what is wrong with the government option?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

just talked with a friend who works in the ins. ind. for a local private ins. firm that deals with EE benefits....they do not represent any ins. co....rather, they work for people in the community to get better rates, eg., the negotiators for you.....they get you ins rates, and due to volume, the ins cos. give them a cut.....and they work for cos. as low 2 people

i mentioned the government option and why is this better than simply expanding medicare.....that was the conversation, nothing more.

thoughts:

what about all those small businesses that perform such jobs? does that go away with the gov. option?

the gov. option is actually not a bad idea, as to simply expand medicare is a bureaucratic nightmare....much simpler to create the gov. option and bring the other gov. ins. in line.....

after my talk....i am seriously not seeing much reason to not get behind obama's plan. medicare sucks etc.....what if this gov. option actually worked?

[uscitizen]

But it is a liberal plan it can't be any good.

I think that sentiment is the largest objection.
Aside from those being used by the insurance industry.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I know it is yurt, but you know how I feel about this administration and the plan they have for the take over of health care system..it is not about our health care, it is about them gaining power in Government and control over our live to predict how we live, eat and sleep..

sorry that doesn't answer your question, but there have been other ways suggested to try and help people not to go broke from medical bills, I know you know that..

to be honest, i agree with the power grab....that said....so did bush, so did clinton and so forth....

i really don't care about politics with healthcare. i really don't. i have suggested other ways that might work....those ideas are not on the floor and will never be considered except in cyber boards....so i want to know the real answer.....because this bill will come.....please see this thread and i will link this to that thread:

APP - what is wrong with the government option? - Just Plain Politics! (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=21010)

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But it is a liberal plan it can't be any good.

I think that sentiment is the largest objection.
Aside from those being used by the insurance industry.

**** you....i posted this in the APP...address it or stfu

:)

[uscitizen]

I stand by my statement.

You get edited by yours?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I stand by my statement.

You get edited by yours?

meadowmuffins....you didn't address a single point....you made stupid political waterballoon points....

address the point or stfu

[TuTu Monroe]

just talked with a friend who works in the ins. ind. for a local private ins. firm that deals with EE benefits....they do not represent any ins. co....rather, they work for people in the community to get better rates, eg., the negotiators for you.....they get you ins rates, and due to volume, the ins cos. give them a cut.....and they work for cos. as low 2 people

i mentioned the government option and why is this better than simply expanding medicare.....that was the conversation, nothing more.

thoughts:

what about all those small businesses that perform such jobs? does that go away with the gov. option?

the gov. option is actually not a bad idea, as to simply expand medicare is a bureaucratic nightmare....much simpler to create the gov. option and bring the other gov. ins. in line.....

after my talk....i am seriously not seeing much reason to not get behind obama's plan. medicare sucks etc.....what if this gov. option actually worked?

The Obama administration would force the Insurance Co's out. That is their plan. Besides, Obama is backpedaling now on the government option, so time will tell. I will send you some information on this sometime tomorrow.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Medicare sucks? Please elaborate.

[Bonestorm]

The problem with the public option is that it cuts into insurance company profits. That's it. End of story.

Personally, I have no problem with cutting into insurance company profits so the public option isn't an issue for me. You should ask people why they have a problem with cutting into insurance company profits.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The problem with the public option is that it cuts into insurance company profits. That's it. End of story.

Personally, I have no problem with cutting into insurance company profits so the public option isn't an issue for me. You should ask people why they have a problem with cutting into insurance company profits.

i'm not so sure it will....by mandating insurance, that goes hand in hand with the gov. option, ins. companies will prosper.....see auto insurance

[ib1yysguy]

The Obama administration would force the Insurance Co's out. That is their plan. Besides, Obama is backpedaling now on the government option, so time will tell. I will send you some information on this sometime tomorrow.

So what are you saying? You just said that Obama simultaneously wants to destroy private industry health care through the public option and also doesn't give enough of a shit to pursue the public option until it actually gets defeated.

You can't have it both ways.

[ib1yysguy]

i'm not so sure it will....by mandating insurance, that goes hand in hand with the gov. option, ins. companies will prosper.....see auto insurance

Yeah, that's true. The mandate was HUGELY supported by industry types. It means money in the pocket for private insurers. It brings them 45 million more subscribers, minus whoever goes onto the government plan. Oh wait! There will be no government plan, so it winds up with 45 million more people being hand-delivered to private industry.

