Democrats in Congress refused to fund the President's proposed shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay prison. There is good reason for this: it's a bad idea, with no plan for where to relocate the detainees. Now that the Dems are on track to have a 60-vote majority in the Senate, look for more opposition to other promises that Obama made during the campaign.
I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but politically, it's realistic. Democrats are responsible for the direction our country goes, and will be held accountable, just as the GOP was over six of the last eight years. What Congressman wants to be blamed for bringing terrorists into our country, possibly to be set free on our streets?
Other Obama initiatives are likely to face a similar fate. "Cap and trade" is almost certainly doomed to failure in the Congress, and his health care initiative also faces an uphill battle. These political battles will be waged on the Democrat side of the Congress, with Republicans united in opposition.
It will be interesting to see how these play out, and whether Dems who oppose them will be "demonized" by the media, as the GOP routinely has been, thus far. Newly minted Democrat Sen. Specter has opposed Obama in two votes already, without much media attention. They weren't crucial votes, unlike some of the larger issues looming on the horizon.
Americans are focused on politics more than they have been in a long time, and they are worried. Issues like "cap and trade" relate directly to how much money they spend on their basic energy needs. Health care is something that most people want everyone to have access to, but nobody wants to foot the bill for. The American people are stretched to their limit, and it's doubtful that President Obama's further huge, costly initiatives will find much popular support, even from his own party.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 69
So what do you suggest the country do now?
If gitmo is not closed it will just be another black mark on America that will not go away. No matter what Obama says gitmo is isolated and government cannot be trusted to run a prison camp by its own laws.
Both parties in congress need to get off the campaign trail and start doing their jobs or they need a strong signal from the public that it will not tolerate this kind of leadership any longer by voting out any republican and democrat that goes against the will of the people.
They aren't "refusing to fund it." They're demanding that the action plan be handed over before they hand over the cash. Obama has no action plan at present, because he is waiting for the Pentagon to finish an investigation into what to do with those prisoners, and how best to roll out a shutdown. Both sides are being entirely pragmatic and wise.
You should be more careful about accuracy when you post a thread article.
"It will be interesting to see how these play out, and whether Dems who oppose them will be "demonized" by the media, as the GOP routinely has been, thus far."
The GOP has been demonized because they've become the party of "no." They have stood against EVERYTHING since Obama took office, after voting "yes" for every single idiotic POS legislation that Bush proposed.
The GOP has also offered nothing as alternatives since Jan. 20, and therefore has left themselves wide open to demonizing criticism.
A bit of journalistic honesty would be in order, it would appear.
"Newly minted Democrat Sen. Specter has opposed Obama in two votes already, without much media attention. They weren't crucial votes, unlike some of the larger issues looming on the horizon."
Gee, maybe THAT'S why the media didn't paid attention then, huh?
"Issues like "cap and trade" relate directly to how much money they spend on their basic energy needs."
Prove that with something besides rightwing blogs. You can't. This is rightwing speculation, and nothing more.
"Health care is something that most people want everyone to have access to, but nobody wants to foot the bill for. "
Stupid me...here I was thinking that the $1000/month that I spend for healthcare insurance was a bill. I should've known that wasn't the case at all. Lord knows, I wouldn't be able to buy anything else with that $1000/month, if we had national healthcare.
God, you're amazing! How on earth do you come up with these incredibly bold predictions? I'm in awe.
How's this one: Look for snow in the upper midwest next winter. Not bad, eh? Pretty bold and assertive, I'd say.
I think Obama will continue to get most of what he wants. He got his health care plan passed by one vote and that vote came from one of his bigger Dem fiscal critics, Sen Kent Conrad. Conservative/moderate Dems are nervous but are hoping 2010 is still far enough away to allow memories to fade on votes over his plans. What 2010 is likely to be a more cautious year simply because of the midterms
Clark, are you OK with paying for others' health care, as well? We are already doing this, to some degree, but if you look at what Romney's health care plan has done to Mass. budget, you will see that the costs are far beyond the projections. You (and I) will end up paying much more than $100/month, mostly for people who probably could pay their own way. We already pay far more than public-sector workers, whose health care we subsidize.
Wait a minute. You pay $1000/month for health insurance? You'd do better in a HSA, with catastrophic health insurance on the side. You must make alot of money, to be able to afford that, Clark.
Coal and fossil fuel is going to price us right out of our planet. The alternatives are proven, and available, today, and advances in technologies keep rolling in. The only thing lacking, is the will to put them in place. Thank God somebody has the will. I'll pay a few dollars more for energy produced that does not contribute to the death of this planet. You, of course, seem to not want to. If you don't want to be responsible with this gift we have been given, then someone will have to nudge you. Obama is nudging. Not a problem....for me.
Hey Ron, can you spell FRAUD?
CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on "global climate analysis" -- including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.
Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth's temperature for the last half century, the CRU's summary of that data was used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.
That's from Ann Coulter, and except for the sarcasm at the end, it's absolutely a fact. They were the leading climate research unit in the world, Ron.
If democrats get national healthcare, it's all over for republicans, and they might as well disband and reform as something else. They'll be out of power for 2 generations.
I've not seen that. Care to share?
He also said that he would "price" coal out of the market. Over 2/3 of our electricity comes from coal, and there is NO alternative ready within the next 20 years, on a national scale. If his scheme is acted on, he will "price" average Americans out of their homes. "
We can most certainly generate 20% of our electrical power needs with solar and wind energy within 20 years. We'd have already been there long ago, had Redink Ronnie not rolled back Carter's ambitious alternative energy plans the minute he took office.
"Clark, are you OK with paying for others' health care, as well?"
Yes, absolutely. It's part of the cost of living in a civilized, successful society.
"We are already doing this, to some degree, but if you look at what Romney's health care plan has done to Mass. budget, you will see that the costs are far beyond the projections. "
That's because you have to remove profits from the insuranace equation.
You (and I) will end up paying much more than $100/month, mostly for people who probably could pay their own way."
That's 1/10 what I pay now. Sign me up.
"We already pay far more than public-sector workers, whose health care we subsidize. "
Exactly, so why should they be the only ones getting the benefits?
"Wait a minute. You pay $1000/month for health insurance? You'd do better in a HSA, with catastrophic health insurance on the side. You must make alot of money, to be able to afford that, Clark. "
I'm not at liberty to force my employer to change the insurance program that he's opted for.
I can think of one or two things that I'd much rather be spending $1000/month on than fattening the wallet of some fatass insurance company CEO, to be honest. I wonder if anybody else in this country could think of things to do with the extra money, if we had a national healthcare program??
Actually, this should be the centerpiece of an economic recovery plan. NOTHING would boost this economy faster and more effectively than to let people keep what they earn, instead of having to shovel it over to insurance companies. Of course, since it's not officially called "a tax," republicans will never support it, however.
I propose we begin the process by officially renaming health insurance premiums "taxes," so that republicans are willing to look at it rationally, for a change.
Insurance is a business, not a non-profit endeavor. When the government does it, they lose money (see Medicare, etc.). You cannot take the profit out, and still have insurance companies. At least you're up front about being a Socialist, wanting the state to run the economy. I see it as a prescription for disaster.
You have a right to be every bit as incorrect as you feel you must. We are still living in a reasonably free country. The facts don't often support your opinions, but that's ok for you, I guess.
"You can look up Obama's famous "coal industry" quote on your own."
