game forever, has a $20,000 operation and then can't pay his $5 million mortgage. He files for bankruptcy and it is caused by "health problems." Tell me, is single payer going to pay his $5 million mortage? How does health insurance reform prevent the bankruptcy of a person who can't work because of a disability, but doesn't have disability income insurance? It doesn't.

    Two the study years where chozen to maximize the appearance that single payer is needed. The first year is 2001, the trough of the internet bubble burst (post burst). The second year is 2007 the peak of the real estate bubble (prior to busrt). With record high forclosures, the study's authers wouldn't be able to claim 60% are medically related in 2008 or 2009.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 08:58am

75. I work as a truck driver and I smoke. I've been divorced twice and I was a Heroin Addict for seven years. How smart is that?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/17/2009 @ 05:44am

    In "Outliers" Malcom Gladwell looks at anecdotal evidence (not statistical correlation) linking intelligence to success. He focuses on Chrstopher Langan.

    Langan's IQ is about 200, and he's a total fucking loser. I blame all of his problems on his mother. She was raise in San Francisco as the daughter of a wealthy shipping executive, but she was cut off from her family when she turned into a liberal slut.

    She had four children from four different fathers. The father of the youngest stuck around and beat Christopher from age 6 until 14 when he kicked his stepdad's ass and threw him out of the family.

    He was raised in financial poverty. He recieved two different college scholarships and basically got kicked out of both colleges for being an asshole.

    Intelligence is not a guarantee of success or wealth. All other things being equal, it improves one's chances, but is not guarantee.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 09:15am

76. It is a pet peeve of mine with liberals/progressives, who believe they are so much smarter than the entire rest of the world Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 08:36am

    I really don't see the connection or causal relationship between intelligence and a particular political affiliation.

    If you have a problem with liberals/progressives/socialists/commies or anything politically left of Atilla the Hun, that is a personal discrimination. It comes from inside you. And has nothing to do with intelligence or a lack thereof.

    I know it does with me. I despise tight assed, self absorbed conservatives. When I was a kid, they were all the "snitches" and "suck-ups" who worshiped authority. A number of my childhood friends who were that way, sported many a black eye from the likes of me and later became hall monitors, police officers or security guards. And later in life even corporate lackeys.

    I admit my discriminations. And am proud to be a free thinker. But none of it has anything to do with intelligence.

    So I apologize for calling you an abject moron.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/17/2009 @ 09:20am

77. I did however always consider your kind incapable of independent thought and a bunch of pantywaist, play by the rules automatons. Selfish by nature, self promoting and back stabbing, untrustworthy, unfaithfull and self righteous.

    I guess that's all I can say.

    Your the one that has to live with yourself..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/17/2009 @ 09:48am

78. chaoszen, sounds like we grew up in the same neighborhood, I just kept my mouth shut and observed, and formed my own opinions, not easy when you had so many meatheads to contend with, but I knew the difference between right and wrong and chose my own way, you could have been my brother, peace.

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/17/2009 @ 10:04am

79. I have discovered a powerful new weapon in the so-called generational warfare.

    The use of proper spelling, grammar, and capitalization tends to piss of the millennials and some Gen-X slacker types. The more texting prone one of them is, the more repelled they are by old school skills.

    Use these weapons frequently for fun.

    Posted by sntauri at 10/17/2009 @ 10:58am

80. I despise tight assed, self absorbed conservatives. When I was a kid, they were all the "snitches" and "suck-ups" who worshiped authority.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/17/2009 @ 09:20am

    Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon) from the movie, "Election". And you see yourself as Jim McAllister (Mathey Broderick)imposing your sense of justice on the world, but with your fists.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 12:08pm

81. ILLOGICAL, ILLOGICAL ILLOGICAL ,ILLOGICAL!

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/16/2009 @ 9:13pm

    yes you are, but keep posting anyway.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 12:20pm

