Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: kcballer on February 19, 2010, 10:58:59 AM
-
upport for the public health insurance option is surging in the Senate. It began with three freshman Democrats in the House, Alan Grayson (Fla.), Chellie Pingree (Maine) and Jared Polis (Colo.). The campaign has taken place almost exclusively online.
Grayson organized an online petition calling for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to include a public option in health care reform using reconciliation, process that requires only fifty votes plus a tie-breaker from Vice President Joe Biden. Pingree and Polis persuaded more than 100 House members to sign on to a letter urging Reid to do the same.
The entire effort has been organized on the outside by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and Credo Action. The members behind the movement have been rewarded by online donors.
On Tuesday, four Senate Democrats joined the effort, urging Reid to pass a public option using reconciliation. The group was led by Sen. Michael Bennet, facing a primary challenge in Colorado. Sen. Kirstin Gillibran, facing a primary in New York, was also one of the initial four. Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Jeff Merkley (Oregon) rounded out the foursome.
We've been following the growth of the movement and updating below as more and more Democrats sign on to the call to action. Find out where your senators stand here.
UPDATE: Friday, 10:00 AM -- MSNBC highlighted the renewed push for the public option Thursday night, with both Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow weighing in.
Maddow hosted Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and asked her if the president would fight for the public option, which 18 senators were by then calling for.
"I think if it's--certainly, if it's part of the decision of leadership to move forward, absolutely," Sebelius said. "The president said from the outset he thought that was a great way to provide cost reduction and competition moving forward, but if that is not the choice of the majority moving forward, I think there are other ways to get there."
Olbermann, meanwhile, hosted Sam Stein and the two counted votes, making educated guesses as to where those who are undeclared might come down, coming up with a possible 52 votes, two more than needed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/dianne-feinstein-signs-on_n_466435.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/dianne-feinstein-signs-on_n_466435.html)
It's sad but i don't think it's going to get through. It should but unfortunately people here are too fu*ked up to care about others and their well being. These articles are like a tease, giving you a feeling that maybe, just maybe something could be done to end the insanity of health care in this country.
-
why in the hell should i care about others health care?>??????ESPECIALLY if the government which cant run ANYTHING right is in charge of it.Let them die!!!!
-
The communists on the left are insistent on starting CW2.
KC - what dont you get?
Most people are not in favor of a marxist revolution.
-
What is with you and government control?
-
Perhaps i feel the voted officials have a duty to help their citizens when a crisis arises. A health care crisis has arrived, the amount of people without care dying has increased every year since the 90's. If it stays on that trend by 2020 we will have the same mortality % of uninsured people dying as poor people did in 1800's England and you think everything is okay?
Fine you're against the public option, but i just don't understand how you can care so little about your fellow Americans as to not care if they get a fair deal with their insurance. That is what i don't understand and if the private sector will not do it then either the government needs to force them or do it themselves. That to me, is their duty as representatives of the American people. To help them when a crisis arises, just as they did to Haiti, just as they did post 9/11. That is the governments role to be their for the citizens. Otherwise what's the point? We may as well have anarchy every man for himself.
-
Perhaps i feel the voted officials have a duty to help their citizens when a crisis arises. A health care crisis has arrived, the amount of people without care dying has increased every year since the 90's. If it stays on that trend by 2020 we will have the same mortality % of uninsured people dying as poor people did in 1800's England and you think everything is okay?
Fine you're against the public option, but i just don't understand how you can care so little about your fellow Americans as to not care if they get a fair deal with their insurance. That is what i don't understand and if the private sector will not do it then either the government needs to force them or do it themselves. That to me, is their duty as representatives of the American people. To help them when a crisis arises, just as they did to Haiti, just as they did post 9/11. That is the governments role to be their for the citizens. Otherwise what's the point? We may as well have anarchy every man for himself.
Can you show me where in the constitution the govt assumes the role of health provider?
-
"Can you show me where in the constitution the govt assumes the role of health provider? "
I don't remember the constitution mentioning social security or medicare either. But old people have it, love it, and it's here to stay. Just as I believe public healthcare will be, in some form, as well.