That's what I figured.
"Insurance is a business, not a non-profit endeavor."
Ah, but in every other industrialized nation on the planet, where healthcare is provided for each and every person, at FAR less cost than we pay here, the health insurance portion of the equation is not-for-profit, just as it was HERE until Nixon changed the game. Ever since, we've seen OUR costs skyrocketing to the point where they devour nearly 20% of our national GDP annually. Nice system.
Meanwhile, the CEO of the largest healthcare insurance provider recently retired with a "nifty little" $1.4 BILLION golden parachute that YOU AND I paid for. You feel good about that? You want MORE of that? Keep cheering for the wrong side.
"At least you're up front about being a Socialist, wanting the state to run the economy."
As you are of being a fascist. We already KNOW the disaster that YOUR policies bring about, unfortunately.
Btw, speaking of healthcare and that scary, scary, scary word "socialism," why is it that the US, which pays FAR more than any other industrialized nation on the planet per capita, ranks a miserable #37 overall in healthcare quality? If every other nation is so dreadfully wrong, and "socialism" is SO evil, and our system is so gloriously infailable, why are we ranked so dismally? Hmmmm?
See, here's the very crux of the biscuit, with regard to healthcare, and why the republican version of reality is not only flat out wrong, but it is actually a threat to our very existence as a country. Our privatized system of healthcare is destroying us, economically. It has forced business to close or move overseas, it has destroyed families with bankruptcy, it is literally killing 18,000 people per year (where is their "pro life" stance on this one?)
The #1 reason that we pay so dramatically much more per capita than any other country is because insurance here is FOR PROFIT, and pharmas AND insurance companies are allowed to spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year on advertising and lobbying, and other countries do not.
Take our current single-payer system, medicare. It costs between 2-3% to adminster this program, compared to 10 times that for our "glorious" privatized system. The KEY difference is that the government doesn't pay hundreds of billions of dollars per year for advertising and lobbying, and they also don't have to pay a fatass CEO 10s of millions or more per year, and $1.4 billion when he retires.
"Why do conservatives always forget about that "provide for the common good" thing that's been accepted as a principle of our government from the start. "
They haven't ever read the preamble.
Unfortunately, Clark, government provided health care is failing in Europe. People go untreated, and costs are rising there, too. If you take the profit motive out of health care, there will be no health care. People don't work for free, and neither do businesses.
Because medicare is run exponentially more efficiently and is favored FAR more universally by physcians than privatized insurance?
"As for "the common good," no, insurance was not part of that "from the start."
Prove that statement, please. I want you to prove that NOT having healthcare insurance is promoting the general welfare, and I want you to prove that providing healthcare would NOT promote the general welfare of this society.
Of course, you can do neither, specifically because, as we BOTH know full well, people with insurance DO, in fact, tend to live longer and healthier lives, and we also know for a FACT that having NO insurance literally KILLS 18,000 people in this country each and every year. Hardly what ANYONE, even a republican, would call "good for the general welfare."
But see, here's where republicans simply cannot progress beyond. Even THEY can admit that the current system is destroying this nation. Even THEY cannot argue the FACT that our current system is KILLING 18,000 people per year, simply because they have no insurance. Even THEY cannot argue that healthcare costs FAR less in other countries, and that the overall performance in 36 of those countries is better than her. Even THEY cannot argue that if families had that extra $1000 in their pockets each month, the entire country would be FAR better off.
BUT, they just CANNOT bring themselves to accept that ANYTHING proposed by a liberal is better than what their glorious "free market" can bring forth. It's simply easier, in their minds, to ignore reality, than it is to admit that their idea sucks really bad in this instance.
"Unfortunately, Clark, government provided health care is failing in Europe.Unfortunately, Clark, government provided health care is failing in Europe."
Funny, but that's not what the WHO, nor those who're in those systems , are claiming.
"People go untreated, and costs are rising there, too."
Please, do name one, will you? Name one person that you personally know who is unable to find treatment in his native country in Europe.
Yes, healthcare costs are rising elsewhere, but not nearly as dramatically as here. Fact is facts. Sorry.
"If you take the profit motive out of health care, there will be no health care. "
Another baseless rightwing lie. Sorry, but once again, every other industrialized nation on the planet has proven your ideology flat wrong on this as well.
"People don't work for free, and neither do businesses. "
Oh, so we don't have ANY government employees that earn a paycheck, is that it? All of those congressmen, street cleaners, policemen, firemen, doctors, nurses, military, IRS geeks, etc., who work for city, state, and federal governments are simply doing it out of the goodness of their gigantic hearts, right?
See why you people are out of power, and why nobody should bother to pay you any attention with regard to the important issues of the day? You simply have no foundation in reality. You wallow in la-la land, in order to continue clinging to your failed ideological beliefs. Time to wake up and pretend you're in the real world for a while.
Umm...Obama requested the cash, with no plan. How wise is that?
Released where ??? No one will take them, do we let them go inside the USA ???
"Issues like "cap and trade" relate directly to how much money they spend on their basic energy needs."
Prove that with something besides rightwing blogs. You can't. This is rightwing speculation, and nothing more.
The poll also suggests that a slight majority oppose a proposal called "cap and trade," which would allow the federal government to limit the emissions from industrial facilities such as power plants and factories that some people believe cause global warming. Forty-four percent support "cap and trade," which is backed by the Obama administration.
There ya go---
That seals it then. Obama is a moron. Let's fire his ass.
You people seem just a teensy bit desperate to me.
"Businesses don't have to provide health care, Ron."
They also don't have to pay wages. They only do so because if they don't, somebody else will, and they'll lose workers to the competition. Same with healthcare insurance, right? So, given that reality, how much does it shackle and hamper a company's ability to compete, when they have to shell out enormous sums of money to stuff the wallets of millionaire insurance company CEO's?
What might happen to American company's competitiveness, and the overall strength of our nation's economy, if the burden of healthcare insurance were removed from these company's, and spread across all of society, as part of the cost of living in an advanced, civilized, successful society? You think there might be a TEENSY bit of economic growth that would result?
Here's another point that I forgot to mention, with regard to your assertion that "insurance companies have to make a profit." Are YOU ok with some bean counter sitting up in a high rise office in Des Moines making the decision as to whether or not keeping you alive and healthy is in that company's profit interest? Me either. Why should corporate bean counters make the ultimate decision as to what doctor you can see or what treatment, if any, is correct for you? I
think we're best leaving those deicsions to our doctors, aren't we? You "righties" always beller that you don't want the government dictating what doctor you can see, but you don't have any problem at all with having a corporate CEO tell you. Why is that? And again, a single payer system would NOT force you into a specific doctor or clinic. You'd still have your choice, and in fact, in many cases, MORE choice, because you wouldn't have an HMO telling you who you could see or what would be covered, right? You people ARE for freedom of choice, aren't you? Why are you so insistent on stripping away our choices for healthcare, by restricting us to the rigid guidelines of corporate bean counters?
"Living and dying should not be a matter of whether or not you can enrich some insurance company"
Bingo. This is THE bottom line of this discussion. Some of us want corporate insurance companies to make the decision as to whether or not we live or die, and the quality of our life if sickness enters in. Some of us would prefer that these decisions be made by ourselves and our physicians.
Republicans have decided that matters of life and death are best left to corporate profit masters. The vast majority of the nation feels otherwise. Republicans are standing firmly against personal freedom, I guess.