Mandating insurance then providing a way for people to pay for it through subsidies if they can't afford it and increasing competition by providing a not super comprehensive luxury plan but an adequate three tier plan that you pay with your own premium dollars with lower overhead, no huge executive pay, no stock holders to answer too, and no advertising budget seems like a no-fucking-brianer.

The biggest objection to this is that it hurts private industry profits. That's ALL. The private industry may have trouble keeping up with the costs, but if they can provide better value for their premiums then they do just fine. If they can't, then we all learn that the government is in fact way better suited to provide this kind of service from a moral standpoint as well as an economic one.

Challenge idiots like Tutu or Meme on anything they say about healthcare. They've got no clue why they oppose it. They still call it a "government takeover of healthcare" when all it happens to be is a government administered insurance option (insurance is not the same as health care providing, retards).

It makes me so sick to my stomach that the super loud retards of this country are going to win this battle over the public option with zero rationale and 100 percent empty rhetoric and misinformation.

[Bonestorm]

i'm not so sure it will....by mandating insurance, that goes hand in hand with the gov. option, ins. companies will prosper.....see auto insurance


You're talking about two different things. The insurance industry hates the public option because it will cut into their profits. The insurance industry loves the individual mandate because it gives them shitloads of new customers that are required to purchase their products.

And auto insurance isn't a relevant comparator with respect to teh public option in the health care bill. I don't know of any states that have a public option for auto insurance.

[tinfoil]

The problem with the public option is that it cuts into insurance company profits. That's it. End of story.

Personally, I have no problem with cutting into insurance company profits so the public option isn't an issue for me. You should ask people why they have a problem with cutting into insurance company profits.


wow, so stupid he doesn't realize mandated insurance is like handing insurance companies 47 million new customers. And the week before, they were evil-mongers!

Libtards for the win

[tinfoil]

You're talking about two different things. The insurance industry hates the public option because it will cut into their profits. The insurance industry loves the individual mandate because it gives them shitloads of new customers that are required to purchase their products.

And auto insurance isn't a relevant comparator with respect to teh public option in the health care bill. I don't know of any states that have a public option for auto insurance.


because the public option is a stupid idea. But dumbass libtards won't stop until the IRS is handling their healthcare, retirement, and lord only knows what's next

[Cypress]

the gov. option is actually not a bad idea...

after my talk....i am seriously not seeing much reason to not get behind obama's plan. medicare sucks etc.....what if this gov. option actually worked?

Put yourself in the shoes of a rightwinger.

Liberal government socialist insurance will pay for women’s contraception, morning-after pills, cervical cancer vaccines, and reproductive health coverage.

Hey man, Wingnuts had a hard enough time getting their teenage daughters to wear chastity belts, without having socialist devilry tempting those gals into premarital sex and promiscuity.



Social Conservatives Battle Against Cervical Cancer Vaccinations

Wash Post

A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity

'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teenagers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You're talking about two different things. The insurance industry hates the public option because it will cut into their profits. The insurance industry loves the individual mandate because it gives them shitloads of new customers that are required to purchase their products.

And auto insurance isn't a relevant comparator with respect to teh public option in the health care bill. I don't know of any states that have a public option for auto insurance.

i did not mean to say they were identical...even if a public option is created, there will be people who will chose the private over a government option that otherwise would not now....it may not be a lot....but i think this plan will result in higher profits for insurance companies.....unless, the preexisting conditions hurt them....but i think if everyone has to have insurance, the preexisting conditions won't hurt the ins. companies that much

i'm reading some stuff on the public option given my tu tu....i'll respond later, thanks for the info

[Cancel 2018. 3]

from tutu's link

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2267.cfm

while i appreciated the article, i didn't come away with a full answer. the medicare part is interesting....so i will post here for further discussion..in the hopes that some will address it with actual debate and discussion, not just derision



They should also be asked why Original Medi*care should to be expanded to cover most of the American population in order for it to improve quality or better control costs through improved methods of payment and administration. Is Medi*care, the largest health plan in America, and the plan that covers over three-fourths of all seniors, not large enough as is to achieve all those desirable reforms and innovations mentioned by Hacker and Davis? What potential reforms could be so difficult to achieve in a $400 billion program as to require doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the number of people it covers?

the other main argument of the article is that this will lead to single payer system.....i recognize the argument put forth by ib1 and onceler i believe...that this could not lead to a single payer system as that would require a whole new bill.....i agree....and would feel more comfortable if this was made clear in the bill. often times legislation has little footnotes or little sentences that allow far more than one would think.....additionally, if this is truly a step and even if the step requires a new bill......if this bill is the building of the first step.............that is in fact troubling.