82. The total number of people in the US each year dying for lack of healthcare coverage is approximately the same as the total number of students enrolled at one of our large universities. If this degree of mortality occurred at one university each year from 2001 through 2008, it's like all the students at the University of Iowa died one year; all the students at the University of Utah died the next year; all the students at Boston University died the next year; all the students at the University of Tennessee died the next year; all the students at George Mason University died the next year; all the students at the Colorado State University died the next year; all the students at the University of Kansas died the next year; and all the students at San Diego State University died the next year. This represents more than 230,000 people who've died in 8 years simply because they didn't have healthcare coverage. This is a grotesque disaster! Posted by DonGib at 10/15/2009 @ 9:52pm

    Intelligence actually dictates that our minds be connected to our hearts and souls. What sense does pure science exist without its healthy equitable application.

    No one is arguing that healthcare should be free, yet how long would we tolerate our doctors if we knew they'd re-negotiate additional payment each time before they'd give us a diagnosis, our test results or in the middle of an operation. Whether we called it bribery or extortion, would it really matter? We'd quickly recognize it as wrong-doing.

    Yet the misery profiteering insurers are doing both before we can ever see our doctors.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 12:34pm

83. Too bad personal choice is no longer available in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Instead of having an overbearing government dictating terms and conditions, how about letting me: * Buy catastrophic insurance across state lines. * Build a health savings account (tax deductible) for normal medical care. * Implement "real" tort reform.

    Given how politicised this administration has made many things already (NFL?), do you really believe they will not politicise liver or kidney transplants?

    Posted by pyeatte at 10/17/2009 @ 2:40pm

84. "Insurance companies that seek to sell policies in the United States must make them available to all Americans, regardless of preexisting conditions."

    Sounds good, but there is an economic reality here that is not being addressed. Health insurance is something you get when you are healthy and you pay against a time in the future where you might not be healthy. That's insurance.

    If you are already sick, then what you are paying for is not health insurance. It is health care. And health care is naturally going to be more expensive than the insurance that was compounded upon for years in preparation.

    What this means is that everyone else who is paying that company for insurance will have to pay higher premiums to cover the costs of people with pre-existing conditions who need care pronto.

    If insurance reform is first and foremost designed to make insurance more affordable and accessible, this move will be counter-productive. It will drive up the cost.

    This is not to say I think people with pre-existing conditions should get bent and tough cookies. I'm merely stating what is and will be an unavoidable economic fact.

    That and this reform bill is obviously a way to use common-sense cause and effect market forces to drive people into government health care.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

85. "Insurance companies that seek to sell policies in the United States must make them available to all Americans, regardless of preexisting conditions."

    Sounds good, but there is an economic reality here that is not being addressed. Health insurance is something you get when you are healthy and you pay against a time in the future where you might not be healthy. That's insurance.

    If you are already sick, then what you are paying for is not health insurance. It is health care. And health care is naturally going to be more expensive than the insurance that was compounded upon for years in preparation.

    What this means is that everyone else who is paying that company for insurance will have to pay higher premiums to cover the costs of people with pre-existing conditions who need care pronto.

    If insurance reform is first and foremost designed to make insurance more affordable and accessible, this move will be counter-productive. It will drive up the cost.

    This is not to say I think people with pre-existing conditions should get bent and tough cookies. I'm merely stating what is and will be an unavoidable economic fact.

    That and this reform bill is obviously a way to use common-sense cause and effect market forces to drive people into government health care.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

86. Do you notice in this debate which special interest group is quiet and happy as a clam? The tort lobby. Isn't it interesting that if you are injured on the job, L&I has definite caps for pain and suffering - in other words, caps for the government but not for medical tort trials.

    Our representatives are selling the American public out. Somewhere down the line there will be an accounting.

    Posted by pyeatte at 10/17/2009 @ 2:53pm

87. it's like all the students at the University of Iowa/Utah/Boston/Tennessee/George Mason [dying.]

    Posted by DonGib at 10/15/2009 @ 9:52pm

    Well it's a little different.

