YellowLinesandArmadillos

Actually Wilson was a TX Dem... not that that means a whole lot.

Get off your high horse... nice baiting. No the guy who shot these guys no matter how inappropriate they are standing across the street from a school are... isn't there some pedophilia law against this, but they should not have been killed and obviously the guy who did this has more wrong with him to snap like that. P.S. Abortion is illegal in the third tri-mester but that ruins part of your argument. I respect folks that feel abortion is morally wrong. I don't respect they way many on both sides argue their case and the way you stated your example is a exhibit A. You over-reached in pointing out the hippocracy of the other side by inserting unnecessary name calling with as much hate as those on the other side accuse you of... So folks like you on both sides are morally wrong... make peace with your God and seek forgiveness.

Sign him, .... just sign him... No brainer do the deal. Common Ralph, are all the other guys on the roster more important?

The frustrating thing about this discussion is that the 30 million, or whatever the number is, is only part of the point. First off these folks tend to be middle class young adults who don't pay into the system and are generally healthy unless something catastrophic happens to them, the old 10 foot tall and bullet proof mentality, or they are small business owners who just can't afford it on their own and tend to be of the ranks of the middle class. Without reform the middle class will keep getting screwed by the trickle down theorists, with reform there is a chance they might get some adequate service. Heck there are a lot of folks that can barely afford the premiums they are currently paying, but they have a family and suck it up, despite the service for these plans being woefully inadequate. In one of the other posts from OH, I saw the exception to pre-existing conditions and I had to laugh... sounds like a credit card statement basically the fine print says you are screwed. So yes the current system needs to be reformed, no I don't like insurance companies... the question on "Morning Joe" this morning...Would rather have insurance cos invest your money or the government?... My answer... T-Bills and government bonds sound a whole lot more attractive for a non-player like me than some broker at AIG... At least I will have money when I retire and I won't spend it right now and I am not depending on the market to keep going up for the next 20 years without a significant downturn when I am ready to retire. In my case, I actually diversify in all of the above to make sure I have something left at the end, even if one goes in the crapper. Still, healthcare should be accessible and affordable and for one of the richest countries in the world not to provide it consistently is unconscionable IMO, however it is done.

If that were all it was I could deal, but I have a half Lab, half Dalmatian and he has tried more than just legs.... LOL

On the male side of things, IMO, men are like male dogs, given their own determination they will F just about anything. Biological, hormonal or something else it does not matter and is non of my bus.

Nice idea, but you then would have the lobbyists running the town more than they do now, also the staff would become more powerful IMO. They are there and know how things work and how to get things done. Though I agree for a short while it would shake things up and I am all for that.

Now if the idiots running the Republican party had done and investigated the money being spent they might have more credibility especially if they emphasized previous Dem hypocrisy. But they took an entirely different lunatic angle.

Oh Jeez, the conspiracy theories abound. I am sure this thing went through quite a few write ups including one by the Department of Education which the White House uses as input and then promptly ignores most of.... Most of the time at USDA we were happy with just a mention, but then again that was USDA. Most often the WH ignored most of what I wrote or anyone else for that matter. I remember getting a whole sentence or two in one of the President's speeches at one point... Of course the Pres is going to say something about his agenda, go to school, work hard and play by the rules, something the politicals and financial wizards in this country, not to mention insurance companies should go back and study what that means... There... happy with my rant. This outcry is so much about nothing and such a load of crap it makes the right wing look bad when the have bigger things to worry about.

Easy Swede, unlike you Republican coolaid drinkers, I have consistently criticized what I thought Obama does...is doing wrong and supported him when he has done things I agree with. Given the choice between him and McCain I thought Obama was the better choice and still do especially with Palin as his running mate. But I told people earlier on that I was concerned about his political inexperience and penchant for missteps that would make him easy targets of the rightwing demonizing attacks. I am sorry that my concerns were correct and I truly miss some parts of Clintonomics that emphasized balancing the budget and downsizing government with a liberal set of priorities. I didn't like some of deals he cut relaxing prohibitions against unfair financial and trade restrictions. However, I certainly don't want a set of ideological conservative priorities running this country including having American citizens watched by the CIA, religion taught in schools, contraception talk not allowed, rampant tax loopholes for the rich and lack of federal oversite on the stock market, insurance regulations and environmental pollution to name a few. If Republicans stood for more of those values then I would support them... because generally they have tended to be more fiscally responsible until the last batch of Republicans were hatched. Which ever side decides to embrace more of these values than currently do I will be more than willing to support them. What I disdain is false mindless name calling in order to claim one sides superiority. The right wing seems to do this very effectively for the masses to drink and the left seems to catching up. We pay for it in the lack of substantive debate. My problem with Obama seems to be a lack of leadership and follow through. I quibble less with his announced not impugned by the right, priorities.