On to the next crisis! Maybe something else will stick!
I'm not sure you understand the history of this country at all. All businesses were founded on the principle of capitalism. That is, to make a profit. If there is a need for a good, or service, someone will start a business to provide it. Government only started providing services like health care fairly recently, as part of "the new deal."
Anyway, you've strayed quite far from the point of my post, which is that Obama will face opposition to his agenda from his own party. Health care stands a better chance of getting passed, but I predict cap and trade will not pass. Again, Obama is asking for money for health care without a plan, which is making even Dems hesitate. I'm done arguing basic economics with you. I'm talking about the politics of Obama's agenda.
All of your arguments will be repeated by the people who support your view in Congress. I am saying that there will be a signifigant amount of Democrats who argue my side, and we'll see how it plays out.
Only because of liberals. Were it up to you folks, there would be no minimum wage law, remember?
"During WWII"
Funny you should mention WWII with regard to healthcare, since the immediate aftermath of that war was when the public first displayed an overwhelming desire to have a national healthcare plan put into place.
"People can buy health insurance privately, or through non-employer groups. "
Unless they cannot afford it, in which case, they should just die and rot in the streets, right? Those who have wealth deserve it, and those who do not deserve that, so screw those without. As long as you and I can still walk, we can easily walk around the rotting corpses in the streets, right?
"I'm not sure you understand the history of this country at all.
I'd say that it's you that displayed a vast misunderstanding about this country.
"All businesses were founded on the principle of capitalism. That is, to make a profit."
Which, as I've already pointed out, is PRECISELY why we do NOT want these companies making life or death decisions for us! They will ALWAYS err on the side of profits, not our best interests! Witness the choking pollution that is killing us with catastrophic diseases, all because it's more profitable to pollute than to not!
"Government only started providing services like health care fairly recently, as part of "the new deal.""
As I've pointed out, it was Nixon that decided that health insurance companies should be for-profit. I'd say that's a bit more recent than the new deal, wouldn't you?
However, both have had ample time to show us which is better, and without any doubt or question whatsoever, a single payer system managed by the federal government is the ONLY reasonable path for our healthcare future.
Is there any particular reason why you failed to address my point that republicans are opposing freedom on this issue, and are in favor of corporate bean counters making our healthcare decisions for us, instead of ourselves and our physicians? Are you in favor of this? Do you LIKE the idea of 18,000 people dying each and every year as a direct result of having no insurance? How does that jive into your "pro life" stance? Anything that favors corporations is all that matters, right? Screw the public. Without the almighty corporation, we wouldn't exist, right? We need to BOW to the almighty corporation and let them CONTINUE to dictate who of us lives and who dies, and what qualify of life we each have. After all, who on earth knows better for us than some corporate insurance company CEO?
"Anyway, you've strayed quite far from the point of my post, which is that Obama will face opposition to his agenda from his own party. "
He's been in office for less than 4 months, and has gotten through a tremendous amount of legislation in that short period. I hardly think it's all that relevant or terribly accurate to post a claim that his agenda has collapsed at this point, is it?
"I predict cap and trade will not pass."
That's not an ideal plan anyway. It's a start, that's all, just as Kyoto was a start.
"Again, Obama is asking for money for health care without a plan"
I don't like the direction that the debate is headed. Corporate dems recently shut out single payer proponents from initial hearings. This sets a terrible precendant for these discussions, and the fact that the key committee members who refused to hear anything from single payer proponents also just happen to be the leading recipients of corporate campaign donations from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries is extremely troubling.
Obama had best step in and get these corporate whore democratic senators to do what they were elected to do, which was serve the will of the people, not the almighty corporation. We spent years throwing the filthy republicans out of power for the same thing. If the same has to be done to the filthy corporate dems, so be it. One way or another, this nation WILL have a rational, sane, national healthcare program.
Btw, if you're truly curious about which plan providers prefer, ask your doctor. I'll bet you a shiny donut he says "single payer," and not "corporate profiteering."
Where did I say that? Perhaps you confused the word "whither" in the title of this post with the word "wither," but I never said his agenda is collapsing. I merely state that it is facing increasing opposition, from within his own party.
"If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can," Obama said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79899
I'm supposed to scream "cut taxes!" at this point, I think. Health care is already a tax, for Medi caid and -care. If those programs are $30 TRILLION in the red, how do we pay for "universal coverage," Clark?
That's how the government is SUPPOSED to work. The POTUS isn't supposed to get every single thing he wants, without any input or opposition from the congress. That's just what you've become accustomed to over the past several years.
"It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
I thought you said that he said it was going to cost CONSUMERS?
"If those programs are $30 TRILLION in the red, how do we pay for "universal coverage," Clark?
I'd love to see your documentation to prove that we're paying over $30 trillion per year on those programs.
Meanwhile, what does it cost this society to have 50 million uninsured, and 18,000 of them dying each year as a result? Is there NO economic cost for that? If it free for society to have employees missing days of work for illnesses that could easily have been treated before they progressed to the point of debilitation? Is it free for society to have millions rely upon urgent care to treat every minor sore throat, simply because they do not have insurance?
You people sure seem to conveniently brush aside an awful lot of harsh reality in these discussions, don't you think? Reminds me of when you talk about the "free market," and conveniently "forget" to mention what it costs society to have our military used for corporate interests abroad, and have our citizens contracting lifetime diseases due to environmental pollution, forced upon us by that glorious "free market."
It doesn't cost anything to have cancers, asthma, organ diseases, and the whole range of other environmentally-induced illnesses, attacking a staggering number of us each year, right? That's all part of the "free market," and it doesn't come with a price tag, so naturally, you people just ignore it, as if there IS no cost.
You're dead wrong about this, as you are on healthcare and most other issues of the day.
You seem to casually forget that we pay far more per capita than any nation that provides universal care. That isn't an accident, nor is it something that can be ignored, regardless of how difficult it makes it for you to continue defending the current failed system.
We pay nearly 20% of our GDP, every year, for our failed privatized healthcare system. Do you not realize that? The system HAS to be changed, or it will bankrupt us as a nation, plain and simple. You can jump up and down, scream, cry, moan, complain, and ignore all the facts that you want, but in the end, our current system WILL eventually bankrupt us. It is unsustainable.
You indicated previously that it would cost $100 each to insure every person in the country. I pay $12,000 per year to insure just my family, and that's with an insurance company that dictates what doctor I can see and what treatments I can receive, should the need arise.
I used to think that republicans were FOR freedom and liberty, but apparently, when it comes to threatening the profit margins of corporate insurance companies, the only thing that concerns you now is that they be protected from any attempts to save money, even if that means surrendering personal liberty.
You'd rather pay 10 times more in order to have some bean counter in a corporate office tell you what doctor to see and what treatments are worthy of your condition, than save huge sums of money to have your choice. Rather bizarre, wouldn't you say?
You question how a single payer system would be paid for, yet you refuse to acknowledge that our privatized system costs ten times as much as our current single payer system (medicare) to administer. If you can't even muster the intellectual honesty to admit that very basic, simple fact, how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously in any discussion such as this?
The undeniable reality is that we WILL eventually change, either out of choice BEFORE we're bankrupted as a nation, or out of necessity, AFTER we're bankrupted. Either way, we WILL have a system that insures EVERYONE, removes the profit motive, slashes the billion dollar CEO packages, eliminates the billions spent of advertising, and covers ALL.