    All the students at these institutions are between 18 and 23 and have their whole lives ahead of them. The people dying prematurely from lack of care aren't 18 - 23. They are generally in their 50's and 60's. And typically, they never attended college. And rather than living off of their parents, they typically have been living off the government for the last 18 - 23 years of their lives.

    But other than that, it's kind of the same.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 2:53pm

88. I know, only a complete asshole would write what I wrote above. I guess I'm just making our hypocrisy a little more visible.

    Ideally, we would belive that every person has equal "worth". My comment is meant to expose the ugly truth that most American's don't really live that ideal.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 2:57pm

89. I know, only a complete asshole would write what I wrote above. I guess I'm just making our hypocrisy a little more visible.

    Ideally, we would belive that every person has equal "worth". My comment is meant to expose the ugly truth that most American's don't really live that ideal.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 2:57pm

90. If insurance reform is first and foremost designed to make insurance more affordable and accessible, this move [not excluding pre-existing conditions] will be counter-productive. It will drive up the cost.

    This is not to say I think people with pre-existing conditions should get bent and tough cookies. I'm merely stating what is and will be an unavoidable economic fact.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

    You can accomplish this AND bring down costs but you have to make it mandatory/compulsory. By forcing the 18 million people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it, we force them to subsidize the sick.

    It is the exact same with Social Security. Someone calculated that my expected return on my Social Security taxes is something like -1%. Most people pay $100,000 in and get $150,000 back later for a 2% return. I will pay in $200,000 and get $190,000 back later.

    No person in his right mind would do this without a State mandate. I am forced to subsidize the poor. I'm not complaining about it; I'm just explaining the ecconomics of social insurance. The only way to subsidize the unhealthy is to force the healthy to buy insurance even if they expect to lose money on the deal.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 3:05pm

91. No, I know a ponzi scheme when I see it.

    And this will simply make private insurance a less profitable business to be in.

    So government care in the form of a public option will not have the barriers that are imposed on private insurers. Private firms will remain bottled up in their states while the government plan is under no such restrictions. Private firms have to operate on a cost/profit model. The governement can operate at a loss if it wants. It gets it's operating money involuntarily through taxes. Private firms have to earn theirs.

    But the Democrats know and understand all of this. They want business owners to drop work-provided insurance as an overhead expense and shift us into the government plan.

    You cannot advocate a plan like this without understanding (and wanting) this to happen. When they talk about choice and competition, they are lying.

    You won't have choice if your employer finds it cheaper to dump you into the government plan. You won't have competition because private companies can't effectively compete against a government that will operate at a loss using predatory pricing, and places no state geographical barriers upon itself like it does the private firms.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 4:09pm

92. No, I know a ponzi scheme when I see it.

    And this will simply make private insurance a less profitable business to be in.

    So government care in the form of a public option will not have the barriers that are imposed on private insurers. Private firms will remain bottled up in their states while the government plan is under no such restrictions. Private firms have to operate on a cost/profit model. The governement can operate at a loss if it wants. It gets it's operating money involuntarily through taxes. Private firms have to earn theirs.

    But the Democrats know and understand all of this. They want business owners to drop work-provided insurance as an overhead expense and shift us into the government plan.

    You cannot advocate a plan like this without understanding (and wanting) this to happen. When they talk about choice and competition, they are lying.

    You won't have choice if your employer finds it cheaper to dump you into the government plan. You won't have competition because private companies can't effectively compete against a government that will operate at a loss using predatory pricing, and places no state geographical barriers upon itself like it does the private firms.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 4:09pm

