Saint Obama shall bring us all together...

[Damocles]

Sorry brother. I find the arguments against healthcare reform to be mindless beyond belief.

You can but that bullshit if you choose.

And I find the support for it to be mindless, it doesn't change that there is disagreement within both parties. That Rs can find common ground on this issue isn't surprising, but ignoring the very real information that people in the party don't always agree or even vote the same way so that you can continue to believe the "lockstep" myth is just self delusion.

 

[Bonestorm]

I find it hilarious that the Republicans on this board think this is some huge slight against the Republicans in the House and the Senate. It isn't. Relax.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I disagree my friend wholeheartedly.

Congressman Grayson Wins Another Round

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson keeps provoking congressional Republicans and their media allies with fact-based challenges to the lies being used to block health care reform.

The insurance-industry stooges keep taking the bait.

And the truth about the high cost of delaying needed changes in America's health care delivery system keeps getting the attention it deserves.

Why is Grayson so effective?

Because, unlike many other Democrats and mainstream Republicans, he refuses to be intimidated by the bullying tactics employed by the GOP's "Party of 'No' caucus" and its accomplices.

No matter how desperately Republicans in Congress and their amen corner in the media may try to the censor the dissident Democrats, Grayson is reminding America about the trail of dead left by insurance-company greed and political neglect.

The Florida Democrat who drew national attention last month when he declared on the House floor that the Republican plan for uninsured Americans was "don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly," was back on the House floor this week to announce the creation of a website to honor the victims of the current system.

Grayson, who has taken the lead in highlighting a Harvard study that shows 44,000 Americans die annually because they have no health insurance, told the House and the nation: "I think it dishonors all those Americans who have lost their lives because they had no health coverage, by ignoring them, by not paying attention to them, and by doing nothing to change the situation that led them to lose their live."

With that in mind, he announced the launch of a Names of the Dead website.

Grayson's welcoming message at the site declares:


Every year, more than 44,000 Americans die simply because have no health insurance.

I have created this project in their memory. I hope that honoring them will help us end this senseless loss of American lives. If you have lost a loved one, please share the story of that loved one with us. Help us ensure that their legacy is a more just America, where every life that can be saved will be saved.


Visitors to the site are invited to add the names and stories of people who have died. They're also asked where they stand with regard to the health-care reform debate. There are links to the Harvard study, Grayson's speeches and his congressional and campaign websites.

The last link stirred predictable objections from Republican political operatives who are not used to Democrats who take the health care debate seriously enough to try and win it.

"What is wrong with this man? Alan Grayson's morbid exploitation of ‘the dead' for personal political gain may be the most shameless stunt he's pulled yet," grumbled Andy Sere, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Sere and his compatriots -- who are paid to pull shameless stunts for political gain -- charged that Grayson had committed some kind of ethics violation. They weren't sure what kind exactly, but they wanted to get the term "ethics violation" in play.

As when congressional Republicans threatened to sanction him for bringing up the fact that people die when they are denied insurance and health care, Grayson responded with a cry of: Bring it on!

"Let them file a complaint," said the congressman, who reminded reporters that he had paid for the website with his own money. "I'm sure I'll be vindicated."

Actually, he's already been vindicated.

Opponents of health care reform are so desperately frightened by Grayson's tactics that they immediately attacked the "Names of the Dead" site and posted false names -- "Wile E. Coyote" and "Hugh G. Reckshinn" -- to mock the reality that Americans die because our insurance industry.

When your critics are reduced to making light of the innocent dead, you have won the debate.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/487061/congressman_grayson_wins_another_round

I like defiant politicians who aren't afraid to speak truth to power .. and obvilously, so do many others. His opponent can say whatever he wants .. most Americans want real healthcare reform .. and it's refreshing to see a democrat will balls.

wow... an article from the nation siding with a Dem? Why not just quote Fox siding with a Rep?

Saying 'you are an enemy' is not an argument. It is pathetic. Just as it was when people who criticized Bush policy or the war were labeled as such.