[ib1yysguy]

from tutu's link

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2267.cfm

while i appreciated the article, i didn't come away with a full answer. the medicare part is interesting....so i will post here for further discussion..in the hopes that some will address it with actual debate and discussion, not just derision




the other main argument of the article is that this will lead to single payer system.....i recognize the argument put forth by ib1 and onceler i believe...that this could not lead to a single payer system as that would require a whole new bill.....i agree....and would feel more comfortable if this was made clear in the bill. often times legislation has little footnotes or little sentences that allow far more than one would think.....additionally, if this is truly a step and even if the step requires a new bill......if this bill is the building of the first step.............that is in fact troubling.

Any kind of health care reform that increases coverage to something closer to 100 percent would and could be called the first step toward single player. That doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

The mechanisms for running a single payer system are HUGELY different than the ones being built by the public option, so that's not really a rational line of succession either.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Any kind of health care reform that increases coverage to something closer to 100 percent would and could be called the first step toward single player. That doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

The mechanisms for running a single payer system are HUGELY different than the ones being built by the public option, so that's not really a rational line of succession either.

i'm not so sure....some of those who want to pass this bill are on record as saying the single payer is better and that this bill is the "step" to get there.....

[ib1yysguy]

i'm not so sure....some of those who want to pass this bill are on record as saying the single payer is better and that this bill is the "step" to get there.....

It's a step in a sense that it's covering more people, and some of them (the poorest ones) are going to get it paid for by the government.

Like I said in the other post, it's also an experiment to see if the government can do this kind of care effectively. If they do the public option and we find out that WOAH people aren't actually getting denied life saving care, wait times for essential surgeries aren't huge, and it generally does a pretty darn decent job of providing health insurance then people will buy into the plans and it'll compete directly with HMOs.

We'll either find out that conservatives are right and the government can't do anything right, or we'll find out that the government does this administrative stuff pretty efficiently. At that point we'll decide as a nation whether the next logical step is to move to a full single payer system or to keep a hybrid or find something else.

[Taichiliberal]

Yeah, that's true. The mandate was HUGELY supported by industry types. It means money in the pocket for private insurers. It brings them 45 million more subscribers, minus whoever goes onto the government plan. Oh wait! There will be no government plan, so it winds up with 45 million more people being hand-delivered to private industry.

Mandating insurance then providing a way for people to pay for it through subsidies if they can't afford it and increasing competition by providing a not super comprehensive luxury plan but an adequate three tier plan that you pay with your own premium dollars with lower overhead, no huge executive pay, no stock holders to answer too, and no advertising budget seems like a no-fucking-brianer.

The biggest objection to this is that it hurts private industry profits. That's ALL. The private industry may have trouble keeping up with the costs, but if they can provide better value for their premiums then they do just fine. If they can't, then we all learn that the government is in fact way better suited to provide this kind of service from a moral standpoint as well as an economic one.

Challenge idiots like Tutu or Meme on anything they say about healthcare. They've got no clue why they oppose it. They still call it a "government takeover of healthcare" when all it happens to be is a government administered insurance option (insurance is not the same as health care providing, retards).

It makes me so sick to my stomach that the super loud retards of this country are going to win this battle over the public option with zero rationale and 100 percent empty rhetoric and misinformation.

Excellent points! Add to this that we're talking OPTION and NOT mandatory acceptance, and the neocon arguments dissolve into ignorant panic.

[ib1yysguy]

I'd like to add that the people who said this was a logical step toward single payer say so with the assumption that it'll be a huge success. That's an assumption no conservative would grant to them as a given, however.

If it is a huge success and it turns out government can insure people really effectively, the arguments against single payer begin to evaporate. The public option is an experiment to show if conservatives are right about government not being able to do anything and they'll wind up with death panels and killing retarded babies. If that's the case, this isn't a step toward single payer. It'll wind up setting back their single player plans in a huge way by proving government isn't fit to do it.