93. Who is to say that there will not be holes to fill in this latest installment of "As the insurance saga continues". The Republicans who tried to block Medicare when it was passed,have worked hard to hijack it over the years. How much money do you think Big Insurance makes every year off of supplemental insurance for seniors? With the amount of money being spent by "Health" concerns in this health care debate does anyone think they are going to come out of this with nothing? Please don't make me laugh Cit Car when you talk about predatory pricing. You want to present a case which the insurance companies are just a profitable enterprise that care for their customers. You are another guy trying to lead us down the road of a 3-4% profit margin for the insurance companies. Please do me a favor and lie to your friends and not us with your posts. The CEO of United Health "earned"$700 million of stock options over 5 years. Now if his company has a3-4% profit margin and he gets paid that kind of money there really is apot of gold at the end of the rainbow. How many states does Blue Cross/Blue Shield service? How many subsidiaries does United Health have? The state line argument is just a red herring. All of the players in the game know the costs and the prices they can charge. Stop the lying and covering up for the insurance people they are doing fine without you.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/17/2009 @ 5:14pm

94. Check this out. I think we need some answers from the Whitehouse:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ebl_OFEaU8&feature=player_embedded

    Posted by cwcgal at 10/17/2009 @ 6:06pm

95. As health care reform lurches forward in Washington, proposed legislation would chop nearly half a trillion dollars from Medicare. This is yet another example of greedy, cold-hearted, racist Republicans slicing Medicare so they can laugh as Granny shivers on a subway grate and nibbles her cat food with a broken fork.

    Just as candidate Barack Obama warned last October, Republican rule means Medicare cuts. "You'll pay more for your drugs," Obama prophesied. "You'll get lower quality care. I don't think that's right. In fact, it ain't right."

    But wait…

    These massive Medicare cuts bear no Republican fingerprints. They are -- gasp! -- handcrafted by Democrats, the heretofore compassionate, caring party that handed Granny her knitting needles and hot cocoa as she rocked gently before a crackling, federally subsidized fire.

    Democrats now are so desperate to infiltrate Uncle Sam deeper into our clinics and hospitals that they are behaving even worse than these Republican caricatures. They are throwing Granny under the bus, backing over her, and then burning rubber across the splinters of her rocking chair.

    Specifically, the various Democrat bills under consideration would fund a massive explosion in federal health care expenditures by extracting some $450 billion from Medicare's budget through 2019.

    This includes "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" that President Obama breezily says can be trimmed from Medicare -- just like that. If Medicare truly is this mismanaged, then government-dominated medicine is a model to avoid. If, however, government medicine efficiently lowers costs, Medicare should lack such budgetary blubber, leaving little to excise.

    Which is it?

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 10:35pm

96. Democrats want to squeeze $113 billion from the Medicare Advantage program that satisfies 10 million seniors. Democrats also would slash Medicare reimbursements to doctors who see elderly patients. Medicare typically pays such physicians 80 cents-per-dollar of their usual prices. Curb those payments by another 25 percent, as the Senate Finance Committee recommends, and doctors will see even fewer Medicare patients. Likewise, if grocers earned only 60 cents on each dollar of food sold to seniors, Granny soon would be unwelcome at supermarkets.

    Had the GOP mulled even a fraction of these Democrat cuts, Republican National Headquarters would be a smoking ruin. GOP members of Congress would be clad in Kevlar. And Republicans nationwide would be excoriated for geronticide.

    Now, as Democrats attempt to enact these savings, the media slumber at their desks while AARP stands down. The staff of the elders' lobby seems more excited about securing the socialist dream of government medicine than watching the backs of its 40 million mainly retired, dues-paying members.

    According to contemporaneous news accounts, things were far louder in late 1995 when the GOP Congress weighed 6 percent Medicare growth, rather than the 10 percent previously projected.

    *As the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) growled: "It is clear that there is a new meaning to G.O.P. -- Get Old People."

    *If Republicans "control the White House, the Congress and the federal courts," predicted Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), "they will do everything they could to see that Medicare and Medicaid would wither on the vine."

    *"…I'm talking about the hard line Republicans now," said Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "They're cutting the heart out of Medicare."

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 10:36pm

97. *Then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) warned that GOP policy errors "are going to destroy the Medicare system and leave senior citizens without any health care."

