This issue is so massive and complicated that I have absolutely no grasp of the basics. Obviously, we need to change the current system dramatically because it's grossly wasteful expensive unfair and flat out ineffective for many. But how to change it is something I don't have any real opinion about. I don't think the conservative refrain about trial lawyers is nearly as important as they say it is, but couldn't defend that position very smartly.
Here is a piece from today's NYTimes about Obama signalling that he might be willing to allow taxation of health benefits, despite campaigning against them. Republican partisans will point and laugh at him, calling him a lying politician for the change, I'm sure. Seems to me they ought to be cheering him when he comes around to something they advocate, but whatever. I take this article as a signal that he's not a rigid ideologue, and will try to be pragmatic. But of course, I support and admire the man, so there you go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1&hp
One thing I'm clear on is that in a country as wealthy as ours, it's a categorical failure that we have 46 million or so uninsured people. We've got to find a way to bring more people out of the elements and into shelter. It's better for everyone.
Two failures:
1. Massive amounts of uninsured people.
2. A huge % of our national budget.
It's the definition of inefficient.
Regarding the idea of taxing health benefits, I think I agree with the idea as part of the solution.
You are right Dio...this is a massively complicated problem, without a feasible solution. The government cannot possibly add yet another entitlement program as its already spent itself into oblivion. The private sector has clearly failed because you have people getting paid tens of millions of dollars to limit the care they are responsible for approving.
Perhaps the best course of action is to outsource our healthcare to India like we do everything else. I watched a show not too long ago where uninsured Americans we going to India to get operations (like knee, eye, gall bladder, etc.) that would cost 10k here, but only 1-2k there.
I saw the same program. Astounding that you can basically get a two week vacation flying first class, get the operation, and then recuperate in a five star resort all for the same price that a doctor would charge for a basic operation in the states.
BTW: I pay a staggering amount of money to insure my daughter via my job. Sure, the insurance program is amazing and all, but still, it costs roughly 10% of my salary to pay for insurance just for my child. Something is wrong with that equation.
Quote from: Rome on March 15, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
I saw the same program. Astounding that you can basically get a two week vacation flying first class, get the operation, and then recuperate in a five star resort all for the same price that a doctor would charge for a basic operation in the states.
BTW: I pay a staggering amount of money to insure my daughter via my job. Sure, the insurance program is amazing and all, but still, it costs roughly 10% of my salary to pay for insurance just for my child. Something is wrong with that equation.
Mine increased $250 per month for the same coverage this year.
QuoteI watched a show not too long ago where uninsured Americans we going to India to get operations (like knee, eye, gall bladder, etc.) that would cost 10k here, but only 1-2k there.
I saw the same program. I think it was a few years ago. Wasn't it in Indonesia though? Else India has caught on to the same thing.
I don't like how we have to pay $40 for the very same medicine that you can buy for $1.50 in Mexico or Canada.
Ask a pharma rep and he'll tell you we have to pay more because American drug companies spend more in r & d than all the other drug companies in the world combined.
The real answer is because pharma companies spend millions on political candidates who do their whoring for them in Washington.
Not to mention the money they spend on ad campaigns.
I'm looking forward to MMH's comments in this thread. He knows more than I do about this stuff.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on March 15, 2009, 11:27:35 AM
You are right Dio...this is a massively complicated problem, without a feasible solution. The government cannot possibly add yet another entitlement program as its already spent itself into oblivion. The private sector has clearly failed because you have people getting paid tens of millions of dollars to limit the care they are responsible for approving.
Perhaps the best course of action is to outsource our healthcare to India like we do everything else. I watched a show not too long ago where uninsured Americans we going to India to get operations (like knee, eye, gall bladder, etc.) that would cost 10k here, but only 1-2k there.
I also know basically nothing about how to solve this problem, but I refuse to believe that there is no feasible solution. Almost every modernized country on the planet has socialized healthcare that is WAY less expensive than what we're currently spending. That doesn't say 'impossible' to me.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 15, 2009, 05:39:02 PM
I also know basically nothing about how to solve this problem, but I refuse to believe that there is no feasible solution. Almost every modernized country on the planet has socialized healthcare that is WAY less expensive than what we're currently spending. That doesn't say 'impossible' to me.
Not feasible in the US. We spend over $600 billion a year on "defense" and the closest country after us is China at about $200 billion. Try to trim the defense budget makes you a coward, anti-American, or whatever, and makes you unelectable. Therefore very few will vote for such a person.
Socialism to the uneducated American (and there are a lot of them) is equal to Communism. Again, makes you unelectable.
With the current financial crisis and credit so tight the US will very likely be unable to borrow any more money which means that (gasp!) we will actually have to balance our budget. Heathcare for all will add at least $500 billion more to the Federal budget. Where is that money going to come from?
I am actually for a single payer system similar to Canada or Britain I just don't see our politicians having the will or courage to do something about the current mess.
In the History of the United states there has only been a balanced budget once and that was closer to the revolution. There will always be a national debt. It's just a matter of what that debt is compared to GDP. Right now it's looking like it might end up being 60% and that's a bit scary.
Quote from: Phanatic on March 15, 2009, 06:16:03 PM
In the History of the United states there has only been a balanced budget once and that was closer to the revolution.
Where did you get that idea? The US has had debt since inception except for one brief period under President Jackson, but historically has balanced the budget several times.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on March 15, 2009, 06:03:59 PM
Not feasible in the US. We spend over $600 billion a year on "defense" and the closest country after us is China at about $200 billion. Try to trim the defense budget makes you a coward, anti-American, or whatever, and makes you unelectable. Therefore very few will vote for such a person.
Socialism to the uneducated American (and there are a lot of them) is equal to Communism. Again, makes you unelectable.
Incredibly accurate and sad commentary on our population.
America does one thing very well and that's export brutal and agonizing death on a massive scale.
USA!
Sure but nobody wants to buy it from us.
Quote from: Rome on March 15, 2009, 07:04:37 PM
America does one thing very well and that's export brutal and agonizing death on a massive scale.
USA! AMERICA... farg YEAH!
QuotePerhaps the best course of action is to outsource our healthcare to India like we do everything else. I watched a show not too long ago where uninsured Americans we going to India to get operations (like knee, eye, gall bladder, etc.) that would cost 10k here, but only 1-2k there.
QuoteAmerica does one thing very well and that's export brutal and agonizing death on a massive scale.
I think I've got the solution, thanks to you guys - we can strike a package deal with India. We'll outsource both our military power and health care needs to India. They can do stuff like invade and take over Pakistan and Kashmir, and in return they take care of our sick. Simple, especially since half our military is over there and half their doctors are over here.
I like that package deal as long as we throw in one of our first rounders for Anquan Boldin.
Taxing health care to pay for...health care?
Folks, the US is paying more per capita (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm) than many countries where there is socialized healthcare. That's right: we can provide the same coverage available in most of the western world without spending another penny than we spend today. The problem isn't how to pay for health care, it is what we are paying for.
(http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif)
Say what you will about the quality of care in some of these countries (although many are rated higher than the US) - shouldn't we be able to provide better quality care when we out-spend our peers in some cases more than 2-1?
What needs to be done?
1) Malpractice / malpractice insurance reform. This is the #1 way to reduce costs.
2) Universal health care credit which can be used to purchase basic coverage (same standard of coverage for all providers) from private insurers. Those insurers can duke it out on the pros & cons of HMO vs. PPO, deductables, co-pays, providing varying levels of supplemental care etc. A big misconception is that universal coverage is comprehensive coverage - in Canada I get zero prescription, vision, dental, etc without coverage from my employer. Yet, even if I'm unemployed, my kids can get their checkups & shots, and go to the ER without bankrupting me.
3) Subsidize pharma research, ban marketing prescription drugs to consumers, tightly control marketing to doctors (eliminate the swag, the golf trips, etc)
Lessons to learn from Canada?
1) No price fixing. The problem with single payer is that there is no free market for services. It causes all kinds of supply problems. The US insurance companies negotiate rates with the providers, and if the provider doesn't like the deal, the doesn't accept that insurance.
2) Increase the role of nurse-practitioners in primary care. 90% of primary care does not require the training of a full MD, and by doing this you can increase the supply of providers while keeping costs down. If you think this doesn't work, look at the dental field where offices now have one or two dentists, and an army of 5-10 hygienists.
And one from the HMOs: preventative care is cheaper than emergent care. We could cut costs a good bit by getting those who go to the ER for primary care to go somewhere else.
Oh, and stop bitching about prescriptions in the states. During my last trip down there I see chains offering 30 days of generics for less than $5. I can't get anything nearly as cheap as that without insurance up here.
There are many prescriptions that I can get for free with my plan. And I believe that several antibiotics are offered gratis by the local grocery store (Publix).
It's a marketing gimmick by the drug companies. They say "look how swell we are for offering free antibiotics" when in reality it doesn't cost them much at all to produce the drugs, especially considering the retailers are kicking in for most of the costs anyway.
There are drugs that are literally hundreds of dollars per prescription and people are going without eating because of how much they have to pay for their drugs.
It's disgusting that in a society as advanced as ours supposedly is we have to make a choice between eating and buying medicine.
Quote from: Rome on March 15, 2009, 08:42:07 PM
It's a marketing gimmick by the drug companies. They say "look how swell we are for offering free antibiotics" when in reality it doesn't cost them much at all to produce the drugs, especially considering the retailers are kicking in for most of the costs anyway.
There are drugs that are literally hundreds of dollars per prescription and people are going without eating because of how much they have to pay for their drugs.
It's disgusting that in a society as advanced as ours supposedly is we have to make a choice between eating and buying medicine.
Believe me, I know this. My parents are shelling out $$$ for heart meds.
I am clueless when it comes to this issue.
I am also one of the 46 Million. Believe me, I'm ready with the self-check prostate exam. Been practicing for years.
Imagine how much more competitive our businesses could be if they were unburdened by having to share in the cost for their employee's health care.
QuoteUSA! AMERICA... farg YEAH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0OQXI8lvqY
Quote from: Rome on March 15, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
Ask a pharma rep and he'll tell you we have to pay more because American drug companies spend more in r & d than all the other drug companies in the world combined.
The real answer is because pharma companies spend millions on political candidates who do their whoring for them in Washington.
Why is that? Why do we spend more on R & D then every other drug company in the world combined?
Quote from: ATV on March 15, 2009, 11:17:37 PM
Imagine how much more competitive our businesses could be if they were unburdened by having to share in the cost for their employee's health care.
QuoteUSA! AMERICA... farg YEAH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0OQXI8lvqY
Popeye
:crazy
Everybody loves to rip on America, Yeah farg America, but give me entitlements bitches. Yay i hate America , but give me everything thats coming to me!!
Quote from: hbionic on March 15, 2009, 10:49:51 PM
I am clueless when it comes to this issue.
I am also one of the 46 Million. Believe me, I'm ready with the self-check prostate exam. Been practicing for years.
Same. Yay.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 15, 2009, 10:08:14 AM
One thing I'm clear on is that in a country as wealthy as ours, it's a categorical failure that we have 46 million or so uninsured people. We've got to find a way to bring more people out of the elements and into shelter. It's better for everyone.
In all seriousness I agree, but is total healthcare for everyone the right way to go? Is there anyway to go with a hybrid system? and cervant you can say other countries service is better, but I can't remember the high profile cases of Americans that went overseas for free service, or the big time procedures. Maybe it's the media that doesn't report it. Or maybe some of the costs to our system is the procedures that go uncovered, unpaid. Who knows but we do need something to cover more.
Some good points Cerevant, here's some thoughts on them.
Quote1) Malpractice / malpractice insurance reform. This is the #1 way to reduce costs.
- I don't know that I'd so far as to say it is the #1 way to reduce costs, but it is a strong point. One of the significant burdens on health care costs today is the ever increasing practice of defensive medicine. An example of this is when doctors routinely order lab tests, meds, or procedures that really are not indicated, but are done to protect against malpractice suites. This isn't limited to physicians either. Organizations like clinics, hospitals and national health care systems have routine policy and procedure in place which may reduce the number and magnitude of law suites but also increase costs, waiting times, and in some cases even adverse events. Imagine that logic - increasing the chances of a patient having an adverse event just because it may reduce the chances of getting sued.
Quote
2) Increase the role of nurse-practitioners in primary care. 90% of primary care does not require the training of a full MD, and by doing this you can increase the supply of providers while keeping costs down. If you think this doesn't work, look at the dental field where offices now have one or two dentists, and an army of 5-10 hygienists.
I don't necessarily agree with this. Increasing the
numbers of nurse practitioners may help, and expanding into in newer areas in certain cases may be fine, but a problem today is a trend toward people with fewer and fewer qualifications and less training who are taking on increasing roles, previously performed by practitioners with greater skill and expertise.
Quotepreventative care is cheaper than emergent care
...in fact I'd say preventative care is cheaper than most any treatment. In a nut shell, this is the single most important concept and the potential cure for ailing health care today. Place a great emphasis and investment in keeping people well rather than treating them after they get sick and you suddenly solve a lot of problems. The catch is that this is much easier said than done. The average person isn't especially committed to or even educated in how to maintain health (especially with aging, which is a HUGE issue), and there are some formidable powers invested in the status quo. However, there is great promise in the emerging fields of preventative and functional medicine if this can somehow be cultivated.
QuoteOh, and stop bitching about prescriptions in the states. During my last trip down there I see chains offering 30 days of generics for less than $5. I can't get anything nearly as cheap as that without insurance up here.
There's a good bit of truth in this but there are valid arguments on both sides. For example pharmaceutical companies do play games with marketing etc. as any kind of company would. But the stratospheric costs of developing and bringing a new drug to market are also very real, as well as liability potential. Back before computers and electronic storage media were commonplace, I remember hearing a factoid about the drug Tagamet as it came to market. Its manufacturer had to submit to the FDA the equivalent volume of paperwork which would completely fill a tractor trailer.
The bottom line to all this, is don't get sick.
QuoteYay i hate America , but give me everything thats coming to me!!
Of course we don't hate America, we just hate ignorant chest-thumping facists. Ahem.
why we haven't been using this thread, you're all a bunch of idiots that's why
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/28/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Scare.html
Quote
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican national party has mailed a fundraising appeal suggesting Democrats might use an overhaul of the health care system to deny medical treatment to Republicans.
A questionnaire accompanying the appeal says the government might check voting registration records. It says that is ''prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system.''
bald faced fearmongering well done...these republicans know their base and how to speak to them in code. I imagine they drafted the response to criticism for this garbage even as they drafted the mailing itself. scumbags
Agreed. And I am the biggest culprit.
i schooled two hard core republicans yesterday at the office about the health care issue. i am the sole pinko in the office, so i usually just bite my tongue when talk turns to politics, but yesterday's daily dose of hypocrisy about the government force-feeding us health care was too much for me to abide.
i mean, we all work for the government in that office, yet all they do is piss and moan about the federal government being bloated and inefficient, and how obama is the devil, so... i kinda lost it on them. lol.
the best part was when they trotted out the hannity scare tactics of rationed care. um, we already have rationed care because the health insurance plans we're forced to accept by our employers has financial limits such as huge co-pays and deductibles which force us to involuntarily choose to use the plan as a last resort. i would love to go in for a full medical workup, but the fact is, even with the so-called full coverage i get, i would still have to pay thousands of dollars to get a full battery of tests and i just can't afford that. not on the shtein pay those corksuckers provide us.
also - my daughter is on my plan and i have to pay 105 dollars per pay period to have her on my plan (which again sucks total ass). i started researching alternately superior plans like blue cross to see if there'd be any savings or benefit, but there really isn't. talk about being in a no-win situation.
The only rational argument against the current healthcare reform proposals revolve around the fact that they don't do enough to rein in costs. Because right now as the proposals stand, they won't.
Every other argument against it that I've heard is 100% bullshtein.
i pay 2700 bucks for health insurance for my kid via my employer. i can get basically the same plan if i go to an insurance agent and purchase it from them.
i'd like for one of the "our health care system rules!" zealots tell me again what benefit that represents.
in other news, one of my fellow employees had to get a prescription for migraine/seizure medication. the insurer we have denied the topamax meds and forced her to get the generic which, in turn, caused a pretty significant exacerbation of the illness she has. i googled prescription drug sites from canada for her and she ended up getting the name brand medication from the canadian website.
why? because it ended up being cheaper than what she would have paid via co-pay through our insurance provider.
that is totally farging insane and if there's ever been an example of how our system is broken and needs to be overhauled, then that would be it.
The examples of why our systems needs to be overhauled are endless. The examples of how awesome it is are incredibly limited.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 15, 2009, 04:54:10 PM
Not to mention the money they spend on ad campaigns.
I'm looking forward to MMH's comments in this thread. He knows more than I do about this stuff.
Sorry for being late to the game. Pharma is certainly not immune to fault. They spend a lot of money in DC lobbying (although, to be fair, the AMA and insurance giants spend more). And I personally believe the single biggest mistake my industry ever made was fighting for direct marketing. That may single handedly have caused the whole Vioxx fiasco, for instance.
IMO, the insurance industry is one of the biggest players at fault here, and that largely falls back to the concept of letting an industry police itself. They haven't done that well, and capitalism may not be the best way to regulate health care.
I can really only speak to Pharma in this matter. Drug costs are high because, well, we can charge whatever people will pay. I've actually heard that argument in meetings. That has to change. However, to get a drug to market for cancer (one of the fastest paths forward) costs about $600MM. Just yesterday, we were discussing a initiating a phase 1 trial (which measures drug levels in patients, not efficacy), and the bottom line was it costs over $1MM per patient. If you go after chronic diseases, such as diabetes or arthritis, those phase 2/3 studies take years. Now the cost of getting those to market is well over $1BB.
Add to that our poor understanding of physiology at the molecular level, and we have about a 10% success rate in development (i.e. 1 in 10 targets moved forward actually reaches market and earns money).
This is compounded by the fact that early in discovery, the patents need to be filed. So with 15 years of protection, the drug probably doesn't launch until year 8-10. Now you have to make enough money to cover all expenses for successful and failed drugs in a 5 year span, as well as maintain profit margins for the investors. It's an expensvie business with high risk/reward.
How do you fix it? Well, you could make regulatory less onerous, getting drugs to market faster. Of course, that would probably kill people, since safety would be compromised. The gov't could bear some of the costs of development, but that isn't feasible.
In the best world, you get the gov't and Pharma to work together. Increase the patent life of drugs to say 20-25 years, so there is a longer window to make profit. Pharma compromises by lowering costs to maintain the profits earned before, so drug prices go down. If they abuse the system, put in price fixing to make them comply. Will this ever happen? Probably not, but it's good for everybody, so it should.
Sorry for the essay, but hey, you did ask.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on March 15, 2009, 11:52:28 PM
Quote from: Rome on March 15, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
Ask a pharma rep and he'll tell you we have to pay more because American drug companies spend more in r & d than all the other drug companies in the world combined.
The real answer is because pharma companies spend millions on political candidates who do their whoring for them in Washington.
Why is that? Why do we spend more on R & D then every other drug company in the world combined?
Cheap labor, mostly. Why do you think all Pharma is outsourcing jobs to Taiwan and China?
Moyers on Maher...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/9655/30820
My take:
As an insurance regulator, the health insurance marketplace is not very competitive. I can see the case Obama makes for a federal plan to bring additional competition, but there is a more efficient way. Let any employer or individual purchase plans across state borders. Enact a national minimal capitalization level so that you don't have fly by night companies but you give the little guys and innovators a chance.
Also, health care is compensated based on number of procedures, tests or use of technology. Instead, we need to look at compensation based on outcomes. There are too many doctors who are pressured to use MRI or other tests because they need to pay for that equipment which can only be done by charging insurance. Each provider should have to disclose on a website or their website a list of their costs. Right now there is no incentive to use keep costs down because the consumer only pays their co-pay. For the uninsured, like my mom, they have no basis of comparison and go to a MD based on recommendations. More money needs to flow to primary care physicians and less to specialists.
