Democrat's Health plan flowchart

[Kelly the Dog]

I must have missed that memo. But stupid me guessing that since the major networks, cable news channels, major newspapers, and major news magazines, are all owned by NewsCorp, GE, Disney, Viacom, AOLTimeWarner which get their news from the major news agencies.

 

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is the MSM now. After all that's what you guys quote these days

Think Rush didn't cover this story as soon as he could this morning? I intentionally left off most of the right wing sites. He couldn't have been criticizing them for not covering the story. Of course, I just did a simple google search and found 100 articles on it and saw most all of the major conservative sites covered it, too.

[Booster4324]

Maybe Rush Limbaugh is the MSM now. After all that's what you guys quote these days

 

Wacka is a liberal now? Damn, can't tell the players w/o a scorecard.

 

[/dev/null]

Think Rush didn't cover this story as soon as he could this morning? I intentionally left off most of the right wing sites. He couldn't have been criticizing them for not covering the story. Of course, I just did a simple google search and found 100 articles on it and saw most all of the major conservative sites covered it, too.

 

I don't listen to Rush (by choice anyway, I'm exposed thru coworkers however)

 

You listed multiple sources that aren't the MSM by your definition. If that's not MSM, then what is?

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't listen to Rush (by choice anyway, I'm exposed thru coworkers however)

 

You listed multiple sources that aren't the MSM by your definition. If that's not MSM, then what is?

I said "what else is there in the main stream media besides conservative talk radio" and that I was pretty sure they would be covering it without even listening to it.

 

Damn, Walter Cronkite passed away, the lion of the main stream media, and you know what? The main stream media isn't covering it anywhere! Nowhere I look on these main stream media sites do they even mention it!

[/dev/null]

I said "what else is there in the main stream media besides conservative talk radio" and that I was pretty sure they would be covering it without even listening to it.

 

Damn, Walter Cronkite passed away, the lion of the main stream media, and you know what? The main stream media isn't covering it anywhere! Nowhere I look on these main stream media sites do they even mention it!

 

You know what the funny thing is?

 

I'm 5/6 thru a 6 pack and you're still not making any sense

 

The sad thing is tomorrow I'll be sober but you still won't make any sense

[Kelly the Dog]

You know what the funny thing is?

 

I'm 5/6 thru a 6 pack and you're still not making any sense

 

The sad thing is tomorrow I'll be sober but you still won't make any sense

 

Drinking is making you dumber, dev, not smarter.

[/dev/null]

Drinking is making you dumber, dev, not smarter.

Only way I can comprehende your posts

[Kelly the Dog]

Only way I can comprehende your posts

 

Comprehende? Have you started slurring in Spanish already? Takes me a 12 pack before that starts happening.

[/dev/null]

Comprehende? Have you started slurring in Spanish already? Takes me a 12 pack before that starts happening.

 

it's not spanish. it's spanglish

[Magox]

So which part of this do you dispute?

Well, to answer your question, I dispute this part:

 

If we don't get health care reform done now, then no one's health insurance is going to be secure

 

I don't believe it has to be now, meaning in the next few months, like what he is pushing for, and I don't believe the part where he says

 

no one's health insurance is going to be secure.

 

I don't buy that for one second, and you shouldn't either, but hey, who am I to tell you what to believe.

 

I hope that answers your question.

 

Also, my point was that we have heard politicians say this before,

 

If we don't pass _______, then _______ will happen.

 

Right?

 

and I did say politicians, meaning more than just Obama, all though he is doing a masterful job of using that line.

 

Dog, I must admit, you do a wonderful job of defending Obama's actions, I think you should write him a letter and propose that you become his Internet Defender Of Chief I.D.O.C. You could go around, scanning blogs and websites and whenever you see an opportunity to Defend him, BAM!! you do it!

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, to answer your question, I dispute this part:

 

If we don't get health care reform done now, then no one's health insurance is going to be secure

 

I don't believe it has to be now, meaning in the next few months, like what he is pushing for, and I don't believe the part where he says

 

no one's health insurance is going to be secure.

 

I don't buy that for one second, and you shouldn't either, but hey, who am I to tell you what to believe.

 

I hope that answers your question.

No, it doesn't. You can't ignore the "because" element of the one sentence/concept and extrapolate what you consider to be his time period. Do you really believe if congress said to him we guarantee this will be done within six months, or a year, he wouldn't take that deal in a nanosecond? He's putting the pressure on because as soon as the fall comes most of these jokers are going to be worried about their 2010 re-elections and out for themselves 100% of the time and not just the 50+% of the time they are now.