That being said, agree or disagree with Obama -- or somewhere in between, I think he and his staff have mismanaged the debate and it is probably too late to take control back. You never know however and the shrill rantings of the Republicans give him an opening I am not sure he deserves. That being said, he will have to take control from the shrill rantings of the left in order have a chance at success. Not sure that is in him

Speaking of HYPERBOLE

Where is Lorrainna Bobbit when you need her.

Facts are people are denied all the time and are not eligible for medicare or medicaid so stick that in your... your... wherever you stick things and smoke them..

Interesting debate. First off I agree Reagan was partially to blame. The Executive Branch has the ability to control how the purse strings are and are not spent to an extent. But Rostenkowski who was the Ways and Means Committee Chair that was quoted was just as much to blame and Tip O'Neil, Speaker of the House, Cut a lot of deals too. I forget who the Republican Leader in the Senate was, but they all had their hands in the till. Reagan played a great role in ending the cold war, but he increased a lot of spending and did little to control deficits. It was a cluster all the way around. Clinton and House Dems and later Republicans competed to curb deficit spending in the 90s by different but ultimately successful means. Clinton held up spending (delayed it for a year often) and let go of a lot of Bureaucrats. There were a lot of parochial fights over him doing it, but he got away with it. Also, for a time the line item veto was his biggest too. I wish there was a way to make it Constitutional. Bush and pent up demand from House Republicans blew the roof of spending on projects. Now Pelosi is doing the same thing and the usual offenders on both sides are up to their same old tricks. Obama needs to take a stronger stand on line item spending, though he has very little teeth unless he starts delaying projects. Though he has already caught crap for not getting stimulus money out there fast enough.... you can't have it both ways and Obama trying to walk a middle line on this deal is what Whip Tom Delay (R-TX) aptly put resulting in the creation of my Avatar. Until the Dem Leadership in the Senate and he take a stronger stand against Pelosi, this is going to keep being a fiscal and political problem for the Dems. On the healthcare debate, nice rhetoric, but back then there were a lot of insurance choices and since the government never enforces anti-trust laws, at least having another option might be good. P.S. Didn't Reagan create HMOs, part of the reason for this whole cluster in the first place?

Wait, wait... you read it first here, a knuckle dragging teeth clincher with a sense of humor... shoot now the world is really changing its polarity... oh? That was just mean spirited sarcasm... rats. I was hoping for some change!

After watching the offensive line play, the current schedule and the lackluster play in the D-line I don't see how the Bills win more than 5 games. It could mean a higher draft pick next year, until the line situation get solved I think I might follow hockey a bit more closely this year. The Sabres, though fleeting, still have enough talent to have a chance at finishing in the Stanley Cup mix.

Fixed, but they pay a higher percentage of their income in sales taxes, auto taxes, insurance requirements etc. Echoing AD, can't believe it. I would agree taxes need to be lowered on the middle class and sales and state taxes should be lowered. But go ahead and blame dems for this when it has been a lot of Republican led state legislatures the last ten years increasing sales taxes. Finally, I find most state and local legislative bodies full of it no matter the party.

Yes we will need to increase doctors of all levels, but not because we are adding people to the insured, but because our population is aging and most of them are covered by medicare and are demanding more services. The uninsured are generally young adults and healthier and typically don't use much in the way of services. Kids are insured under the current system and destitute folks are covered by a myriad of current programs. So tell me how will their be an increase in demand for services. We are not adding to the current population as a result of increasing insurance coverage, therefore there will be no increase in demand as a result of providing another option, there will only be a way to better control costs and have those who do not pay into the system now to start paying something.

You have two inaccuracies. One the discussion was on increase in demand for services as a result of adding another insurance option because we would be adding 40 million in uninsured. I debated that this was inaccurate because even the uninsured receive services through charity or other options and the bulk of them are the young adults who are generally healthy and who don't use a lot of medical services to begin with nor would they if this option were available. The increase in demand is going to come from the elderly who have access to medicare and will demand more services. This however is going to happen no matter what insurance options are or not available and it is going to cost the tax payer one way or another. That being said the cut in cardiology reimbursement rates might force these doctors to serve more patients to make up the difference and I sarcastically said they might have to spend less time on the golf course or in their private yachts paid for be the tax payer. Finally, I disagree, the Canadian model works great. If you have ever used it, you would know. Those who want specialized services might have to wait a little while if it is a non-emergency, but they all get services and pay very little. Their Emergency rooms are first rate and not clogged up by non-insured people needing maintenance services. I am not sure their model would work in the States but it works well for Canada and much better then our system does for us. As far as England goes, I do not have any knowledge how well or not so well their system works, but don't believe the rhetoric putting down the systems in either country. Such rhetoric is driven by US insurance companies and others who have a vested interesting in keeping us paying out the backside for services, denying claims and generally acting like Verizon with all their hidden fees.