Competition and purchasing health care is not and can never be like the choice of purchasing milk at a grocery store. Even if someone has an MD they would have rouble deciding between a cheaper plan and one that might be more credible. You can't expect a family to spend weeks attempting to research which insurance is more competent than another. So, I agree there is no marketplace for health insurance, and I agree this is a significant reason costs are so high, but I disagree that there's really anything that could be done about this. The average person doesn't have time or desire to sufficiently deal with this crap.
So your plan is to let the country bankrupt itself by doing nothing. Brilliant!
Who is "your"?
Quote from: ATV on August 29, 2009, 08:50:46 PM
Who is "your"?
farg you everyone knows what he meant except for you and your stupid grammar nazi bullshtein. Go suck Obama's cock you knob slobbin' asswhipe bitch.
whoa!!
farg atv, he should move overseas, the he could suck my long dong from Hong Kong.
tonight's not pool night, is it?
Uhhh....his grammer was correct? I was asking him a question?
Quote from: shorebird on August 29, 2009, 11:52:44 PM
Quote from: ATV on August 29, 2009, 08:50:46 PM
Who is "your"?
farg you everyone knows what he meant except for you and your stupid grammar nazi bullshtein. Go suck Obama's cock you knob slobbin' asswhipe bitch.
Holy shtein, are you serious with this post? I am not even a fan of ATV, but this was way over the line. :puke
With every post shorebird displays more and more exactly what's wrong with the political right. I challenge anyone to find a coherent and accurate point about healthcare reform in any of his posts. It's all affected anger at something that he clearly doesn't want to bather to understand.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 30, 2009, 11:26:03 AM
Quote from: shorebird on August 29, 2009, 11:52:44 PM
Quote from: ATV on August 29, 2009, 08:50:46 PM
Who is "your"?
farg you everyone knows what he meant except for you and your stupid grammar nazi bullshtein. Go suck Obama's cock you knob slobbin' asswhipe bitch.
Holy shtein, are you serious with this post? I am not even a fan of ATV, but this was way over the line. :puke
Ha! I say something ignorant to a taterskin fan and you say it's over the 'line'. But, somebody like cardtrader can come here and have his family and children slandered and ripped apart with some of the most juvenile and ignorant posting I've ever seen and no one says a word. Your so called 'line' seems to move foward and backward depending upon who is doing the posting.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 30, 2009, 11:49:15 AM
With every post shorebird displays more and more exactly what's wrong with the political right. I challenge anyone to find a coherent and accurate point about healthcare reform in any of his posts. It's all affected anger at something that he clearly doesn't want to bather to understand.
yeah....right. I'm not rehashing it all over again. Most of the people here seem to not know whats in the bill, or even care. They just want it to pass, no matter what. Like igy said, it's not going to affect him, at least he doesn't think so, he wants it to pass so it will piss off all those old white racist republicans.
I understand what is in the bill a hell of a lot more than you seem too. The points I have brung up about how doctors will lose control over how they treat patients and what they treat them with fall of deaf ears. Excuses like 'thats already happenning with insurance companies' don't fly with me. It's simply not true.
I'm just glad that the majority opinion here is, in the real world, the fast growing minority.
You claim my comments are all affected anger. Wait until the bill doesn't make it through congress, then you'll see some 'affected anger'.
By the way ATV, I was smashed. I'm sorry. I really did go over the line as far as I see it.
Apology isn't good enough. You truly hurt my feelings. I'm rooting for the taterskins again.
Quote from: shorebird on August 30, 2009, 12:27:47 PM
yeah....right. I'm not rehashing it all over again. Most of the people here seem to not know whats in the bill, or even care. They just want it to pass, no matter what. Like igy said, it's not going to affect him, at least he doesn't think so, he wants it to pass so it will piss off all those old white racist republicans.
I understand what is in the bill a hell of a lot more than you seem too. The points I have brung up about how doctors will lose control over how they treat patients and what they treat them with fall of deaf ears. Excuses like 'thats already happenning with insurance companies' don't fly with me. It's simply not true.
The points you 'brung' up are not accurate. Doctors won't lose the power of decision making. In fact, no doctors associations have even expressed this concern. Doctors' associations are more concerned with a lack of attention to malpractice reform. If this were a seriously thought out concern, rather than a politically expedient theory, don't you think the AMA would be up in arms over it?
And care rationing is already happening at the hands of insurance agencies whether that 'flies with you' or not. Like I said, focus on the fact that the current bill doesn't do anything to reduce the deficit. That argument is at least accurate and compelling. Lay off of the panicky 'oh no, my doctor won't be able to treat me!' nonsense.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 30, 2009, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: shorebird on August 30, 2009, 12:27:47 PM
yeah....right. I'm not rehashing it all over again. Most of the people here seem to not know whats in the bill, or even care. They just want it to pass, no matter what. Like igy said, it's not going to affect him, at least he doesn't think so, he wants it to pass so it will piss off all those old white racist republicans.
I understand what is in the bill a hell of a lot more than you seem too. The points I have brung up about how doctors will lose control over how they treat patients and what they treat them with fall of deaf ears. Excuses like 'thats already happenning with insurance companies' don't fly with me. It's simply not true.
The points you 'brung' up are not accurate. Doctors won't lose the power of decision making. In fact, no doctors associations have even expressed this concern. Doctors' associations are more concerned with a lack of attention to malpractice reform. If this were a seriously thought out concern, rather than a politically expedient theory, don't you think the AMA would be up in arms over it?
And care rationing is already happening at the hands of insurance agencies whether that 'flies with you' or not. Like I said, focus on the fact that the current bill doesn't do anything to reduce the deficit. That argument is at least accurate and compelling. Lay off of the panicky 'oh no, my doctor won't be able to treat me!' nonsense.
Right wing scare tactics? (http://goodsensepolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-are-so-many-doctors-against.html)
QuoteLiberals have asked me, "But you're a doctor, why wouldn't you want healthcare to be provided to everybody?" This is the reason:
If the government cannot provide comprehensive and efficient healthcare on a small scale i.e. Medicare or Medicaid, how can it provide sufficiently for every American? Take a look at government healthcare so far. Medicare is a broken system. It was bankrupt by 1972. Since then physicians who accept Medicare have had to face ever-worsening financial garnishment on reimbursements forcing many doctors to stop treat Medicare patients altogether.
Primarily, elderly patients are seeing restrictions on the amount of care they can receive and with the aging of the baby boomers, demand will increase and this is only going to get worse.
Furthermore, the overwhelming financial expense of universal healthcare will eventually result in the some type of healthcare rationing. How is this possible? President Obama has already been laying down the framework for the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) council. This means that all your care is analyzed in a computer database to compare cost effectiveness against other types of care (I doubt my patients would like their medical history to be part of this national experiment). If at any point the computer says you're costing too much, the treatment options available to you will likely be diminished. You may even incur penalties if you engage in any sort of "risky" behavior such as overeating or riding a motorcycle.
Um, ok, so you found A doctor who is against healthcare reform. Meanwhile the nation's major medical associations are all for it.
The exception does not prove anything.
Quote from: shorebird on August 30, 2009, 12:14:50 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 30, 2009, 11:26:03 AM
Quote from: shorebird on August 29, 2009, 11:52:44 PM
Quote from: ATV on August 29, 2009, 08:50:46 PM
Who is "your"?
farg you everyone knows what he meant except for you and your stupid grammar nazi bullshtein. Go suck Obama's cock you knob slobbin' asswhipe bitch.
Holy shtein, are you serious with this post? I am not even a fan of ATV, but this was way over the line. :puke
Ha! I say something ignorant to a taterskin fan and you say it's over the 'line'. But, somebody like cardtrader can come here and have his family and children slandered and ripped apart with some of the most juvenile and ignorant posting I've ever seen and no one says a word. Your so called 'line' seems to move foward and backward depending upon who is doing the posting.
I never even saw that thread so I have no clue what you are talking about. I haven't been posting much in the past year.
I just learned something new and interesting about Richard Nixon. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
Bob Dole makes sense too. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082802603.html)
Congressional democrats need to start offing themselves when Nixon and Dole do a better job of presenting a case for Healthcare reform than they do.
^^ ^, I agree with both of them. I agree that Obama needs to step up and sculpt the bill. There are too many interests.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 30, 2009, 10:02:41 PM
Um, ok, so you found A doctor who is against healthcare reform. Meanwhile the nation's major medical associations are all for it.
The exception does not prove anything.
link?
Typed 'healthcare reform AMA' into Google...
First three results:
AMA backs House health-care bill (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/16/1998891.aspx)
AMA: Healthcare Reform Bill a 'Starting Point' (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2009/07/29/ama-healthcare-reform-bill-a-starting-point.html)
AMA backs House healthcare reform bill (http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/news-293988-98.html)
The internet is hard.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 31, 2009, 04:15:31 PM
The internet is hard.
Of course it is. It's packed with lesbo milf porn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A&feature=player_embedded
More unsolicited suggestions for President Obama on how to overcome the healthcare quagmire. (Warning, this comes from the super-leftist mag, Salon.) (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/01/demagogy/index1.html)
QuoteA Rooseveltian or Trumanesque campaign speech, addressing the concerns of the American majority, invoking the heroic history of American reform and naming the enemy, practically writes itself:
"My fellow Americans, we say that healthcare is a right of all citizens. The other party says that it is a privilege for those who can afford it. If you agree with them that healthcare is a privilege, not a right, then vote for them. We would like to persuade you to join us, but if we can't, then we are going to defeat you.
"Decades ago our opponents tried to block Social Security and Medicare, using the same bogus arguments that they are using today against healthcare reform. They said Social Security and Medicare would bankrupt the country. They were wrong. Once we fix the cost inflation of our broken medical sector, with some minor tweaks Social Security and Medicare can be made solvent forever.
"Decades ago, our opponents said that Social Security and Medicare would turn the United States into a fascist or communist police state. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. And not only are they wrong, they are hypocritical. Many of our opponents who claim absurdly that universal healthcare will bring tyranny to the U.S. have defended some of the greatest assaults on civil liberties and the rule of law in American history during the previous administration.
"They can draw a Hitler mustache on me. They can draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa, for all I care. They are wrong and we are going to defeat them.
"We won the elections and we are the majority. We would like to build the biggest consensus possible, but progress is more important than consensus. Our job is to help the American people, not split the difference between right and wrong by giving a veto to the party that the American people have rejected.
Quantcast
"In this fight, as in earlier struggles, powerful interests are opposed to the needs of the people. In the 19th century, we the people defeated the Southern slave owners, freed the slaves and saved the nation. In the 20th century, while fighting alongside many other nations to save the world from militarism and totalitarianism, we the people here at home tamed the corporations for a generation and fought segregation based on race, gender and, more recently, sexual orientation.
"Today the campaign for affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, is opposed by powerful interests in the medical and insurance industries. They seek to deceive and confuse you. And they seek to bribe or intimidate your elected representatives into serving their will rather than the needs of the public.
"They may win this battle. They may win the next. But we will never stop fighting for the needs of the many against the greed of the few. For more than 200 years, from the time we threw off the tyranny of the British empire and established our republic, we have worked to realize the spirit of '76 on this continent and in the world beyond. The enemies of progress have money on their side. We have history on ours."
Interesting piece. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-price-right)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPrYviZtVrs&feature=player_embedded
You know what I think a lot of this whole health care comes down to? There are a lot of people out there who aren't against the idea of helping out other people like single mothers, like the one above in the town hall. Did you hear the people in the audience stand up for her after their emotional strings were pulled? God forbid, though, if this woman with the child in the video was black and some of their tax dollars were going toward helping HER out. Because if she were black she would likely just be another one of those undeserving leeches on society, one of those black baby factories. Of course none of these people would admit to this. Heck, most of them wouldn't even be able to recognize or admit this to themselves.
Another party crash for Wealth Care. Note how the people at these events are totally clueless. They literally don't get it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me3VnCficDA&feature=player_embedded
From the above, from the people who love Fox "News" and were very happy with our last President...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBa9K_vAm8&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: ATV on September 02, 2009, 02:41:43 PM
From the above, from the people who love Fox "News" and were very happy with our last President...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBa9K_vAm8&feature=player_embedded
Bush was universally hated. His own party hated him the last four years but the "Repub. talking heads" can't afford to admit it. Until they do they will keep getting the schtein kicked out of them at the poles :-D
Even at the worst there were still 20-30% of facist die-hards who would support Bush no matter what. Bush's numbers bever dropped below this. If you watch the video then you're looking at them.
Luckily there's zero chance that anyone would ever click on one of your links. Political video clips on youtube might be even more boring than discussions about sports jerseys.
TRUTH
I got a butter Liverpool jawn today, two days early for my 35th birthday.
(http://www.evangelistasports.com/images/T/jersey_adidas_liverpool_home_06_07.jpg)
Happy Early Birthday Dio!!
Soccer sucks :P
my shirt is way nicer than yours....and ha...that's not even the one I got...jesus
this is the one I got
(http://i1.iofferphoto.com/img/item/600/530/61/FRXZWuvyiyyuOUJ.jpg)
I really want the long sleeve version too, if anyone's feeling the love.
Old school Chelsea...
(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3360/84069184.jpg)
Teabaggers heckle a handicapped woman in a wheelchair. Link to video...
http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ssf/2009/08/health_care_reform_town_hall_n.html
should have punched her crying baby
More Moyers on healthcare. Lenghty and heady. "When the elephants fight the grass is trampled"...
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/watch.html
America's mistrust of government can be overcome. (http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/americans-still-dont-trust-government%E2%80%94-they-could-go-health-care-plan-modeled) But it can't be ignored. More people mistrust government than insurance companies right now, which is insane but a reality that Democrats have refused to deal with.
more Sasha Grey muff, less ATV
Quote from: rjs246 on March 15, 2009, 10:27:08 AM
Two failures:
1. Massive amounts of uninsured people.
2. A huge % of our national budget.
It's the definition of inefficient.
From today's WSJ: Of the 46 Million uninsured:
9.7million not US citizens
17.6 Million make 50K+/yr but chose not to get insurance
14 million on Medicade or other programs for the poor
That leave 5 million uninsured out of a total of 305 million citizens. We don't need to manufacture another emergency so we can have another 150,000 new federal bureaucrats farging things up
Quote from: fansince61 on September 03, 2009, 02:31:56 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on March 15, 2009, 10:27:08 AM
Two failures:
1. Massive amounts of uninsured people.
2. A huge % of our national budget.
It's the definition of inefficient.
From today's WSJ: Of the 46 Million uninsured:
9.7million not US citizens
17.6 Million make 50K+/yr but chose not to get insurance
14 million on Medicade or other programs for the poor
That leave 5 million uninsured out of a total of 305 million citizens. We don't need to manufacture another emergency so we can have another 150,000 new federal bureaucrats farging things up
So we should do nothing and continue to have it eat up a massive % of the nation's budget?
Also, those numbers are weeks old and have been shown to be completely misleading. An Indian national working for a software company here on a work visa who makes 55,000 counts twice in those numbers, once as a non-US citizen and once as a person making 50+, meaning that the totals are inaccurate.
On top of that a lot of the people who make 50+ are small business owners/employees who choose not to have health insurance because they can't afford it. 50K isn't exactly a heap of money these days...
lol at people making 50K a year "choosing" not to have health insurance.
Canadians (the ones who weren't able to escape) talk about what a mistake their health care plan was...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQFX32Ed7ZQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc
When he got to "people have earned their health care through employment" I closed the tab. F that guy.
While I don't like the WAY he makes his point, the dude is still in favor of reforming the system, he just doesn't agree with the current proposals. That's fair and the current incarnation is a joke so he has a point. Plus, assuming he's a Republican, his stance is about a light year ahead of some of the jerkoffs who are flat refusing to play ball on the topic.
His numbers were bullshtein and the rhetoric about earning healtch care is disgusting.
So we agree then. Excellent.
I'm with you on the point that at least the guy recognizes something has to be done, that the status quo is farged. It's this rhetoric about the people who are currently covered having earned it, implying that those who don't haven't worked hard enough or some such repulsive thinking, that turns me off.
Millions of Americans work every day and can't afford health care. Whether self employed, working two part time jobs, whatever..the idea that their counterparts in jobs at big companies and government somehow earned the luxury of health care makes me spitting mad.
So we agree then. Excellent.
Die in a fire Son of Republican.
Settle down, comrade.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 31, 2009, 04:15:31 PM
Typed 'healthcare reform AMA' into Google...
First three results:
AMA backs House health-care bill (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/16/1998891.aspx)
AMA: Healthcare Reform Bill a 'Starting Point' (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2009/07/29/ama-healthcare-reform-bill-a-starting-point.html)
AMA backs House healthcare reform bill (http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/news-293988-98.html)
The internet is hard.
Yes, the AMA supports health care reform, just not the bill as it is now. Which is the same way I feel. It's a start, but needs a lot of work. It won't pass as it is now. Just because someone doesn't agree with some parts of the bill as it is, doesn't mean that they aren't for health care reform.
So we agree then. Excellent.
I'm pretty sure that the first and third link state that the AMA backs the House Bill...
Look, I don't like the bill as it is now. I don't think congressional Democrats should be tasked with writing it. But I also don't think that objecting to the bill simply because it includes a public option or because it was written by Democrats (which many are doing) or because it could politically 'break' the president (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html) are viable arguments. The bill is flawed but they aren't even voting on it yet. People are up in arms and urinating all over themselves over something that can't even be voted on yet.
My point is simply this. Sane people on both sides agree that the system needs to be reformed, but partisans are using it as some sort of wedge issue. Only political iceholes could take something that everyone agrees on and drive the country into this kind of misinformed fury over it. Wait until a bill is actually ready to be voted on before spouting off about how Obama is trying to ruin the country.
http://www.youtube.com/v/G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded
Quote"the notion is that it is this or nothing is the chairmans choice, the democrats choice that it is either this or nothing". 1:10
I'm very relieved to see that Obama has finally decided to put on the shtein kicking shoes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRVB4kq59Sw&feature=player_embedded
farging stop it with youtube links you 15 year old spazz.
Shorebird was only trying to share the facist views of Wally McPubelican. Geez, give him a break.
Quote from: ATV on September 07, 2009, 06:20:20 PM
I'm very relieved to see that Obama has finally decided to put on the shtein kicking shoes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRVB4kq59Sw&feature=player_embedded
Why is a taterskins fan so enarmored with the Eagles general board?
I'll become an Eagles fan if you get your high school diploma.
Quote from: ATV on September 07, 2009, 07:05:32 PM
I'll become an Eagles fan if you get your high school diploma.
Guaranteed I went to a better high school and college than you, you worthless piece of shtein.
This shtein makes me irate. Conservatives aren't stupid, uneducated people. BUT the fact is that white, uneducated people are usually conservative. It doesn't work both ways and this endless, mindless name-calling is enough to make me want to throw my PC off of a bridge.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 07, 2009, 07:18:26 PM
This shtein makes me irate. Conservatives aren't stupid, uneducated people. BUT the fact is that white, uneducated people are usually conservative. It doesn't work both ways and this endless, mindless name-calling is enough to make me want to throw my PC off of a bridge.
I didn't start the name calling. Most of my friends are liberal. My girl is liberal. I enjoy debating. You, so far, have presented your side with no name calling. However, ATV and others just insinuate I'm a retarded hick throwing a bible at people.
Clearly I hurt your feelings. I should apologize.
Quote from: ATV on September 07, 2009, 07:25:22 PM
Clearly I hurt your feelings. I should apologize.
Clearly I'll make a cocktail out of the tears you cried when Sean Taylor died.
That's not very nice. I demand an apology.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 07, 2009, 06:42:10 PM
farging stop it with youtube links you 15 year old spazz.
Yeah, thats a nice thought out intelligent response. When left with nothing else, you just sling mud and call names.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 07, 2009, 07:18:26 PM
this endless, mindless name-calling is enough to make me want to throw my PC off of a bridge.