Again, the attack on Fox is nothing short of a temper tantrum by the Dems. They are shooting themselves in the foot with such behavior.

 

[blackascoal]

And I find the support for it to be mindless, it doesn't change that there is disagreement within both parties. That Rs can find common ground on this issue isn't surprising, but ignoring the very real information that people in the party don't always agree or even vote the same way so that you can continue to believe the "lockstep" myth is just self delusion.

From my perspective it's way past negotiating or giving a damn about what the right has to say or think. Democrats won the election and they won in part on healthcare reform. The majority of the country is for it, including the majority of doctors and nurses.

I don't give a damn about "lockstep" and I don't give don't give a damn about "bi-partisanship" .. fuck that.

Do what is in the best interests of the American people, not the fucking corporations.

I recognize you have a different view .. but honestly and with all due respect .. fuck that. The right had it's way for 8 years and damn near destroyed this nation. Way past time to give them the finger on policy.

 

[blackascoal]

wow... an article from the nation siding with a Dem? Why not just quote Fox siding with a Rep?

Saying 'you are an enemy' is not an argument. It is pathetic. Just as it was when people who criticized Bush policy or the war were labeled as such.

Again, the attack on Fox is nothing short of a temper tantrum by the Dems. They are shooting themselves in the foot with such behavior.

The article was not to impress you .. but to demonstrate that Grayson is admired for his stance by his own side of the fence. Why should he give a damn about what those on the other side think.

It was a response to your comment about his stance being a mistake.

Everything that has happened to the right is somebody else's fault. You're just innocent victims of "attacks"

I got that

:0)

 

[Damocles]

From my perspective it's way past negotiating or giving a damn about what the right has to say or think. Democrats won the election and they won in part on healthcare reform. The majority of the country is for it, including the majority of doctors and nurses.

I don't give a damn about "lockstep" and I don't give don't give a damn about "bi-partisanship" .. fuck that.

Do what is in the best interests of the American people, not the fucking corporations.

I recognize you have a different view .. but honestly and with all due respect .. fuck that. The right had it's way for 8 years and damn near destroyed this nation. Way past time to give them the finger on policy.

Your focus is on this one thing, while I am speaking of a larger picture.

I'm not arguing, at this time, for or against the health care. I am simply pointing out that his statement was full of delusion. "We're better because we disagree" is silly, and it ignores that just as often the right has disagreement. I'm glad that there is agreement within the party on this bill, because I believe the bill to be very bad indeed. However, because there is agreement here does not mean that there is never discord.

 

[Bonestorm]

Your focus is on this one thing, while I am speaking of a larger picture.

I'm not arguing, at this time, for or against the health care. I am simply pointing out that his statement was full of delusion. "We're better because we disagree" is silly, and it ignores that just as often the right has disagreement. I'm glad that there is agreement within the party on this bill, because I believe the bill to be very bad indeed. However, because there is agreement here does not mean that there is never discord.

Do you really think that Obama was saying that "Democrats are better?" Seriously? I expect the knuckleheads to buy into that spin of it, but do you really believe that is what Obama meant?

And if you really think that Republicans do not have more party discipline all you need to do is look at the number of bills Bush vetoed from January 2001 through January 2007 when the Congress was split or controlled by Republicans.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What reform do you propose?

Would it include Medicare for all Americans .. or do you believe the current system just needs a bit of tweaking.

All I hear from the right is what they think is wrong with democrats without ever proposing any sound healthcare reform themselves.

I have spelled it out many times before, but in case you missed it will do so again.

As for Medicare for all... No, I would not support that. It is poorly run and severely underfunded. Adding to that mess would not address the COST issue.

For the costs....

1) Tort reform... end the insane punitive damages in these cases. The insurance companies do not pay them. They pass them through to the consumer and the doctors in the form of higher premiums. Thus for those wishing to 'punish' the hospitals/doctors/insurance companies.... guess what? You cannot do so via high punitive damages. WE all pay for that.

