Kill the bill and Start Over

[fxc1100]

Did you read the huffington post article? Why in the world is doing what they claim they were already doing in the health care bill "caving in" to Rep. Wilson?

Did you hear what Obama and other Dems originally said? They want to phase out private insurance in favor of government run health care. The American people don't want that so to achieve healthcare reform the Democrats will have to compromise to the will of the people. The People have stated they don't want to add to the Deficit, they don't want coverage for illegal immigrants, they don't want taxpayer money spent on abortions.

Fact Check the bill: The no increase in the deficit claim is a sham. Obama and the Democrats are just refusing to count money that puts us in the red! The no illegal immigrant claim is a sham because they refused amendments that required verification (recently Dems claimed agree to some concessions but called it "caving in" ...why is it caving?) Tax dollars not covering abortion is a sham.

The people aren't supporting this reform because it creates more than 40 new bureaucracies that will waste trillions of dollars, add bigger government and higher costs in our HealthCare system which will in turn lead to rationing and further damage to our economy. Canada's system has higher costs and provinces are admitting that their systems are unsustainable and causing deeper cuts in care and rationing. People don't support the bill because it doesn't address the need for more doctors, nurses and medical staff and facilities which will cause long waits for care.

This isn't Republican stalling. This is Obama's and the Democrat's Bad Policy. They aren't fixing health care. They are messing up what actually works with the system to have government take over. The government hasn't run any program cost effectively yet.

Section 246 does not permit the payment of these affordability credits to illegal aliens:

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

And just in case you don't to read you can listen to Rachel Maddow read out loud for you: Rachel Maddow Show


​

 

[Trinity]

Section 246 does not permit the payment of these affordability credits to illegal aliens:

And just in case you don't to read you can listen to Rachel Maddow read out loud for you: Rachel Maddow Show

​

It is actually a more intricate problem than simply what section 246 states. There are significant loopholes which could have been closed by a simple amendment that the Republicans put forth to make certain section 246 was verifiably true. The Democrats refuse to pass the amendment and close the loophole. This has already been discussed:

http://www.lpsg.org/2323363-post93.html

Rep. Joe Wilson told the truth:


ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants-Congressional Research Service
September 10, 2009

Mark Tapscott discovers a nugget in the analysis provided by the Congressional Research Office on HR3200, the House version of ObamaCare coming to the floor. While Barack Obama insists that the idea that ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants is a "myth," the CRS points out that the bill does nothing to prevent it. Since HR3200 doesn't require people to establish citizenship or legal residency before applying to exchanges for health insurance, including the public option, taxpayer money will certainly flow to illegal immigrants:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

In addition to that Joe Wilson's outburst brought light to this issue and the White House changed it's proposal (which means Obama supposedly won't sign a bill) that now allows illegals to buy insurance in the Exchange or a public option. (that's a symbolic move because the public option is seemingly dead...but it reiterates that the WH doesn't support illegals benefitting from taxpayer money)

"Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to access the exchange that is set up," Gibbs said. Verification requirements are "something we'd work out with Congress," he said.

huffington post

AND Democrats changed their tune too and decided to apparently close the loophole in one chamber of congress:

Baucus, Conrad Cave To Joe Wilson On Health Care Bill

"What we are trying to prevent is anyone who is here illegally from getting any federal benefit," Conrad told reporters. He didn't specify whether illegal immigrants would be allowed into the exchange, but Friday evening, a Democratic Finance Committee aide said that although nothing was finalized, the committee was expected to follow the White House's lead and bar illegal immigrants from the exchange.

ALL From two little words: "YOU LIE." Rachel Maddow may have to do a little explaining on Obama's about face and the Democrats following suit.

 

[Industrialsize]

Truth is...the doctors aren't fooled as evidenced by the articles and the break away by doctors from the AMA support of ObamaCare.[/SIZE]

I guess you can't read after all. The poll said that DOCTORS, by a large majority, support health care reform with a public option. The poll is CURRENT. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[HazelGod]

This thread is the epitome of pointless stupidity. The Congress isn't going to scrap the bills on the table and start from scratch.

End of story.

 

[Trinity]

I guess you can't read after all. The poll said that DOCTORS, by a large majority, support health care reform with a public option. The poll is CURRENT. What part of that don't you understand?

The question is...what part don't you understand?