.....then bitch about what you yourself do just as much as anyone here. You're like a little kid throwing a tantrum, can't handle it when someone doesn't agree with you and has a valid point towards the contrary. So you say,
"Stop posting youtube video's!" Wahh, wahh.
When you throw your pc off that bridge, make shore you follow it in.
I was talking to ATV smart stuff.
And when someone offers intelligently thought out responses or presents interesting points I treat them with respect. When they throw out talk radio quotes and random angry bullshtein ('Obama can suck my dong from hong kong', think was my favorite of your intellectual tidbits) they get the playground treatment.
Wait, you were talking about me?!
I demand an apology.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 07, 2009, 07:47:09 PM
I was talking to ATV smart stuff.
Oh....ok, yeah.......I see the word
links, not videos. :-[
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRVB4kq59Sw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRVB4kq59Sw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I'm still waiting for my embeding lesson.
Quote from: ATV on September 07, 2009, 08:19:57 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRVB4kq59Sw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRVB4kq59Sw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
whatever that is, you suck at it.
Post a link to an article if you want to share something you farging child.
Quote from: ATV on September 07, 2009, 08:19:57 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRVB4kq59Sw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRVB4kq59Sw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I'm still waiting for my embeding lesson.
What the hell is that?
It's a massive fail by a massive clown.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 07, 2009, 08:40:21 PM
It's a massive fail by a massive clown.
I guess we can agree on one thing, liberal and conservative alike.... that ATV is a complete douche.
You're both douches.
That might be the wittiest thing you've ever thought of. Be proud.
Is everyone disallowed from posting videos or is it just me?
If you want to post youtube shtein so badly find something funny and post it in the youtube thread. If you want to talk politics act like a grown up and find an article with some commentary and context and post that.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 02, 2009, 04:29:31 PM
Luckily there's zero chance that anyone would ever click on one of your links. Political video clips on youtube might be even more boring than discussions about sports jerseys.
My assumption was that a video of Obama giving a glimpse of what his position is, only a couple nights before what must be the most important night in the history of health care reform, might be of interest to those following a thread entitled Health Care Reform. I realize now, how the below video should be more applicable (and accepted) to the actual conversation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8OPxZvCAuw
From Frontline on PBS, an interesting comparison of five different commie-pinko countries like the United Kingdom and how their different systems work...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
With some handy graphs here which demonstrates how they're largely more efficient....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/graphs.html
Now the Democrats are proposing mandatory health insurance purchase with possible fines for those who fail to purchase it.
QuoteSep 8, 9:25 PM EDT
Fines proposed for going without health insurance
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.
As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.
The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.
Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.
"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.
After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.
The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.
But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.
The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.
Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."
Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.
Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level - about $66,000 for a family of four - would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.
Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.
The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.
"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.
White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.
One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign - a government insurance option - appeared to be sinking fast.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.
That left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.
"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.
Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs. That's an approach being pushed in the Senate by Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a moderate whose support could be critical to any health legislation.
Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear. Snowe said Tuesday that Obama's been open to her fallback idea.
"He has not rejected it. He's been receptive, recognizing that there's difficulties with the public option," Snowe said. "The president recognizes that there's strong reluctance among the American people" to accepting a public plan, which Republicans have cast as a government take-over.
Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.
An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.
People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.
It's like someone dares them to farg up worse than Republicans, and they say, "oh yeah? well farg you! we can do it worse than they can, god damn it!"
Horrible.
They are all a bunch of morons, both sides suck.
Motherfarging cowards is more like it.
Obama needs to do exactly what he said he would do in the campaign. If it fails - and he fails spectacularly - then farg it. At least he did exactly what he said he was going to do. Hell, just once I'd like a politician to go for broke no matter what the cost.
Whatever, though. I simply cannot believe he would allow fines for those who refuse to purchase health insurance. I mean, fines? Really?? Jesus Christ what an absolutely heinous idea.
I guess we won't have a choice like he's been saying we will, all along. :-D
I'm sure it escaped you but that was exactly my point. Being forced into purchasing health insurance when people barely have enough money to scrape together to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads is preposterous.
Obama won't allow that. If he did he would guarantee himself a crushing defeat in '12.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 08, 2009, 10:03:19 PM
I guess we won't have a choice like he's been saying we will, all along. :-D
I'm sorry, was it OBAMA who proposed this?
Thats what I thought.
I wonder if it's possible to have an adult conversation on an internet message board.
The fact that I'm asking that question makes me want to kill myself and all of you. But mostly all of you.
"At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option.
Unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone."
Not looking good.
Not looking good for the insurance industry.
I hope many Repubelicans learned where they can put their trigger option tonight.
Um, the trigger option is a great compromise you farging whack job.
nm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
shtein.. 16 million become insured over night... Gobama!
Quote from: bowzer on September 09, 2009, 10:56:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
shtein.. 16 million become insured over night... Gobama!
you are beyond retarded.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 09, 2009, 11:37:18 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 09, 2009, 10:56:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
shtein.. 16 million become insured over night... Gobama!
you are beyond retarded.
Excellent rebuttal. That's a yahoo fact check showing how ridiculous some of his assertions were. And how did we go from 47 million to 30 million?? And how is it deficit neutral??? Great campaign speech tonight... except he isn't running for president anymore.
I'm very much looking forward to sharing my large red-colored FAIL! with Bowzer within a few months. The same one I happily shared with a few others last November.
Quote from: bowzer on September 09, 2009, 11:54:36 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 09, 2009, 11:37:18 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 09, 2009, 10:56:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
shtein.. 16 million become insured over night... Gobama!
you are beyond retarded.
Excellent rebuttal. That's a yahoo fact check showing how ridiculous some of his assertions were. And how did we go from 47 million to 30 million?? And how is it deficit neutral??? Great campaign speech tonight... except he isn't running for president anymore.
Because his initial numbers included illegal residents. This number did not.
I reiterate. You're beyond retarded. You are so far right, you can't even hear anything in the middle. Its out of reach. You get bits and pieces and whatever you can't grasp, you twist to hear what you want.
Joe Wilson launched himself into conservative hero status last night with his heckling of Obama.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 08:40:30 AM
Joe Wilson launched himself into conservative hero status last night with his heckling of Obama.
What a maroon. Have a farging shred of respect for the President.
F the President, have a shred of respect for something far more important to civilization: the principle of mannerly debate.
Hmmm a southern senator from south carolina belts out liar at the presidents speech. its amazing he didn't scream out nig*&&^%er. i really enjoyed how he pointed out that the majority of those that oppose, are doing it for political reasons, not helping to solve the problem we have, or in other words, doing their jobs. Its really sad how pathetic the right is right now, refusing to work, and only bitching about it. its just sad.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 08:54:39 AM
F the President, have a shred of respect for something far more important to civilization: the principle of mannerly debate.
problem was bud that was not a debate, it was a speech...so yes show some respect
You get my point. The office of the President deserves respect, sure. But more important even than showing respect to the office of the Presidency is honoring the idea of civilized debate, discussion, etc. This dickback doesn't just insult the man at the podium and the office he holds, but like the gang of disruptive town hall goons who have been running roughshod over citizen's ability to speak their minds all summer, his behavior is an affront to civilized debate in general.
That he's become a champion for the right says everything you need to know about where the American conservatives are right now, and where they are going.
Quote from: mussa on September 10, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Hmmm a southern senator from south carolina belts out liar at the presidents speech. its amazing he didn't scream out nig*&&^%er. i really enjoyed how he pointed out that the majority of those that oppose, are doing it for political reasons, not helping to solve the problem we have, or in other words, doing their jobs. Its really sad how pathetic the right is right now, refusing to work, and only bitching about it. its just sad.
I for one didn't really care for that. That served no purpose but to rub the Republican's nose in the dirt. How is that constructive? Overall, I thought it was a good speech. Too bad he should have done this in June. Too little too late I fear.
Quote from: reese125 on September 10, 2009, 09:37:58 AM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 08:54:39 AM
F the President, have a shred of respect for something far more important to civilization: the principle of mannerly debate.
problem was bud that was not a debate, it was a speech...so yes show some respect
The only difference between this and previous outbursts was that he didn't have a couple dozen of his pals to boo along with him.
Quote from: mussa on September 10, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Hmmm a southern senator from south carolina belts out liar at the presidents speech. its amazing he didn't scream out nig*&&^%er. i really enjoyed how he pointed out that the majority of those that oppose, are doing it for political reasons, not helping to solve the problem we have, or in other words, doing their jobs. Its really sad how pathetic the right is right now, refusing to work, and only bitching about it. its just sad.
so this guy is a racist now, cause he Obama a liar?
Really the republicans are not offering anything to the health care debate?
I don't agree with his actions in that setting, there is a time and place for it and during ANY president's address is not it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/house-republicans-unveil-_n_247301.html?page=28&show_comment_id=27970946# (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/house-republicans-unveil-_n_247301.html?page=28&show_comment_id=27970946#)
Oh wait why would the main line news carry anything like that.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 10:03:09 AM
You get my point. The office of the President deserves respect, sure. But more important even than showing respect to the office of the Presidency is honoring the idea of civilized debate, discussion, etc. This dickback doesn't just insult the man at the podium and the office he holds, but like the gang of disruptive town hall goons who have been running roughshod over citizen's ability to speak their minds all summer, his behavior is an affront to civilized debate in general.
That he's become a champion for the right says everything you need to know about where the American conservatives are right now, and where they are going.
Would that be the conservative goons yelling, or the Acorn, SEIU Union Goons that actually attacked people?
id have no problem with what he did if he could provide a single shred of evidence that says obama will give illegal aliens health care...but since he cant there is no time or place to do what he did because hes completely farging wrong
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 10, 2009, 01:12:28 PM
id have no problem with what he did if he could provide a single shred of evidence that says obama will give illegal aliens health care...but since he cant there is no time or place to do what he did because hes completely farging wrong
If you buy into insuring the "46 million uninsured" then 10 million would be illegals
perhaps you would do better by reading the actual health care bill...if you did you would know that it specifically prohibits any federal money to go towards providing health care for illegals
the irony in this is that many illegal aliens have private health insurance
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 10:03:09 AM
You get my point. The office of the President deserves respect, sure. But more important even than showing respect to the office of the Presidency is honoring the idea of civilized debate, discussion, etc. This dickback doesn't just insult the man at the podium and the office he holds, but like the gang of disruptive town hall goons who have been running roughshod over citizen's ability to speak their minds all summer, his behavior is an affront to civilized debate in general.
That he's become a champion for the right says everything you need to know about where the American conservatives are right now, and where they are going.
Amen. Solid post.
The only reason he did it was to get his name out there and to appease his, in all likelihood, red(neck) colored constituency.
If that was in fact he goal, then he succeeded. He's a hero to the Bush/Cheney/Palin sector of America now...I'd peg them at 30% of all Americans.
It's a problem when we hinge the argument on who is legal and who is not. I wonder if there isn't some plan afoot to legalize some (or many) of the previously illegal folks.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
If that was in fact he goal, then he succeeded. He's a hero to the Bush/Cheney/Palin sector of America now...I'd peg them at 30% of all Americans.
i think you're being quite conservative with your estimations.
Quote from: Susquehanna Birder on September 10, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
It's a problem when we hinge the argument on who is legal and who is not. I wonder if there isn't some plan afoot to legalize some (or many) of the previously illegal folks.
this is something i'd love to see happen. bush had a chance to get it right with immigration reform. instead, he opted to impose tougher penalties for people who employ/harbor illegals (which is fine, but hardly a solution to the problem).
the reason that we have so many illegals isn't because they're too lazy to do the paper work. it's because the process is too slow and too expensive. fix the farging process so that anyone who wants to come in this country to try and better their lives, can.
Regardless...it's the same bubble of humanity that we're talking about giving health care to. They're just playing weasel politics with how they are defined.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 10, 2009, 01:54:25 PM
perhaps you would do better by reading the actual health care bill...if you did you would know that it specifically prohibits any federal money to go towards providing health care for illegals
the irony in this is that many illegal aliens have private health insurance
what bill? which bill? How many people have talked about a plan for the uninsured 46 million?
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
If that was in fact he goal, then he succeeded. He's a hero to the Bush/Cheney/Palin sector of America now...I'd peg them at 30% of all Americans.
Well thats a shame then.
Quote from: Susquehanna Birder on September 10, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
It's a problem when we hinge the argument on who is legal and who is not. I wonder if there isn't some plan afoot to legalize ALL of the previously illegal folks.
Thats been the Dem's plan all along
The great things about liberals is the fact they think they are moderate. And anyone who isn't liberal is a far right conservative.
And please don't preach to conservatives about respecting the office. Bush was booed and jeered at his State of the Union Address. Hypocrites..
Obama's speech was absolute horse shtein. It was too long, and just full of bull shtein. The bill isn't deficit neutral, that's impossible, and has been shown by numerous non-partisan organizations. He's going to pay for the bill by eliminating the inefficiencies of Medicare, without cutting Medicare benefits at all? If it's so easy, it would have already been done.
Repulicans have offered alternatives.. such as tort reform and having health insurances available across state lines. Why is Tort reform not being examined at all? A trial basis??? Are you kidding me? Why not try your bull shtein health proposal on a trial bias in one of your blue states. ...
When Democrats used to quote the 46-47 million, they argued it didn't include illegals. Now when the number mysteriously dropped to 30 million, than they argue that it did in fact include illegal immigrants. Which one is it?
lol at crossing state lines as some sort of reform. There's such a thing as price leadership....and as long as health insurance companies know they can set prices so high and people will still shell out, they're not going to reduce the costs. It's situations like these where the government DOES have to step in.
Fun tidbit I learned the other day....from 2001-2010, the total cost of the wars in Afghan/Iraq will be about 1 Trillion dollars....while government officials are estimating that insuring all of the un-insured from 2010-2019 would cost about 1 trillion dollars.
I wonder what the better way to spend that trillion dollars is.
Quote from: Munson on September 10, 2009, 06:19:47 PM
lol at crossing state lines as some sort of reform. There's such a thing as price leadership....and as long as health insurance companies know they can set prices so high and people will still shell out, they're not going to reduce the costs. It's situations like these where the government DOES have to step in.
Fun tidbit I learned the other day....from 2001-2010, the total cost of the wars in Afghan/Iraq will be about 1 Trillion dollars....while government officials are estimating that insuring all of the un-insured from 2010-2019 would cost about 1 trillion dollars.
I wonder what the better way to spend that trillion dollars is.
Actually, more competition equals cheaper prices. There's places where health insurance is offered at a hell of a lot cheaper prices.
If this healtchare reform is so great, why are so many physicans, doctors, etc. vehemently opposed to it?
Good Maddow interview of Frank from last night including the subject of appeasing the unappeasable (i.e. Bipartisianship)...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/9816/31121
Quote from: ATV on September 10, 2009, 06:51:29 PM
Good Maddow interview of Frank from last night including the subject of appeasing the unappeasable (i.e. Bipartisianship)...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/9816/31121
Appeasing the Unappeasble??? What steps have they taken at bi-partsianship. Obama hasn't had a meeting with Republicans about health care since APRIL.
Quote from: bowzer on September 10, 2009, 06:42:00 PM
Quote from: Munson on September 10, 2009, 06:19:47 PM
lol at crossing state lines as some sort of reform. There's such a thing as price leadership....and as long as health insurance companies know they can set prices so high and people will still shell out, they're not going to reduce the costs. It's situations like these where the government DOES have to step in.
Fun tidbit I learned the other day....from 2001-2010, the total cost of the wars in Afghan/Iraq will be about 1 Trillion dollars....while government officials are estimating that insuring all of the un-insured from 2010-2019 would cost about 1 trillion dollars.
I wonder what the better way to spend that trillion dollars is.
Actually, more competition equals cheaper prices. There's places where health insurance is offered at a hell of a lot cheaper prices.
If this healtchare reform is so great, why are so many physicans, doctors, etc. vehemently opposed to it?
Yes, and what makes you think a company with lower prices but lesser care won't have to raise prices to compete with the bigger companies that offer more coverage for a "bargain", albeit more expensive price tag? Price leadership does not lower prices, it raises them.
ANd didn't you bring that up earlier in this thread only to have Rusty beat you down with links to the three biggest medical associations in America supporting either this bill and/or health care reform?
Quote from: bowzer on September 10, 2009, 06:54:01 PM
Appeasing the Unappeasble??? What steps have they taken at bi-partsianship. Obama hasn't had a meeting with Republicans about health care since APRIL.
Maybe because they are completely against any sort of health care reform?
Nah - that's not it. It's because Obama's a socialist muslim, that's it!
Clown.
Everyone wants health care reform.. that's not being debated.
Obama offered up some ridiculous trial basis for Tort Reform on a state level. Like I said, if this plan is so great, why not try it on a trial basis as well.
Also, how is going to make major cuts to Medicare without effecting Medicare benefits?
Sounded like a campaign speech... a lot of promises with no explanation. But he did touch me with his mention of Ted Kennedy... ::)
Everyone wants health care reform?
Hilarious.
Absolutely hysterical.
jesus doesn't want health care reform - just the souls of those the current health care system fails.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 10, 2009, 10:03:09 AM
You get my point. The office of the President deserves respect, sure. But more important even than showing respect to the office of the Presidency is honoring the idea of civilized debate, discussion, etc. This dickback doesn't just insult the man at the podium and the office he holds, but like the gang of disruptive town hall goons who have been running roughshod over citizen's ability to speak their minds all summer, his behavior is an affront to civilized debate in general.
That he's become a champion for the right says everything you need to know about where the American conservatives are right now, and where they are going.
He said "thats a lie". I think it was the wrong place to blurt that out, but to act like the dems "respected" the office of the president when the last idiot was there is flat out being a hypocrite.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 10, 2009, 07:49:14 PM
jesus doesn't want health care reform - just the souls of those the current health care system fails.
Word, and he can heal people too. He should start his own insurance company.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 10, 2009, 08:31:11 PMHe said "thats a lie". I think it was the wrong place to blurt that out, but to act like the dems "respected" the office of the president when the last idiot was there is flat out being a hypocrite.
It was such a horrendous breach of decorum that even hard core right-wing lunatics distanced themselves from it.
I never defended it, I said from the get go, that it was the wrong time and place.
Quote from: Rome on September 10, 2009, 08:39:13 PM
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 10, 2009, 08:31:11 PMHe said "thats a lie". I think it was the wrong place to blurt that out, but to act like the dems "respected" the office of the president when the last idiot was there is flat out being a hypocrite.
It was such a horrendous breach of decorum that even hard core right-wing lunatics distanced themselves from it.
Apparently it's okay for a handful of dems to boo Bush. But when one guy speaks out, it's a national disgrace.
Quote from: Rome on September 10, 2009, 07:17:26 PM
Everyone wants health care reform?
Hilarious.
Absolutely hysterical.
I don't think there's a reasonable person who doesn't agree that the current system is flawed. The problem lies in how to fix it. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with The Plan, somehow you are painted with the "anti reform" brush.
don't forget, a redneck, crazy right wing, nazi and racist.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 10, 2009, 10:03:19 PM
don't forget, a redneck, crazy right wing, nazi and racist.
And an uneducated, illiterate construction worker/person in the military.
That's right, F them illiterate construction workers. I hear Democrats say that like every day.
Quote from: ATV on September 10, 2009, 10:44:08 PM
That's right, F them illiterate construction workers. I hear Democrats say that like every day.
Actually that was a paraphased quote from MDS about stupid conservatives in the other thread.
Quotemost people who work in news are liberals for a reason. most people who work at power plants and join the military are conservatives for a reason. it aint bad, it aint good, it just is. you racist.
Quote from: bowzer on September 10, 2009, 10:59:20 PM
Quote from: ATV on September 10, 2009, 10:44:08 PM
That's right, F them illiterate construction workers. I hear Democrats say that like every day.
Actually that was a paraphased quote from MDS about stupid conservatives in the other thread.