The reason you see it as a step toward single payer is because you realize that it's not going to be a huge failure and that means the argument for single payer gets strengthened. So ask yourself if the arguments against single payer wind up being bullshit, why the heck should you oppose it anyway? You've been conditioned to hate it. That's pretty much all.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=ib1yysguy;511627]It's a step in a sense that it's covering more people, and some of them (the poorest ones) are going to get it paid for by the government.

ok....but, not everyone will qualify for the public option.....they will have to pay....


Like I said in the other post, it's also an experiment to see if the government can do this kind of care effectively. If they do the public option and we find out that WOAH people aren't actually getting denied life saving care, wait times for essential surgeries aren't huge, and it generally does a pretty darn decent job of providing health insurance then people will buy into the plans and it'll compete directly with HMOs.

experiment.....pretty big experiment....

i don't have a problem with that, if the government truly "competes"....... you say the governnment is not a for profit entity....do you honestly believe that the governmnet will honestly compete? if yes....how so?


We'll either find out that conservatives are right and the government can't do anything right, or we'll find out that the government does this administrative stuff pretty efficiently. At that point we'll decide as a nation whether the next logical step is to move to a full single payer system or to keep a hybrid or find something else.

fair enough.....and you're right....until "then"....no one will know.....

[ib1yysguy]

ok....but, not everyone will qualify for the public option.....they will have to pay....

That's right. That's why it's absurd to call it socialism. It's paid for by freaking premiums.




experiment.....pretty big experiment....

And probably not a necessary one since Medicare accomplished the same results. Some people remain unconvinced, however, that government is capable of doing anything right.



i don't have a problem with that, if the government truly "competes"....... you say the governnment is not a for profit entity....do you honestly believe that the governmnet will honestly compete? if yes....how so?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if the government is going to rig the laws to make HMOs useless or something? And if I don't think so, then why don't I think so? I guess I don't think they're going to do that because the purpose of the public option isn't to destroy private industry insurance. If they wanted to do that, there are easier ways than creating a new bureaucracy - like heavy handed regulations and price restrictions. But that's not the purpose. The purpose is to counter the problem of monopoly within the system which has lead to out of control prices, inefficiency, etc.

Maybe you can rephrase the question so I can attempt to answer it without putting words in your mouth.


[/QUOTE]
fair enough.....and you're right....until "then"....no one will know.....[/QUOTE]

We do know, however. At least anyone paying attention should. Medicare and the VA system are both good examples of the government doing a perfectly good job of administrating health insurance or healthcare (respectively).

[tinfoil]

That's right. That's why it's absurd to call it socialism. It's paid for by freaking premiums.




And probably not a necessary one since Medicare accomplished the same results. Some people remain unconvinced, however, that government is capable of doing anything right.



I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if the government is going to rig the laws to make HMOs useless or something? And if I don't think so, then why don't I think so? I guess I don't think they're going to do that because the purpose of the public option isn't to destroy private industry insurance. If they wanted to do that, there are easier ways than creating a new bureaucracy - like heavy handed regulations and price restrictions. But that's not the purpose. The purpose is to counter the problem of monopoly within the system which has lead to out of control prices, inefficiency, etc.

Maybe you can rephrase the question so I can attempt to answer it without putting words in your mouth.



[/QUOTE]


LOL camera boy doesn't understand the question. Government run entities can perform loss inducing services indefinately. what part of that don't you get? LOL what a fucking idiot. Go snap a picture, dumbass. You don't have half the brain to understand what the fuck you're talking about

[ib1yysguy]

LOL camera boy doesn't understand the question. Government run entities can perform loss inducing services indefinately. what part of that don't you get? LOL what a fucking idiot. Go snap a picture, dumbass. You don't have half the brain to understand what the fuck you're talking about[/QUOTE]

'Cept the private option is funded mostly by premiums and not funded like the pentagon. Medicare can't run in the red indefinitely either. The Medicare premiums are in the form of a specific tax rather than being voluntary.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

just talked with a friend who works in the ins. ind. for a local private ins. firm that deals with EE benefits....they do not represent any ins. co....rather, they work for people in the community to get better rates, eg., the negotiators for you.....they get you ins rates, and due to volume, the ins cos. give them a cut.....and they work for cos. as low 2 people

i mentioned the government option and why is this better than simply expanding medicare.....that was the conversation, nothing more.

thoughts:

what about all those small businesses that perform such jobs? does that go away with the gov. option?

the gov. option is actually not a bad idea, as to simply expand medicare is a bureaucratic nightmare....much simpler to create the gov. option and bring the other gov. ins. in line.....

after my talk....i am seriously not seeing much reason to not get behind obama's plan. medicare sucks etc.....what if this gov. option actually worked?