2) Once #1 is done, put an end to defensive medicine. This practice adds tremendously to the costs of health care as doctors/hospitals issue countless tests/procedures in a CYA attempt.

3) Once #1 is done: review malpractice insurance premiums and make sure the cost savings are being passed back to the doctors.

4) Once 2 & 3 are done: review the average hospital/doctors bill to see that costs savings are passed to the consumer (whether direct or via their insurance company)

5) Once the above are done: check average premiums for individuals/families to see that the lower costs are reflected with lower insurance premiums.

6) Eliminate the state barriers. Allow all insurance companies to compete in every state. Create guidelines for insurance practices that the states can adopt to get more uniformity. This will help create efficiencies and can again lead to lower costs.

7) Portability of plans. Quit tying them to the employer. Go back to individuals qualifying on their own. This will dramatically lower the costs of insurance for most people given the fact that in group plans we all pay as if we were the lowest common denominator.

In addition to the above, I would add a few other changes outside of health care...

1) In public schools, no more vending machines selling soda, candy or junk food. If the parents want their kids eating that crap, the kids can bring it in.

2) Make sure public schools have funding for Physical education classes.

3) Make sure public schools go over dietary issues in their health classes. Show them documentaries like Super Size me to help demonstrate the impact that crappy ass food has on the body.

4) If a company has a group plan, provide an incentive (meaning from the insurance companies) to have health/dietary/physical education programs.

5) If we are to maintain our current tax code, then provide a tax deduction for gym memberships. It doesn't have to be much... but it may help people find incentive to get to the gym and find classes/workouts that they enjoy.

6) Encourage people to watch 'the biggest loser'. If those people can get their ass in shape and learn to eat better, damn near anyone can.

Just some thoughts....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The article was not to impress you .. but to demonstrate that Grayson is admired for his stance by his own side of the fence. Why should he give a damn about what those on the other side think.

It was a response to your comment about his stance being a mistake.

Everything that has happened to the right is somebody else's fault. You're just innocent victims of "attacks"

I got that

:0)

I understand that Dems may not care and many may actually like it. But unfortunately, unless the Dem is in a 'can't lose' district.... then they are going to have to rely on the independent voters to put/keep them in office.

That is where I believe the back fire will occur.

 

[blackascoal]

Your focus is on this one thing, while I am speaking of a larger picture.

I'm not arguing, at this time, for or against the health care. I am simply pointing out that his statement was full of delusion. "We're better because we disagree" is silly, and it ignores that just as often the right has disagreement. I'm glad that there is agreement within the party on this bill, because I believe the bill to be very bad indeed. However, because there is agreement here does not mean that there is never discord.

I find that to be sane thought .. although I still disagree on the specifics.

 

[Topspin]

I would hit the AMA monopoly hard, open access to medical schools big time.
It's criminal the average dr makes 250,000 annually. I can't believe turbo-libs like Bill Press will attack CEO's but doesn't say poo about the AMA.
I went to school with the son of a Dr at LSU. He had a 3.88 in pre med and had to wait 2 yrs to get in Med school. CRIMINAL

 

[blackascoal]

I understand that Dems may not care and many may actually like it. But unfortunately, unless the Dem is in a 'can't lose' district.... then they are going to have to rely on the independent voters to put/keep them in office.

That is where I believe the back fire will occur.

Again, I disagree .. in fact, I think the opposite.

"Independent" is made up of a lot of people from the left and the right. They don't often have much commonality at all other than they don't like either major party. I would have to be considered independent although I am decidedly on the left. Point being, there are a lot of left-leaning independents who aren't democrats because they think them pussies. Grayson did not hurt himself with that group, nor those who believe real healthcare reform is necessary, nor those who themselves or have loved ones with no or inadequate healthcare, nor with those who are facing bankruptcy because of healthcare costs.

He isn't putting his finger to the wind in his decisions .. AND, he's also critical of his fellow democrats.

I like this guy.

 

[Bonestorm]

I have spelled it out many times before, but in case you missed it will do so again.