20 years from now, we'll be just like the rest of the world...
-
Perhaps i feel the voted officials have a duty to help their citizens when a crisis arises. A health care crisis has arrived, the amount of people without care dying has increased every year since the 90's. If it stays on that trend by 2020 we will have the same mortality % of uninsured people dying as poor people did in 1800's England and you think everything is okay?
Fine you're against the public option, but i just don't understand how you can care so little about your fellow Americans as to not care if they get a fair deal with their insurance. That is what i don't understand and if the private sector will not do it then either the government needs to force them or do it themselves. That to me, is their duty as representatives of the American people. To help them when a crisis arises, just as they did to Haiti, just as they did post 9/11. That is the governments role to be their for the citizens. Otherwise what's the point? We may as well have anarchy every man for himself.
You can feel whatever you want, but the federal government has no constitutional authority, why the fuck do you think each state has its own governmental structure? Just for the hell of it?
-
"Can you show me where in the constitution the govt assumes the role of health provider? "
I don't remember the constitution mentioning social security or medicare either. But old people have it, love it, and it's here to stay. Just as I believe public healthcare will be, in some form, as well.
20 years from now, we'll be just like the rest of the world...
You have just explained why the fucking federal government needs to be stopped fucking now. I don't want to be just like the rest of the world and if you do then you need your head examined
-
I sure don't either... and it seems the pendulum will swing back from "take care of my gas bill, oh nanny state" to "keep your damn hands off my guns!" like it did in 2000.
And, after 4 or 8 years of Prez Thune or Prez pawlenty following orders and bombing iran and venez and whoever else, Americans will beg for another smooth-talking GQ candidate to coddle them back from the war state.
War and nanny. Back and forth. Pick one. But if you don't like it, it's okay, cause the next guy will change it in 4 or 8 years.
-
"Can you show me where in the constitution the govt assumes the role of health provider? "
I don't remember the constitution mentioning social security or medicare either. But old people have it, love it, and it's here to stay. Just as I believe public healthcare will be, in some form, as well.
20 years from now, we'll be just like the rest of the world...
Exactly and we've argued this to death regarding the constitution. Firstly there is no law saying it can not be added to or amended, secondly Life and liberty are promised. How can you have life or liberty if you are dead because you couldn't get or afford coverage? Seems like a no brainier to me.
Either we will reform the madness 240 or we will end up with a mortality rate for uninsured people in America higher or equal to that of an 1800's Britain slum dweller. Wow some society we would have then huh?
-
I sure don't either... and it seems the pendulum will swing back from "take care of my gas bill, oh nanny state" to "keep your damn hands off my guns!" like it did in 2000.
And, after 4 or 8 years of Prez Thune or Prez pawlenty following orders and bombing iran and venez and whoever else, Americans will beg for another smooth-talking GQ candidate to coddle them back from the war state.
War and nanny. Back and forth. Pick one. But if you don't like it, it's okay, cause the next guy will change it in 4 or 8 years.
The pendulum may swing but there is always going to be the nanny staters who think they are entitled to something simply because they were born in America. Got news for them, the only thing you are entitled to is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - its up to you to catch it.
The sad truth is up until 1862 there was no federal income tax, so the Fed didn't have the ability to piss away money like they do now. As a matter of fact in 1895 the supreme court found that federal income tax was unconstitutional. So what do the fuckers in DC do the create the 16th Amendment. Now look at the US, it used to be the land of the free and the home brave, it's becoming the land of I want it for free and the home of the lazy.
Fucking pathetic
-
Exactly and we've argued this to death regarding the constitution. Firstly there is no law saying it can not be added to or amended, secondly Life and liberty are promised. How can you have life or liberty if you are dead because you couldn't get or afford coverage? Seems like a no brainier to me.
Either we will reform the madness 240 or we will end up with a mortality rate for uninsured people in America higher or equal to that of an 1800's Britain slum dweller. Wow some society we would have then huh?