The survey showed that a majority of 2130 doctors from the AMA masterfile supported providing people younger than 65 years of age the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan like Medicare or enrolling in private plans.

As I stated before:

Doctors might select public and private options if the new public health insurance plan would be like Medicare and the Obama Administration had promised to increase Medicare reimbursements too.


Fact is, the survey didn't ask if the doctors supported ObamaCare or H.R. 3200 or anything like what's currently going through congress because Obama's public option in it's proposed exchange stringently controlled by Government rules is intended to compete with private insurance and undersell it and is nothing like Medicare.

So doctors aren't fooled as evidenced by the articles and the break away by doctors from the AMA support of ObamaCare.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Government run healthcare does not bend the cost curve...the Canadian models are a perfect examples of unsustainability! The Government Tyranny will be rationing care, long waits for care and higher costs, higher taxes for less care.

Total bullshit. This has been a GOP argument for decades. Overall healthcare costs are CHEAPER in Canada and these hospital line-ups are a total fallacy. This quote from Faceking (from another thread) is an example of similar unsubstantiated, ignorant claims made by the American right about Canadian healthcare:

As the chief justice, Beverley McLachlin, put it, “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care” — and in Canada you wait for everything. North of the 49th parallel, we accept that if you get something mildly semi-serious it drags on while you wait to be seen, wait to be diagnosed, wait to be treated. Meanwhile, you’re working under par, and I doubt any economic impact accrued thereby is factored into those global health-care-as-a-proportion-of-GDP tables. The default mode of any government system is to “control health-care costs” by providing less health care. Once it becomes natural to wait six months for an MRI, it’s not difficult to persuade you that it’s natural to wait ten months, or fifteen. Acceptance of the initial concept of “waiting” is what matters. . .

Vince's reply, from the same thread:

For your information, I needed an MRI and waited about one hour for it at Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver. The next morning I had surgery. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Open up to some other possibilities and have a balanced view. No system is perfect or will perfectly meet the needs of all people all the the time. The status quo in American health care is not working, hasn't for some time and is it in need of some serious overhaul in terms of how it's paid for.

The administrative costs of health care in the US far outstrip those in Canada. Our socialised system is two times more efficient than the private insurance system in the US in dealing with admin costs. Overhead in the US Medicare system was 3.6% versus 11.7% for private insurers.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]U.S. Health Care Paperwork Cost Far More Than in Canada
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New England Journal of Medicine Study Shows U.S. Health Care Paperwork Cost $294.3 Billion in 1999
Far More Than in Canada[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BOSTON-August 20, 2003-A Special Article published in tomorrow's New England Journal of Medicine finds that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $294.3 billion in 1999. The $1,059 per capita spent on health care administration was more than three times the $307 per capita in paperwork costs under Canada's national health insurance system. Cutting U.S. health bureaucracy costs to the Canadian level would have saved $209 billion in 1999.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The study was carried out by researchers at Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canada's quasi-official health statistics agency. The authors analyzed the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies, physicians and other practitioners in the U.S. and Canada. They used data from regulatory agencies and surveys of doctors, and analyzed Census data and detailed cost reports filed by tens of thousands of health institutions in both nations.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31% of total U.S. health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7% in Canada. They also found that administration has grown far faster in the U.S. than in Canada. Between 1969 and 1999, administrative and clerical personnel in the U.S. grew from 18.2% to 27.3% of the health work force. In contrast, the administrative/clerical share of Canada's health labor force rose modestly, from 16.0% in 1971 to 19.1% in 1996. These labor force figures exclude the 1.65 million employees at U.S. insurance companies and agencies, as well as the small number of private insurance employees in Canada.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Overhead in Canada's provincial insurance plans, which provide most coverage, averaged 1.3% vs. 11.7% for private insurers in the U.S. and 3.6% for U.S. Medicare. Bureaucratic costs were also far higher for U.S. doctors and hospitals than for their Canadian counterparts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] This study was conducted with grant support from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The Foundation does not endorse the analyses or findings of this report or those of any other independent research projects for which it provides financial support.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Drs. Stefffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, Harvard authors of the study, are both Associate Professors of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program, a 10,000 member organization that advocates for Canadian-style national health insurance in the United States.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/0820woolhimmel.html
[/FONT]

These are facts, not the unsubstantiated sort of claims that the Holy It is used to. Us Canadians have worked hard at radically reforming our healthcare system and we consider it one of our major accomplishments. As a Canadian, I'm proud of our pioneering MP's, especially Tommy Douglas, who took this bold step. Ironically, his party was the most conservative in Canada.