Quotemost people who work in news are liberals for a reason. most people who work at power plants and join the military are conservatives for a reason. it aint bad, it aint good, it just is. you racist.
is that a reason why a lot of newspaper companies are going out of business?
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 10, 2009, 11:03:52 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 10, 2009, 10:59:20 PM
Quote from: ATV on September 10, 2009, 10:44:08 PM
That's right, F them illiterate construction workers. I hear Democrats say that like every day.
Actually that was a paraphased quote from MDS about stupid conservatives in the other thread.
Quotemost people who work in news are liberals for a reason. most people who work at power plants and join the military are conservatives for a reason. it aint bad, it aint good, it just is. you racist.
is that a reason why a lot of newspaper companies are going out of business?
Eactly... no one wants to read a biased/slanted article that's presented as factual.
Quote from: bowzer on September 10, 2009, 11:05:22 PM
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 10, 2009, 11:03:52 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 10, 2009, 10:59:20 PM
Quote from: ATV on September 10, 2009, 10:44:08 PM
That's right, F them illiterate construction workers. I hear Democrats say that like every day.
Actually that was a paraphased quote from MDS about stupid conservatives in the other thread.
Quotemost people who work in news are liberals for a reason. most people who work at power plants and join the military are conservatives for a reason. it aint bad, it aint good, it just is. you racist.
is that a reason why a lot of newspaper companies are going out of business?
Eactly... no one wants to read a biased/slanted article that's presented as factual.
Why not? Plenty of idiots listen to the biased/slanted hot garbage that comes out of other media outlets like Fox news.
The difference is CBS/ABC/NBC etc presents their stories as factual, when in fact they cherry pick what they report on, and heavily slant their reports. Didn't Chris Matthews admit to gizzing in his pants following an Obama speech?
c mat is not a reporter. hes an opinion guy. he gave his take. take it or leave it.
There are very few reporters left, and certainly no investigative reporters. Take your bias in whatever flavor is palatable to you.
It's good to see another conversation devolve into idiocy.
that's because its the only possible end result to any conversation regarding politics and/or religion.
Quote from: Susquehanna Birder on September 10, 2009, 08:56:51 PM
Quote from: Rome on September 10, 2009, 08:39:13 PM
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 10, 2009, 08:31:11 PMHe said "thats a lie". I think it was the wrong place to blurt that out, but to act like the dems "respected" the office of the president when the last idiot was there is flat out being a hypocrite.
It was such a horrendous breach of decorum that even hard core right-wing lunatics distanced themselves from it.
Apparently it's okay for a handful of dems to boo Bush. But when one guy speaks out, it's a national disgrace.
The difference is these guys did it when Bush was introduced to speak, or when he would break for applause. Not smack in the middle of the guys speech to a joint session of congress.
Had any Dem stood up and screamed "You're a liar" at Bush after he said, "There are WMD in Iraq", the republicans would have been calling him unpatriotic and a traitor. Instead, this guy is being called a hero by a lot of right wingers. And no liberal is even close to saying he's a traitor, just saying that it was ridiculous to do so in the middle of the guys speech....not to mention Obama. Isn't. Lying.
no the difference is that bush DID lie
as i said before id have no problem with the guy doing what he did if he was right....but hes completely 100% wrong....and lets just say obama signs a plan in three months that gives illegals health care...then boo him then but that isnt he case now...the plan in the house right now specifically forbids it....
again the issue here isnt decorum...thats some corny bullshtein...the issue here should be that the guy is a moron who had his facts completely backwards and just did this to put himself in the spotlight and ingraciate himself to his right wing nut job southern old white man constituency...hes a god now with the base of the party.....rush was going off on him yesterday FOR APOLOGIZING
Quote from: Munson on September 11, 2009, 01:51:48 AM
Quote from: Susquehanna Birder on September 10, 2009, 08:56:51 PM
Quote from: Rome on September 10, 2009, 08:39:13 PM
Quote from: phillymic2000 on September 10, 2009, 08:31:11 PMHe said "thats a lie". I think it was the wrong place to blurt that out, but to act like the dems "respected" the office of the president when the last idiot was there is flat out being a hypocrite.
It was such a horrendous breach of decorum that even hard core right-wing lunatics distanced themselves from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM
They were booing Bush as he speaked. And they were booing him based on his thoughts about social security.
Additionally, Obama was lying consistently throughout his speech. Additionally, he was calling everyone who disagreed with hi a liar using scare tactics. Wilson just called a spade a spade. Wrong forum, but he was atleast telling the truth.
Apparently it's okay for a handful of dems to boo Bush. But when one guy speaks out, it's a national disgrace.
The difference is these guys did it when Bush was introduced to speak, or when he would break for applause. Not smack in the middle of the guys speech to a joint session of congress.
Had any Dem stood up and screamed "You're a liar" at Bush after he said, "There are WMD in Iraq", the republicans would have been calling him unpatriotic and a traitor. Instead, this guy is being called a hero by a lot of right wingers. And no liberal is even close to saying he's a traitor, just saying that it was ridiculous to do so in the middle of the guys speech....not to mention Obama. Isn't. Lying.
Booing him as he speaked!? Dear god.
Quote fail.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 11, 2009, 07:13:14 AM
as i said before id have no problem with the guy doing what he did if he was right....but hes completely 100% wrong....and lets just say obama signs a plan in three months that gives illegals health care...then boo him then but that isnt he case now...the plan in the house right now specifically forbids it....
I'm not sure how you can be so sure of that. The plan, or the one that I can find that has anything applicable to the fact, is almost impossible to read. If I remember correctly, I did come across a section that mentions the coverage applying only to legalized citizens, or something like that. But it also defers to other bills and documents to determine who or what falls under that legality. As I said before, if the administration is thinking of legalizing millions of previously illegal immigrants, then I guess under the letter of the law, you are correct. But it's pretty much a weasel tactic.
Quote
again the issue here isnt decorum...thats some corny bullshtein...the issue here should be that the guy is a moron who had his facts completely backwards and just did this to put himself in the spotlight and ingraciate himself to his right wing nut job southern old white man constituency...hes a god now with the base of the party.....rush was going off on him yesterday FOR APOLOGIZING
Corny or not, the decorum thing is how most people are reacting to it, though, and how the media spinners are playing it.
Decorum is a nice way to spin it if you want to downplay the disruption, I'll grant that. I don't think what this petulant loser did was simply indelicate, I think it was a direct affront to the idea that we can and should work out our problems in a civilized way. It doesn't surprise me in the least that vigy approves of this kind of behavior: afterall we're talking about a guy who thinks it's great to "take it to the street" and sucker punch a trash talker after you've lost the game.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 11, 2009, 07:13:14 AM
no the difference is that bush DID lie
as i said before id have no problem with the guy doing what he did if he was right....but hes completely 100% wrong....and lets just say obama signs a plan in three months that gives illegals health care...then boo him then but that isnt he case now...the plan in the house right now specifically forbids it....
Yes, the House plan says illegals will be banned from the plan. But from what I've read and heard omitting the illegals is unconstitutional as you cannot make a law that applies to some people or group of people and not to others. It might be part of the "equal protection clause" Think of it like convicted felons do not loose all there constitutional guarantees. Illegals in this country do not loose all their rights. The are illegible for housing, welfare, education and healthcare in Ca. and probably most states. So the plan could claim the illegals are exempt but the courts would reverse that claim and from what I've heard this is law school 101 stuff that our President learned this his first year at Harvard Law School. At least that is the scuttlebut that's going around. :boom
Aint no Negro gonna tell that nice man to be quiet. Damn libs did the same thing to Bush didn't they? And Bush aint no lie but never. Don't care none if the health bill says no illegals allowed - Don't trust 'em. Don't trust 'em no how.
farg off
bush shouldve got shot in the face, not booed. i hope he dies a slower, more painful death than munson.
Are you ever not thinking of me, sweetheart?
Alright, we can use the gas chamber again if you want.
South Carolina has a illustrious history of having other American heroes in Congress like Joe Wilson...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/southerners_091009/index.html?hpid=topnews
Quote from: MDS on September 11, 2009, 01:21:32 PM
bush shouldve got shot in the face, not booed. i hope he dies a slower, more painful death than munson.
he should have gone hunting with cheney.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 11, 2009, 08:39:55 AM
Decorum is a nice way to spin it if you want to downplay the disruption, I'll grant that. I don't think what this petulant loser did was simply indelicate, I think it was a direct affront to the idea that we can and should work out our problems in a civilized way. It doesn't surprise me in the least that vigy approves of this kind of behavior: afterall we're talking about a guy who thinks it's great to "take it to the street" and sucker punch a trash talker after you've lost the game.
hell...im all for the japanese way....suplexes off counter tops close your eyes and swing wildly brawls in their congress...somehow they survive and are less backwards than half our country
Less backwards, but worlds ahead of us in farged-upness.
Quote from: fansince61 on September 11, 2009, 10:06:22 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 11, 2009, 07:13:14 AM
no the difference is that bush DID lie
as i said before id have no problem with the guy doing what he did if he was right....but hes completely 100% wrong....and lets just say obama signs a plan in three months that gives illegals health care...then boo him then but that isnt he case now...the plan in the house right now specifically forbids it....
Yes, the House plan says illegals will be banned from the plan. But from what I've read and heard omitting the illegals is unconstitutional as you cannot make a law that applies to some people or group of people and not to others. It might be part of the "equal protection clause" Think of it like convicted felons do not loose all there constitutional guarantees. Illegals in this country do not loose all their rights. The are illegible for housing, welfare, education and healthcare in Ca. and probably most states. So the plan could claim the illegals are exempt but the courts would reverse that claim and from what I've heard this is law school 101 stuff that our President learned this his first year at Harvard Law School. At least that is the scuttlebut that's going around. :boom
Now
that's a Yogi Berraism.
This is what fair, balanced, unbiased news looks like...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/9839/31153
Power to the people! All sixty or seventy of us! I mean them! F yea!
Sorry, but this joke of a news outlet and MSNBC are incomparable.
Can someone explain to me how this health care bill will not increase the National deficit? I'm having a hard time believing Obama when he says that health care reform will not increase the deficit. Matter of fact, how can he expect anyone to believe it? And I find it hard to believe illegals won't get insured under this plan. They will find a way. Just like they find a way to get S.S. numbers, and whatever else they need. imo, there is no way that you will keep illegals from getting insured.
what's your point?
you oppose Obama, we get it.
Quote from: shorebird on September 12, 2009, 01:26:53 PM
And I find it hard to believe illegals won't get insured under this plan. They will find a way.
you know what the way to get insured now is for illegals....give money to a private insurance provider...thats it...thats the way....obamas plan strictly prohibits illegals from gettin insurance...same way they cant get a govt job now
for the record i have no problem with illegals getting insurance but im just pointing out to you looney bins that they are getting it now with or without obama
you freaks would do better to educate yourselves on the facts
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/.a/6a00d8341c4df253ef0120a5680be4970b-800wi)
wow. That's horrendous to give a child something like that.
WTF is wrong with this farging world?
Lots of white people hanging out in that picture.
Yea. I bet they wish there were lots of black people hanging out though.
what the farg is the icehole wearing behind her - an orange cape?
And why is he unzipping? The girl with the sign obviously noticed him.
Haven't heard from Bowser lately. He must be in D.C.
Quote from: ATV on September 12, 2009, 10:38:13 PM
Haven't heard from Bowser lately. He must be in D.C.
you might be learning
Quote from: Diomedes on September 12, 2009, 01:51:45 PM
what's your point?
you oppose Obama, we get it.
My point is, when he says that he won't pass a bill that increased the deficit, and that he won't pass a bill that will insure illegals, either he's lying or he just doesn't know.
Who here thinks that this bill, if it passes, won't increase the deficit? Who thinks illegals won't get insurance?
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 12, 2009, 03:32:05 PM
Quote from: shorebird on September 12, 2009, 01:26:53 PM
And I find it hard to believe illegals won't get insured under this plan. They will find a way.
you know what the way to get insured now is for illegals....give money to a private insurance provider...thats it...thats the way....obamas plan strictly prohibits illegals from gettin insurance...same way they cant get a govt job now
And you actually believe that?
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 12, 2009, 03:32:05 PMfor the record i have no problem with illegals getting insurance but im just pointing out to you looney bins that they are getting it now with or without obama
you freaks would do better to educate yourselves on the facts
What the hell are you talking about?? What you're saying has absolutly nothing to do with the fact that Obama is saying things that seem impossible. You're rambling on about nothing, making no sense. What the hell does an illegal getting insurance from the private sector have to do with them getting insured by the government? Nothing.
I love it when someone doesn't agree with something Obama says, they are freaks and looneys. Igy is nothing but a sheep in Obama's herd, if he said the sky was green, he'd believe it. Just like when he says the bill won't incrrease the national deficit, he believes it without question, no matter how unbelieveable it sounds.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how spending government money that we DO NOT HAVE on national health care won't increase the deficit.
......sheeple......nothing but sheeple.
Also, for the record, NO, I do not oppose Obama. He's the POTUS for christ friggen' sakes. But.....he is saying things to the American people about health care reform that seem, to me, to be impossible.
If you pass a bill that specifies that illegals are prohibited from the health insurance then it sounds to me like they might be prohibited from the health insurance.
Only an idiot would believe that an illegal couldn't get around it.
Quote from: shorebird on September 13, 2009, 05:22:34 PM
Only an idiot would believe that an illegal couldn't get around it.
this is where you retards kill me...you CAN "get around" it now if you just pay a private insurer cash money....in obamas plan the fed govt coverage will actually background check to make sure youre an american
do you even know what youre talking about or do you just go against the negro president no matter the issue
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 13, 2009, 06:46:31 PM
Quote from: shorebird on September 13, 2009, 05:22:34 PM
Only an idiot would believe that an illegal couldn't get around it.
in obamas plan the fed govt coverage will actually background check to make sure youre an american
Haha! Yeah, right, they will do a background check on every single person getting government healthcare, just like they do with taxes and medicare.
Why don't you cut the "Obama would never be wrong about anything" crap and let your lips loose from his nuts.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 13, 2009, 06:46:31 PM
Quote from: shorebird on September 13, 2009, 05:22:34 PM
Only an idiot would believe that an illegal couldn't get around it.
you CAN "get around" it now if you just pay a private insurer cash money....
What does that have to do with government health care? Absolutely nothing. Anyone can get private health care if they have the money? Cash or check? No shtein Einstein.
so are you also against private health care because illegals CAN get it at will....or are you just againt obamas plan cause you THINK illegals will be able to get it
I'm against private health care because I'm a white tightwad republican and don't want to have to pay out the ass for it. I'm against the health care reform bill as it stands now for reasons that I've stated numerous times here, one of which is that I'm a white tightwad republican who thinks it will cost too much and will blow up the national deficit, no matter what the Divine Saviour says.
It amazes me how some Dems just blindly believe anything Obama says, simply because he's their man, their prez, their anointed one. He can do no wrong. He's absolutely perfect.
If I hear him say something like, "I will not pass a bill that will increase the national deficit", then damn right, I question it. Who in their right mind wouldn't? Government money paying for national health care, and it's not going to increase the deficit?!? C'mon.
But still, for the third time, I'm willing to listen and take into consideration any reasonable explanation as to why it won't. I hope someone can tell me from a factual basis that it won't, because our children and our children's children financial future could depend on it.
when you talk about the cost of it you have a valid point...when you stray to your parties lunatic fringes and talk about illegals being covered by the bill you sound like a moron...stick to the former and youll be ok (for now)
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 13, 2009, 09:44:32 PM
when you talk about the cost of it you have a valid point...when you stray to your parties lunatic fringes and talk about illegals being covered by the bill you sound like a moron...stick to the former and youll be ok (for now)
Wait. What? Stop being coherent and saying the thing that I've been saying for weeks. It makes me nervous.
i wont let it happen again
Appreciated.
........still waitin'.......
........and no, nobody sounds like a moron when they say that they don't want government money, OUR money, paying the bill for illegals health care just because someone like you has the ridiculous notion that everyone will be subject to a background check. Hell, they're getting it now, from medicaid and medicare. Do you actually believe that there will be background checks done on every single person who is going to get national health care??
......and I'm still waitin' for somebody to tell me how it's not going to increase the deficit.
the teabaggers were out in full force here in dc this weekend. what a bunch of freaks.
i'm actually in favor of illegals getting free health care. i can't have my yard guy getting sick.
Nice
Quotewhere is the rebate check all the blacks got when they voted for obama
Quote from: shorebird on September 13, 2009, 10:04:54 PM
........still waitin'.......
........and no, nobody sounds like a moron when they say that they don't want government money, OUR money, paying the bill for illegals health care just because someone like you has the ridiculous notion that everyone will be subject to a background check. Hell, they're getting it now, from medicaid and medicare. Do you actually believe that there will be background checks done on every single person who is going to get national health care??
......and I'm still waitin' for somebody to tell me how it's not going to increase the deficit.
I already said this once, but I'll say it again...
We spent 1 trillion dollars in Iraq from 2001-2010....the current estimations of how much nationalized heath care is going to cost from 2010-2019 is also 1 trillion dollars. If Obama is planning on not funneling money into a giant hole in the middle of the asian desert, that will certainly help off put the costs.
No one here is arguing that it's going to cost an ass load of money....but we already spend 16% of our GDP on health care, which is 4 percentage points higher than the closest to us (France), and that's even more ridiculous to think about when you think that our GDP as recently as 2005 was one and a half times higher then the next closest country's GDP (China). Obviously China has caught up, but I can tell you that France sure as hell hasn't. The fact that we spend THAT much money on health care and can't even crack the top 30 or cover all of our citizens is BS, so if we're going to be spending that much on health care, might as well take the monopoly away from the greed driven CEOs of the insurance companies, who care more about money then the people they're supposed to be helping, and start taking care of our own people. ALL of our own people.
The fact that illegals scam and cheat their way through the current system isn't a reason/excuse not to implement a new system...which, for all you know, may actually BE better at weeding out the illegals.
Look, the potus stood up in front of congress and the American people, and said that health care won't raise the deficit. Does he really believe that? I don't. Is he knowingly lying? Not that it hasn't happened before, but all the people who fall at his feet and hang on his every word, even after he says something so unbelieveable make me shake my head. And if he is knowingly lying, that doesn't say much for what he thinks of all his little sheeple out there.
I'd rather he say something like, "yeah, it's going to raise the deficit, but if you want health care for everyone, it's the only way to get it done."
Munron making sense, nice.
I think the point was it won't raise the deficit in the long run. In the short term it might because overhauling a massive system like U.S. health care is a monumental task, but streamlining it and making it more cost effective will almost certainly put a dent in the deficit.
And I agree with Dio... butchered English aside, Munson made some excellent points there.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 14, 2009, 08:44:51 AM
Munron making sense, nice.
no chance that wasnt a copy and paste
Yeah, his post made sense. But it was more a statement and doesn't really answer all the questions about health care reform. There are a lot of reasons why the bill should be overhauled other than the one reason that illegals might be able to scam their way around not being able to get covered. And really, if you take the money spent on Iraq and spend it on health care, you're still spending it, and probably a lot more. How does that not raise the deficit?
Also, doesn't it bother anyone here that the Potus is flat out lying to us, or that he really is in deep enough that he believes the bill won't raise the deficit?? Or, is it a fact that the Obama flock just doesn't care either way?
First of all, he isn't lying. Or if he is we have no way of knowing it so stop just stating that he's lying as though it's some sort of indisputable fact.
Second, Americans are very farging used to being lied to by the President at this point. If it does turn out that he's lying it wouldn't exactly be groundbreaking.
Quote from: shorebird on September 14, 2009, 06:23:29 PM
Yeah, his post made sense. But it was more a statement and doesn't really answer all the questions about health care reform. There are a lot of reasons why the bill should be overhauled other than the one reason that illegals might be able to scam their way around not being able to get covered. And really, if you take the money spent on Iraq and spend it on health care, you're still spending it, and probably a lot more. How does that not raise the deficit?