"You indicated previously that it would cost $100 each to insure every person in the country."
No, I didn't. I said that I pay around $100/month. I'm on an employer-provided plan, just like you. I'm single, with no dependents. I never said anything like what you assert.
"I'd love to see your documentation to prove that we're paying over $30 trillion per year on those programs."
Again, where did I say that? The quote you responded to said the programs are over $30T in the red. I said nothing about "per year," which shows the fallacy of your arguments, in general. You respond to things that aren't being argued, and assume that people reading it aren't going to look at what was actually written, before.
Give me a break, Clark. If you want to be taken seriously, you should try having an honest debate, and not a "straw man" argument.
Well, that's not QUITE what you said:
"You (and I) will end up paying much more than $100/month"
I do believe I'm already paying a bit more than $100 per month, right? I'm sure you are as well, right, and if you have family, and added in the amount that your employer is paying, I'll bet yours is pretty close to the same $1000 that I'm paying.
"The quote you responded to said the programs are over $30T in the red. I said nothing about "per year," "
Which was precisely my point, and I STILL want to see your documentation, because the figure is OBVIOUSLY drawn out over a great number of years. I want to see how many, because then we can make a fair comparison. We currently pay around $2 trillion per year on your wonderful privatized system, although that leaves out 50 million people.
"Give me a break, Clark. If you want to be taken seriously, you should try having an honest debate, and not a "straw man" argument. "
I'm TRYING to get YOU to be honest about this, for a change. Every time I present facts that you cannot counter, you pretend as if they don't exist. That doesn't fly.
I now make around 40K/yr, and went 9 years in my job before I got health insurance. I paid for my own medical care, when I was making less than my current salary. I could have bought private insurance for around $500/month, but chose not to. Instead, I paid for services, when I needed them.
I pay a little over 100/month for health ins, and my employer pays the same.
It doesn't matter what you think, the facts remain.
96% of the businesses that export good or services from the USA are in fact, small businesses. True, they represent only 29% of the VOLUME of exports, but if that 29% was not there, the consequences for our society would be grave, depression like scenarios. SOURCE
He told me I was lucky to have survived the ride, and that many, a little less strong, would not have.
What self serving tripe. Besides, your anecdotal misery notwithstanding, a few horror stories about how someone feels they got screwed isn't much proof of anything.
Are YOU ok with some bean counter sitting up in a high rise office in Des Moines making the decision as to whether or not keeping you alive and healthy is in that company's profit interest?
Let's get this straight, you don't trust a free enterprise bean counter, but you do trust a government bean counter ?? How would it be of anymore interest to the government to make decisions "in your best interest?"
We already have the experience telling us they are every bit as stingy with a dime, as the private sector. In fact, EVEN MORE STINGY. Doctors send Medicare their bills and the government decides what they will pay, never mind it's often 50% below what is being billed.
think we're best leaving those deicsions sic to our doctors, aren't we?
And you're naive enough to believe with "universal healthcare" that doctors will be making those decisions ??? Ask a few Medicare recipients about that.
Medicare is funded by a payroll and self-employment tax of 2.9% withheld from all employed Americans under FICA. Medicare has additional premiums for eligibility which are stratified from $100 per month up to $310 per month for high earners. Additional deductibles are imposed for various forms of care.
In return the Federal government imposes fee schedules on providers, hospitals and covered professionals that participate and limit the amount that can be charged by those that do not participate in the programs.
These fees are supposedly determined by the cost of providing care under complex and often inane formulas created by federal functionaries and academics. They cover costs for neither group, with hospitals underfunded by approximately 18% less than their true cost of service. Physician losses are less but increasing. SOURCE
You "righties" always beller that you don't want the government dictating what doctor you can see, but you don't have any problem at all with having a corporate CEO tell you. Why is that?
Well, you "lefties" always beller that you don't want a CEO dictating what doctor you can see, but you don't have any problem at all with a government bureaucrat telling you. Why is that ???
a single payer system would NOT force you into a specific doctor or clinic.
Try to keep up pseudo super hero, Sebilius has already FLATLY REJECTED a single payer system. SOURCE
Well, the person is Kathleen Sebelius who said the administration wanted a so-called “public plan option” to encourage competition, not create a monopoly. It is to be noted that it was her first appearance before Congress since being confirmed as secretary of the Health and Human Services Department.
“Dismantling the private market and having an entirely public option, a single-payer system, I think is not something that the president supports,” Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee.
“Competition helps to promote innovation. It helps promote best practices and also can help to lower costs,” the former Kansas governor and state insurance commissioner said.
Apparently Obama isn't as dumb as you are pseudo super hero.
Some of us want corporate insurance companies to make the decision as to whether or not we live or die, and the quality of our life if sickness enters in. Some of us would prefer that these decisions be made by ourselves and our physicians.
You forgot the third option, some are just parasites living off the fruits of others. The FACT is, as YOU state it, those that prefer to make their own decisions usually PAY for that luxury. The FACT is, the vast majority have no choice but to accept the bean counting efforts of either the private sector, or the government.
Republicans are standing firmly against personal freedom, I guess.
Only if you equate personal freedom with money, which is silly. Here are the FACTS---
A recent Gallup poll, conducted September 11-13, 2000, finds that just a slight majority of Americans, 54%, are satisfied with the quality of health care in the United States, but that the overwhelming majority of Americans, 82%, are satisfied with the quality of health care they themselves receive.
When asked about four additional aspects of their health care coverage, Americans express the highest level of satisfaction with the doctors and nurses they deal with, followed by their health insurance coverage and plan. Satisfaction is lowest with the cost of the health care that the individual and his or her family receives, but even so, well over a majority -- 59% -- say they are satisfied with this often-criticized aspect of health care in America today.
Those with HMO coverage are only slightly less satisfied with most aspects of their health care than are those with traditional plans.
The vast majority of Americans -- 88% -- have health care coverage. The largest proportion -- 34% -- use Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) for their health coverage, followed by Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) -- 31%, and traditional health plans -- 25%
While traditional health plans tend to be more expensive, some critics of HMO and PPO plans have charged that lower levels of patient satisfaction may result from these plans' restrictions on doctors and hospitals that can be used. However, the results of the current survey reveal a slightly different mindset. There are not major differences between the satisfaction expressed by traditional health plan users and those who use PPOs and HMOs. While the ratings given by HMO users are slightly lower than those given by PPO and traditional health plan users in every aspect of health care investigated except cost, the differences are not large. The survey does find, not surprisingly, that Americans without health coverage consistently give substantially lower ratings to every aspect of health care. SOURCE
Pseudo super hero, you really aren't very well informed, are you ???
You people seem just a teensy bit desperate to me.
And you seem a teensy bit stupid to me.
Were it up to you folks, there would be no minimum wage law, remember?
Were it up to the government and everyone in the USA to receive a "living wage," our nation would soon become a third world hell hole where labor is overpriced and the global competition would strangle a once great nation.
Unless they cannot afford it, in which case, they should just die and rot in the streets, right?
That's the kind of baseless, emotion based stupidity easily negated by the FACTS I have offered from gallup.com
They will ALWAYS err on the side of profits, not our best interests!