As for these waiting lines, I know from first-hand experience that they don't exist. I've been to the hospital many times, and I've never waited more than an hour for anything.

Seeing a specialist is different: there are waiting lists, and they can be up to six months, but only for non-severe cases. They are called "specialists" for a reason. Any emergency treatment, like an MRI to detect brain cancer, would certainly not take months of waiting.

Use some other nonsense excuse, Holy It. You are showing your epic ignorance here. We don't have the best healthcare in the world, but we are proud of what we've achieved so far.

 

[Trinity]

Total bullshit. This has been a GOP argument for decades. Overall healthcare costs are CHEAPER in Canada and these hospital line-ups are a total fallacy. This quote from Faceking (from another thread) is an example of similar unsubstantiated, ignorant claims made by the American right about Canadian healthcare:

As for these waiting lines, I know from first-hand experience that they don't exist. I've been to the hospital many times, and I've never waited more than an hour for anything.

Use some other nonsense excuse, Holy It. You are showing your epic ignorance here. We don't have the best healthcare in the world, but we are proud of what we've achieved so far.

We've done this before but...why not do it again.

I stated that Canada's healthcare system has issues of unsustainability.

"It is important to remember that health costs are increasing at a rate faster than general government revenue. Should current trends continue, future health expenditures will exceed available resources by a significant and substantial amount. The historical practice of increasing health expenditures at the expense of other important public services is not a feasible, practical or advisable approach." - Roy Romanow, Commission on the Future of Healthcare

1. The status-quo of the Canadian health-care system is completely unsustainable; and

2. Rather than having a debate in Canada about how to fix our health-care system (since the "generational fix" of five-years ago didn't quite get us there), we are off bragging about the unsustainable status-quo to other countries, convincing them we have the magic answer to health care.

There is of course some reason to brag about our health-care system. It has largely served our country well. For my entire lifetime, our system, while far from perfect, has been part of our country's identity (and to be clear, there is no such thing as a perfect health-care system, every jurisdiction is struggling at all times with how to allocate scarce resources to meet insatiable demands).
So while I am a big defender of aspects of our health system, there is nothing magical about it. At least not anymore.

The Globe and Mail.com

While I'm sure you are proud that Canada has universal coverage,( believe me America would love to get there and be proud of that too)...it is NOT sustainable and in our current economic instability and debt - would break us!

Need more?

Soaring costs could force most provinces to spend more than 50 per cent of their revenue on health care by 2036, says a new report, which urges Canadians to consider alternatives to the status quo if they "want a sustainable, high-quality health-care system."

"Over the past 10 years, health-care spending in nine out of 10 provinces has grown at an unsustainable rate," says Brett Skinner, the lead author of the Fraser Institute report. "Unless governments find a better way to finance health care, then provincial governments will likely be looking at tax hikes, further rationing of medical goods and services or ugly tradeoffs with other important spending areas."

Canada.com, VancouverSun

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec - then the largest and most affluent in the country - adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits, by David Gratzer, IBDEditorials.com

10th Anniversary Edition - Health Care in Canada Survey
This is the tenth edition of the Health Care in Canada Survey, the most comprehensive survey of Canadian public and health care providers’ opinions on health care issues.

A decade ago, lack of funding and government cutbacks were deemed the most important issues. In 2008, wait times and the shortage of doctors top the list.Other issues surveyed included timeliness and access to care and environmental health issues such as air and water pollution. -CHA

Friday, April 17, 2009

Debate on Alberta health insurance overhaul boils over


Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert (left) made a big splash this week -- even by his infamous "Rockin' Ron" standards -- when he declared that because the province's healthcare costs are growing at an unsustainable rate, some medical services currently covered by the public insurance plan would have to be "de-listed." [Calgary Herald]

Mr Liepert said the government may establish a panel to make recommendations on "what is medically necessary, what is essential, what needs to be covered, what doesn't need to be covered."

"We, 3.5 million Albertans, can't afford to cover what we've got right now," he said. [Calgary Sun]

Wait times problems exist. Rationing exists. And they are problems. These problems are not what Obama and the Democrats are promising with ObamaCare and Americans don't want it. We also don't want an economically unsustainable system that will add to our deficit or break our economy.