    *"They finally hit on this idea of saving Medicare," said then-White House aide George Stephanopoulos. "It sounds like the old Vietnam argument that they had to destroy the village to save it."

    *The late, great Robert Novak reported in November 1995: "White House press secretary Michael McCurry said Republicans ‘probably' would like to see senior citizens ‘just die and go away' along with Medicare."

    Democrats are in charge now, and they practically can taste the government medicine they covet. Thus, things are as eerily quiet as the pillow they have poised to stuff over Granny's face.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 10:38pm

98. Guess what DuNcE talk it up . If you want me or my 81 year old mother to believe that the Republicans are now going to give a shit about seniors is laughable. AARP,that is the organization whose top revenue maker is their United Health Care insurance. Shut up little brain yopu are the biggest espouser of the conservative talking points I have seen in all my site surfing.Go back to sleep.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/17/2009 @ 11:37pm

99. We liberals need to demand that the government take over the health care system in this country, and make it work great, just like in the Soviet Union!

    Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 04:11am

100. "Allowing insurers to charge older Americans vastly higher premiums simply because of their age is discrimination, pure and simple," Mr. Kerry said. "Insurers must compete based on price, value and customer satisfaction, not by avoiding Americans based on their age or health."

     God I love that quote. Pretty much says it all.

     Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 04:21am

101. You know, once Senator Kerry gets through with re-designing our health care system, I'm gonna hire him to take on my auto insurance company. Ya know, they charge me much more because of my 4 drunk driving convictions. Now I understand that I am a victim of discrimination! And I won't stand for it!

     Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 04:26am

102. Many posting here persist in the delusion that Government administered healthcare is some grand never before tried experiment.

     Universal Healthcare on a not-for-profit basis exists in all industrialized countries and many developing countries. The lone exception is the United States. A thinking person might ask themselves why that is. The key words are not-for-profit.

     In a country like ours, where unregulated rogue Capiltalism is out of control there is no differentiation between things that should or should not fall under the umbrella of profit. Morally and ethically Healthcare for the citizens of any country should not have a profit motive. Any civilised people understand this. Most countries realized this quite awhile ago. And have found that being moral and ethical in this matter has also saved them money in the process.

     The United States, being by and large an uncivilised and barbaric society refuses to see this. And because many here have the illusion that we are a great and grand country have a hard time admitting that someone else may have figured out this problem a long time ago.

     There are many examples of workable systems for Universal Healthcare. In fact we have one right under our nose, Medicare. The simple solution was always to open up Medicare for all, but the greedy power brokers who get rich off of other peoples misery and control much of our government will not allow it.

     It is way past time to do something about them if we want social justice and equality.

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/18/2009 @ 06:05am

103. I know that some of you enjoy jumping all over Medicare because of waste, fraud and abuse. And you say Medicare is bankrupt. Medicare is not yet bankrupt but it's reserve is likely to be empty by 2017.

     If we want to save Medicare, the best way to do that is to include everyone in it. As it is now Medicare is by nature chock full of sick people. The people who require the highest level of care and the highest cost. If everyone is included in the program, the healthy and the sick, the cost of Medicare will be spread out. This is a no brainer.

     Opening up Medicare for all would also negate the need for Workman's Comp and the VA. It would also take some of the pressure off of employers to provide healthcare to their employee's. Many more small business entrepreneurs could afford to start up more businesses and employ more people. Foreign investment would be more apt to bring their manufacturing here and the jobs that come with it.

     This should appeal to liberals and conservatives alike. It is fiscally responsible and socially just.

     So why are we arguing? Seems to me that we have a common enemy.

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/18/2009 @ 06:51am

104. The sun is rotating to come up from the west, soon! Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 10:16am |

     Another fine specimen of your ignorance, Ptolemy.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 08:46am

105. Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 04:26am |

     I hope you get TB (or maybe liver failure is more appropriate, given your proclaimed habits) so, perhaps, you'll be able to tell the difference between your body and your car as your lungs fill with fluid and you cease to breathe.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 08:48am

106. Posted by chaoszen at 10/18/2009 @ 06:51am

     "If we want to save Medicare, the best way to do that is to include everyone in it."