As for Medicare for all... No, I would not support that. It is poorly run and severely underfunded. Adding to that mess would not address the COST issue.

For the costs....

1) Tort reform... end the insane punitive damages in these cases. The insurance companies do not pay them. They pass them through to the consumer and the doctors in the form of higher premiums. Thus for those wishing to 'punish' the hospitals/doctors/insurance companies.... guess what? You cannot do so via high punitive damages. WE all pay for that.

2) Once #1 is done, put an end to defensive medicine. This practice adds tremendously to the costs of health care as doctors/hospitals issue countless tests/procedures in a CYA attempt.

3) Once #1 is done: review malpractice insurance premiums and make sure the cost savings are being passed back to the doctors.

4) Once 2 & 3 are done: review the average hospital/doctors bill to see that costs savings are passed to the consumer (whether direct or via their insurance company)

5) Once the above are done: check average premiums for individuals/families to see that the lower costs are reflected with lower insurance premiums.

Tort reform? Good God. I don't think you've done your homework, Chief.

6) Eliminate the state barriers. Allow all insurance companies to compete in every state. Create guidelines for insurance practices that the states can adopt to get more uniformity. This will help create efficiencies and can again lead to lower costs.

This would be an unmitigated disaster (and runs pretty contrary to the principles of federalism that you and your typically carp about). Eliminating state barriers would result in the insurance companies buying a small state legislature where they would set up shop with extremely industry friendly law to screw over consumers. That's pretty much all it would accomplish.

7) Portability of plans. Quit tying them to the employer. Go back to individuals qualifying on their own. This will dramatically lower the costs of insurance for most people given the fact that in group plans we all pay as if we were the lowest common denominator.

How do you propose to eliminate employer-sponsored insurance? Prohibit employers from providing it? Taxing it? it's much easier said than done.

Oh, and eliminating group plans is probably the worst idea I've ever heard for health insurance reform. Seriously.

In addition to the above, I would add a few other changes outside of health care...

1) In public schools, no more vending machines selling soda, candy or junk food. If the parents want their kids eating that crap, the kids can bring it in.

2) Make sure public schools have funding for Physical education classes.

3) Make sure public schools go over dietary issues in their health classes. Show them documentaries like Super Size me to help demonstrate the impact that crappy ass food has on the body.

4) If a company has a group plan, provide an incentive (meaning from the insurance companies) to have health/dietary/physical education programs.

5) If we are to maintain our current tax code, then provide a tax deduction for gym memberships. It doesn't have to be much... but it may help people find incentive to get to the gym and find classes/workouts that they enjoy.

6) Encourage people to watch 'the biggest loser'. If those people can get their ass in shape and learn to eat better, damn near anyone can.

Just some thoughts....

These, while some are good ideas, are laughable as solutions to the healthcare issues in this country.

 

[Topspin]

I like his ideas, I just don't see them passing

 

[blackascoal]

I have spelled it out many times before, but in case you missed it will do so again.

As for Medicare for all... No, I would not support that. It is poorly run and severely underfunded. Adding to that mess would not address the COST issue.

For the costs....

1) Tort reform... end the insane punitive damages in these cases. The insurance companies do not pay them. They pass them through to the consumer and the doctors in the form of higher premiums. Thus for those wishing to 'punish' the hospitals/doctors/insurance companies.... guess what? You cannot do so via high punitive damages. WE all pay for that.

2) Once #1 is done, put an end to defensive medicine. This practice adds tremendously to the costs of health care as doctors/hospitals issue countless tests/procedures in a CYA attempt.

3) Once #1 is done: review malpractice insurance premiums and make sure the cost savings are being passed back to the doctors.

4) Once 2 & 3 are done: review the average hospital/doctors bill to see that costs savings are passed to the consumer (whether direct or via their insurance company)

5) Once the above are done: check average premiums for individuals/families to see that the lower costs are reflected with lower insurance premiums.

6) Eliminate the state barriers. Allow all insurance companies to compete in every state. Create guidelines for insurance practices that the states can adopt to get more uniformity. This will help create efficiencies and can again lead to lower costs.