 

He wants it done now, sure, but he's absolutely right to say until it's done, "no one's health care is secure because" of A, B, C and D that he listed. Tens of thousands are losing their health care on a monthly basis.

 

I agree with you that politicians say "If we don't do this now the world is going to end" too much, and I agree with you that Obama personally says it too much. He shouldn't. I also believe, however, last fall when Bush said we have to bailout Company X or Company Y or the economy crashes" it happened to be true. And he did the right thing. And it was true when Obama said we need a big stimulus we needed a big stimulus (surely not everything in that particular stimulus, just that we needed a significant one immediately. These are explosive times.

 

I also believe we need to fix Health Care or we all die. It doesn't have to be in the next few months but most everyone who follows this stuff close on the political scene has been saying the same thing, now is the time for Obama to do it because he has the clout and he has the public behind him and it's before the congress gets pre-occupied with saving their own asses.

[Magox]

No, it doesn't. You can't ignore the "because" element of the one sentence/concept and extrapolate what you consider to be his time period. Do you really believe if congress said to him we guarantee this will be done within six months, or a year, he wouldn't take that deal in a nanosecond? He's putting the pressure on because as soon as the fall comes most of these jokers are going to be worried about their 2010 re-elections and out for themselves 100% of the time and not just the 50+% of the time they are now.

 

He wants it done now, sure, but he's absolutely right to say until it's done, "no one's health care is secure because" of A, B, C and D that he listed. Tens of thousands are losing their health care on a monthly basis.

 

I agree with you that politicians say "If we don't do this now the world is going to end", and I agree with you that Obama personally says it too much. He shouldn't. I also believe, however, last fall when Bush said we have to bailout Company X or Company Y or the economy crashes" it happened to be true. And he did the right thing. And it was true when Obama said we need a big stimulus we needed a big stimulus (surely not everything in that particular stimulus, just that we needed a significant one immediately. These are explosive times.

 

I also believe we need to fix Health Care or we all die. It doesn't have to be in the next few months but most everyone who follows this stuff close on the political scene has been saying the same thing, now is the time for Obama to do it because he has the clout and he has the public behind him and it's before the congress gets pre-occupied with saving their own asses.

He did say he wanted it by August didn't he? and weren't you also advocating the same thing, just yesterday I think it was. I'm too lazy to go back and find it, but if pressed enough I could, but I believe you said something along the lines of, they have been debating this for a while, they may as well pass it by August, or something like that. I could be wrong, but I could of swore that is the conversation you had with LA Billz.

[Kelly the Dog]

He did say he wanted it by August didn't he?

 

Yes, of course, and he surely does, for the reasons I stated above. But he wants it "done" a million times more than he wants it done by August. And he thinks, and most pundits and pols are saying, that if he doesn't get it done by fall, he's not likely going to get it done this year. And if he doesn't get it done this year, because of the mid-term elections (not because Health Care is a bad idea or not necessary), it's going to be difficult to get it done in 2010, too. And he would have to wait until 2011, which he doesn't want to.

 

And to answer the part you added, yes, I did say I thought it should be done in August (they are not going to pass a bill that he can sign until the fall anyway). And I would guess there is probably a 60-70% chance of that happening. It may not, something could happen to derail it more, they may decide to wait, they are having a serious debate right now from what I read about "bipartisanship" which is preventing more Dems from jumping on board. There are six centrists that are demanding they wait a little longer and they may get their way. But if I had to guess I think they get a bill in both houses in a few weeks, and then spend the next few months hammering it into one bill.

[Magox]

No, it doesn't. You can't ignore the "because" element of the one sentence/concept and extrapolate what you consider to be his time period. Do you really believe if congress said to him we guarantee this will be done within six months, or a year, he wouldn't take that deal in a nanosecond? He's putting the pressure on because as soon as the fall comes most of these jokers are going to be worried about their 2010 re-elections and out for themselves 100% of the time and not just the 50+% of the time they are now.

 

He wants it done now, sure, but he's absolutely right to say until it's done, "no one's health care is secure because" of A, B, C and D that he listed. Tens of thousands are losing their health care on a monthly basis.

 

I agree with you that politicians say "If we don't do this now the world is going to end" too much, and I agree with you that Obama personally says it too much. He shouldn't. I also believe, however, last fall when Bush said we have to bailout Company X or Company Y or the economy crashes" it happened to be true. And he did the right thing. And it was true when Obama said we need a big stimulus we needed a big stimulus (surely not everything in that particular stimulus, just that we needed a significant one immediately. These are explosive times.