See. You really are a fascist, in the end. I told you you were.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

'Cept the private option is funded mostly by premiums and not funded like the pentagon. Medicare can't run in the red indefinitely either. The Medicare premiums are in the form of a specific tax rather than being voluntary.

That is bullshit. The government will never allow it to go under. It will always get the Bailout cash, favorable legislation. It is inevitable.

Government is not a legitimate provider of competition. As it always has regulatory capture over itself. Get an IQ point. Just one. MMMM kay.

[Good Luck]

The government option, as it is being discussed, is not such a bad idea when the main idea is to find a means of providing medical coverage for those who both want it and cannot afford it.

The problem is government option is only a small part of the current bill under consideration. There are a lot of other factors in the bill, much of which is aimed at making a government option somewhat affordable for the government. First, mandating that everyone have coverage whether they desire coverage or not is a load of shit. People are supposed to be free in this country, not goose stepping in conformance. The bill is going to mandate that people accept coverage from their company - which is hardly ever 100% paid for by said company - buy one's own coverage, or (if "lucky" enough to be considered poor enough) be covered through the government option. The idea is that premiums from people who are currently without insurance voluntarily because they are in good health will help pay for the total program. How is this any different, functionally, from simply taxing the shit out those people? (Other than the fact that a big portion will go to insurance company pocketrs instead of straight to government coffers.) When government mandates people into a course of action they would otherwise not take, it is one more step toward a totalitarin state.

Second, the government WILL be interfering with the private insurance sector and individual right of choice. The proponents claim that a person will have the right to keep their current coverage - which is true, but only up to a point. If this bill passes, then anyone changing jobs after its passage will be forced to go through the government to "allow" them to change their insurance coverage to their new employer.

Also, shall we mention the insurance regulations being proposed? Force coverage of preexisting conditions, and premiums will go up. Force coverage of items currently excluded and premiums will go up. Reduce maximum out-of-pocket limits, and premiums will go up. Every proposed regulation advertised as a gain for the individual will increase premiums. And who is going to be paying those premiums? The middle class working American who is too wealthy to qualify for the government option - that's who. Again, when it comes to the difference it will make to the people, functionally no different than raising taxes through the roof to pay for the government option.

And my final objection is nothing in the plan comes within a country mile of addressing why health care costs have skyrocketed the past couple decades. If health care costs had risen at even twice the rate of inflation since 1980, health care would not even be a significant issue. Yet no one (other than the brain dead who think drug companies are somehow making more profit than any other company their size) has seriously considered any factors driving health care costs upward. Bring some of the factors driving costs out of control, and we'll START having some genuine health care reform. Unless we do so, we are just biting our own tails.

[ib1yysguy]

Does anyone on this board actually have the patience to read through one of GL's manifestos?

[tinfoil]

Does anyone on this board actually have the patience to read through one of GL's manifestos?

what a douchebag. Go snap a pretty picture, faggot

[Taichiliberal]

Does anyone on this board actually have the patience to read through one of GL's manifestos?

Only when one wants to reaffirm the consensus of how willfully ignorant neocon parrots and pundits are. Facts that contradict their blatherings and rants are ignored or denied as they just keep squawking their erroneous bilge six ways to Sunday.

But then again, there is the cheap laugh factor at reading GL's stuff. :)

[Good Luck]

I keep forgetting the average modern liberal, being a full fledged product of their political philosophy, find reading more than "See Spot run!" an incomprehensible chore.

Note not one actual point is refuted. Of course, they have to read the text of the bill to know what is in it, and therefore what I object to. And let's not mention that actually knowing the content of their pet legislation might interfere with their bullshit and outright lies.