7) Portability of plans. Quit tying them to the employer. Go back to individuals qualifying on their own. This will dramatically lower the costs of insurance for most people given the fact that in group plans we all pay as if we were the lowest common denominator.

In addition to the above, I would add a few other changes outside of health care...

1) In public schools, no more vending machines selling soda, candy or junk food. If the parents want their kids eating that crap, the kids can bring it in.

2) Make sure public schools have funding for Physical education classes.

3) Make sure public schools go over dietary issues in their health classes. Show them documentaries like Super Size me to help demonstrate the impact that crappy ass food has on the body.

4) If a company has a group plan, provide an incentive (meaning from the insurance companies) to have health/dietary/physical education programs.

5) If we are to maintain our current tax code, then provide a tax deduction for gym memberships. It doesn't have to be much... but it may help people find incentive to get to the gym and find classes/workouts that they enjoy.

6) Encourage people to watch 'the biggest loser'. If those people can get their ass in shape and learn to eat better, damn near anyone can.

Just some thoughts....

Some of that tweaking could and probably should be incorporated in the bill, but on it's own, it's not healthcare reform in my opinion.

Medicare is very popular and already in place .. in other words, there is already a public option .. that is very popular.

Say hello to Medicare Part E (for Everyone)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Some of that tweaking could and probably should be incorporated in the bill, but on it's own, it's not healthcare reform in my opinion.

Medicare is very popular and already in place .. in other words, there is already a public option .. that is very popular.

Say hello to Medicare Part E (for Everyone)

Out of curiosity, why do you feel those weren't reform? The whole purpose of reform is to get health care costs under control so that people can afford it.

Medicare is indeed popular... great... now where do you get the funding? Because currently it is drastically underfunded and is becoming a greater liability every day. Adding to that without addressing costs is not a good idea in my opinion.

One I did leave off of the above list... which is obvious... The $500 billion in savings that the Dems say they have found in Medicare/Medicaid... take that and run with it now. Don't wait for the main bill. Implement that portion now. Anyone that votes against it gets a double tap for being too stupid to breathe.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

or not... with bullshit like this I expect the divide to grow...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/22/obama_republicans_do_what_theyre_told.html

He's just being honest for once. You guys don't think for yourself. You're lying if you say otherwise. No Republican has ever proposed a policy that has ever effected America positively in any way. They just survive by sticking together and working lockstep, like automations.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You just don't really know how things work. That's your main problem. Pretty much everyone who knows anything about the way the party caucuses work in the House and the Senate knows full well that Republicans have much much much better party discipline than the Democrats.

There really is no argument about it. What Obama is doing here is just trying to spin that reality to paint the discordant and undisciplined Democrats as a good thing and the unified disciplined Republicans as a bad thing. The reality is that Obama would probably give his left pinky (that's his good hand) to have a Democratic congressional caucus as disciplined as the Republicans.

In the senate, there are 38 Republican far right members, and 2 center-right members. In the house, there are 177 Republican far right members, and no Republican centre-right members.

In the senate, there are about 20 liberals, 30 moderates, and 10 center-right Democrats. In the house of representatives, there are about 80 liberals, 120 moderates, and 50 center-right Democrats.


There is absolutely no comparing the Republican and Democratic parties.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel those weren't reform? The whole purpose of reform is to get health care costs under control so that people can afford it.

Medicare is indeed popular... great... now where do you get the funding? Because currently it is drastically underfunded and is becoming a greater liability every day. Adding to that without addressing costs is not a good idea in my opinion.

One I did leave off of the above list... which is obvious... The $500 billion in savings that the Dems say they have found in Medicare/Medicaid... take that and run with it now. Don't wait for the main bill. Implement that portion now. Anyone that votes against it gets a double tap for being too stupid to breathe.

They don't want to get rid of medicare advantage, because it involves private companies. The main problem with medicare advantage, IMHO, is that it's not fair competition. The private companies in Medicare Advantage get overpayments of like 10-12%. That makes no sense. Get rid of that extra funding and they'll dry up overnight.