The numbers don't lie. ObamaCare is a fallacy. Canada's outcomes are reality: higher costs, longer waits for care and rationing. Higher taxes for rationed care.

 

[Sklar]

As for these waiting lines, I know from first-hand experience that they don't exist. I've been to the hospital many times, and I've never waited more than an hour for anything.

As for those waiting lines, I have about 200 clients with dual citizenship (Candaian/American), who have told me to my face that they don't want to see America get any program similar to what Canada has because of the long wait times that they have to endure.

Sklar

 

[Trinity]

Coming to agreement on workable parts of the bills out there would have been an option but the Left and the Democrats including the President refuse to admit their traps in the bills.

Obama and others are on record as approving of the elimination of private employer health insurance. Despite what they are saying publicly now to get their way, it very much appears that they are setting up a system to do just that.

If they truly want to deal...

Why haven't they allowed the Republican amendments?

Why does the federal government have to run practically every aspect of the health insurance system? Why can't the federal government allow for more competition by opening insurance across state lines?

Why can't they cut out all of the Government control in the bills and increase competition by allowing insurance across state lines and small businesses to group?

Why can't they cut out all the Government control in the bills and simply legislate changes we all agree on for the private insurance industry and regulate that industry for the benefit of the American people?

Why can't we discuss how to cover the uninsured in a separate bill?

Why can't they address tort reform?

Why can't they ban denial of coverage for preconditions and denial for extensive or catastrophic care?

Why can't they set up incentives for positive health outcomes?

Why does every bill add to the deficit when Obama said it wouldn't?

Why does the legislation do this:

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough


If the Democrats refuse to admit that they have an agenda wrapped up in their plan and refuse to eliminate the "traps" from the bill that people are opposed to then there can be no compromise.

That's why people are actually asking for a blank slate. This is our healthcare. The President and Congress will have their healthcare...the rest of us aren't going to be fooled with a bunch of empty promises.

I still think these are the questions being asked by many americans.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

yes, indeed, let's kill the bill and start over without including a single republican ass-wipe sell out skinflint fucktard...
Get the 60 democrats in a room, and explain that any one of those blue dogs that doesn't support a single payer system is gonna get the ENTIRE DNC throwing its full weight behind an alternate candidate in their reelections.

Stop pussyfooting around and realize that the US every other industrialized nation pays HALF what we do for healthcare, and gets greater longevity and higher marks for general health overall.

 

[deleted213967]

Stop pussyfooting around and realize that the US every other industrialized nation pays HALF what we do for healthcare, and gets greater longevity and higher marks for general health overall.

This is generally true (I don't personally oppose a single-payer system), but for more complex reasons.

The health care system is not merely about an insurance mechanism.

- Our medical professionals (including nurses) cost far more here than they do abroad.
- Fee-for-service compensation encourages waste.
- Most of the health care money goes into treating a small portion of the population, for conditions that are preventable or delay-able.

In addition, there is no replacement for Kennedy yet so Democrats only have 59 to begin with. If you add centrist Democrats to GOP members, there is clearly no consensus for a single payer system at this point.

Also remember that most of those "Blue Dogs" became US Senators because their constituents didn't want a hot-pink politician representing their interests in Washington.

 

[Trinity]

In addition, there is no replacement for Kennedy yet so Democrats only have 59 to begin with. If you add centrist Democrats to GOP members, there is clearly no consensus for a single payer system at this point.

They just got a replacement for Kennedy.

yes, indeed, let's kill the bill and start over without including a single republican ass-wipe sell out skinflint fucktard...
Get the 60 democrats in a room, and explain that any one of those blue dogs that doesn't support a single payer system is gonna get the ENTIRE DNC throwing its full weight behind an alternate candidate in their reelections.

Stop pussyfooting around and realize that the US every other industrialized nation pays HALF what we do for healthcare, and gets greater longevity and higher marks for general health overall.

Obama claims he's not going for a single payer system. The American people don't want it. More than 80% are satisfied with their private insurance.

They should start over and address the issues to fix what's wrong with our current system without adding to the deficit. We don't need Government takeover, deficit spending, healthcare rationing, higher taxes, and cuts to senior benefits in Medicare.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

This is generally true (I don't personally oppose a single-payer system), but for more complex reasons.