Oh, I see, and elected representatives WON'T put other concerns ahead of your "best interest," even though they have to keep costs down, raise your taxes, and pay for it just like a corporate bean counter would.
both have had ample time to show us which is better, and without any doubt or question whatsoever, a single payer system managed by the federal government is the ONLY reasonable path for our healthcare future.
Since the USA has NEVER had a single payer system, AND since the Obama administration isn't even suggesting such a system, your stupid statement is, well, just plain stupid.
Is there any particular reason why you failed to address my point that republicans are opposing freedom on this issue, and are in favor of corporate bean counters making our healthcare decisions for us, instead of ourselves and our physicians?
I'm quite certain there is a very particular reason why it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to address the point that republicans aren't against freedom of choice, they just want you to pay for the choices you make.
I'm equally certain about why you refuse to accept the immense probability with a single payer system, all you are doing is trading a free enterprise bean counter with a government bureaucrat bean counter.
Do you LIKE the idea of 18,000 people dying each and every year as a direct result of having no insurance?
I don't have to like it or dislike it, Res ipsa loquitur. The FACT is people die, and no amount of money changes that fact. Why they die is of little importance.
Do I like the idea thousands commit suicide every year ?? NO.
Do I like the idea thousands kill themselves and other innocent people on our roadways because they are drunk? NO.
Do I like the fact people like to eat themselves into obesity, or the fact people decide to use very powerful drugs in very destructive ways? NO.
The simple truth is, that's called life.
Without the almighty corporation, we wouldn't exist, right?
Another silly, emotional, ludicrous statement posing as a question.
After all, who on earth knows better for us than some corporate insurance company CEO?
Well, certainly not some government bureaucrat.
One way or another, this nation WILL have a rational, sane, national healthcare program.
So says the irrational, insane, pseudo super hero *chuckle*
if you're truly curious about which plan providers prefer, ask your doctor. I'll bet you a shiny donut he says "single payer," and not "corporate profiteering."
And I'll be you there's no way in hell you could prove such a thing, and further, since Obama has REJECTED a single payer system, I think you're wishing on a star that isn't even there.
I merely state that it is facing increasing opposition, from within his own party.
Which by the way is FACT--
what does it cost this society to have 50 million uninsured
The vast majority of Americans -- 88% -- have health care coverage. SOURCE
12% of 300 million is 50 million?? I'd say 50 million is a great deal closer to 17% wouldn't you?? Once again, your so called facts are in error.
If it free for society to have employees missing days of work for illnesses that could easily have been treated before they progressed to the point of debilitation?
Where's your documentation for this "fact" or are you just making shit up again ??
Is it free for society to have millions rely upon urgent care to treat every minor sore throat, simply because they do not have insurance?
That's the problem, why is some stupid asshole going to the ER when all he has is a minor sore throat ??? I'll tell you why, HE ISN'T PAYING FOR IT ! ! !
You people sure seem to conveniently brush aside an awful lot of harsh reality in these discussions, don't you think?
Gee, I was thinking the same thing about "you people," particularly since you rarely present verifiable facts, and even when you do produce an actual "fact," you are in error and it isn't a fact at all.
That's all part of the "free market," and it doesn't come with a price tag, so naturally, you people just ignore it, as if there IS no cost.
Well, unless of course you are a responsible human being and PAY FOR IT ! ! ! !
You seem to casually forget that we pay far more per capita sic than any nation that provides universal care
And we'd be paying far less if competition ruled the day, and there was no government intrusion.
I used to think democrats were Americans, well versed in the principles of our capitalist society, now I can see they are just commie pigs seeking more centralized government control in their efforts to make things "fair," when everyone knows LIFE ISN'T FAIR ! ! ! !
You'd rather pay 10 times more in order to have some bean counter in a corporate office tell you what doctor to see and what treatments are worthy of your condition, than save huge sums of money to have your choice.
So stupid all I can do is larf. *chuckle* First the pseudo super hero tells us a "corporate bean counter" will think of nothing but cutting costs, then suggests it will cost 10xs more (a dubious claim in and of itself, and I'm sure the pseudo super hero can't document it.)
yet you refuse to acknowledge that our privatized system costs ten times as much as our current single payer system (medicare) to administer
Show me the data, fool.
If you can't even muster the intellectual honesty to admit that very basic, simple fact, how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously in any discussion such as this?
If you can't even muster the integrity to offer up some PROOF for your "facts," how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously in any discussion at all ???
The undeniable reality is that we WILL eventually change, either out of choice BEFORE we're bankrupted as a nation, or out of necessity, AFTER we're bankrupted.
I think we're all agreed on that one moron, thanks for the given. The question remains, HOW that change will manifest itself.
Either way, we WILL have a system that insures EVERYONE, removes the profit motive, slashes the billion dollar CEO packages, eliminates the billions spent of advertising, and covers ALL.
That one's a little tougher to prove. As it stands, it's little more than crystal ball readings, and in my opinion, very bad crystal ball readings, PARTICULARLY since Obama's vision is based on COMPETITION, even though he makes the mistake of inserting a government institution into the competitive mix.
you misrepresent my position.
Again, that's the way the pseudo super hero works, along with others of his ilk. They tell themselves that's how they "win" the "debate."
Freakin' IDIOTS.
The quote you responded to said the programs are over $30T in the red. I said nothing about "per year," which shows the fallacy of your arguments, in general.
*chuckle* what a rube the pseudo super hero is.....
Every time I present facts that you cannot counter
What facts bubba ??? I haven't seen one link to verify your statements.
That must be some really crappy insurance, or you're not aware of it's true cost, one or the other.
Of course, Christopher is an idiot and Ron, oh, well, he's a delicate GENIUS *ROFL*
Hey there pseudo super hero ! ! ! !
I challenge you to respond to my latest comments on the article from Christopher Leavitt, "Whither Obama's Agenda?"
These comments in large measure, are directly targeted at, and focused upon, the very easily produced refutations of the very silly things you say.
I don't expect you to even make the attempt, given the fear that would naturally be produced in an irrational, illogical, cowardly pseudo super hero like you, but I very much do expect, that it you happen to find the courage to reply, your words will be little more than the gibberish of a slobbering fool, talking to himself in the corner.
Such is the fringe nature of your idiotic beliefs. So far removed are you from the average, the "norm," your insane ramblings can only be considered as those from a zealous, dogma based, cult like madman.
Whadaya say weenie boy, ya got any pearls of inane insanity, or will you reject the challenge and simply vanish, either ignoring my comments while answering others on the thread, or merely never to return to a thread you have, within the last few days, given copious examples as to why you are not to be taken seriously?
Your brother, brother,
jJack Midknight
Does anybody ever pay any attention to the bullshit you shovel around, besides your self-impressed self?
Guess what, captain clueless? We're GOING to have a single payer system, some day. Either because your shitty privatized system has destroyed us as a nation, economically, or because we make the decision BEFORE your shitty privatized system destroys us. Deal with it. It's going to happen, whether you delusional, crack-addict wingnuts want it or not.
Yes, we favor a government manage system, specifically because there is no profit motive involved in such a system. I don't want some greedy millionaire CEO cutting corners on my drinking water, and I don't want them cutting corners on my healthcare, thank you very much. I'd prefer to have the best that's available, not the best that some fatass bean counter in Des Moines thinks I deserve. Get it? Is this REALLY that tough to figure out?
As long as there is a profit motive involved, insurance companies will ALWAYS seek to protect their profits, whether that means you suffering and dying or not. They don't give a rat's ass about your dumb ass.