 

[blackascoal]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel those weren't reform? The whole purpose of reform is to get health care costs under control so that people can afford it.

Medicare is indeed popular... great... now where do you get the funding? Because currently it is drastically underfunded and is becoming a greater liability every day. Adding to that without addressing costs is not a good idea in my opinion.

One I did leave off of the above list... which is obvious... The $500 billion in savings that the Dems say they have found in Medicare/Medicaid... take that and run with it now. Don't wait for the main bill. Implement that portion now. Anyone that votes against it gets a double tap for being too stupid to breathe.

Good questions brother.

First, I'll address Medicare for All and your good argument about costs .. in the words of a Nobel economist ..

"A system in which the government provides universal health insurance is often referred to as "single payer," but I like Ted Kennedy's slogan "Medicare for all." It reminds voters that America already has a highly successful, popular single-payer program, albeit only for the elderly. It shows that we're talking about government insurance, not government-provided health care. And it makes it clear that like Medicare (but unlike Canada's system), a U.S. national health insurance system would allow individuals with the means and inclination to buy their own medical care.

The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems don't devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?hp

If costs are your main objection to Medicare for All, that's an argument you will lose guaranteed if you choose to go there. Guaranteed.

Medicare for All would save an estimated $300 billion. Even though 50 million of us have no health coverage at all and another 50 million are poorly insured, we spend almost twice as much as the other countries that cover every one. We waste hundreds of billions on insurance companies which do not provide any healthcare at all. In fact, one third of that money is wasted on salaries, lobbying, stock holder profits, and marketing.

Would you call these benfits worth considering? ..

1. Comprehensive Health Coverage for everyone

2. Greater choice of provider

3.Health decisions made by patient and provider instead of HMO/Insurance Companies

4. Improved Health Planning

5. Health coverage would be portable, not tied to employment.

6. Eliminates the high (up to 33 percent) overhead cost of multiple private, for-profit insurances by including coverage for everyone in a single-risk pool reducing administrative costs to that of Medicare: 1-5%.

7. Instead of hundreds of insurances with differing requirements (requiring increased office staff), providers would deal with only one form.

8. The plan would be financed with a progressive payroll tax, at less per-capita cost.

9, Businesses would avoid hassles of managing health care, and become more competitive without annual inflationary health costs.

10. Consumers would pay less for goods and services that are inflated by businesses’ high health costs - e.g., currently $1,500 is added to the cost of each U.S.-made automobile due to health costs.

11. US Consumers , who now spend twice as much per capita as consumers in other developed countries (with poorer outcomes), would save because administrative health costs would be greatly reduced.

12. Single-risk-pool coverage would permit negotiation of lower, bulk rates for medications and durable medical equipment.

13. Increased US life expectancy: Similar socioeconomic single-payer European countries enjoy average two-year longer life expectancies.

14. The over-45 million uninsured Americans and 50 million more underinsured would have access to preventative care, without having to resort to and pay for emergency care at costing 4 to 5 times more.

15. Emergency rooms would be used as emergency rooms, not for primary care.

16. Retirees would not face loss of health coverage by employers.

17. Eliminates the profit motive that places priority on stockholders’ profits, and creates a perverse incentive to deny health coverage to the ill or high-risk.

18. Eliminates co-pays and deductibles and long waits for coverage -- sometimes waiting until death.
http://medicareforall.net/faqs.html

The program is deeply underfunded, but it has high ratings from those who use it .. no long delays for treatment .. excellent doctors .. doctors get paid .. none of the arguiments that have been used by those against real reform .. and that's the problem I have with your ideas. Some of them are good ideas, but none on them creates competition to the healthcare industry. That's not reform, that's tweaking. Portability is a good idea .. but those who have Medicare don't have that problem.

On the merits, this is not an argument those who stand against real healthcare refom can win. It's a battle they will have to fight on emotion, not merit.

Guaranteed .. and if you like I'll start a thread on it and prove it.