     Whether they want to be or not?

     " If everyone is included in the program, the healthy and the sick, the cost of Medicare will be spread out. This is a no brainer."

     Put another way, you want to make the provident pay for the improvident. I pay for my own health care right now with a combination of an HSA and a high deductible plan. Why should I be forced out of that plan, as you lefties want to do, and have to pay huge $$$ for a plan, which the government forces on insurers, who now have to pay for ALL EXISTING PRECONDITIONS, including those brought on by the patients poor health care choices?

     " Many more small business entrepreneurs could afford to start up more businesses and employ more people.

     Utter nonsense and wishful thinking. This presupposes the government can run something better than private industry, which has NEVER DONE AND ARGUABLY NEVER WILL.

     "This should appeal to liberals and conservatives alike. It is fiscally responsible and socially just."

     What is 'fiscally responsible' about spending another trillion dollars we don't have? Or do you actually think they can cut $500 billion from Medicare without cutting quality of service? If so, why havent they done that so far?

     Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 10:08am

107. Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 08:48am

     "I hope you get TB (or maybe liver failure is more appropriate, given your proclaimed habits) so, perhaps, you'll be able to tell the difference between your body and your car as your lungs fill with fluid and you cease to breathe."

     Oh, you must be one of those 'humane' liberals, eh? Good thing for you that the term 'hate speech' only applies to conservative speech!

     Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 10:10am

108. Posted by chaoszen at 10/18/2009 @ 06:05am

     "Many posting here persist in the delusion that Government administered healthcare is some grand never before tried experiment. Universal Healthcare on a not-for-profit basis exists in all industrialized countries and many developing countries. The lone exception is the United States. A thinking person might ask themselves why that is. The key words are not-for-profit."

     No, the key words are 'fiscally unsound', 'intergenerational Ponzi scheme' , 'demographically unsustainable', and 'destined for severe rationing'.

     As in the US Medicare and Medicaid system, foreign socialized medicine is characterized by demographic unsustainability, an increasing degree of rationing (yes, death panels in the UK are real), and a reliance on the US health care industry for advances. As with Social Security, most of those receiving medicare and medicaid never paid for the benefits they are receiving, and the cost will be borne by today's younger cohort (18-30 year olds) when these systems collapse or the out-of-control-spending finally forces a day of reckoning. It's ironic that Obama's greatest support is with this younger cohort, because they are the ones who ar going to be without a chair when the music stops.

     Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 10:22am

109. Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 10:10am |

     Just a big fan of just retribution for abject ignorance.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 12:57pm

110. It's ironic that Obama's greatest support is with this younger cohort, because they are the ones who ar going to be without a chair when the music stops. Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 10:22am |

     What do you mean 'when' the music stops, Kemo Sabe?

     Did you sleep through last fall or something?

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 1:05pm

111. Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2009 @ 10:22am

     Is someone speaking here? I can hardly hear it. I think I'm becoming deaf to Bullshit. All I hear are guttural grunts, groans, snorts and squeaks...

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/18/2009 @ 1:59pm

112. Is someone speaking here? I can hardly hear it. I think I'm becoming deaf to Bullshit. All I hear are guttural grunts, groans, snorts and squeaks...

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/18/2009 @ 1:59pm

     all you hear is dead leftist rhetoric.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/18/2009 @ 8:15pm

113. Posted by antisocialist at 10/18/2009 @ 8:15pm |

     So he's filtered out the 'bullshit' from the right and is learning from the lessons of the left's past?

     Well done, CZ.

     An ironic commentary from a con who can't find any support for his lunacy beyond the Federalist Papers.

     Talk about your references to the rhetoric of the dead.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/19/2009 @ 09:54am

114. Larry: "As directed by the Constitution, health insurance is under the authority of each state who dictate what kind of health insurance may be offered and ensures compliance with state law by the providers."