KC - get this through your think skull we are freaking broke and SS & Medicare are fiscal WMDS.
Check this site out and you tell me if it makes sense to do anything other than cut govt.
www.usdebtclock.org
-
Exactly and we've argued this to death regarding the constitution. Firstly there is no law saying it can not be added to or amended, secondly Life and liberty are promised. How can you have life or liberty if you are dead because you couldn't get or afford coverage? Seems like a no brainier to me.
Either we will reform the madness 240 or we will end up with a mortality rate for uninsured people in America higher or equal to that of an 1800's Britain slum dweller. Wow some society we would have then huh?
You simply don't get it, government involvment fucked up the healthcare system, and your solution is more government. You see the defenition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
-
healthcare costs have skyrocketed in the last ten years - along with their profits.
They got greedy, and now they're getting regulated as a result.
My family's insurance is thru the roof. I'm not excited about Obama mandating anything - but if these pricks at the companies are going to double the prices (again) over the next 10 years, they can suck one.
I don't konw who to believe here... Repubs tell me Obama's plan sucks, and doing nothing is better. I'm seeing if this price hike continues, most people I know aren't going to have health ins in 5 years anyway... already a nice chunk of my friends have dropped it in the last 2 years.
Repubs, please STFU with whining about Obama, and just give us a plan that will stop the spiking prices they charge us - it's that simple. A $250 monthly cap or something. I dunno. But at this rate, it'll be $5oo or $600 a month for me in another 5 years...
-
healthcare costs have skyrocketed in the last ten years - along with their profits.
They got greedy, and now they're getting regulated as a result.
My family's insurance is thru the roof. I'm not excited about Obama mandating anything - but if these pricks at the companies are going to double the prices (again) over the next 10 years, they can suck one.
I don't konw who to believe here... Repubs tell me Obama's plan sucks, and doing nothing is better. I'm seeing if this price hike continues, most people I know aren't going to have health ins in 5 years anyway... already a nice chunk of my friends have dropped it in the last 2 years.
Repubs, please STFU with whining about Obama, and just give us a plan that will stop the spiking prices they charge us - it's that simple. A $250 monthly cap or something. I dunno. But at this rate, it'll be $5oo or $600 a month for me in another 5 years...
Well what do you expect when the government basically endorses a monopoly? If there was actual competition the prices would drop, and I'm not talking about some half assed government run tax payer funded public option either. More government is bad, do you hear that BAD. The best thing they could do would be to get out of the way and let the free market work, but that isn't going to happen.
-
I just want my monthly bill to be capped, pegged to inflation, something.
I hate govt interference and mgmt of our lives... but those vultures have a monopoly and they just raise prices whenever they feel like it. And sure, I could understand if they claimed it was their costs going up - but they're seeing record profits...
If Mobil and Chevron and all the gas stations decided to start charging $25 a gallon, while enjoying all the profits... every single person here would be rallying for the govt to step in and keep the companies from gouging us.
-
I just want my monthly bill to be capped, pegged to inflation, something.
I hate govt interference and mgmt of our lives... but those vultures have a monopoly and they just raise prices whenever they feel like it. And sure, I could understand if they claimed it was their costs going up - but they're seeing record profits...
If Mobil and Chevron and all the gas stations decided to start charging $25 a gallon, while enjoying all the profits... every single person here would be rallying for the govt to step in and keep the companies from gouging us.
Exactly they have a GOVERNMENT mandated monopoly, we should be marching on DC telling the them we have had enough of their bullshit and it will not stand any longer. Instead we get a steady diet of BS from the politicians demonizing everyone accept themselves, and for some reason the majority buys into it. The insurance companies don't want reform unless it is the POS bill being presented because it will cause competition and they will have to adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs. Its simple the government is the catalyst for all this shit.
And as far as the gas stations, there would always be some that would charge 2 dollars a gallon and make a killing while the others go belly up.
-
Can you show me where in the constitution the govt assumes the role of health provider?
It's just under the part that outlines bailing out gamblers when their bets go wrong.