However, seeing as how what Obama has proposed will only give people the OPTION to have government managed healthcare, you "free marketeers" can continue to carry your crappy privatized care. Perhaps when you develop some catastrophic illness that your glorious insurance company determines is not worthy of covering, you'll see the light (doubtful, however).
"And you're naive enough to believe with "universal healthcare" that doctors will be making those decisions ??? Ask a few Medicare recipients about that."
And you're naive enough to believe that with "private healthcare," that doctors will be making those decisions??? Ask a few private healthcare recipients about that.
"Well, you "lefties" always beller that you don't want a CEO dictating what doctor you can see, but you don't have any problem at all with a government bureaucrat telling you. Why is that ???"
Because a government bureaucrat isn't driven by a profit motive to slash my care. This really isn't tough to figure out, if you just had the most basic elements of critical thinking skills.
"“Dismantling the private market and having an entirely public option, a single-payer system, I think is not something that the president supports,” Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee."
Why are you providing this, as if it's some "gotcha" news? I never said that Obama was going to ram a government-run program down the nation's throat, you moron. His plan is to offer a government managed program as an alternative. You can still keep your idiotic for-profit plan, fool.
"You forgot the third option, some are just parasites living off the fruits of others. "
That's an option? In a nation that claims to be the richest, most civilized, most advanced nation on the planet, the best that you can come up with is that we have a system in which millions of people use the most costly form of healthcare available at urgent care, because they don't WANT to get their own coverage? And, you're ok with that? What an idiot.
"Only if you equate personal freedom with money, which is silly. Here are the FACTS---"
No, I'm equating personal freedom with the personal freedom to choose a not-for-profit healthcare plan or a for-profit healthcare plan. Republicans OPPOSE freedom, when it threatens the profitability of their almighty, beloved corporations. Tough shit. The insurance industry monopoly is going to come to an end, whether you like it or not, and people are going to be able to exercise their FREEDOM, whether you like it or not. Deal with it.
"Pseudo super hero, you really aren't very well informed, are you ???"
How do you figure? You're the one bringing 9 year old information to the party, fool.
"Were it up to the government and everyone in the USA to receive a "living wage," our nation would soon become a third world hell hole where labor is overpriced and the global competition would strangle a once great nation."
Another factless, pointless, baseless, idiotic wingnut line of utter bullshit. Why don't we just eliminate the minimum wage altogether, so we can all work for a dollar per week? Isn't that what you dipshits REALLY want?
"And you seem a teensy bit stupid to me."
And you seem a whole bunch of stupid to everybody else around here. Congrats, monkey face! Btw, does your private plan cover plastic surgery for that mess?
"That's the kind of baseless, emotion based stupidity easily negated by the FACTS I have offered from gallup.com"
Sorry, moron. You're wrong once again. Perhaps, you might consider gathering your information from current sources?
ENJOY!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/26/693829/-Health-Care-Series:-The-Killers-Amongst-Us
"Oh, I see, and elected representatives WON'T put other concerns ahead of your "best interest," even though they have to keep costs down, raise your taxes, and pay for it just like a corporate bean counter would."
That's right. Just as public utilities don't cut corners to maintain their apparatus and keep their employees properly trained and equipped, while their for-profit counterparts lay off the most knowledgeable of their work force and routinely ignore critical maintenance, in exchange for fancy profit reports, healthcare administrators do the exact same thing. Welcome to reality, wingnut.
"Since the USA has NEVER had a single payer system, AND since the Obama administration isn't even suggesting such a system, your stupid statement is, well, just plain stupid."
Uh....sorry idiot, but medicare is a single payer system. Check your facts before you type. You're embarassing yourself.
"Where's your documentation for this "fact" or are you just making shit up again ??"
Oh, that's right...people who're sick NEVER miss work. I forgot. What an idiot.
"That's the problem, why is some stupid asshole going to the ER when all he has is a minor sore throat ??? I'll tell you why, HE ISN'T PAYING FOR IT ! ! ! "
No shit, captain obvious!? REALLY? Do ya THINK? SO, you fucking incredible genius, does it make more sense to continue with a plan that forces this to happen, or would it make more sense to introduce a plan that would offer that person coverage? Think long and hard before you answer...this is a toughie.
"Gee, I was thinking the same thing about "you people," particularly since you rarely present verifiable facts, and even when you do produce an actual "fact," you are in error and it isn't a fact at all"
Oh, so because I haven't posted 9 year old data, or made stupid claims that have nothing to do with the matters at the core, nothing I've said is factual? Think again, fool, and try to remember that you're fighting a losing battle (as usual) here. The nation has longed for a universal plan since the end of WWII, and it's finally going to get started down that path, after decades of your wingnuts and your insurance company butt buddies blocking the path.
"Well, unless of course you are a responsible human being and PAY FOR IT ! ! ! !
Really? So, in other words, those who cannot afford it should just suffer and die, or use urgent care for every hangnail, according to you and your brilliant ideology. And, we NEVER hear cases where a person who was paying for their own privatized healthcare insurance was denied coverage, right? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Your dead ass wrong, as usual. Your ideology is a complete failure, once again.
"I'm quite certain there is a very particular reason why it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to address the point that republicans aren't against freedom of choice, they just want you to pay for the choices you make."
Liar. I want a government managed, single-payer system, and you and your ideology is blocking my freedom to have that choice.
"I'm equally certain about why you refuse to accept the immense probability with a single payer system, all you are doing is trading a free enterprise bean counter with a government bureaucrat bean counter."
I'll gladly take it. Not only will the coverage cost me (and others) far less, I won't have to worry about being denied coverage, because some pencil-necked geek in Des Moines has determined that treatment for a given ailment isn't quite profitable enough for that company to take on. You can keep your crappy for-profit system, though. Good luck with it. Hopefully, you won't become one of the many who either die or are financially destroyed by some corporate CEO's decision.
"The FACT is people die, and no amount of money changes that fact. Why they die is of little importance."
This just proves my belief that wingnuts are absolutely NOT pro life, by any measure. That a so-called "pro lifer" could make such a callous statement about the NEEDLESS, PREVENTABLE loss of human life as a result of a lack of healthcare coverage is all the evidence one needs to see to recognize that wingnuts are absolutely, positively NOT pro life, and in fact, are actually ANTI-life.
"Well, certainly not some government bureaucrat."
Dead wrong again. What a shocker. I'd much rather have my neighbor shuffling my healthcare administrative papers with no more incentive than to provide a service to the public than have some fatass CEO at a private company decide whether or not my given condition is worthy of his company honoring their obligation to pay benefits. Again, you are free to keep your shitty, broken, for-profit system. Good luck with it.
"So says the irrational, insane, pseudo super hero *chuckle*"
Yes, keep on denying reality, wingnut. That seems to be working out really, really well for your collapsing party right about now. Just keep clicking the heels of your little red slippers together and saying "there's no such thing as reality...there's no such thing as reality...there's no such thing as reality," and everything will be all better. Idiot.
"And I'll be you there's no way in hell you could prove such a thing, and further, since Obama has REJECTED a single payer system, I think you're wishing on a star that isn't even there.
Medicare is single payer, fool.
"12% of 300 million is 50 million?? I'd say 50 million is a great deal closer to 17% wouldn't you?? Once again, your so called facts are in error."