Also, doesn't it bother anyone here that the Potus is flat out lying to us, or that he really is in deep enough that he believes the bill won't raise the deficit?? Or, is it a fact that the Obama flock just doesn't care either way?
1. THe point is that the money would be getting spent on something MUCH more useful to the American people....it's not always about how much money is being spent, it's about what it's being spent on.
2. To answer that question, inflation would be a simple answer. 1 trillion dollars from 2001-2010 is not the same as 1 trillion dollars from 2010-2019.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 06:26:00 PM
First of all, he isn't lying. Or if he is we have no way of knowing it so stop just stating that he's lying as though it's some sort of indisputable fact.
First of all, I never said it was some kind of indisputable fact, I said it could be either one thing or the other, so
you stop. I'm saying, as all of you over and over again miss the point, that there is no way in hell this bill doesn't raise the deficit, so why would he state that it won't?
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 06:26:00 PM
Second, Americans are very farging used to being lied to by the President at this point. If it does turn out that he's lying it wouldn't exactly be groundbreaking.
Used to it?!? Yeah right, when Clinton, or Obama lies to the American people, so what? No big deal. When Bush did it Dems thought he should have been strung up. So did I, come to think of it. Anyway, I don't know if it's worse that he's lying or that he might actually believe it, or that he expects the American people to believe it.
Quote from: Munson on September 14, 2009, 06:28:07 PM
Quote from: shorebird on September 14, 2009, 06:23:29 PM
Yeah, his post made sense. But it was more a statement and doesn't really answer all the questions about health care reform. There are a lot of reasons why the bill should be overhauled other than the one reason that illegals might be able to scam their way around not being able to get covered. And really, if you take the money spent on Iraq and spend it on health care, you're still spending it, and probably a lot more. How does that not raise the deficit?
Also, doesn't it bother anyone here that the Potus is flat out lying to us, or that he really is in deep enough that he believes the bill won't raise the deficit?? Or, is it a fact that the Obama flock just doesn't care either way?
1. THe point is that the money would be getting spent on something MUCH more useful to the American people....it's not always about how much money is being spent, it's about what it's being spent on.
2. To answer that question, inflation would be a simple answer. 1 trillion dollars from 2001-2010 is not the same as 1 trillion dollars from 2010-2019.
True dat, but when it comes to trying to explain it or get the American people behind it, don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Quote from: shorebird on September 14, 2009, 06:40:28 PM
I'm saying, as all of you over and over again miss the point, that there is no way in hell this bill doesn't raise the deficit, so why would he state that it won't?
He's actually pointed out several ways that the bill will ideally not raise the deficit. The bill itself may cost money in some places but it is designed to lower costs in others. You grasp that right?
It really isn't that complex and I'm a little shocked that you seem to be incapable of recognizing that part of the point is to lower costs in certain areas to cover the extra expenidture in other areas.
The right seems more interested in calling the President a liar than they are actually fixing anything. Doesn't surprise me a bit because (1) the rich don't see a problem with the health care system because they can afford whatever treatment they need and (2) many of them have huge amounts of stock in health care corporations and would likely lose a bulk of their wealth if the system was nationalized.
Either way I don't give two shteins about them or their rabid paranoia about Obama. The system is farged up and it needs to be fixed before it bankrupts the country. And that's precisely where we're headed if we don't significantly reduce health care costs that are spiraling out of control.
Quote from: ATV on September 12, 2009, 10:38:13 PM
Haven't heard from Bowser lately. He must be in D.C.
I was at Penn State for the weekend... tailgating and such... glad you missed me though sweetie.
Shorebird, Obama and his minions think it's deficit neutral because he's going to get rid of all the inefficiences currently associated with Medicare. He doesn't say how he's going to do this, but I guess he's figured out a way, because he is, after all, the savior.
Republicans want health care reformed too. We don't want a public option. The marketplace thing he proposed, sounds like a good idea, in theory. Obama needs to go in more detail about it. But keep the public option out of it.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 06:49:54 PM
Quote from: shorebird on September 14, 2009, 06:40:28 PM
I'm saying, as all of you over and over again miss the point, that there is no way in hell this bill doesn't raise the deficit, so why would he state that it won't?
He's actually pointed out several ways that the bill will ideally not raise the deficit. The bill itself may cost money in some places but it is designed to lower costs in others. You grasp that right?
It really isn't that complex and I'm a little shocked that you seem to be incapable of recognizing that part of the point is to lower costs in certain areas to cover the extra expenidture in other areas.
Like this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302250.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
QuoteAs for costs, not to worry. "Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan," Obama said. He pledged to "not sign a plan that adds one dime to our [budget] deficits -- either now or in the future." If you believe Obama, what's not to like? Universal insurance. Continued choice. Lower costs.
The problem is that you can't entirely believe Obama. If he were candid -- if we were candid -- we'd all acknowledge that the goals of our ideal health-care system collide. Perhaps we can have any two, but not all three.
No way. Won't happen. National health care is going to cost way, way more than what that will save.
http://www.examiner.com/x-23691-NY-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d14-The-economic-realities-of-health-insurance-reform (http://www.examiner.com/x-23691-NY-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d14-The-economic-realities-of-health-insurance-reform)
QuoteWith debt projected to exceed $12.7 trillion this month and steadily growing to the point where it will likely exceed the country's gross domestic product in 2011, the nation cannot afford to undertake another costly initiative that would further diminish the prospect of long-term financial viability of the country. Obama stated that he would not sign a plan "that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future." However, his past actions indicate that he is willing to contradict himself, casting doubt as to his credibility and determination to maintain or reduce federal spending.
During his career as an Illinois Senator, Obama was critical of the Bush administration's failure to curtail a rising national debt and for raising the national debt limit.
"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren," Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership."
As President, Obama pledged to reduce the national debt, but his performance indicates that this promise may have been rhetorical.
The 2009 federal deficit is projected to reach a record $1.6 trillion under his leadership, as compared to $455 billion in 2008, President Bush's final year in office. During his eight-month tenure as President, Obama has signed several bills that significantly increased national debt, primarily the controversial economic stimulus legislation, which included "bailouts" of financial institutions, whose decision-making capabilities have been called into question, as well as Chrysler and General Motors, two of the least efficient automobile companies in the world. As a result, the national debt is projected to increase from slightly under $10 trillion at the end of 2008 to nearly $13 trillion by the end of this year, a record increase. Obama has already encouraged the Senate to pass legislation to raise the debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, indicating that he intends to implement more expensive programs without significantly reducing costs.
Facts, can you grasp that?
QuotePresident Obama said the health insurance reform plan could be paid for by "finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse." He then identified Medicaid and Medicare, two government-run social insurance programs, as the primary wasteful programs that could be reformed in order to pay for the plan. By criticizing the inefficiencies of Medicaid and Medicare, President Obama indicted the federal government for its inability to manage health insurance programs.
Whether the President initially attempted to exaggerate what he termed a "crisis" and subsequently decided to use a smaller figure in an effort to alleviate concerns regarding the cost of the program, grossly miscalculated the estimates, or amended the bill to include fewer people is unclear; what is certain is that the federal government and bureaucracies which the President has deemed highly inefficient will be responsible for implementing a nearly trillion dollar program to cover at least 150% of those currently covered under existing government health insurance programs.
More facts.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/contrary-to-his-claims-obama-s-health-care-plan-would-increase-the-deficit (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/contrary-to-his-claims-obama-s-health-care-plan-would-increase-the-deficit)
QuoteObama told a joint session of Congress Wednesday night that "reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."
However, he offered few details for how those savings might be achieved, and he didn't mention the key plan - backed by Democrats in the House of Representatives - to raise revenue by imposing higher income taxes on the wealthy.
The unanswered questions about his plan's costs and its effects on the federal budget deficit, on existing federal health care programs, on potential inflation and on taxes all remained hurdles in the path of congressional approval.
Few analysts are optimistic that Obama can trim enough spending from the government's current health care programs to pay for "most" of his health care overhaul, largely because Congress is likely to be reluctant to go along with such deep cuts.
Deficit hits record high. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/federal-deficit-hits-record-high-of-138-trillion-in-august.html (http://deficit%20hits%20record%20high.%20http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/federal-deficit-hits-record-high-of-138-trillion-in-august.html)
Since being voted into office, he has raised the deficit to a record number higher and quicker than any of his predecessors and it's still going up. But yet, with national health care, the sheeple all believe that it won't happen even though there are numerous anylist and experts who say other wise.
Baaaaaa.
My point, mister condescending assbag, is that what he is trying to do is improve costs and service and he has presented ways that he hopes to pay for the additional service and ways that he hopes will save money and improve efficiency. If congress doesn't go along with it that isn't his fault. But to dismiss increased efficiency and decreased waste as impossible is laughable.
Oops. Almost there. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/14/health.care/index.html)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auZYSu9ljFUs
Ooops. Not with a public option.
Quote from: ATV on September 12, 2009, 04:32:54 PM
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/.a/6a00d8341c4df253ef0120a5680be4970b-800wi)
Hahahahahahaha... where do I get that sign?
Quote from: bowzer on September 14, 2009, 09:00:15 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auZYSu9ljFUs
Ooops. Not with a public option.
Who cares? Not I.
Just to clarify. I think that the public option is the best possible option for driving consumer costs down and I think it's the only way to get 'universal' coverage. But I don't really care that much how they do it. Co-ops are an acceptable compromise. A trigger option is an acceptable compromise. Why would I or anyone else truly give a shtein about a 'public' option as long as the end results are positive? I swear some people get catch phrases stuck in their heads and can't think their way around them...
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 09:06:27 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 14, 2009, 09:00:15 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auZYSu9ljFUs
Ooops. Not with a public option.
Who cares? Not I.
That's one of the main issues with the health care reform. Republicans don't want a public option, and the libs are trying to force it.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 08:51:05 PM
Oops. Almost there. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/14/health.care/index.html)
QuoteIowa GOP Sen. Charles Grassley, also part of the negotiations, said he wanted to see the overall price lowered in light of skyrocketing federal budget deficits. He indicated that there were "five to six unresolved issues" but expressed some optimism that they could be overcome.
QuoteConrad has proposed creating nonprofit health insurance cooperatives as an alternative to the government-funded public health insurance option included in legislation favored by the House Democratic leadership.
Republicans unanimously oppose the public option as an unfair competitor that would drive private insurers out of the market, which they say would bring a government takeover of health care.
Democratic supporters reject that claim as misinformation, saying a nonprofit public option would be one choice for consumers who also could sign up for private coverage.
Obama, a supporter of the public option, cited the idea of cooperatives as a possible middle-ground in his speech to Congress.
One senior Democratic lawmaker, however, promised Sunday that the Senate's health care bill would include a public option that would have support from "some" Republicans.
Almost there? You're reading that a whole lot different than I did even before you posted the updated article. A whole lot of maybe's and if's.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 08:07:12 PM
My point, mister condescending assbag, is that what he is trying to do is improve costs and service and he has presented ways that he hopes to pay for the additional service and ways that he hopes will save money and improve efficiency. If congress doesn't go along with it that isn't his fault. But to dismiss increased efficiency and decreased waste as impossible is laughable.
Blah blah blah. You keep saying the same thing, just a little differently, even after having been shown facts to the contrary.
Quote from: shorebird on September 14, 2009, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 08:07:12 PM
My point, mister condescending assbag, is that what he is trying to do is improve costs and service and he has presented ways that he hopes to pay for the additional service and ways that he hopes will save money and improve efficiency. If congress doesn't go along with it that isn't his fault. But to dismiss increased efficiency and decreased waste as impossible is laughable.
Blah blah blah. You keep saying the same thing, just a little differently, even after having been shown facts to the contrary.
But.. but ... but... Obama is so convincing in his speeches! He can't be lying...even if what he promises makes absolutely no sense.. and he has no facts to back any of his "deficit neutral" claims.
None of the 'facts' you've presented actually prove me wrong or you right. In fact, most of them aren't even facts:
- Your first article above is an op-ed in the Post. It's an opinion piece. No facts outside of quotes.
- The second, from the Examiner, is also an opinion piece. It talks about the national debt, which isn't up for debate. Everyone knows what it is and why it is where it is. It doesn't present any facts stating unequivocally that health care reform will lead to a larger deficit.
- The third article is the same 'few analysts are optimistic...' hardly qualifies as cold hard facts refuting anything the president has said.
What you're doing is reading right-leaning opinion pieces as though they were scientifically unbiased research papers full of immutable facts.
My advice is to get off of my johnson and take a deep breath. I've already said repeatedly that I don't like the bill that I've read (and read about) as it exists. There are a lot of ways to improve it and some obvious things that could be done to save more money. You seem to think that I'm just closing my eyes and suckling the teet of whatever bill comes out of the House... actually, farg it, that's not even true. Every one of your posts just reeks of affected conservative anger. The right is irrationally convinced that we're all going to hell and that this abstract concept of a national deficit is ushering us there. It's insane. Countries have carried debt greater than ours throughout history. Get a farging grip.
I posted a neutral fact check after Obama's speech and the response I got was.. "who cares?"
I love hearing the words health care reform.
Quote from: bowzer on September 14, 2009, 09:57:52 PM
I posted a neutral fact check after Obama's speech and the response I got was.. "who cares?"
Pretty sure that wasn't my response. In fact, I'm pretty well versed in both sides of this argument. shorebird and his sky-is-falling, calling the president names, foolish paranoia is what I've been responding to. But whatever. It's too exhausting to keep up.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 09:55:53 PM
None of the 'facts' you've presented actually prove me wrong or you right. In fact, most of them aren't even facts:
- Your first article above is an op-ed in the Post. It's an opinion piece. No facts outside of quotes.
- The second, from the Examiner, is also an opinion piece. It talks about the national debt, which isn't up for debate. Everyone knows what it is and why it is where it is. It doesn't present any facts stating unequivocally that health care reform will lead to a larger deficit.
- The third article is the same 'few analysts are optimistic...' hardly qualifies as cold hard facts refuting anything the president has said.
What you're doing is reading right-leaning opinion pieces as though they were scientifically unbiased research papers full of immutable facts.
Right leaning in the Washington Post? Bullshtein.
QuoteMy advice is to get off of my johnson and take a deep breath. I've already said repeatedly that I don't like the bill that I've read (and read about) as it exists. There are a lot of ways to improve it and some obvious things that could be done to save more money. You seem to think that I'm just closing my eyes and suckling the teet of whatever bill comes out of the House... actually, farg it, that's not even true. Every one of your posts just reeks of affected conservative anger. The right is irrationally convinced that we're all going to hell and that this abstract concept of a national deficit is ushering us there. It's insane. Countries have carried debt greater than ours throughout history. Get a farging grip.
Look, he says he will save money by
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid, but doesn't say how that will happen. There are numerous anylist and experts who say it cannot be done, that say the bureaucrats who run medicade and medicare, who Obama himself has said are
highly inefficient will be in charge of running a trillion dollar health care program. So please, he hasn't said or done anything to prove he will save money or improve efficiency. It's as plain as day. But go ahead and dismiss hard evidence and track records as leftist sky is falling crap. It becomes you.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 14, 2009, 09:57:52 PM
I posted a neutral fact check after Obama's speech and the response I got was.. "who cares?"
Pretty sure that wasn't my response. In fact, I'm pretty well versed in both sides of this argument. shorebird and his sky-is-falling, calling the president names, foolish paranoia is what I've been responding to. But whatever. It's too exhausting to keep up.
You're the only person calling names right now son. I did it once when I was shtein faced. You do it all the time and then call someone else out on it. You say the same tired old bullshtein over and over and then claim to be well versed on both sides of the argument? HA! Thats alright, it's your world, I'm just passing through.
You are ridiculous. I explained this already. When the conversation is adult, I behave as an adult. When the conversation is schoolyard I respond accordingly. You post opinion pieces and tout them as facts. You ignore 90% of what I say in my post and then mis-interpret the rest. (The Post isn't right leaning, nor did I say that it was. That article was right leaning, and an opinion piece to boot.) You get all fired up and rattle off paranoid arguments straight from Republican mouthpieces. You're acting angry about something and getting your hackles all raised every time I argue with you. Settle down old man you're going to give yourself a stroke.
Who's mad? Not I.
I've posted articles you dismiss as right leaning opinion pieces because you don't agree with them. And stop trying to make yourself look so big and above it all with your 'I behave as an adult and respond accordingly to the school yard stuff" ridiculousness. I've done nothing but respond to your post's with a different opinion. But, since I don't agree with you and yes, make you look like you don't know what you're talking about, you accuse me of being a foolish paranoid, and old man, a condensending asshat, and say very one of my posts reeks of affected conservative anger. All that without actually addressing anything that I've posted directly.
You act like a bleeding heart left wing wacko without even knowing it.
So, instead of posting ignorant attacks, how about actually telling me how Obama will cut cost and increase efficiency, instead of just saying that Obama has said he will do it, 'cause I can't find anywere that he's explained it.
Thank God for Glenn Beck...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=player_embedded
Awesome.
Quote from: shorebird on September 14, 2009, 10:50:45 PM
Who's mad? Not I.
I've posted articles you dismiss as right leaning opinion pieces because you don't agree with them. And stop trying to make yourself look so big and above it all with your 'I behave as an adult and respond accordingly to the school yard stuff" ridiculousness. I've done nothing but respond to your post's with a different opinion. But, since I don't agree with you and yes, make you look like you don't know what you're talking about, you accuse me of being a foolish paranoid, and old man, a condensending asshat, and say very one of my posts reeks of affected conservative anger. All that without actually addressing anything that I've posted directly.
You act like a bleeding heart left wing wacko without even knowing it.
So, instead of posting ignorant attacks, how about actually telling me how Obama will cut cost and increase efficiency, instead of just saying that Obama has said he will do it, 'cause I can't find anywere that he's explained it.
shore, why in gods name do you keep repeating the same question over and over? if you havent gotten your answer yet after the 15th try will not ever get it.
are you trying to rewrite the definition of insanity?
Ya' know what, you're right, it's like beatin' a dead horse. I'm taking your advice and going to bed. Goodnight.
shorebird thinks he's making me look like I don't know what I'm talking about by posting opinion pieces saying that reform will never work. I don't know how to properly respond to that.
Also, I followed a very strict no-politics talk rule for most of my adult life which has gotten totally derailed over the past year. I'm thinking it might be time to reinstate the rule. Listening to how other people interpret the information that is out there makes me long for the end of days.
Quote from: ATV on September 14, 2009, 10:52:05 PM
Thank God for Glenn Beck...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=player_embedded
Awesome.
You have no opinion. You just post youtube clips. They are worthless. There are stupid people on both sides... it's really not that hard to comprehend.
If you're looking to avoid other people making you want end of days, I suggest you avoid them all to a man completely
this is of course best accomplished by a good suicide
hop to
Quote from: shorebird on September 14, 2009, 06:43:13 PM
don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
drunk bitches fall for that one all the time.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 11:04:23 PM
Also, I followed a very strict no-politics talk rule for most of my adult life which has gotten totally derailed over the past year. I'm thinking it might be time to reinstate the rule.
We had that same rule for the board for quite a while. It obviously wasn't a good idea to let it slip.
how awful would that be....this is the best thread on the entire site
No. I wish I had never gotten involved in this conversation or started paying attention to politics. The idiocy that comes out of people's mouths is astonishing.
More video of unintelligent people trying to seem intelligent...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/9901/
LOL, the first was a total plant and a bad one at that. The second two, ummmmm no threat except she be a little crazy
Quote from: rjs246 on September 14, 2009, 08:51:05 PM
Oops. Almost there. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/14/health.care/index.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/index.html)
This version was dead before it began.
A quick hitter on what's in the bill. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1924252,00.html?cnn=yes)
Quote
How much does the bill cost, and will it add to the deficit?
In a press release accompanying the release of the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says the legislation would cost $856 billion over 10 years and would not increase the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which put the bill's total cost at a lower $774 billion, says the bill would actually reduce the deficit by $49 billion between 2010 and 2019.