-
As usual KC ur arguments are weak and in keeping with the liberal "feel good" politics, absent of the facts. We can't afford it. "Be their for their citizens"..yeah we all need a hug. What friggen planet do you live on. Obama has failed because Americans don't want this.
From Charles Krauthhammer
Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: “Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama’s (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. . . . But in this case there’s a simpler explanation: Barack Obama’s job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed.”
He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise — expanded coverage at lower cost — led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes, and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them a political mandate and a legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public-opinion polls, then in elections — Virginia, New Jersey, and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.
-
purely observational conclusion on my part but I've personally seen broad based support for some kind of public option but then again the few people who run the government know better than the people who own the government
right?
...........wait
what?
-
"And as far as the gas stations, there would always be some that would charge 2 dollars a gallon and make a killing while the others go belly up."
what IF all the gas stations agreed to charge $25 a gallon?
People would be BEGGING the govt to intervene.
If you know of an insurance company that is charging $75 a month while everyone else is charging $230 a month for the same policy... PLEASE send us their website so we can switch over haha... My monthly bill is huge for the family, and I"m dogshit sick of them having record profits while doubling prices.
-
'bout time!
-
'bout time!
For what Civil War Part 2?
Impeachment?
A GOP Tsunami in November?
I simply have no idea why the libs dont get the fact that the public overwhelmingly does not want a govt takeover of healthcare and wants this admn to focus solely on jobs and the economy, not global warming, health care, card check, amensty for illegals, etc.
-
"And as far as the gas stations, there would always be some that would charge 2 dollars a gallon and make a killing while the others go belly up."
what IF all the gas stations agreed to charge $25 a gallon?
People would be BEGGING the govt to intervene.
If you know of an insurance company that is charging $75 a month while everyone else is charging $230 a month for the same policy... PLEASE send us their website so we can switch over haha... My monthly bill is huge for the family, and I"m dogshit sick of them having record profits while doubling prices.
Well if alll the gas stations agreed to fuck the consumer they would be in violation of anti-trust law, therefore the government would be obligated to put an end to it. Its a good premise but doesn't hold water.
Like I said focus your anger on DC, they are the ones that make the rules, the insurance companies are just playing by said rules.
-
"Well if alll the gas stations agreed to fuck the consumer they would be in violation of anti-trust law, therefore the government would be obligated to put an end to it. Its a good premise but doesn't hold water."
Well, it seems like we have 'de facto' monopolies going on with the big 3 insurance companies - they're all jacking prices, they're all making record profits.
Maybe we can't nail them under anti-trust because they don't put an agreement in paper to jack up all the prices at once and all get rich at once - but it sure happened.
I'm fine with them making a profit - but record prices and record profits at the same time? Cap them. Cap prices. My own rates went up 40% this year, and I didn't nothing different on my end. What will 2 or 3 more years lead to? 80 or 120% increase?
-
"Well if alll the gas stations agreed to fuck the consumer they would be in violation of anti-trust law, therefore the government would be obligated to put an end to it. Its a good premise but doesn't hold water."
Well, it seems like we have 'de facto' monopolies going on with the big 3 insurance companies - they're all jacking prices, they're all making record profits.
Maybe we can't nail them under anti-trust because they don't put an agreement in paper to jack up all the prices at once and all get rich at once - but it sure happened.
I'm fine with them making a profit - but record prices and record profits at the same time? Cap them. Cap prices. My own rates went up 40% this year, and I didn't nothing different on my end. What will 2 or 3 more years lead to? 80 or 120% increase?
And why do they have a monopoly?
-
"Well if alll the gas stations agreed to fuck the consumer they would be in violation of anti-trust law, therefore the government would be obligated to put an end to it. Its a good premise but doesn't hold water."
Well, it seems like we have 'de facto' monopolies going on with the big 3 insurance companies - they're all jacking prices, they're all making record profits.
Maybe we can't nail them under anti-trust because they don't put an agreement in paper to jack up all the prices at once and all get rich at once - but it sure happened.