Once again, you might consider updating your sources of information just a smidgen.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
"And we'd be paying far less if competition ruled the day, and there was no government intrusion."
You really do NOT get this, do you? You really, truly believe that the government stepping in to become a non-profit insurance provider would NOT be competition in the "free market," do you? Guess what? Your precious health insurance companies get it. They're shitting themselves over the thought of having to compete for a change. Tell them to get over it, because it's coming.
"Show me the data, fool."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/
content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/14/4/231.pdf
"If you can't even muster the integrity to offer up some PROOF for your "facts," how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously in any discussion at all ???"
Look again, fool.
"I think we're all agreed on that one moron, thanks for the given. The question remains, HOW that change will manifest itself."
One thing that we know for certain, idiot, is that your glorious for-profit corporatism isn't going to save us.
"These comments in large measure, are directly targeted at, and focused upon, the very easily produced refutations of the very silly things you say."
Too bad you've failed miserably, as usual. Care to try again, big shot?
"I don't expect you to even make the attempt"
You're really good about being dead wrong.
"I very much do expect, that it you happen to find the courage to reply, your words will be little more than the gibberish of a slobbering fool, talking to himself in the corner. "
Look who's talking, monkey boy.
It doesn't matter what you think, the facts remain.
96% of the businesses that export good or services from the USA are in fact, small businesses. True, they represent only 29% of the VOLUME of exports, but if that 29% was not there, the consequences for our society would be grave, depression like scenarios."
So, from that data, small businesses, taken on a case by case basis, export very little, and make up only 29% of the total, even when pooled together.
Thanks for confirming exactly what I said, jJack. I did not say the economy would not be hurt by eliminating what they do export, just that our major volume exporters are not small businesses. How that makes you a genius in your own mind, I don't know, but hey, I'm happy if you're happy, and you always amuse yourself so much when you make your pointless little points. Without them, you'd have no occasion to insult anyone, and we all know that IS what you live for. Being an insignificant little parasite, it probably makes you feel better, and I'm glad for you. Maybe it will keep you from going to the psychologist on my dime, as well.
Sure, my articles today, and the number of views they received, qualified me today as being among the Top 50 "most viewed content" from the total number of gather members, as well as the Top 100 list of "most view content" over the last 7 days, as found in the "people" section of gather.
We're GOING to have a single payer system, some day
So says the silly pseudo super hero, despite the fact the American public doesn't want it, based on the gallup poll I've presented, and the fact the Obama adminstration isn't considering it, again, based upon the article I present, quoting Sebelius. As it stands, such predictions are little more than half baked crystal ball reading routines.
It's going to happen, whether you delusional, crack-addict wingnuts want it or not.
My my, my, we are an angry, little goon, issuing vitriolic mendacity in the form of prognostication, aren't we??? *chuckle*
Can't you all just SEE the spittle dribbling from his chin???
I'd prefer to have the best that's available, not the best that some fatass bean counter in Des Moines thinks I deserve. Get it? Is this REALLY that tough to figure out?
Nope, you've made it perfectly clear, in a perfectly idiotic fashion, and such things are perfectly simple to deduce, and refute. Get it? Got it? I doubt. That's just how stupid you seem to be.
As long as there is a profit motive involved, insurance companies will ALWAYS seek to protect their profits, whether that means you suffering and dying or not. They don't give a rat's ass about your dumb ass.
The same can be said of your inane drivel. In fact, I already said it.
However, seeing as how what Obama has proposed will only give people the OPTION to have government managed healthcare, you "free marketeers" can continue to carry your crappy privatized care.
And this is PRECISELY why our current healthcare system centereing around Medicare has been able to stumble and bumble along for as long as it has.
Perhaps when you develop some catastrophic illness that your glorious insurance company determines is not worthy of covering, you'll see the light (doubtful, however).
Yes, it is doubtful, highly doubtful, as the catastrophic illness I've developed, and the infamous but not so glorious Medicare madenss finds it worth covering, no problem.
Your attempts to inject red herrings is childish, as it is based in emotional pleas.
you're naive enough to believe that with "private healthcare," that doctors will be making those decisions???
I never made that claim, it's just another stupid red herring from a stupid pseudo super hero.
Because a government bureaucrat isn't driven by a profit motive to slash my care. This really isn't tough to figure out, if you just had the most basic elements of critical thinking skills.
Of course he is, wholly and completely beholding to the taxpayers of this nation, the very people that elected him.
Oh, that's right, you think all politicians are "bought and paid for," don't you, moron. This really isn't tough to figure out, if you just had the most basic elements of critical thinking skills.
Why are you providing this, as if it's some "gotcha" news? I never said that Obama was going to ram a government-run program down the nation's throat, you moron. His plan is to offer a government managed program as an alternative.
Because it's classic "gotcha" stuff, you idiot. Your're the one suggesting "WE WILL" have a single payer system, despite the GOTCHA MORON FACT--- Obama isn't about to propose such a stupid idea.
That's an option? In a nation that claims to be the richest, most civilized, most advanced nation on the planet, the best that you can come up with is that we have a system in which millions of people use the most costly form of healthcare available at urgent care, because they don't WANT to get their own coverage? And, you're ok with that? What an idiot.
Of course it's an option you wooden fence post.
It's not "because they don't WANT to get their own coverage," they just don't want to pay for it themselves, and will instead rely on misguided governmental largess in an effort to get what they believe is their "entitlement," you walking talking nonsensical clown.
Republicans OPPOSE freedom
More unfounded connections where none exist.
Another factless, pointless, baseless, idiotic wingnut line of utter bullshit. Why don't we just eliminate the minimum wage altogether, so we can all work for a dollar per week? Isn't that what you dipshits REALLY want?
Of course that's exactly what it was, specifially and particularly because it was the same method you employed in the comment that caused me to carefully craft each and every word in a drop dead accurate mimicry of your limited intellectual abilities. *whoooooooooooooooooooooooo weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*
And you seem a whole bunch of stupid to everybody else around here. Congrats, monkey face! Btw, does your private plan cover plastic surgery for that mess?
Are you congratulating me on my status today as being among the top 50 "most viewed content" authors today?? Or perhaps you are recognizing my acheivement at being among the top 100 "most viewed content" list????
You're dialog is so stupid, I never know for sure what the hell you're talking about. And no, most of the things you spew aren't factual at all, as I have easily demonstrated on this thread, and I sure do come off looking pretty damn good anyway when compared to your mindless drivel.
by the way, my "plan" doesn't allow for the luxury of elective surgery, you supercilious dolt, as Medicare is my "plan," and there isn't government run single payer system, that will allow you plastic surgery for your face, merely because some silly and stupid pseudo super hero finds me lacking in the "attractive" department.
http://www.dailykos.com
Attempting to portray the commie pink-0 losers that inhabit your KOS lovefest to gallup, the national, long standing pollster and collector of day by day trivia, distributing it world wide to a global audience that numbers in the hundreds of thousands of millions readers????
The Daily KOS is a propoganda tool offered by left leaning zealots that have more money than the know what to do with. The thoughts and ideas there are REPULSIVE and prove nothing.
public utilities don't cut corners to maintain their apparatus and keep their employees properly trained and equipped
Can you validate that wild eyed claim without showing us something from your beloved, idiotic KOS ?? Somehow, if you could have, I think you probably would have. Are you able to show us such documentation, or are you just making shit up again??? *chuckle*
medicare is a single payer system
Hardly you moron, though a fair man like me will admit it has only elements of such a system, and we haven't yet sunken to a full blown madness of COMPLETE government control and a true single payer system. However, we are only a breathless promise from another politician, away.