Lots of really good questions and answers here. BTW, Time has done an excellent job of presenting clear explanations of some pretty complex issues over the past year or so since I started paying attention.
An interesting way to compromise on young people who might otherwise choose not to be covered due to relative youth and good health...
QuoteThe exchange would also offer a high-deductible plan for adults under 25. This plan would be cheaper than the bronze plan and is referred to as a "young invincible" policy.
This is a perfectly reasonable, equitable, market-driven solution to the abortion question that will definitely unquestionably be turned on its ear by knee-jerk pro-lifers.
QuoteWould federal funds be used to finance abortions?
Those eligible for federal subsidies to purchase insurance through exchanges would be able to choose from at least one plan that covers abortions beyond those in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother (the exceptions that Medicaid and other federal programs currently allow) and one that doesn't. Those private plans that do offer the services would have to segregate funds internally to make sure that only individual premiums, and not federal subsidies, pay for actual abortion services.
In the health-insurance cooperatives, coverage for abortion services would not be explicitly prohibited. Consumers owning and operating the cooperatives would be able to decide if they want to cover abortion.
We have an option similar to that at Abbott. The way to make it work is to take out a big FSA to cover the deductible. That, or hope you never get sick.
FSA = Flex Spending Account?
federal socialist assignment
An IBD/TIPP poll found the following:
– 45% of doctors polled said they would consider leaving their practice or retiring early if the proposed health care bill was to pass
– 65% or 2 out of 3 practicing physicians polled say they oppose the plan
– 72% of doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more Americans with better quality care and at a lower cost
I want to see the government do something about the goddamn medical malpractice policies that is/has been driving good physicians out of practice.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 16, 2009, 09:27:07 PM
I want to see the government do something about the goddamn medical malpractice policies that is/has been driving good physicians out of practice.
To reach a fair compromise, the bill should definitely include tort reform.
The marketplace idea sounds good, in theory. I want both sides to start trying to hammer that out. More competition will bring prices down without a public option.
Quote from: bowzer on September 16, 2009, 09:30:09 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 16, 2009, 09:27:07 PM
I want to see the government do something about the goddamn medical malpractice policies that is/has been driving good physicians out of practice.
To reach a fair compromise, the bill should definitely include tort reform.
The marketplace idea sounds good, in theory. I want both sides to start trying to hammer that out. More competition will bring prices down without a public option.
I agree. It bugs the shtein out of me how sue happy the country has become. One of my doctors when I was a kid was driven out of practice because of the malpractice insurance.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 16, 2009, 09:32:24 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 16, 2009, 09:30:09 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 16, 2009, 09:27:07 PM
I want to see the government do something about the goddamn medical malpractice policies that is/has been driving good physicians out of practice.
To reach a fair compromise, the bill should definitely include tort reform.
The marketplace idea sounds good, in theory. I want both sides to start trying to hammer that out. More competition will bring prices down without a public option.
I agree. It bugs the shtein out of me how sue happy the country has become. One of my doctors when I was a kid was driven out of practice because of the malpractice insurance.
This country is too sue-happy. A woman was just awarded some dollar amount in the hundreds of thousands for burning her mouth on a hot pickle?
It's becoming a joke.
And the malpractice insurrance in PA is absolutely out of control.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 16, 2009, 08:22:53 PM
FSA = Flex Spending Account?
Yes. The advantage to the high deductible plan is that there are no out of pocket costs for having it....until you get sick.
On top of that, in an effort to maintain "wellness" all checkups and standard preventative meds (shots for the kids, mammograms, prostate eval, etc) is free of charge. As are all company drugs. Of course, all we make are pain, cancer and AIDS drugs, so I'm hoping I never have to use any of ours.
Tort reform is critical. Lawyers and insurance companies are the biggest problem in health care.
farging ambulance chasers.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 16, 2009, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on September 16, 2009, 08:22:53 PM
FSA = Flex Spending Account?
Yes. The advantage to the high deductible plan is that there are no out of pocket costs for having it....until you get sick.
On top of that, in an effort to maintain "wellness" all checkups and standard preventative meds (shots for the kids, mammograms, prostate eval, etc) is free of charge. As are all company drugs. Of course, all we make are pain, cancer and AIDS drugs, so I'm hoping I never have to use any of ours.
My company has FSA and I haven't looked into it too much, but I think the way it works here (not sure about all places) is they take money from each check, pre-tax, and deposit it into the account. You can then use the debit card to pay for anything needed for medical expenses.
The kicker is that if you don't use it, it's gone after the year.
We have a high deductible plan ($500) and I don't like it. I rarely have to go to the doctor, maybe once a year, and its always out of pocket for the visit.
I had the flu in 2008 and it cost me $225 to go to the doctor.
I love how people insist lawyers are root of all evil right up until the point where their life or well-being depends on one.
Lawyers represent the best and the worst that society has to offer. On the one hand they are in place to protect people's rights and fight for them when they cannot fight for themselves.
On the other hand that amazingly important and valiant position affords them the opportunity to milk the system for monetary gain under questionable motives and to use the law to protect themselves and others who by all logic should be burned alive.
I'm planning on (thinking about/studying for/terrified of the idea of) going to law school. I wonder which kind I will be.
Probably an Erin Brockovich type.
I was thinking more along the lines of Night Court
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 16, 2009, 10:45:03 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of Night Court
Phreak = Bull Shannon.
:-D
A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) study published in Monday's New England Journal of Medicine shows that 63 percent of physicians support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. If the additional 10 percent of doctors who support an entirely public health system are included, then
approximately three out of four physicians nationwide support inclusion of a public option.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/majority-of-doctors-back_n_286352.html
FivethirtyEight on bowsers's wet dream...
QuoteMy advice would be to completely ignore this poll. There are pollsters out there that have an agenda but are highly competent, and there are pollsters that are nonpartisan but not particularly skilled. Rarely, however, do you find the whole package: that special pollster which is both biased and inept. IBD/TIPP is one of the few exceptions.
From http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/ibdtipp-doctors-poll-is-not-trustworthy.html
Quote from: rjs246 on September 16, 2009, 10:36:40 PM
Lawyers represent the best and the worst that society has to offer. On the one hand they are in place to protect people's rights and fight for them when they cannot fight for themselves.
On the other hand that amazingly important and valiant position affords them the opportunity to milk the system for monetary gain under questionable motives and to use the law to protect themselves and others who by all logic should be burned alive.
I'm planning on (thinking about/studying for/terrified of the idea of) going to law school. I wonder which kind I will be.
OMG maybe we'll graduate law school together <3
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 16, 2009, 10:08:30 PM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 16, 2009, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on September 16, 2009, 08:22:53 PM
FSA = Flex Spending Account?
Yes. The advantage to the high deductible plan is that there are no out of pocket costs for having it....until you get sick.
On top of that, in an effort to maintain "wellness" all checkups and standard preventative meds (shots for the kids, mammograms, prostate eval, etc) is free of charge. As are all company drugs. Of course, all we make are pain, cancer and AIDS drugs, so I'm hoping I never have to use any of ours.
My company has FSA and I haven't looked into it too much, but I think the way it works here (not sure about all places) is they take money from each check, pre-tax, and deposit it into the account. You can then use the debit card to pay for anything needed for medical expenses.
The kicker is that if you don't use it, it's gone after the year.
We have a high deductible plan ($500) and I don't like it. I rarely have to go to the doctor, maybe once a year, and its always out of pocket for the visit.
I had the flu in 2008 and it cost me $225 to go to the doctor.
That's how our FSA works as well. Keep in mind, though, you can buy all kinds of shtein with your FSA contribution: contact lens fluid, vitamins, therapeutic massage (no BJs though).
As for lawyers, I got no problem with average lawyers. It's the tort lawyers, particularly the ones that advertise on TV (James Sokolov, I'm looking at you) that need to be loaded into a crate and dropped in the Atlantic trench.
Quote from: jihadist monk on September 16, 2009, 11:01:06 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on September 16, 2009, 10:36:40 PM
Lawyers represent the best and the worst that society has to offer. On the one hand they are in place to protect people's rights and fight for them when they cannot fight for themselves.
On the other hand that amazingly important and valiant position affords them the opportunity to milk the system for monetary gain under questionable motives and to use the law to protect themselves and others who by all logic should be burned alive.
I'm planning on (thinking about/studying for/terrified of the idea of) going to law school. I wonder which kind I will be.
OMG maybe we'll graduate law school together <3
Me three!!
The Huffington Post is about as reliable as Winston Justice circa 2007.
QuoteThe Huffington Post is about as reliable as Winston Justice circa 2007.
You mean the New England Journal of Medicine? Yea, there's a piece of garbage if if there ever was one. Total hack mag.
You have nothing.....nothing.
To honestly think physicans want a bill without tort refom, but with a public option... speaks for itself.
Get a clue
To think you breathe the same air as me...Please stop
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 17, 2009, 06:12:11 PM
To think you breathe the same air as me...Please stop
To think you belong posting a comment into a political discussion thread is beyond me...
Stick to the music or tv show thread please.
Everyone knows that the current bill includes tort reform and no public option right? So you're arguing about...
Quote from: ATV on September 17, 2009, 01:15:33 AM
QuoteThe Huffington Post is about as reliable as Winston Justice circa 2007.
You mean the New England Journal of Medicine? Yea, there's a piece of garbage if if there ever was one. Total hack mag.
You have nothing.....nothing.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is notably liberal and sponsored that 2 hr special on Obamacare on ABC.
Keep trying though.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 17, 2009, 06:43:04 PM
Everyone knows that the current bill includes tort reform and no public option right? So you're arguing about...
I'm arguing with his bull shtein poll about 2/3s of doctors wanting a public option, and mentioning nothing about tort reform.
That poll is no more bullshtein than the super-rightist Rasmussen poll you just posted. Try not to make such blatant blunders. It doesn't help your cause.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 17, 2009, 07:06:46 PM
That poll is no more bullshtein than the super-rightist Rasmussen poll you just posted. Try not to make such blatant blunders. It doesn't help your cause.
I posted multiple polls.. Either way his approval rating is in the low 50s, high 40s... a far drop from where he was polling earlier this year.
I have no problem admitting that some of my stuff comes from conservative sources. AIV posts huffington post articles and pretends its a fact.
Quote from: bowzer on September 17, 2009, 06:43:58 PM
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is notably liberal and sponsored that 2 hr special on Obamacare on ABC.
giggle
Quote from: bowzer on September 17, 2009, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 17, 2009, 06:12:11 PM
To think you breathe the same air as me...Please stop
To think you belong posting a comment into a political discussion thread is beyond me...
Stick to the music or tv show thread please.
was that english, go farg your dead mom
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 17, 2009, 07:28:19 PM
Quote from: bowzer on September 17, 2009, 06:37:01 PM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 17, 2009, 06:12:11 PM
To think you breathe the same air as me...Please stop
To think you belong posting a comment into a political discussion thread is beyond me...
Stick to the music or tv show thread please.
was that english, go farg your dead mom
It makes plenty of sense.
Only if I can farg your hepatitus infected mom first.
She has a great liver, your moms tastes like almonds.
In all honestly, go farg yourself you republican piece of trash, and i say this as a republican. Go have your teaparty, take imaginary pictures of a march, and die in a car crash on the way home.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 17, 2009, 07:32:40 PM
She has a great liver, your moms tastes like almonds.
In all honestly, go farg yourself you republican piece of trash, and i say this as a republican. Go have your teaparty, take imaginary pictures of a march, and die in a car crash on the way home.
I still don't get how this board decided I was at the tea party last weekend?
I was at Penn State tailgating a zesty football game... and watching a zesty basketball player trying to become a zesty quarterback.
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
Now that's unfair. He wasn't that bad a basketball player.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
QuoteThe Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is notably liberal
As if liberalism were a bad thing. Anyhow, evidence?
Also, I want the plan to include a sin tax on soda. 1 cent per ounce would be a good target. The stuff has absolutely no nutritional value. Mountains of science show how harmful it is, especially to children. If we're gonna have sin tax on tobacco, booze, etc., then lets not stop with the adults.
Some will argue this tax would disproportionately affect the poor. So what, I say. No one is forcing them to drink soda.
Some would argue it's a government intrustion on the marketplace. Bullshtein, I say. A tax becomes a fact in the marketplace, and any good company will adapt to the change. That's what they do.
Some will say we can't count on revenue from sin tax because as consumption decreases, so do reveues. Fine, I say. Don't fund shtein solely based on sin taxes; use them as supplementary revenue.
Why sodas and not trans-fats? Because they are distinct. They can be targeted precisely without much trouble. They do only harm.
And while we're at it, we ought to stop subsidizing companies and farms that produce high fructose corn syrup.
Quote from: ATV on September 18, 2009, 01:10:03 AM
As if liberalism were a bad thing.
exactly
i give all the credit in the world to the right for tricking so many people into believing that being progressive is actually a bad thing
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 18, 2009, 09:25:41 AM
Quote from: ATV on September 18, 2009, 01:10:03 AM
As if liberalism were a bad thing.
exactly
i give all the credit in the world to the right for tricking so many people into believing that being progressive is actually a bad thing
Tell me about it, I feel the same way about the left tricking so many into believing that they will make their lives better.
Liberals/Progressives are solely responsible for the greatest advancements in civilization ever. From emancipation, suffrage, freedom of speech and religion, and due process of law, to public education, social security and space exploration...every major step forward has been instigated and achieved because progressive people looking to improve the human condition have fought against convservative forces seeking to maintain tradition, status quo, and the balance of power.
Hole up and defend the ramparts as long as you like, conservatism will never triumph.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 09:37:35 AM
Liberals/Progressives are solely responsible for the greatest advancements in civilization ever. From emancipation, suffrage, freedom of speech and religion, and due process of law, to public education, social security and space exploration...every major step forward has been instigated and achieved because progressive people looking to improve the human condition have fought against convservative forces seeking to maintain tradition, status quo, and the balance of power.
Hole up and defend the ramparts as long as you like, conservatism will never triumph.
In what part did I defend "the right" with my comment?
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
those days are pretty much behind the industry where doctors would consistently get free personal vacations and other free goods for a certain amount of scripts written (sad to even think this shtein happens), plus most practices are a little more ethical than that prescribing whats gives the biggest benefit to the patients...but can it happen in some cases? sure it can...but civil and criminal liability laws are now put into place and you easily risk losing your practice.
In some cases/patients the generic drug is just as effective as the new expensive drug, but majority of the time the new drug highly outweighs an over the counter in terms of degree of relief
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 09:37:35 AM
Liberals/Progressives are solely responsible for the greatest advancements in civilization ever. From emancipation, suffrage, freedom of speech and religion, and due process of law, to public education, social security and space exploration...every major step forward has been instigated and achieved because progressive people looking to improve the human condition have fought against convservative forces seeking to maintain tradition, status quo, and the balance of power.
Hole up and defend the ramparts as long as you like, conservatism will never triumph.
Just to play devil's advocate, is progress really all that great? Are we better as a species because we've been to the moon or have free income when we're old? Has free education kept us from endlessly attempting to destroy the planet that we rely on or taught us how to live with some sense of balance with other people/societies/whatever? Human nature is by and large a pretty ugly thing and 'progress' has allowed us to multiply exponentially and expand to the ends of the earth and live longer and longer. In the big picture, is that really something to laud?
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 08:31:00 AM
Also, I want the plan to include a sin tax on soda. 1 cent per ounce would be a good target. The stuff has absolutely no nutritional value. Mountains of science show how harmful it is, especially to children. If we're gonna have sin tax on tobacco, booze, etc., then lets not stop with the adults.
not that it's really groundbreaking news, because i think it's pretty common knowledge that soda is bad for you, but i saw a little story on the news last night about a study on soda drinkers. something like 40,000 people who drink at least 1 soda every day and i beleive it was 27% of them fell into the obese category. didn't mention how many of the rest were mildly overweight but i would have to guess that it's around 50-60%.
agreed on the tax too. tax cupcakes and candy bars too.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 18, 2009, 10:16:16 AMJust to play devil's advocate, is progress really all that great? Are we better as a species because we've been to the moon or have free income when we're old? Has free education kept us from endlessly attempting to destroy the planet that we rely on or taught us how to live with some sense of balance with other people/societies/whatever? Human nature is by and large a pretty ugly thing and 'progress' has allowed us to multiply exponentially and expand to the ends of the earth and live longer and longer. In the big picture, is that really something to laud?
Fair question. I'm talking here about social progress, as I think you understand, not industrial and material progress. Yes, we are better off for having gone to the moon. Yes, we are better off for having increased health and reduced suffering. Etc.
On balance, I think humans are a cancer on the earth. We will eventually damage our host so badly that we cannot survive ourselves. But since we're here (ignoring silly philosophical exercises), it is right that we try to progress and improve our condition, and fight against our fate.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 18, 2009, 10:25:24 AMtax cupcakes and candy bars too.
That's much more murky ground, especially the former. Even a McDonalds meal, as bad for you as it is, provides some nutrition.
As an aside, I think sin taxes are bad policy founded on farged principles. I argue for a soda tax only because we're in for a penny and a pound, so let's apply the implement with some skill.
Doctors absolutely still get HUGE kickbacks. Some even admit to it to their patients.
And ESPECIALLY for vaccinations. :puke
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 10:27:58 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on September 18, 2009, 10:16:16 AMJust to play devil's advocate, is progress really all that great? Are we better as a species because we've been to the moon or have free income when we're old? Has free education kept us from endlessly attempting to destroy the planet that we rely on or taught us how to live with some sense of balance with other people/societies/whatever? Human nature is by and large a pretty ugly thing and 'progress' has allowed us to multiply exponentially and expand to the ends of the earth and live longer and longer. In the big picture, is that really something to laud?
Fair question. I'm talking here about social progress, as I think you understand, not industrial and material progress. Yes, we are better off for having gone to the moon. Yes, we are better off for having increased health and reduced suffering. Etc.
On balance, I think humans are a cancer on the earth. We will eventually damage our host so badly that we cannot survive ourselves. But since we're here (ignoring silly philosophical exercises), it is right that we try to progress and improve our condition, and fight against our fate.
one can only imagine the conversation that would take place between you two if you got together and smoked a bowl or two...or three
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 10:27:58 AM
But since we're here (ignoring silly philosophical exercises), it is right that we try to progress and improve our condition, and fight against our fate.
My point is that progress is not fighting our fate, it's actually accelerating it. The easier life gets the more we multiply and the faster we move toward extinction.
Silly philosophical debate my ass!
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
Great points. How many people do you know that have gone to the Dr. after self diagnosing themselves and then picked there own course of treatment? I have seen people do this at work and it's frightening. This happened a lot (with some female employees) when we had "Elite" Blue Cross Policies that paid almost everything (almost no out of pocket) and cost $2000/mo for families".
Quote from: rjs246 on September 18, 2009, 10:16:16 AMJust to play devil's advocate, is progress really all that great? Are we better as a species...
I'd like to add that, if you're question is something like, has scientific and medical progress really helped humanity, has it really decreased suffering, has abolishment of slavery and world wide adoption of equality improved our condition, has greater leisure and education made us happier, etc.
If that's the question then maybe the answer is no. I can't think of a better happier more well functioning civilation than Native Americans, afterall.
We did however realize all of these things because progressives defeated conservatives every time.
QuoteI'd like to add that, if you're question is something like, has scientific and medical progress really helped humanity, has it really decreased suffering, has abolishment of slavery and world wide adoption of equality improved our condition, has greater leisure and education made us happier, etc.
If that's the question then maybe the answer is no.
do you really truly believe the answer is no to the above mentioned? I have a hard time believing you do
Quote from: reese125 on September 18, 2009, 11:06:16 AMdo you really truly believe the answer is no to the above mentioned? I have a hard time believing you do
(http://www.bibliobliss.com/RIF-2.jpg)
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 11:01:17 AMIf that's the question then maybe the answer is no.
I don't know. It's worth thinking about.