I'm fine with them making a profit - but record prices and record profits at the same time? Cap them. Cap prices. My own rates went up 40% this year, and I didn't nothing different on my end. What will 2 or 3 more years lead to? 80 or 120% increase?
And back to my original point who put the rules in place that allow this? I'll give you 3 guess's and the first 2 don't count. Term limits my friend, that is the answer, if these asshats could spend 30 yrs in congress the option of buying them off would become nearly pointless. Why does the potus have a term limit and not members of congress?
-
"And why do they have a monopoly?"
I dunno. Do you?
-
upport for the public health insurance option is surging in the Senate. It began with three freshman Democrats in the House, Alan Grayson (Fla.), Chellie Pingree (Maine) and Jared Polis (Colo.). The campaign has taken place almost exclusively online.
Grayson organized an online petition calling for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to include a public option in health care reform using reconciliation, process that requires only fifty votes plus a tie-breaker from Vice President Joe Biden. Pingree and Polis persuaded more than 100 House members to sign on to a letter urging Reid to do the same.
It's about F-ing time. I'm truly astonished it hasn't occurred previously. Truly astonished & amazed!
-
It's about F-ing time. I'm truly astonished it hasn't occurred previously. Truly astonished & amazed!
It likely won't happen. It's election year and there aren't enough Democrats, willing to commit political suicide to save Reid and Obama's pipe dream.
The American people don't want this crap, pure and simple.
That's why they kept trying to rush it last year, before the people said enough is enough.
Even attempting the "nuclear" option does nothing but guarantee that the Democrats get the tar beat out of them this November.
-
Everyone knows that no matter how bad a landslide in an election... you wait 6 years and it's completely going o go the other way again.
Maybe the dems truly believe they can save 100 mil americans from going without coverage by taking the hit. Maybe they believe we're on the cusp of the next social security or medicare - and it's up to them - and they're willing to take some political risk.
The rest of the world does it. They told us they were going to bring it to office - obama campaigned on it. He'll be called a failure if he DOESN'T punch it thru, and get voted out of office. So, from his point of view, why not shove it down their throats and just get it passed?
-
Everyone knows that no matter how bad a landslide in an election... you wait 6 years and it's completely going o go the other way again.
Maybe the dems truly believe they can save 100 mil americans from going without coverage by taking the hit. Maybe they believe we're on the cusp of the next social security or medicare - and it's up to them - and they're willing to take some political risk.
The rest of the world does it. They told us they were going to bring it to office - obama campaigned on it. He'll be called a failure if he DOESN'T punch it thru, and get voted out of office. So, from his point of view, why not shove it down their throats and just get it passed?
Because it's NOT what the American people want, what they put him in office to do. You're judged as a success or failure, based on whether you do what those who voted you into office asked you to do.
They DO NOT WANT THIS MESS. That's why Scott Brown is in office. That's why 70% of a CNN poll claim that it's a good thing that the Dems lost their supermajority. If they wanted him to punch it through, Coakely would be in the Senate, not Brown.
It's the liberals and others on the far-left that are obsessed with Europe-envy, trying to be like the rest of the world. We're different. The rest of the world like soccer. Americans, by and large, could give two figs about it.
The Dems are in trouble, because they made the same mistake the GOP did after the 2004 elections: They got too cocky, too arrogant, stopped listening to the voters, and started acting a fool, fiscally and (in some cases) morally.
-
"Because it's NOT what the American people want, what they put him in office to do. "
For argument's sake.... The majority of the American people were very much against the iraqi war. Bush continued for several years because he believed it was the right thing to do. He said he'd keep the war going if 99% of Americans were against it. Our desires meant nothing.
Ask any 5-year old if he wants to get his shots or eat his veggies - you know what the answer will be. But the parents - better informed and educated about the future of a kid that doesn't eat veggies or gets shots - makes the decision for them.
I'm not saying any of this is the case here - only that the majority of Americans know more about how the top 10 of American idol will play out, than they do about what our monthly healthcare costs will be. As a group, they aren't that bright about long-term anything. Can you or I honestly say what a healthy 30-year-old will pay in 5 years for basic coverage? No.