I am not sure I buy the increase in demand argument. You would be increasing the number of people paying into the system - young people would actually start paying - but I don't see them using the system anymore than they already do. Others families might increase demand for specialists they don't currently have access to or can't afford, but how would the rationing overall change. They are already rationed out of the system, it might just give them a fairer shake at gaining access. Also, you might be able to decrease ER visits by increasing Health Maintenance visits catching things earlier and thus cutting overall costs. I do believe that there should be a penalty in fees for people who don't take care of themselves and a discount for those that make certain benchmarks for the age, height etc., overweight being the primary indicator for the penalty portion. Back to original question, if you really think about it Demand would largely be a wash, those 40,000,000 still need services, they get it now through other means like in the ER or through Charity. Demand for specific services might need to change and cardiologists might need to become GPs if what you say is correct. But overall demand should remain relatively flat. The big change in Demand will come from retiring Baby Boomers who generally are already insured and use a lot of services. As more retire, more will need services, but that has little to do with increasing coverage. So if you cut fees paid, maybe those cardiologists will have to cut a couple of golf outings a year and do only one trip on their private Yacht, not 5....because they would actually have to work more often to make up the loss in salary.

Nice blaming the GLB act on Clinton. Obviously it was a compromise and no Clinton did not write it, but he did sign and for that I agree it was a mistake. However, blame should be spread considering Senator Phil Gramm R-TX, Rep. Jim Leach R-IA and Rep. Tom Bliley R-VA wrote the legislation. I remember at the time thinking it was a bad idea, but banks and insurance cos were arguing that they needed to be able to compete on the World level and no such prohibitions were in place internationally. They argued they couldn't compete and would sooner or later be bought out and become international subsidiaries. Obviously the legislation was ramrodded through a Republican Congress and Clinton weakened by his cigar problem signed off on it. That being said, I agree with you that this was a mistake and opened up a pandoras box enabling the current situation.

While I understand that a lot of the waste is on administrative costs, we can debate the causes and who is at fault. The idea of Tort Reform has some merit, however the problem a lot of folks have with it is not necessarily the money, but the tight circle and code of silence Doctor's and the medical industry exhibits when it screws up. Unfortunately, most folks don't think Doctors should go to jail for a long time when they are negligent, rather that they should pay. I would like to see this reversed with a full disclosure requirement and some sort of public documents rule similar to a FOIA request in order for me to back Tort Reform in the manner you suggest. Though generally, I am not against the idea of Tort Reform caps as some have suggested, but I want tougher criminal penalties and full disclosure when there is a screw up. That being said, I understand settlements and actual lawsuits make up only a small proportion of an insurance companies outlays, so why the high premiums? See I think all this so called extra testing is driven by the insurance cos and used as an excuse to raise doctor premiums. Yes, I know the paperwork reqs can be large, yet some of these doctors still fill out all their forms in paper format and they then need a secretary to transpose them. You would think with all that Med Ed there would be a requirement to become Tech savy. Young Doctors, like young farmers seem to embrace Tech, the older one's who control funding and decision making are often still in the Dark Ages of Tech. But once again, you have over simplified the problem, which and the solution, just as I have in my retorts. Your analysis of the Clinton economy is way off and I while there was Dot Com deal going on it certainly wasn't the reason Clinton was the only President in modern history to reduce the size of the DC and Federal bureaucracy, which was what I addressed. We were talking about belt tightening at the Federal Level, not the economy. P.S. Bush has a prosperous economy after the .com deal subsided, yet he undid Clinton's cuts and went way above their previous levels if you look Department by Department staffing level so to quote Maxwell Smart.... "missed the mark by __________ that much."

My masta plan yeh right, not likely, I just like the idea of adding some competition into the mix. Of course Cardiologists, rightfully so are only protecting their own self interest, but the claim that the sky will fall is disingenuous, but a common and sometimes successful political tactic. Dems use it all the time on the Social Security issue. P.S. Demonizing is also part of politics 101, if you can't deal get out of the kitchen. I suggest you read http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Growth-Politi...e/dp/0877225621 a great read on how opposing sides use extreme tactics to fight the opposing view. Finally, I worked for Clinton and some conservative Dems who were the primary reason that the budget got balanced in the 90s. We cut 30,000 employees at USDA down to 90,000. Under Bush USDA grew to over 130,000. So I think I might know a thing about belt tightening politically speaking. Clinton may have been a lot of things, but on fiscal government issues he and Tom Delay ® were a one two punch. Drove pork barrel politicians on both sides up the wall. I believe in a lean, responsive and effective government as an ideal, not that it will ever be reached, but something always worth working for.

Down boy, the lie or misrepresentation in the deal is that by stating there will be rationing (how can you say this when you are talking about something in the future) ignores the fact currently there already is rationing and choices being made. This statement is non-sequitor or at best selfishly motivated by cardiologists. Also by your reasoning the same could be said about our school systems or anything else, lets just throw money at it, that will fix it, which is what we have been doing without reciprocal benefit. A little belt tightening can't hurt anyone or anything especially when there other priorities to deal with.