The government is run by which group pays the most to whoever is in power. I see it in the educational field. Have you ever been to a conference where School officials are? It's insane how much cash is thrown at booze, sport's outings, free gifts (gas cards, i pods, GPS etc..), free free free free. I have a conference in Chicago next month and no joke I have about 8 or 9 offeres to go out to, Nicks fish market, The Chop House, The Rosebud, Odyssey Cruise Dinner on the lake, Riva on the Pier and on an on. It's fargin insane how much big business blows fargin money and runs everything in this country, right or left they are all owned!
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: reese125 on September 18, 2009, 11:06:16 AMdo you really truly believe the answer is no to the above mentioned? I have a hard time believing you do
(http://www.bibliobliss.com/RIF-2.jpg)
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 11:01:17 AMIf that's the question then maybe the answer is no.
I don't know. It's worth thinking about.
played out response... but I was really asking in the form of a question to get an open response from you of why you might even think to pose the question..and should of end the question as "you would" not you do ...thats my bad
The only thing I can say is, I think it's worth considering the possibility, even if you see it as purely a thought experiment.
thought and reese hate each other
no
he's often more thoughtful than you, but that's not much of a compliment is it
definitely not
I feel bad for igy and his blind tunnel vision sometimes.
Quote from: fansince61 on September 18, 2009, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
Great points. How many people do you know that have gone to the Dr. after self diagnosing themselves and then picked there own course of treatment? I have seen people do this at work and it's frightening. This happened a lot (with some female employees) when we had "Elite" Blue Cross Policies that paid almost everything (almost no out of pocket) and cost $2000/mo for families".
I don't know anyone personally, but I can't help but think this is very prevalent with the depression drugs. There are people who are legitimately depressed and need help, but I'd be willing to bet that at least 25% of the people on anti-depressants don't have depression.
They think they are depressed because their lives suck or because something bad happens. So they trick themselves into believing they are depressed and off they go to Doctor Nick who has them gorging on Xanax before lunchtime that day.
Yep. Happens with the over-diagnosing of ADD too I'm sure.
QuoteThe easier life gets the more we multiply
I dunno about that. How many of us are playing Warcraft instead of rasing or bettering our families?
It's statistically proven the worse things are the less people farg for babies.
Look at Russia over the past 25 years. They are PAYING people to have babies and even have a national farg day that you get off work for.
Australia's had a ten-year drought. They're also paying people to have babies.
BTW xanax is for anxiety and is the most abused drug (you can't abuse pot) in America.
You can take away the direct marketing all you want, most of these drugs will still keep selling like crazy and being abused like crazy without a bump. Its part of our culture now, people think they NEED pills.
(xanax is a wonderful wonderful drug btw)
xanax is what im told i need to take if i am going to get over my fear of flying
xanax sucks
crush up some ecstasy and snort it
ectasy you are guaranteed to have problems with your moods and behavior and there is some evidence it damages your central nervous system. i've seen what it does to people when their off it after they are used to it and it's not good.
xanax can also kill you if you drink grape juice which i think is hilarious.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 18, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
xanax is what im told i need to take if i am going to get over my fear of flying
nah, you don't need any of that crap. just stop at the airport bar on your way to the gate. order your favorite fruity drink and then ask them to quadruple the booze in it. you'll be flying before anyone else on the plane. or you'll be asleep. either way, you won't give a farg.
Quote from: reese125 on September 18, 2009, 05:19:27 PM
xanax sucks
crush up some ecstasy and snort it
Special K dook.
I lurve Xanie bars, used to have someone that had a connect. We'd roll down to UD with 200 pills, sell 2mg bars for 10 bucks a pop, and get farged up, and farg some sloots. Odd thing about xanax, when it take it, the next day i wake up with hiccups, and they stay around all day.
B.A. Baracus, my co worker now has to take it to fly, and once it sets in, he loves flying
christ I was only kidding...but it looks like we got some baseheads up in here
i draw the line at what the CIA distributes
Quote from: ATV on September 18, 2009, 04:56:28 PM
QuoteThe easier life gets the more we multiply
I dunno about that. How many of us are playing Warcraft instead of rasing or bettering our families?
Yeah as others have said, its a proven fact so please go away.
SB, you sound like half the people I know jesus christ :-D
Quote from: Diomedes on September 18, 2009, 08:31:00 AM
Also, I want the plan to include a sin tax on soda. 1 cent per ounce would be a good target. The stuff has absolutely no nutritional value. Mountains of science show how harmful it is, especially to children. If we're gonna have sin tax on tobacco, booze, etc., then lets not stop with the adults.
Some will argue this tax would disproportionately affect the poor. So what, I say. No one is forcing them to drink soda.
Some would argue it's a government intrustion on the marketplace. Bullshtein, I say. A tax becomes a fact in the marketplace, and any good company will adapt to the change. That's what they do.
Some will say we can't count on revenue from sin tax because as consumption decreases, so do reveues. Fine, I say. Don't fund shtein solely based on sin taxes; use them as supplementary revenue.
Why sodas and not trans-fats? Because they are distinct. They can be targeted precisely without much trouble. They do only harm.
And while we're at it, we ought to stop subsidizing companies and farms that produce high fructose corn syrup.
It's a huge problem in the Appalachian region of the country. I watched a special on ABC a few months ago about that region and how kids are only drinking Mountain Dew because the soda companies are pumping it into the schools there. It's what they drink for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Not only, do they have the health problems, but their teeth are disgusting. Besides the fact that the live in the poorest region in the country, they end up depressed even more because they can't even smile.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
As I mentioned earlier in this post, I think direct marketing is the single most destructive thing we as an industry has ever done (to ourselves; we lobbied like hell for this). I believe this had a major role in the Vioxx deaths. Vioxx was approved for RA and OA in extreme cases, but was then marketed to anyone with sore joints ad nauseum on TV, mags, etc. Celebrex too. If used as intended, the body count certainly would have been lower. But, you know, Merck would have had less profit, so...
Pharma is a business, a very risk oriented business, but maximizing profits at patient's expense is bad economics in my opinion.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 18, 2009, 10:34:33 AM
Doctors absolutely still get HUGE kickbacks. Some even admit to it to their patients.
And ESPECIALLY for vaccinations. :puke
Not from Pharma, not anymore. We have been sued into oblivion by the gov't on numerous occasions, and I'm pretty confident my company at least doesn't pull this shtein. Christ knows I take enough classes about it, and I don't even deal with physicians.
Quote from: jihadist monk on September 18, 2009, 05:23:25 PM
ectasy you are guaranteed to have problems with your moods and behavior and there is some evidence it damages your central nervous system. i've seen what it does to people when their off it after they are used to it and it's not good.
xanax can also kill you if you drink grape juice which i think is hilarious.
What the farg are you talking about? Maybe,
maybe, grapefruit juice (let me go check), but not grape juice.
Dont' get your medical information from the National Enquirer, I hear it's not very reliable.
EDIT: OK, grapefruit juice can prevent the metabolism of alprazolam (Xanax), which could very well be lethal. Bravo, except for it not being grape juice.
http://medicine.iupui.edu/clinpharm/DDIs/table.asp
That settles it, I'm never eating grape jelly again.
What about grape flavored KY?
i heard when you take opiates to drink grapefruits, thats what the dopeheads say to do, guess MMH explained why.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 18, 2009, 07:25:17 PM
What about grape flavored KY?
One teaspoon every morning and I'll live to 100.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on September 18, 2009, 05:52:12 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 18, 2009, 05:05:22 PM
xanax is what im told i need to take if i am going to get over my fear of flying
nah, you don't need any of that crap. just stop at the airport bar on your way to the gate. order your favorite fruity drink and then ask them to quadruple the booze in it. you'll be flying before anyone else on the plane. or you'll be asleep. either way, you won't give a farg.
already tried that...last time i flew i drank a bottle of rum on the way to the airport and sobered up the minute i got on the plane
thats why you drink at the airport bar dook. and then fly first class so you can score more booze on the plane.
i drank a fifth of liquor in less than an hour...i dont think drinking at the bar would have made a difference and i was to scared to drink on the plane
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 06:58:00 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 18, 2009, 10:34:33 AM
Doctors absolutely still get HUGE kickbacks. Some even admit to it to their patients.
And ESPECIALLY for vaccinations. :puke
Not from Pharma, not anymore. We have been sued into oblivion by the gov't on numerous occasions, and I'm pretty confident my company at least doesn't pull this shtein. Christ knows I take enough classes about it, and I don't even deal with physicians.
Then who is giving the kickbacks on the vaxes?
We were fired/left our previous pediatrician because I refused to play "catch up" with a vaccine that made our daughter really sick when she was 2 months old. When she was 3, they basically told us to catch her up, or we won't see her or your son. They told us that the 104+ fever she had for 3 days as an 8 week old (along with other reactionary things) was not only coincidence, but that even IF it was a vax reaction, they'd rather her have that than not to get the vax and risk catching XXXX disease....
even from their own waiting room.
When I asked how, if all of the other kids are vaccinated, would she catch it...they told me...well, the vaccines aren't 100%. Great sales job, douche.
After her 2 month reaction, I did a shteinload of research and put her on a delayed schedule and refused some of them. To try to sell me on this was ridiculous to begin with, considering they know I did all of my research. And then to try to push them on her? Ugh.
I don't believe for a second that they don't get kickbacks. They get them from the formula companies for pushing formula feeding instead of breastfeeding....they do the same for vaccines.
My advice to parents is always...do the research, don't blindly follow what the CDC and your pediatrician says. If you have a question or concern, don't just give the vaccine. You can wait while you read up on it.
You can always give it later...but once you give it, you cannot take it back.ETA: the WORST part was when the doctor told me that he was sick of these parents that come in after watching Oprah and Jenny McCarthy and say they don't want to vax. I just about lost it. After reading 3 books and COUNTLESS websites, I told him where he could stuff his next vaccine.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
As I mentioned earlier in this post, I think direct marketing is the single most destructive thing we as an industry has ever done (to ourselves; we lobbied like hell for this). I believe this had a major role in the Vioxx deaths. Vioxx was approved for RA and OA in extreme cases, but was then marketed to anyone with sore joints ad nauseum on TV, mags, etc. Celebrex too. If used as intended, the body count certainly would have been lower. But, you know, Merck would have had less profit, so...
Pharma is a business, a very risk oriented business, but maximizing profits at patient's expense is bad economics in my opinion.
Cool, thanks for checking in.
One other thing...I don't recall the name of this drug (Procrit, I think), but prior to my grandfather dying, they were giving him shots of this and the price tag was something like 10K per dose.
How is that possible?
I don't see a single piece of evidence in that entire rant that the doctor was receiving a kickback. None. Was he a jerk? Hell yes. I got two kids of my own, neither one reacted as badly as yours to a vaccine, but I know it's a risk.
Being honest with you about how it's not 100% doesn't make the guy a douche. Trying to force the parents to do something does.
As for the Oprah thing, I have to agree. Too many crackpots out there saying autism is caused by vaccines, when there is insurmountable evidence to the contrary. While the guy sounds like a typical icehole, arrogant MD, I can understand his frustration.
You need to remember (and I've taught classes to MDs), they are taught to think in algorithms, which is to say not think. Every problem is approached in a binary fashion. Try A, if B then C, if D then E. They're robotic idiots, just like they're trained to be.
I wonder what Dr. House thinks about health care reform.
Quote from: Munson on September 18, 2009, 08:56:46 PM
I wonder what Dr. House thinks about health care reform.
im more concerned with what the docs on grey's anatomy think.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 18, 2009, 08:50:19 PM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
As I mentioned earlier in this post, I think direct marketing is the single most destructive thing we as an industry has ever done (to ourselves; we lobbied like hell for this). I believe this had a major role in the Vioxx deaths. Vioxx was approved for RA and OA in extreme cases, but was then marketed to anyone with sore joints ad nauseum on TV, mags, etc. Celebrex too. If used as intended, the body count certainly would have been lower. But, you know, Merck would have had less profit, so...
Pharma is a business, a very risk oriented business, but maximizing profits at patient's expense is bad economics in my opinion.
Cool, thanks for checking in.
One other thing...I don't recall the name of this drug (Procrit, I think), but prior to my grandfather dying, they were giving him shots of this and the price tag was something like 10K per dose.
How is that possible?
Also in the same earlier post, I was in a meeting where a director was asked how the price of drugs was determined. He said, whatever people will pay. This is not a good answer.
As I said, Pharma is a business, and needs to make a reasonable profit. New compounds are patented long before they reach market, limiting exclusivity by the time they reach market. And they're expensive as hell to develop. To get a cancer drug on the market, one of the speediest paths to approval, costs approximately 500-700 MM. Drugs for, say, diabetes or arthritis don't get fast-tracked (adequate compounds are already available), and they require a much longer time to monitor efficacy. These cost over $1 billion to get to market.
Add to that, we aren't very good at predicting efficacy/safety, so only about 10% of all drugs make it from discovery to market. Many die in late stage clinical trials, after 100s of millions has been spent. The ones that make it need to pay for all that, and they usually only have 5-7 years of exclusivity by the time they make it to market, which again drives up the price.
Procrit is a biologic for anemia. That means we can't make it from scratch, but need to harvest it from other biologic organisms such as yeast or plants. That's very expensive, and purification isn't trivial. Additionally, Procrit in particular is a derivative, so after it's purified it's modified. That being said, 10K an injection is probably inflated for the reasons above.
I think the key is to partner with the gov't. Gov't allow drug patents to be longer, say 20-25 years instead of 15. Pharma agrees to maintain profit margins, meaning they make the same profit during exclusivity as if the patent were shorter. This lowers consumer prices. If Pharma decides to be bitchy about it, use price fixing as leverage. Pharma can't be run like a hedge fund, and unfortunately right now it kinda is.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 08:54:07 PM
I don't see a single piece of evidence in that entire rant that the doctor was receiving a kickback. None. Was he a jerk? Hell yes. I got two kids of my own, neither one reacted as badly as yours to a vaccine, but I know it's a risk.
Being honest with you about how it's not 100% doesn't make the guy a douche. Trying to force the parents to do something does.
As for the Oprah thing, I have to agree. Too many crackpots out there saying autism is caused by vaccines, when there is insurmountable evidence to the contrary. While the guy sounds like a typical icehole, arrogant MD, I can understand his frustration.
You need to remember (and I've taught classes to MDs), they are taught to think in algorithms, which is to say not think. Every problem is approached in a binary fashion. Try A, if B then C, if D then E. They're robotic idiots, just like they're trained to be.
Oh, I wasn't saying I knew for sure that he does, but I DO know parents who have friends that are doctors and/or have been told by their doctors, that they get kickbacks. I come from a family of doctors. I know it still happens.
And I don't believe vaccines CAUSE autism. I do believe that children are predisposed to it and there are things in there that affect each child differently. For some, yes, they are the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak..and autism IS a direct end result. I know 2 mothers....in real life...who have had their children change (each has a boy) within 48 hours of receiving their MMR vaccines. From smiling and completely normal...to seizures and complete shut down in one and high fever and loss of speech, eye contact and incessant stomach issues in the other. The 2 parents don't know each other. I know them from different walks of life (one is an old camp friend...the other is an old high school friend). If I personally know 2...and lets say you know 2...and so and so knows 2....well, that's just too many.
There are just way, WAY too many children like this to turn a blind eye to the fact that vaccines DO cause damage in many children. And this evidence...not enough and not by the right people.
I just can't believe its all coincidence.
People need to quit going to doctors and accept their fate
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 09:03:37 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 18, 2009, 08:50:19 PM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 17, 2009, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2009, 07:37:04 PM
I'd like to see direct marketing to consumers by pharmaceutical companies banned outright.
I agree with this.
I'm curious to know how you feel, MMH.
I can't help but thinking that the direct marketing causes the weak minded to think they have these symptoms and to run to the doctor to be checked for whatever malady they think they have. The doc then prescribes this medication and gets kick back for doing so. Is that a fair assessment?
The commercials are downright annoying. I love how the happy actor recites the potential side effects at the end.
As I mentioned earlier in this post, I think direct marketing is the single most destructive thing we as an industry has ever done (to ourselves; we lobbied like hell for this). I believe this had a major role in the Vioxx deaths. Vioxx was approved for RA and OA in extreme cases, but was then marketed to anyone with sore joints ad nauseum on TV, mags, etc. Celebrex too. If used as intended, the body count certainly would have been lower. But, you know, Merck would have had less profit, so...
Pharma is a business, a very risk oriented business, but maximizing profits at patient's expense is bad economics in my opinion.
Cool, thanks for checking in.
One other thing...I don't recall the name of this drug (Procrit, I think), but prior to my grandfather dying, they were giving him shots of this and the price tag was something like 10K per dose.
How is that possible?
Also in the same earlier post, I was in a meeting where a director was asked how the price of drugs was determined. He said, whatever people will pay. This is not a good answer.
As I said, Pharma is a business, and needs to make a reasonable profit. New compounds are patented long before they reach market, limiting exclusivity by the time they reach market. And they're expensive as hell to develop. To get a cancer drug on the market, one of the speediest paths to approval, costs approximately 500-700 MM. Drugs for, say, diabetes or arthritis don't get fast-tracked (adequate compounds are already available), and they require a much longer time to monitor efficacy. These cost over $1 billion to get to market.
Add to that, we aren't very good at predicting efficacy/safety, so only about 10% of all drugs make it from discovery to market. Many die in late stage clinical trials, after 100s of millions has been spent. The ones that make it need to pay for all that, and they usually only have 5-7 years of exclusivity by the time they make it to market, which again drives up the price.
Procrit is a biologic for anemia. That means we can't make it from scratch, but need to harvest it from other biologic organisms such as yeast or plants. That's very expensive, and purification isn't trivial. Additionally, Procrit in particular is a derivative, so after it's purified it's modified. That being said, 10K an injection is probably inflated for the reasons above.
I think the key is to partner with the gov't. Gov't allow drug patents to be longer, say 20-25 years instead of 15. Pharma agrees to maintain profit margins, meaning they make the same profit during exclusivity as if the patent were shorter. This lowers consumer prices. If Pharma decides to be bitchy about it, use price fixing as leverage. Pharma can't be run like a hedge fund, and unfortunately right now it kinda is.
Great stuff, thanks for sharing. It makes sense and I can see how a company would want to recoup their losses in previous projects; but the 10K just struck me as holding a patient hostage. If he hadn't had adequate coverage, would that have even been approved for him to take? Or better yet, what if he couldn't afford it? That situation is one reason why I think health care and insurance need's fixing.
So if Pharma did partner up with Uncle Sam and extend the patents, how would that affect the folks who make the generic drugs? Would they (could they?) lobby capitol hill to stop it? Do they carry enough weight to do that?
They would, and they do. And generics clearly bring the price of drugs down, which is a good thing.
But here's the problem. Back in the 90s, Africa decided AIDS drugs were too expensive (they were) and went to India or Singapore or the like and had them ignore the patents and make the drugs. Naturally, Merck, Glaxo, etc. sued, with the backing of the American and European govt's. The AIDS activists went ballistic and brought the wrath of god down, and Pharma backed off, saying they'd make the drugs available cheaper for underdeveloped countries (they made the pill a different color, so it could be distinguished and not sold in the developed world).
Then they all quietly shut down their anti-viral research programs. Now noone in big pharma is doing research into AIDS. No one. Interestingly, you'll remember that anthrax attack right after 9-11? Well, at the time, the only drug that was approved for anthrax was Cipro, still under patent to Bayer. The gov't went to Bayer, and said they need enough series of Cipro to treat everyone in America, and offered a very low ball price. Bayer said no, and the gov't threatened to break their US patent. Africa waved HI!
Fallout? All big pharma quietly shut down their anti-biotic research programs. Go to Estonia, over 70% of tuberculosis cases are incurable with the 4 drug combination typically used to treat that disease. And it's spreading, as is MRSA. Soon, you'll either get better, or you won't. Pharma is a high risk business with unbelievable overhead. Profitability must be maintained, or they'll do something else, which is not good for an over-populated world.