-
"Because it's NOT what the American people want, what they put him in office to do. "
In 2008, he said, "This is what I intend to do on healthcare:"
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/a/ObamaHlthCare.htm
Read that list. It's damn near identical what he is trying to implement now. Yes, Americans DID vote for him to do this - in a pretty big margin of victory. Everyone is surprised that Door #3 (the one with a big pitbull sign on the door) actually contained pit bulls when opened? ???
-
It's about F-ing time. I'm truly astonished it hasn't occurred previously. Truly astonished & amazed!
Why the hell would you even give a damn? I guess when your own country doesn't mean jackshit in the world, you have live vicariously through the U.S.A.
Because it's NOT what the American people want, what they put him in office to do.
I think the majority of people do want reform, they just don't want the monstrosity that they came up with. We'll see what he puts out Monday as far as the compromises go.
-
"I think the majority of people do want reform,'
The majority of American voters chose a guy who said he would get into office and develop universal healthcare plan.
I don't understand why ppl act so shocked. "They are who we thought they were!"
-
It likely won't happen. It's election year and there aren't enough Democrats, willing to commit political suicide to save Reid and Obama's pipe dream.
The American people don't want this crap, pure and simple.
That's why they kept trying to rush it last year, before the people said enough is enough.
Even attempting the "nuclear" option does nothing but guarantee that the Democrats get the tar beat out of them this November.
Repubs always throw out that line in spite of the fact that many polls show that a majority of American and also doctors support some kind of public option
-
The majority of American voters chose a guy who said he would get into office and develop universal healthcare plan.
I don't understand why ppl act so shocked. "They are who we thought they were!"
Oh please. Nobody - neither those who voted for him or those who didn't - expected shit like billion dollar payoff's to hold out senators, snuggling up with Big Pharma, union exemptions, congressional exclusions. Tell you what. Find me just one instance where Barry gave any indication of that kind of bullshit prior to his election and I'll agree you're not full of shit.
We've gone well above partisan politics as usual for this reform.
-
Repubs always throw out that line in spite of the fact that many polls show that a majority of American and also doctors support some kind of public option
I put that out, because of WHAT WENT DOWN IN MASSACHUSETTS (as well as Virginia and New Jersey). If they wanted the public option, Coakely would be in the Senate and the cry would go out for the Democrats to bulldoze ObamaCare (public option and all) to Obama's desk.
If the people really wanted this, Obama would have put this debate on C-Span, AS HE PROMISED TO DO FOR THE BETTER PART OF TWO YEARS, instead of hiding in secret and bribing Senators with the "Cornhusker Kickback", the "Louisiana Purchase" and "Gatorade".
That ain't happening, pure and simple. And the Democrats' refusal to acknowledge what the people ACTUALLY want is why they're cruising for a bruising this November.
The doctors that support this crap are the hand-picked ones on Obama's photo-ops. The rest.......NO, THANK YOU to this mess.
-
I put that out, because of WHAT WENT DOWN IN MASSACHUSETTS (as well as Virginia and New Jersey). If they wanted the public option, Coakely would be in the Senate and the cry would go out for the Democrats to bulldoze ObamaCare (public option and all) to Obama's desk.
If the people really wanted this, Obama would have put this debate on C-Span, AS HE PROMISED TO DO FOR THE BETTER PART OF TWO YEARS, instead of hiding in secret and bribing Senators with the "Cornhusker Kickback", the "Louisiana Purchase" and "Gatorade".
That ain't happening, pure and simple. And the Democrats' refusal to acknowledge what the people ACTUALLY want is why they're cruising for a bruising this November.
The doctors that support this crap are the hand-picked ones on Obama's photo-ops. The rest.......NO, THANK YOU to this mess.
1. MA already has publicly mandated (and subsidized) public healthcare and Coakley was a horrible candidate.
2. Here's a recent poll with doctors. Go ahead and explain how Obama hand picked the participants.
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48408physician.pdf
3. Obama has offered public debate and Repubs are balking but I think it's still happening next week
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/08/health.care/index.html
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap
-
Obama was elected based on slick marketing, msm kneepadding, white liberal guilt, and the fact that he was not GWB.