 

I also believe we need to fix Health Care or we all die. It doesn't have to be in the next few months but most everyone who follows this stuff close on the political scene has been saying the same thing, now is the time for Obama to do it because he has the clout and he has the public behind him and it's before the congress gets pre-occupied with saving their own asses.

I had a discussion about this with GG, we had differing views, but I opposed the Bailout, and I don't believe it was the Bailout that "rescued" us from the abyss. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the FED's actions of setting up the CPFF that was the single largest action that helped prevent us from having a "Depression". If you remember it was short term funding that was the issue, LIBOR rates were sky rocketing, Commercial paper dried up, and banks weren't lending to one another, so the Fed stepped in and was the last lender of resort. This is why Lehman went under if you recall. It was this action that helped us more than anything else, Not the Bailout.

 

Also, if you remember, Paulson and Bush were saying that if we didn't do this bailout that the world was going to fall a part. The original plan was that the bailout was suppose to buy toxic assets off the books of the banks. Did that happen? Up to now, there has not been 1 Dollar that has been taken off the books of the banks through this or any other program. Why? because the banks didn't want to sell them at the market price, because if it did, there losses would of been so great, they would of been rendered insolvent. The Treasury didn't want to pay too much for it, because the taxpayer would of got screwed, estimates were ranging from 1.5- 4 Trillion dollars. In essence, it was a pricing issue. It wasn't until the last minute that they switched up the plan and basically what they did was just recapitalize the banks. Which I think does very little good, because it doesn't address the underlying problem, and that is the assets they hold. If the value of the assets they hold are still going down, or not appreciating, and unemployment remains high, banks won't lend. Simple.

 

My point is that the Bailout Paulson touted was about the Treasury buying toxic assets and if we didn't then ____________

 

They flipped the switch at the last minute. So, for me, they lost a little bit of credibility when what they said that HAD to be done, never actually was done.

[VOR]

Raising the retirement age to 70 and massively increasing, or eliminating, the "Wage Base" would significantly help Medicare and Social Security. And those don't need massive overhauls to achieve. But no one wants to talk about it. I wonder why?

[ExiledInIllinois]

The simple fact that will HAVE to be accepted for any workable system is that a certain level and/or amount of sub-standard care is unavoidable. You simply can't give everyone everything.

 

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

Now it is just a matter of who will have to take the hit. People who have been or people who haven't been. I fall on the side of people who have felt any pain or have felt less. You know how triage works. Lets just call it "social triage."

[billsfan89]

I am saying that fundamentally, taking away accountability for your own health care, namely, the hit in the wallet you take if you act like an idiot, is a bad idea. For rich people, poor people, all people. It already is a bad idea for those people who have gold plated insurance, and adding more people, regardless of status, just makes more "bad idea".

 

Think about it this way: you pay for your own car insurance. Therefore you take care on the road, because if you f up, you pay for it in terms of premium increase. There is no such mechanism for health insurance by and large, with the exception of SOME HMOs.

 

Health Insurance should be = car insurance, and there's no good reason why it isn't.

 

Do people who have car insurance say !@#$ it I have insurance I can go nuts and do whatever I want? Other drivers and driving drunk won't effect me. You would think that dying in a fiery wreck, or the prospect of killing other people, would be enough to be careful on the road, or keep us from driving drunk, but it doesn't. Those who do and don't die pay heavy in terms of their insurance premiums, in addition to fines from the state. We will go to a society of fat ass smokers if there are no consequences for bad health behavior like there are for drunk driving.

 

Yeah, yeah, let's see what they do when people realize that a minority group or women represent a higher risk group for a particular disease. Standard insurance practice would mean that they would raise the rate on that group. Are you trying to tell me that there won't be massive lawsuits, and phony "civil rights violation" complaints, because it's the government doing the raising of the rates? How likely is it that instead: the government ignores standard insurance practice and keeps the rates the same, to avoid the BS and because of some misguided racial agenda(see Barney Frank and the mortgage industry), and the government now needs MORE money to cover the cost of care for people who weren't paying the right amount of premiums? Take a wild guess where that more money comes from. Hint: people that make less than $250k a year...yeah, the very same people who Obama said would not be taxed.

 

I just don't see insurance coverage for those who don't have it will lead to people who already make smart choices make stupid ones. If you are smart enough to know that smoking is stupid and hurts your health and costs too much money why would you start just because you got health insurance?