What a bunch of twits. If these are an average example of dem party membership, it's no wonder the democrats have so much trouble doing anything (other than bitch and whine) even with a super majority. I swear, they whine more as a majority than they did as a minority. And they think they'll actually retain their status longer than 4 years with this kind of crap? LOL

:clink: Here's to looking forward to liberals crying from the minority seats in 4 short years, like the whiny maggots they are.

[Taichiliberal]

I keep forgetting the average modern liberal, being a full fledged product of their political philosophy, find reading more than "See Spot run!" an incomprehensible chore.

Note not one actual point is refuted. Of course, they have to read the text of the bill to know what is in it, and therefore what I object to. And let's not mention that actually knowing the content of their pet legislation might interfere with their bullshit and outright lies.

What a bunch of twits. If these are an average example of dem party membership, it's no wonder the democrats have so much trouble doing anything (other than bitch and whine) even with a super majority. I swear, they whine more as a majority than they did as a minority. And they think they'll actually retain their status longer than 4 years with this kind of crap? LOL

:clink: Here's to looking forward to liberals crying from the minority seats in 4 short years, like the whiny maggots they are.

Hey chuckles, I've wasted more time than I care to admit deconstructed many pass rants of yours piece by piece.....only to have you just repeat it while ignoring any fact that contradicts your BS.

After awhile, people get tired of trying to teach a parrot cognitive reasoning skills. You haven't change one iota, so people rather laugh than waste time banging their heads against your willfully ignorant neocon wall. So continue to tell yourself and everyone else what a righteous genius you are and how all your diatribes are truth from the mount on high. We know better.

[Good Luck]

Hey chuckles, I've wasted more time than I care to admit deconstructed many pass rants of yours piece by piece.....only to have you just repeat it while ignoring any fact that contradicts your BS.

After awhile, people get tired of trying to teach a parrot cognitive reasoning skills. You haven't change one iota, so people rather laugh than waste time banging their heads against your willfully ignorant neocon wall. So continue to tell yourself and everyone else what a righteous genius you are and how all your diatribes are truth from the mount on high. We know better.
The only thing you have ever done, twinkey, is repeat yourself ad nauseum while claiming "victory" using opinion sites for reference while claiming them to be facts. Every one here, even other liberals, know your methods.

Meanwhile, you still do not (cannot?) address the concerns I expressed, so you try to BS your way by claiming "victory" in previous threads. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

[Taichiliberal]

The only thing you have ever done, twinkey, (learn to spell, bunky....gives a little more weight to your attempted insults) is repeat yourself ad nauseum (this dimbulb NEVER used this phrase until I he read it on my responses, folks. Check the history. Pity he doesn't have the imagination to go beyond plagiarism) or while claiming "victory" using opinion sites reference while claiming them to be facts. a lie, as I've used the Wall St. Journal, the NY Times, Newsweek, etc. And if I use a advocate web site, I make sure THEY are using likewise sources for their material. Pity poor Bravo, reduced to lying for Every one here, even other liberals, know your methods. I always find it fascinating how neocon parrots make these sweeping assertions without a shred of proof. I mean, one expects similarly minded fools like STY, USF, Meme, Yurtle, the Loyal End, the PMFool and such to agree with ol Bravado here. but to try and speak for those he openly detests is just absurd.

Meanwhile, you still do not (cannot?) address the concerns I expressed, so you try to BS your way by claiming "victory" in previous threads. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

Like I said.....whenever I desconstruct your BS, you just ignore it and repeat your dreck as if nothing else exists. As you demonstrated above, you readily lie about others, so why should I expect an honest debate.

Let's just take one example of how intellectually impotent your false bravado is:

Second, the government WILL be interfering with the private insurance sector and individual right of choice. The proponents claim that a person will have the right to keep their current coverage - which is true, but only up to a point. If this bill passes, then anyone changing jobs after its passage will be forced to go through the government to "allow" them to change their insurance coverage to their new employer.

No where is there a proposal where the gov't decides if you can change health care insurance when you change jobs....because essentially that would be the gov't interfering in your personal job choice...which becomes violations of State and Federal law that I can't begin to list. What you are confusing is the MONITORING OF INSURANCE COMPANIES...you know, making sure they're not screwing over their customers. Companies are free to choose, you are free to change. As the President said, employers can CHOOSE, no one is forcing them in any way, shape or form. If you can find EXACTLY the proposal that supports what you say, then produce it. If not, go blow smoke somewhere else, and then try and learn something from the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908200002