The rest is all bs.
He said no new taxes remember? This plan violates that pledge, so Obama was not elected to push forward ObamaCare in its present form.
-
"Because it's NOT what the American people want, what they put him in office to do. "
For argument's sake.... The majority of the American people were very much against the iraqi war. Bush continued for several years because he believed it was the right thing to do. He said he'd keep the war going if 99% of Americans were against it. Our desires meant nothing.
Ask any 5-year old if he wants to get his shots or eat his veggies - you know what the answer will be. But the parents - better informed and educated about the future of a kid that doesn't eat veggies or gets shots - makes the decision for them.
I'm not saying any of this is the case here - only that the majority of Americans know more about how the top 10 of American idol will play out, than they do about what our monthly healthcare costs will be. As a group, they aren't that bright about long-term anything. Can you or I honestly say what a healthy 30-year-old will pay in 5 years for basic coverage? No.
I can, ...and the answer is.... $0. I'm Canadian. We have universal healthcare. :D
-
For what Civil War Part 2?
Impeachment?
A GOP Tsunami in November?
I simply have no idea why the libs dont get the fact that the public overwhelmingly does not want a govt takeover of healthcare and wants this admn to focus solely on jobs and the economy, not global warming, health care, card check, amensty for illegals, etc.
impeachment of whom?
-
Why the hell would you even give a damn? I guess when your own country doesn't mean jackshit in the world, you have live vicariously through the U.S.A.
Well your guess is wrong...AGAIN!
I care because I'm tired of seeing American healthcare refugees flooding our border.
I care because alot of my friends, colleagues, and family are American.
Infact, ...the vast majority of my family members are American.
And I care because your healthcare system as it exists right now is plain F-ed up, and will only get worse if a public option is not implemented. Unlike YOU, there are those who actually care about other people besides themselves.
-
I can, ...and the answer is.... $0. I'm Canadian. We have universal healthcare. :D
There is no such thing as free health care. You are paying for it is other ways.
-
impeachment of whom?
If there is a massive turnover in 2010 of the congress and Obama continues on his suicide pact for the economy his own party will force him to step down and not run.
Impeachment is probably never going to happen.
-
Well your guess is wrong...AGAIN!
I care because I'm tired of seeing American healthcare refugees flooding our border.
I care because alot of my friends, colleagues, and family are American.
Infact, ...the vast majority of my family members are American.
And I care because your healthcare system as it exists right now is plain F-ed up, and will only get worse if a public option is not implemented. Unlike YOU, there are those who actually care about other people besides themselves.
::) ::) ::)
-
There is no such thing as free health care. You are paying for it is other ways.
The ways we pay for it don't hurt us or cause us to go bankrupt in case of illness,
...and it's waaaaaaaaay less expensive.
I'd rather pay a nickel per year, ...and have it available anytime i need it,
...than pay $500 a month, only to be dropped when I actually do need it.
-
::) ::) ::)
Don't worry, ...no one finds it at all surprising that you are unable to relate to such a concept.
-
Don't worry, ...no one finds it at all surprising that you are unable to relate to such a concept.
I pay my own insurance every month and am not looking for the government, you, or others to pay for me. I also carry a disability policy that costs $600 a year that pays me $4,000 a month in the event of a disability that will cover the costs of conrinued insurance, etc.
Some of us plan ahead and are not looking for the nanny state to take care of us.
-
1. MA already has publicly mandated (and subsidized) public healthcare and Coakley was a horrible candidate.
And MA is hemmorhaging cash, as a result (in part due to the meddling of Gov. Deval Patrick). As for Coakely, nobody thought she was a horrible candidate, when she was up 30 points with a month to go.
2. Here's a recent poll with doctors. Go ahead and explain how Obama hand picked the participants.
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48408physician.pdf
3. Obama has offered public debate and Repubs are balking but I think it's still happening next week
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/08/health.care/index.html
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap
PLEASE!!! Obama is only doing this, because his feet are being held to the fire for his BREAKING HIS word, about holding healthcare debate on C-span.