Oh, that's right...people who're sick NEVER miss work.
Of course people get sick, I said that moron; the bone of contention that you insist upon chewing in your futile inability in attempting to masticate it, is the core of this discussion.
You're an idiot that believes in Utopian fantasies, I'm a realist that deals in the real world. In short, I'm the kind of guy that runs shit in an intellectual conversation, and you're just the asshole that produces. well, nothing but shit.
a plan that forces this to happen
Medicare is a plan alright, but it doesn't FORCE anyone to go to the hospital ER with nothing more serious than a minor sore throat, you pathetically stupid moron.
...this is a toughie
Nothing from you qualifies as a "toughie."
Oh, so because I haven't posted 9 year old data, or made stupid claims that have nothing to do with the matters at the core, nothing I've said is factual? Think again, fool, and try to remember that you're fighting a losing battle (as usual) here.
No, you're a stupid fool, well, because you're stupid, and you probably can't really help but post, the stupid things you post *chuckle*
in other words, those who cannot afford it should just suffer and die
That's right you commie pink-0 loser, and any self respecting American says the same thing.
we NEVER hear cases where a person who was paying for their own privatized healthcare insurance was denied coverage, right? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Another stupid red herring I never mentioned. Idiot.
Liar. I want a government managed, single-payer system, and you and your ideology is blocking my freedom to have that choice.
Liar, as the gallup poll I offered indicated, most Americans have the same "ideology" as my own and THEIR ideology stands in defiance to your madness in much larger measure and numbers than my simple words could ever do.
Not only will the coverage cost me (and others) far less, I won't have to worry about being denied coverage, because some pencil-necked geek in Des Moines has determined that treatment for a given ailment isn't quite profitable enough
Cost far less??? Where's the proof of that dubious claim ??
Hopefully, you won't become one of the many who either die
I am likely to be just that, even with government run healthcare in the form of Medicare, and just might be due to the decisions of a government beaurocrat bean counter.
This just proves my belief that wingnuts are absolutely NOT pro life, by any measure.
Well as for me, because I don't know about anyone else, I'm NOT pro-life, except of course when you apply such a lable to abortion, then I'm both pro life, and pro choice, believing it is wrong to abort, but a woman should be free to do so if she desires.
What I am, in the context you refer to, is a CONSTITUTIONALIST and you're just a stupid idiot.
But I'm certainly not "anti life" and you're a moron for even suggesting it because it is yet another baselss red herring displaying how completely you are in, and now totally you are in competition with a towering genius like my own. *snort snort*
I'd much rather have my neighbor shuffling my healthcare administrative papers
Me too, but idiots like you are offering only what you like to call a single payer system, where you seem to believe a government bean counter is more likely to work in your "best interests," rather than one employed by a private sector endeavor.
Yes, keep on denying reality, wingnut. That seems to be working out really, really well for your collapsing party right about now. Just keep clicking the heels of your little red slippers together and saying "there's no such thing as reality...there's no such thing as reality...there's no such thing as reality," and everything will be all better. Idiot.
Yet another example of a red herring injected because the point I present cannot be refuted by such a simple minded dolt. Filled with anger, frustration and hate, it also demonstrates your complete lack of control, and just how easily your buttons are pushed, when found by a master of slicing and dicing the weak.
Medicare is single payer, fool.
No it isn't moron, becaise it COMPETES with PRIVATE insurance and mingles with those unwilling to pay a dime for their healthcare, therefore, you might call it a single payer system, but it really isn't, YOU'RE JUST STUPID ! ! ! !
And uh, not for nuttin' ace, but if you think you're so infallible, why not offer up some SOURCES like I do for your silly, wild eyed claims..... ooooooooooops, I forgot, there are no such sources because you're a MORON ! ! ! ! !
economix.blogs.nytimes.com
It wasn't bad enough he stooped to the KOS, but now he adds some blog like I, or he might produce as "proof" his silly stupid ideas are "true??????" *ROFL*
Man......
What a piece of work is man!
How noble in reason!
how infinite in faculties!
in form and moving, how express and admirable!
in action how like an angel!
in apprehension,
how like a god!
the beauty of the world!
the paragon of animals!
And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust?
Hamlet
Too bad you've failed miserably, as usual. Care to try again, big shot?
I've only failed in your irrelevant estimation dipshit. Care to try again???
You're really good about being dead wrong.
Hey, moron, you pathetic simpleton, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, even idiotic pseudo super heros like you have to get lucky sometimes.
Look who's talking, monkey boy.
Yeah, look you slobbering goofball. You're little more than a nut filled, squirrel turd, you incredible creation of misguided looney toon ideas, you've even gone so far as to appropriate a nationl comic book hero, in a futile effort to spread your stupid ideas on the back of a noble icon, and this alone qualifies you as " MISTER far below normal standard example of human gray matter and human potential."
That's who's talkin' monkey boy; I'm so far ahead of you on the evolutional, intellectual path of mankind's historty, it makes you appear to be a dark piece of non-luminous dust floating aimlessly away from the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE THAT IS MOI.
It's a common joke known round the the world, dolts like you spend about 6 hours a week talking about, at every watercooler in every office is talking about, as every tom dick and harry mindlessly chatters ceasely, and stealing valuable time on the job, their bosses pay them for, in exchange for WORKING, not talking, at at job that guarantees them a 33 hour work week, like most Americans.
I'm quite certain you spend EVEN MORE TIME in the janitor's closet talking to YOURSELF ! ! ! !
*ROFL*
oh, and Ronnie boy, well, I came here specifically because Christopher told me the pseudo super hero was here, struttin' his "stuff" around in that fancy schmancey uniform of his.
Ordinarily I would directly address your stupidity too, so don't feel badly, as I turn and walk away from your irrelevancies, however I spend most of the Day celebrating Mother's Day with me mum, and since I've already lost all of that warm fuzzy feeling you can only get from spending time with your mum, but can easily lose when you attempt to engage your basic, average liberal LOSER, having endured such things after coming home to challenge the fantasies from the BIGGEST loser of all, having endured THIS, through the haze created by the pseudo super hero's cape, I find my desire for escapist meaningless entertainment has shifted from dipshits like you and Clarkie nutboy, and moved to my Tivo.
So good bye fool, with nary a comment upon your most recent commentary.
Hell, I just read a jJack rant, and now it's gone. What gives?
Like any good little tin g-d deity, what gives is exactly what I takes, and I takes and I gives as I please.
I merely deleted it when I saw your comments just as I posted my own, then reposted it to include waving goodbye to you.
It's not surprising that Obama would ask for money without a plan. That seems to be how he does business. I guess that was the change he meant.
Hey Marilyn ! ! ! !
interesting
"Other Obama initiatives are likely to face a similar fate. 'Cap and trade' is almost certainly doomed to failure in the Congress, and his health care initiative also faces an uphill battle. These political battles will be waged on the Democrat side of the Congress, with Republicans united in opposition."
I know that some GOP senators (Graham, McCain) have looked as if they were "going along" with "cap 'n trade," but the real battle is all on the Dem side. The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails have thrown cold water on any chance this had of passing.