 

If you live a fit life style because you know the consequences of obesity and diabetes why would you start to eat more and care less just because you got insurance.

 

I don't know many people who take bad care of themselves because of their insurance.

[billsfan89]

You keep holding onto that as if it's somehow relevant. Legally you're not entitled to police protection. Being able to sue an entity because one of their employees beats your ass in the commission of their duties is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

Morally? Laughable.

 

How about fewer health care professionals? Significantly less innovation in the industry? An even larger bureaucracy brought to you by the people with the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the DMV, only now YOUR life depends on it? Loss of the ability to sue for malpractice?

 

How about further job losses overseas because of even more employment tax to pay for this new "entitlement"? Surely companies wouldn't move jobs to countries without health care to save money? Nah.

 

Different doesn't mean better. I KNOW the government won't do a better job. The government is completely bankrupt now and spiraling deeper every day. Virtually nothing they put their hands on ends up better, instead being less efficient and more expensive. That's to say nothing of their ability to take tax money earmarked for one thing and spend it on something else. I'm sure they wouldn't take money from a new health care tax and use it for other things like they do with Social Security. Medicare is certainly cheaper and better, right? Find a veteran and ask them how good their health care is...

 

If you want to see where the current crisis began, you only have to look at the HMO Act of 1973. Ask yourself why a hospital is the only place in this country where they don't have to tell you what something costs or where what you pay for something isn't EXACTLY the same as what another person pays for the same thing?

 

Imagine going to a store and picking up a gallon of milk and them billing you $12,000.00 because you have a better job than your neighbor, who is only paying $2.50? How about going to have your car fixed, having the mechanic fix the problem you took it in for but while doing that, breaking something else, fixing it as well and then billing you for that repair as well.

 

Welcome to the health care system Congress has essentially given us. Now certainly anything new they give us won't be nearly that messed up.

 

Ignoring the fact that the 2 statements aren't comparable in the least (Life exists on paper? Really? ), could you please cite specifically where that phrase exists in the Constitution?

 

Life doesn't exist on paper? Than what do our laws do govern a bunch of robots. Laws are based off of people and what rights they do and don't have. In the Deceleration of Independence it says all men have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I just don't get what you say when you state life doesn't exist on paper could you elaborate on that point. If you don't have some sort of right to life than what do you have the right to?

 

I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of the health care system but treating health care like a utility which is regulated by the government yet still run like a business (Much like you water or power) would be a system that could work out for the best at least in my opinion. Giving everyone some sort of right to health coverage is just something I believe in. Its not easy to work out a system but I think you have to consider government intervention on a large scale even if its only just to hit the reset button on the whole system.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Life doesn't exist on paper? Than what do our laws do govern a bunch of robots. Laws are based off of people and what rights they do and don't have. In the Deceleration of Independence it says all men have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I just don't get what you say when you state life doesn't exist on paper could you elaborate on that point. If you don't have some sort of right to life than what do you have the right to?

 

I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of the health care system but treating health care like a utility which is regulated by the government yet still run like a business (Much like you water or power) would be a system that could work out for the best at least in my opinion. Giving everyone some sort of right to health coverage is just something I believe in. Its not easy to work out a system but I think you have to consider government intervention on a large scale even if its only just to hit the reset button on the whole system.

 

I do to (blue).

 

Here is the text:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Yes, according to the DoI one has a right to life. Health care can provide the difference between life and death. So if one has a right to life and health care can provide that life, one should have the right to health care AND everything that is possible within health care to provide that life. No picking and choosing. No holding out. Provide life with all that medical science has to offer.

[VOR]

I do to (blue).

 

Here is the text:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Yes, according to the DoI one has a right to life. Health care can provide the difference between life and death. So if one has a right to life and health care can provide that life, one should have the right to health care AND everything that is possible within health care to provide that life. No picking and choosing. No holding out. Provide life with all that medical science has to offer.

Eating is more vital to living than anything else. So too is shelter. And both are on a day-to-day basis, not ocassional, like health care. If you want to interpret "Rights...Life" as people being entitled to free health care, everyone should get free food and housing. And the DoI conveniently failed to address how slaves fit under "all men are created equal," so it can't be held-up as some paragon for morality.

 

And if ObamaCare gets passed, a lot of people will have their life and death chosen for them. In England, you cannot receive dialysis after age 55, as just one example. How else are you going to control health care costs, especially if you're paying for everyone now?