And the GOP has made it clear, that they aren't going to participate in this, if it's nothing more than a glorified PR stunt for Obama. They've been trying to talk with him FOR MONTHS. Obama and the Dems have shut them out.
Now that the Dems are taking a beating (with more on the horizon), all of a sudden, they want to be "bi-partisan". No one's buying it.
As for doctors and the public option,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/do_doctors_really_support_a_pu.html
(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/do_doctors_really_support_a_pu.html)
-
This is his Waterloo.
-
or his greatest achievement for the next 100 years.
-
I pay my own insurance every month and am not looking for the government, you, or others to pay for me. I also carry a disability policy that costs $600 a year that pays me $4,000 a month in the event of a disability that will cover the costs of conrinued insurance, etc.
Some of us plan ahead and are not looking for the nanny state to take care of us.
And under Universal Healthcare, ... you would continue to pay your own insurance, as would everyone else,
...you'd simply be paying a whole lot less, because you'd finally get to stop paying for those who are currently uninsured like you're doing now. In addition, you'd actually receive the coverage you've been paying for, if and when you eventually need it.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm simply trying to express the differences that you will see.
I believe I'm qualified to make this statement having experienced both types of health coverage.
As a resident of Ontario, and automatic recipient of Universal Health coverage, I understand how the single payer optiion works in practice. As a performer in the Actors union, we also had additional health care coverage similar to what you currently have in the USA. It was a graduated system of coverage based upon employment. The problem with that is one year you received a certain level of coverage based on your income, and these levels of coverage rose & fell from year to year, based upon your income, or employment activity. You basically had to use it or lose it, which in turn drives up costs for insurance companies for procedures that otherwise would not get done.
What do you do if you have no cavities? if you do get a cavity... will you be covered when it occurs... maybe... maybe not? it would seem to me that it is when your income goes down, and you have a problem, that THAT would be the time when you'd both want & need the coverage to be there, ...but under the current system, as it exists now... you perhaps wouldn't have it, at a time when you needed it most. So people use it, or lose it. One year, I actually had my teeth bleached, at a cost of $600, simply because I didn't know if I would receive the same level of dental coverage the next year. I had no cavities, but I had the coverage, so it was use it or lose it. Get as much as I could under the various levels of coverage in each healthcare category for that year. Under Ontario's universal healthcare, I don't feel the need to get as much as I can fit in in a year. i know it's there if and when I need it, so the only costs the system incurs, is when I actually need to get something done.
It was like one month a few years back. One of my colleagues in MLM freaked out because she discovered 2 days before the end of the month, they hadn't spent the $3,000 monthly expense account granted to both her & her husband, because of their positions. She came running into the office in a panic "David, we have to spend $6,000 in the next 2 days" If they didn't spend it, they would have lost it for that month, ...so of course... they found a way to spend $6 grand in the next 2 days, so they could get the $3K expense account each. Needless to say, we had a lot of MLM distributors at that rank that simply leased Mercedes, Jags & BMW's in order to fulfill their $3K per month expense account. I know one guy who leased a Harbourfront condo next door to me, in order to get his expense account. Because of a use it or lose it scenario, that company was paying each MLM distributor who had achieved that rank $36,000 /yr... in the case of husband/wife teams where both spouses ahad achieved the rank, it was $72,000 /yr, in expense accounts, over & above regular downline commissions. Whereas, if they'd simply agreed to cover or reimburse reasonable business expenses... they probably would have seen a lot less expenditures.
I think it's better to have it and not need it, ...than to need it and not have it.
-
It's all wasted effort without cutting costs in advance.
-
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm simply trying to express the differences that you will see.
I believe I'm qualified to make this statement having experienced both types of health coverage.
That's neither here nor there. The new system proposed is not like Canada's, only some elements will be the same. The only seemingly benefiting from this crap are Big Pharma, Insurance Companies, and the healthcare professionals.