The health care system is not merely about an insurance mechanism.

- Our medical professionals (including nurses) cost far more here than they do abroad.
- Fee-for-service compensation encourages waste.
- Most of the health care money goes into treating a small portion of the population, for conditions that are preventable or delay-able.

In addition, there is no replacement for Kennedy yet so Democrats only have 59 to begin with. If you add centrist Democrats to GOP members, there is clearly no consensus for a single payer system at this point.

Also remember that most of those "Blue Dogs" became US Senators because their constituents didn't want a hot-pink politician representing their interests in Washington.

Yes, and all of those things will be addressed... once we have a public option, which is looking more and more likely, what with more than HALF of Republican voters supporting it, only imbeciles will continue to pay inflated profit margins for private health insurance policies...

And, y'know what... the same government I can trust to defend this nation and prudently manage the worlds largest arsenal of WMPs, I think can manage keeping track of aspirin and tongue depressors.

Conservatives are transcendently stupid.

 

[Trinity]

Yes, and all of those things will be addressed... once we have a public option, which is looking more and more likely, what with more than HALF of Republican voters supporting it, only imbeciles will continue to pay inflated profit margins for private health insurance policies...

What poll shows more than half of republican voters support the public option? All the polls taken in their entirety demonstrate that neither Obama nor the Democrats in congress have the plan the people support.

And, y'know what... the same government I can trust to defend this nation and prudently manage the worlds largest arsenal of WMPs, I think can manage keeping track of aspirin and tongue depressors.

Maybe if the government was only going to be in charge of aspirin or tongue depressors that might be...actually Nope. Then we'd be paying $400 dollars each for aspirin and tongue depressors.

Putting the government in control of the entire health insurance industry will have it in the same mess as social security and medicare...only people in America won't have anywhere to go like Canadians do.

 

[Industrialsize]

What poll shows more than half of republican voters support the public option? All the polls taken in their entirety demonstrate that neither Obama nor the Democrats in congress have the plan the people support.



Maybe if the government was only going to be in charge of aspirin or tongue depressors that might be...actually Nope. Then we'd be paying $400 dollars each for aspirin and tongue depressors.

Putting the government in control of the entire health insurance industry will have it in the same mess as social security and medicare...only people in America won't have anywhere to go like Canadians do.

SEE you're operating under the delusion that Health Care reform is an ENTIRE TAKEOVER by the government of the ENTIRE health care system. Right out of the right wing talking points. You are perpetuating a LIE!......yes, an outright LIE....You are a LIAR....and please don't post that old youtube clip from 2003.........It's 2009 and that's NOT what we're talking about here. I hope you never lose your job or insurance and have to experience what MILLIONS of people go through every day in their quest to meet their basic healthcare needs. AND YES, there are MANY polls that show the rank and file Republicans support a Public OPTION. I guess you don't know what the word OPTION means.

 

[deleted213967]

Putting the government in control of the entire health insurance industry will have it in the same mess as social security and medicare...only people in America won't have anywhere to go like Canadians do.

I must have missed the part where you mutated from an alacritous supporter of Hillary-The-Single-Payer-Health-Care-System-Pioneer to a mouthpiece for the Party of No.

 

[Trinity]

SEE you're operating under the delusion that Health Care reform is an ENTIRE TAKEOVER by the government of the ENTIRE health care system. Right out of the right wing talking points. You are perpetuating a LIE!......yes, an outright LIE....You are a LIAR....and please don't post that old youtube clip from 2003.........It's 2009 and that's NOT what we're talking about here. I hope you never lose your job or insurance and have to experience what MILLIONS of people go through every day in their quest to meet their basic healthcare needs. AND YES, there are MANY polls that show the rank and file Republicans support a Public OPTION. I guess you don't know what the word OPTION means.

There is no delusion on my part. I am very clear. The Democrats and Obama attempted a government takeover of the entire health insurance system. They still won't allow the bill in committee to be posted for 72 hours and to be costed by the CBO prior to voting. They are not being transparent or forthcoming with the American people. That is not a delusion!