     --interstate commerce. ever heard of it?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:05am

115. Larry: "As directed by the Constitution, health insurance is under the authority of each state who dictate what kind of health insurance may be offered and ensures compliance with state law by the providers."

     --interstate commerce. ever heard of it?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/19/2009 @ 11:05am

     Health insurance does not fall under interstate commerce requirements.

     Health insurance providers submit the policy plans to state commissioners who approve or disapprove based upon compliance with state laws, not federal.

     The ONLY potential involvement for the Federal govt is to ensure that no state stops a company from another state from trying to conduct business in that state.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:21am

116. Oh please, it's about 'We the People's government.

     "We the People of the United States,

     in Order to form a more perfect Union,

     establish Justice,

     insure domestic Tranquility,

     provide for the common defence,

     promote the general Welfare,

     and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

     do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

     The health of us is the health of our nation-- as in for our general Welfare in our nation-- a single payer system will insure domestic Tranquility, will establish Justice, will provide for the common defence - as in resolving this national security issue; in Order to form our more perfect Union.

     I see no contradiction in the spirit of our constitution and the creation of a single healthcare system.

     The only contradiction is coming from the corporate healthcare insurance profiteers wanting to continue profiteering from our misery and their need to continue separating us from our government.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2009 @ 5:53pm

117. "TBNT, your study is a political hack job. There are two main problems with it. One, do you know the difference between health insurance and disability income insurance?" Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 08:58am

     Try again Chuggie Cheese lover...

     "According to the study, a number of circumstances propelled many middle-class, insured Americans into bankruptcy. For 92% of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy. Many families with continuous coverage found themselves under-insured, responsible for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

     Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06/ bankruptcy_medical_costs.html#ixzz0UQzRSXVA"

     ILLOGICAL, ILLOGICAL ILLOGICAL ,ILLOGICAL! Just keep them coming libberrtarians!

     Thank you Mr. Spock, "PAIN! PAIN!" Thank you Dr. Leonard McCoy "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer." (TOS: "The Devil in the Dark") ...to which Kirk replies, "You're a healer, there's a patient. That's an order."

     from: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/I%27m_a _doctor%2C_not_a...

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/19/2009 @ 8:33pm

118. like all the students at the University of Iowa/Utah/Boston/Tennessee/George Mason [dying.]Posted by DonGib at 10/15/2009 @ 9:52pm All the students at these institutions are between 18 and 23... The people dying prematurely from lack of care aren't 18 - 23. They are generally in their 50's and 60's. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/17/2009 @ 2:53p

     Wrong, wrong and wrong:

     You leave out post-grad's, master/phd candidates, research assistants, etc.

     PLUS--

     Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults

     Andrew P. Wilper, MD, MPH, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, Karen E. Lasser, MD, MPH, Danny McCormick, MD, MPH, David H. Bor, MD, and David U. Himmelstein, MD

     The population analyzed in the original study was older on average than were participants in our sample (22.8% vs 55.6% aged 34 years or younger).

     Our estimate for annual deaths attributable to uninsurance among working-age Americans is more than 140% larger than the IOM's earlier figure.

     Objectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between uninsurance and death with more recent data.

     Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We analyzed participants aged 17 to 64 years to determine whether uninsurance at the time of interview predicted death.

     Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time.

     http://tinyurl.com/l5apzx

     Still you miss the larger point as well-- wrong a 4th time; which is not a high record for you in one post, surely.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/19/2009 @ 9:53pm

119. Sorry the conclusion stated above was from their abstract. This is from the original draft:

     Conclusions Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44789 deaths per year in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease (n=42868).41 The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance. Despite widespread acknowledgment that enacting universal coverage would be life saving, doing so remains politically thorny. Now that health reform is again on the political agenda, health professionals have the opportunity to advocate universal coverage.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/20/2009 @ 07:44am