As I have posted several times. The American People have read the bills. We know what's in there! Killing the public option isn't even enough because the bills have unacceptable provisions in them that give unchecked control to the federal government that it should not have:

The government would mandate enrollment practices; regulate how premiums are determined; specify what co-payments can be collected; and dictate how much of the premium would have to be paid out for claims. The government would switch money back and forth among plans (“risk adjustment”) to compensate plans that cover a larger share of sick people.

It would impose “uniform marketing standards” on insurance plans and regulate how plan documents are written to ensure that they use “plain language.” Although the evolving legislation manifestly fails this test itself, it requires insurers to use language that is “clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing.” To help the hapless insurers in this task, the newly created health choices commissioner would “develop and issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing.”

The newly created health choices commissioner would take bids from plans, negotiate with them, and enter into contracts with selected plans. This opens the way for undefined and unchecked informal regulation of plans, including, for instance, the number, type, and location of providers included in a plan, and how they are paid. The government would be able to use the contract mechanism to introduce any requirement it wanted, including social policies in favor at any particular time.

The government’s determination of covered benefits and cost effectiveness would determine what care patients receive. The financial impact of the regulation of insurers would determine the number of people who go into medicine and nursing and thus whether there are manpower shortages, the speed with which patients can see a doctor they want, their access to hospitals, how modern the hospital is, and the distribution of doctors and hospitals.

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough

The Democrats need to kill all the bills and start over to fix the problems with our healthcare system not mess up what is right with our system. More than 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance.

 

[Industrialsize]

There is no delusion on my part. I am very clear. The Democrats and Obama attempted a government takeover of the entire health insurance system. They still won't allow the bill in committee to be posted for 72 hours and to be costed by the CBO prior to voting. They are not being transparent or forthcoming with the American people. That is not a delusion!

As I have posted several times. The American People have read the bills. We know what's in there! Killing the public option isn't even enough because the bills have unacceptable provisions in them that give unchecked control to the federal government that it should not have:

Eliminating the Public Option Is Not Enough

The Democrats need to kill all the bills and start over to fix the problems with our healthcare system not mess up what is right with our system. More than 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance.

SO FUCK THE 20% who are sick and dying for lack of insurance.

 

[Trinity]

SO FUCK THE 20% who are sick and dying for lack of insurance.

You read Obama's blueprint for change...he said he had that all figured out and it was paid for without adding to the deficit and without raising taxes on those who made less than 250k.

If Obama and the Democrats honestly wanted to address just the number of uninsured who can't afford care with a reasonable plan the American people would be receptive to it. The number of uninsured who can't afford health insurance does not include illegals, or those who make good money but choose not to get coverage, or those who are eligible for some other program so the number isn't 20% or 46 million.

It is far smaller. We need to fix the plan we currently have and find a way to provide coverage for those who can't afford it without adding to the deficit. ObamaCare is a fallacy and it won't lower costs or improve access to or quality of care.

I must have missed the part where you mutated from an alacritous supporter of Hillary-The-Single-Payer-Health-Care-System-Pioneer to a mouthpiece for the Party of No.

The Democrats currently in control of Congress are now the party of No Sense. So I'm quite certain that the Republicans are fine with telling them "no" when they are not acting in the best interest of the People.

Did you hear about Iran this weekend? Does Obama even have a plan for Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea? Meanwhile the Fed continues to monetize our debt, the dollar gets weaker and Obama has no answer for the jobs crisis.

We can not afford the ObamaCare crap of a plan that does not bend the cost curve and increases the deficit and won't improve access or quality of care...it will in fact be detrimental to it.

 

[meatpackingbubba]

SEE you're operating under the delusion that Health Care reform is an ENTIRE TAKEOVER by the government of the ENTIRE health care system. Right out of the right wing talking points. You are perpetuating a LIE!......yes, an outright LIE....You are a LIAR....and please don't post that old youtube clip from 2003.........It's 2009 and that's NOT what we're talking about here. I hope you never lose your job or insurance and have to experience what MILLIONS of people go through every day in their quest to meet their basic healthcare needs. AND YES, there are MANY polls that show the rank and file Republicans support a Public OPTION. I guess you don't know what the word OPTION means.

Discussions are often more productive when conducted with civility and the premise that all participants, regardless of disagreement, are participating in good faith. This is practicing the art of diplomacy.

Thoughtfully considering varying opinions rather than simply reacting to them often helps one gain a more complete understanding of the topic and of the other participants in the discussion. This is practicing the art of listening.