It seems to me that not getting xyz vaccine is almost universally stupid especially when your doctor suggests it, but whatever.
Quote from: jihadist monk on September 18, 2009, 09:22:28 PM
It seems to me that not getting xyz vaccine is almost universally stupid especially when your doctor suggests it, but whatever.
Seems to me that everyone on this board is right.
You're an idiot.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 09:19:37 PM
They would, and they do. And generics clearly bring the price of drugs down, which is a good thing.
But here's the problem. Back in the 90s, Africa decided AIDS drugs were too expensive (they were) and went to India or Singapore or the like and had them ignore the patents and make the drugs. Naturally, Merck, Glaxo, etc. sued, with the backing of the American and European govt's. The AIDS activists went ballistic and brought the wrath of god down, and Pharma backed off, saying they'd make the drugs available cheaper for underdeveloped countries (they made the pill a different color, so it could be distinguished and not sold in the developed world).
Then they all quietly shut down their anti-viral research programs. Now noone in big pharma is doing research into AIDS. No one. Interestingly, you'll remember that anthrax attack right after 9-11? Well, at the time, the only drug that was approved for anthrax was Cipro, still under patent to Bayer. The gov't went to Bayer, and said they need enough series of Cipro to treat everyone in America, and offered a very low ball price. Bayer said no, and the gov't threatened to break their US patent. Africa waved HI!
Fallout? All big pharma quietly shut down their anti-biotic research programs. Go to Estonia, over 70% of tuberculosis cases are incurable with the 4 drug combination typically used to treat that disease. And it's spreading, as is MRSA. Soon, you'll either get better, or you won't. Pharma is a high risk business with unbelievable overhead. Profitability must be maintained, or they'll do something else, which is not good for an over-populated world.
Damn! Interesting stuff. So all AIDS research is done by private funding? Is there no recourse to them refusing to develop and research these diseases?
I understand its a business, but where does the "good of the people" come into play? How does the gov't allow this to happen?
It's not like this is a car dealership or retail sales, it's literally life and death business.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 18, 2009, 09:25:22 PM
I understand its a business, but where does the "good of the people" come into play? How does the gov't allow this to happen?
This, more than anything, might be the question of our time.
Also, is this an actual adult conversation going on? I might cry. Or forget about it entirely.
MMH, what are your thoughts on the rushed to market H1N1 vaccine being "tested" out on pregnant women right now?
The gov't can't mandate Pharma work on everything. Maybe offering tax breaks would help, but it's still just not profitable enough, and the 3rd world nations will still not want to pay.
And I think you misunderstand. While the AIDS virus is being researched in academe, NO ONE is trying to make the next generation therapeutic. I think there's a biotech out there claiming they have a potential vaccine, but....
Unfortunately or otherwise, the "good of the people" doesn't come into play. And it's definitely life or death (and damn soon, I'll warrant). A researcher (can't remember who) put MRSA with another bacteria strain on the same agar plate. Within 2 days, the second strain was also methycillin resistant. He was so terrified he just bleached the whole plate. HIV is a retrovirus just like the common influenza virus. DNA splicing is hardly an accurate process, and it isn't inconceivable the two could mix in a patient leading to an airborne HIV virus. Fun stuff.
Bottom line: developing drugs is expensive. The gov't sure as hell isn't going to do it. Just don't make it un-profitable and we will. The people I interact with every day (i.e. not senior management) do this because it's cool to make drugs which help people, not to make a profit for Pharma. But without the latter, we aren't allowed to do the former.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 18, 2009, 09:32:15 PM
MMH, what are your thoughts on the rushed to market H1N1 vaccine being "tested" out on pregnant women right now?
I think it's a necessary evil. The data out of Mexico, and the Southern Hemisphere, clearly demonstrates pregnant women are at increased risk of complications and death from H1N1. And, unfortunately, we have no other way of determining whether the vaccine is safe to a fetus.
EDIT: Oh, and I should mention, this is hardly mandatory. Every mother in this trial volunteers and (hopefully) signs an extensive and clear form explaining the potential risks, not the least of which is death of the fetus.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 09:36:14 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 18, 2009, 09:32:15 PM
MMH, what are your thoughts on the rushed to market H1N1 vaccine being "tested" out on pregnant women right now?
I think it's a necessary evil. The data out of Mexico, and the Southern Hemisphere, clearly demonstrates pregnant women are at increased risk of complications and death from H1N1. And, unfortunately, we have no other way of determining whether the vaccine is safe to a fetus.
EDIT: Oh, and I should mention, this is hardly mandatory. Every mother in this trial volunteers and (hopefully) signs an extensive and clear form explaining the potential risks, not the least of which is death of the fetus.
I can't even imagine signing up for that. Who the farg would ever do that?
The poor and uninformed.
Quote from: hbionic on September 18, 2009, 09:45:46 PM
The poor and uninformed.
They have to tell you that there is risk to the fetus. They cant be THAT uninformed.
Nothin'll happen to my baby.
It's risk-reward, right? If you get H1N1, you are at higher risk of dying (and thereby killing your fetus). If you enter the trial, you have the potential of getting the vaccine, and protecting yourself and the baby, months before anyone else.
But you're probably right, they're going to have a hard time filling that trial.
I see no reward in it.
I'd rather get the flu, thanks.
There are people out there who are willing to take a risk in order to help others.
Firemen, cops, pregnant women who volunteer for H1N1 testing, etc.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on September 18, 2009, 10:13:00 PM
I see no reward in it.
I'd rather get the flu, thanks.
you're looking at it on an individual level (which is fine). for
you specifically the risk (dead baby, live parent) doesn't outweigh the potential reward (live baby, live parent).
however, there is a greater reward when prego chicks volunteer for the testing, even if the individual results don't have a positive outcome. in other words, for every fetus that dies after momma takes the shot, crazy mad scientists can disect it and try and find out why the fetus died and what to do to make the shot safer for everyone including the unborn.
looking at the big picture, success is always achieved through failure. can't say i blame anyone for not wanting to risk it though.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on September 18, 2009, 09:34:28 PM
The gov't can't mandate Pharma work on everything. Maybe offering tax breaks would help, but it's still just not profitable enough, and the 3rd world nations will still not want to pay.
And I think you misunderstand. While the AIDS virus is being researched in academe, NO ONE is trying to make the next generation therapeutic. I think there's a biotech out there claiming they have a potential vaccine, but....
Unfortunately or otherwise, the "good of the people" doesn't come into play. And it's definitely life or death (and damn soon, I'll warrant). A researcher (can't remember who) put MRSA with another bacteria strain on the same agar plate. Within 2 days, the second strain was also methycillin resistant. He was so terrified he just bleached the whole plate. HIV is a retrovirus just like the common influenza virus. DNA splicing is hardly an accurate process, and it isn't inconceivable the two could mix in a patient leading to an airborne HIV virus. Fun stuff.
Bottom line: developing drugs is expensive. The gov't sure as hell isn't going to do it. Just don't make it un-profitable and we will. The people I interact with every day (i.e. not senior management) do this because it's cool to make drugs which help people, not to make a profit for Pharma. But without the latter, we aren't allowed to do the former.
I know MRSA is some serious shtein. Back when I worked in the prisons, we were all on high alert for this. Several inmates contracted it and they were in pretty bad shape. That was 6 years ago, so I can only imagine how much worse it is now.
I think the government should be involved some how. Perhaps tax breaks like you said. Or maybe the can somehow strengthen the oversight as far as regulating things?
What would stop the government from hiring away Pharma's top people, researchers and biologists and whatnot, and producing their own studies and production?
Quote from: rjs246 on September 18, 2009, 09:28:29 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on September 18, 2009, 09:25:22 PM
I understand its a business, but where does the "good of the people" come into play? How does the gov't allow this to happen?
This, more than anything, might be the question of our time.
Also, is this an actual adult conversation going on? I might cry. Or forget about it entirely.
Shocking, I know. Even though I sucked at biology and chemistry, I find this fascinating.
If the pharmaceutical companies develop a drug that cures cancer and they know it works, but they place an outrageous price tag on it - how can that be overlooked? How could the suits refuse to market it reasonably because they feel they wouldn't be making enough cash?
the problem with diseases like cancer and aids is that if you (a) find a cure, and (b) make it easily accessable and affordable, then (c) you have no more sick people to make money from.
pharmaceutical companies only make money when people are sick. they've pushed so much faulty propaganda out there with add, depression, etc, etc that people today basically think that if there isn't something wrong with them, then there must be something wrong with them. i really think that (perhaps to a minor extent) that these companies are basically making normal, healthy people think that they've got this, that and the other thing so they can get everyone all hopped up on pills.
any ad for a depression pill is like going to a fortune teller......they ask closed questions that apply to damn near everyone.
do you have trouble sleeping? are you eating too much/too little? do you lack energy?
those very well may be signs of depression, but they damn sure aren't the only symptoms. depending on what day it is, i might answer yes to all 3. i know for damn sure i'm not depressed.
i'm just glad i'm not dumb enough to fall for most of this crap and spend half of my paycheck to try and feel better about myself.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. There are several diseases out there where Pharma has essentially maximized benefit. Type II diabetes, for instance, is treated with Glucophage. Hard to work better than that.
ADD isn't driven by Pharma, IMO. That's driven by teachers burdened with 30-35 8 year olds in a 2nd grade class, just trying to maintain enough order in the classroom to get reasonable standardized test scores. Depression, on the other hand......
And while there is an effort to maximize profits, IMO to much of an effort, you have to balance price so that the majority of people can afford it, or you don't make any money. It's not like Pharma exists outside of market forces.
Plus, most Pharma companies have banded together and offer drugs free of charge to the poor. This was, of course, to prevent Canadian importation, but has been more successful than gov't sponsored Canadian imports.
As to the gov't hiring people away.....salary comes to mind. Plus the NIH isn't exactly efficient.
I'm scared of trying new vaccines, mostly because of a "I Am Legend" scenerio, i want to be a zombie killer not a zombie
They were more vampire than zombie, no? And utterly unwatchable to boot. I hear the book was good, though.
The book is great, if you're a big fan of the 1950s.
A few days after Fox "News" places an ad in newspapers wrongly claiming other networks didn't cover the angry white people rally in DC, we now have footage of one of their Fair and Balanced producers rallying this crowd...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html
campbell brown took fox behind the woodshed on thursday night over their idiotic lie
Dick Armey, the founder of FreedomWorks which is the outfit that has organized and funded all of the angry white people rallies, hates government health insurance so much that he's fighting to keep his own...
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/not-ready-yet-bill-moyers-exposes-dic
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 20, 2009, 04:10:29 AM
campbell brown took fox behind the woodshed on thursday night over their idiotic lie
link?
George W Bush's speechwriter says that Obama is Boorish...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/9993/31416
you sure he didn't say moorish?
Quote from: ATV on September 21, 2009, 01:12:45 AM
Dick Armey, the founder of FreedomWorks which is the outfit that has organized and funded all of the angry white people rallies, hates government health insurance so much that he's fighting to keep his own...
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/not-ready-yet-bill-moyers-exposes-dic
Seriously can't question foxnews when you post the most ridiculous articles from crooksandliars and huffington post.
The only issue with the town halls was when your buddies started sending union thugs to beat people up.
union thugs, lol
Bill Moyers segment. Of course it wouldn't matter if this Bill Moyers segment was featured in a Fox "News" website, you'd still find some way to blame the messenger or change the message.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 21, 2009, 08:04:10 PM
union thugs, lol
Most not have heard about the guy who got beat up while selling flag pins and such, by union thugs...
Hilarious!
Nope. I guess we should have been watching Fox.
Quote from: ATV on September 21, 2009, 09:57:10 PM
Nope. I guess we should have been watching Fox.
Haha... that's so convenient of you. You being the king of youtube clips should try checking it out...
Union thugs.. Chicago politics at its best.
Still no credible link. Or link even.
I heard that Mitch McConnell was caught giving a blowjob to Glenn Beck. True story.
Ooh, ooh...the scary unions.
I'm watching barry talk to dave and I'm posting this on my blackberry. Time to end it. I deserve to die.
Sure, unions are scary but they're not as scary as ACORN, the inner city black radical group that the government is now trying to underhandidly help fund and provide arms to so that they can help Obama complete his socialist overthrow of our gubermant.
Quote from: ATV on September 22, 2009, 12:35:52 AM
Sure, unions are scary but they're not as scary as ACORN, the inner city black radical group that the government is now trying to underhandidly help fund and provide arms to so that they can help Obama complete his socialist overthrow of our gubermant.
at least you're admitting it
Quote from: ATV on September 21, 2009, 11:24:45 PM
Still no credible link. Or link even.
I heard that Mitch McConnell was caught giving a blowjob to Glenn Beck. True story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w
Quote from: rjs246 on September 22, 2009, 11:41:50 AM
Civility from the right. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103173_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
See. Was that so hard?
I'll move the conversation over to here.
RJS, I think it's an important step it getting a bill hashed out that both sides will like.
I'm pretty sure that Republican was the one who gave the rebuttal to Obama's speech before congress... correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, the two senators running against Spector, Toomey in the general election, and the Democrat opposing him in the primary, had a forum a few weeks back that was civil and avoided the arguments and tensions associated with other debates.
Was that video supposed to prove something?
Quote from: ATV on September 22, 2009, 09:24:24 PM
Was that video supposed to prove something?
Yes.. prove you wrong again.
How did that video prove a thing?
Quote from: ATV on September 22, 2009, 09:40:51 PM
How did that video prove a thing?
You asked for the video of the two union idiots beating up the guy at the town hall. I posted it. The end.
I saw what looked like the end of some conflict with guys yelling at eachother. That's about all that can be fairly gathered from watching that. You say that they were meany union guys beating up on some poor innocent flag bearer? If you were to share a Fox "News" or New York Post article about what happened then trust me I'd feel a whole lot more confident about your interpretation.
I'm pretty confident that union tough guys are scary. The unions being so strong and all.
HIV vaccine works, sort of (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/24/hiv.vaccine/index.html)
This is a really big deal. Most people in the field thought this was impossible, so 31% success rate is impressive.
i can't wait to get my shot because there's some hot bitches out there with aids and i'd love to farg them and then laugh because they're going to die and i'm not.
(http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/09/CBS%20NY%20Times%20poll%2065%25_2a387.jpg)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html
you do know that the NYTimes is a mouthpiece for the communists, right? they support NAMBLA too
Of course, you know that poll is horribly controlled, and probably inaccurate.
They show no stats, because there is no way to produce stats (for the knuckleheads in the crowd, i.e. Bowzer and ATV). 1,000 people is hardly a cross-section of the population. The polls on the CNN website are probably more accurate.
ATV spends all day browsing and them comes here to post all the links that he likes and thinks will enlighten us. Lucky us.
better him than me
rusty does the same, but he posts interminably wonkish articles with no pictures
Quote from: Diomedes on September 26, 2009, 07:49:59 PM
better him than me
rusty does the same, but he posts interminably wonkish articles with no pictures
Had to look that one up.
Wonks
Quotestupid, boring, or unattractive
QuoteATV spends all day browsing and them comes here to post all the links that he likes and thinks will enlighten us.
Yea, pretty much.
"Wonkishness" refers to the nitty gritty technical details and policy behind the politics we see. Dio is spot on. The articles I post will educate, and bore, the shtein out of your puny brains.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 27, 2009, 11:52:56 AM
"Wonkishness" refers to the nitty gritty technical details and policy behind the politics we see. Dio is spot on. The articles I post will educate, and bore, the shtein out of your puny brains.
Phu...
my friend is convinced that national healthcare opens the door for governmental prejudice against the fatties and eventually a fatty holocaust.
Its a big problem.
does your friend support cigarette taxes? bans on smoking? etc?
if so, tell her to stfu fatty
Fatty Holocaust sounds like a goddamned good time.
We're all sweaty, wheezy zombies anyway.
Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.
Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.
Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.
I'm shocked!
only white americans have to show ID
everyone else to the front of the line!
Its funny because the democrats soft stance on this shtein makes them virtual locks to have control of the government for about 30 years.
Every election they get a higher % of the hispanic vote.
My professor was talking about it and given the trends the Republicans are going to need like 65-80% of the white vote in the next election to have a chance for the presidency. bahahah
that's farging rediculous. hispanics can vote?
Bowzer is gloating over the result of the nearly meaningless finace committee's vote, the result of which was forseen about two months ago.
Now THAT's surprising.
Quote from: ATV on October 01, 2009, 01:56:59 AM
Bowzer is gloating over the result of the nearly meaningless finace committee's vote, the result of which was forseen about two months ago.
Now THAT's surprising.
No.. I'm rooting for the most liberal democrats like Pelosi to push for universal coverage. If such a bill was passed and signed by Obama, he'd be out in 3.
if it takes Obama going only one term to get health care for all Americans, that's fine with me
A bill with a public option is the only sort that can pass. Thus one way or the other it will pass.
Quote from: ATV on October 02, 2009, 12:54:57 AM
A bill with a public option is the only sort that can pass. Thus one way or the other it will pass.
Bet on it?
Quote from: bowzer on October 02, 2009, 06:59:49 AM
Quote from: ATV on October 02, 2009, 12:54:57 AM
A bill with a public option is the only sort that can pass. Thus one way or the other it will pass.
Bet on it?
There are people who think it's a given' that a bill will pass. They look at the news and percieve it as they choose too, not as it actually is. They live in their own world.
It will take a lot of compromise to get a bill passed, so it's going to take a lot more time. This isn't happening this year or next, and Obama will be lucky if it happens in his term.
Everyone get your heads out of your asses. (http://www.dividedwefail.org)
QuoteBet on it?
Of course not. If I wanted to bet on it with someone reputable I could goto Intrade or someplace. Write it down, though.
Quote from: ATV on October 04, 2009, 12:40:59 PM
QuoteBet on it?
Of course not. If I wanted to bet on it with someone reputable I could goto Intrade or someplace. Write it down, though.
CF has a quote button. Find it. Learn it. Use it.
atv is the new igy
Baby denied health coverage in Colorado because he's too fat...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/alex-lange-denied-health_n_317337.html
Remeber when Bob Dole came out in support of the new health bill?...
The GOP's 1996 candidate for president said he was asked by current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., not to issue a bipartisan statement calling for passage of health care reform legislation.
"We're already hearing from some high-ranking Republicans that we shouldn't do that — that's helping the president," Dole said. He later specified that the people he referred to included one "very prominent Republican, who happens to be the Republican leader of the Senate," according to The Kansas City Star .Dole was also quoted as saying that partisanship by his own GOP was behind the delay in reaching agreement on a final health care bill..
From http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091010/COLUMNISTS20/910110326/1008/rss01
Fox Noise splices footage of a derelict Cuban hospital to dispute Michael Moore...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/10271/
Oh Canada
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=11145 (http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=11145)
Anyone without health care would take long waits and travel if it meant having health care....
Quote from: ATV on October 04, 2009, 12:40:59 PM
QuoteBet on it?
Of course not. If I wanted to bet on it with someone reputable I could goto Intrade or someplace. Write it down, though.
We don't need a monetary bet. Although I would do that. How about if you are wrong, you stay out of any political thread for 6 months. Same goes for me. Deal?
How about you both stay out of the political thread forever and save everyone the headaches?
Nope.
Nope.
Quote from: General_Failure on October 14, 2009, 12:07:37 AM
How about you both stay out of the political thread forever and save everyone the headaches?
I would agree to that if it got rid of ATV.
i'd prefer it if both of you died in a headon collision. Make that happen
the problem with the dems and this health care stuff is they cant even get a certain wing of their own party in line...its pathetic...what they should be doing is using their 60 votes and shoving the exact health care bill they want down the teabagging throats of the right wing nuts that want to run this country...but as usual they are weaker than seven days when it comes to this kind of stuff....its really embarrassing
bill maher a few weeks ago in what was maybe his best new rules ever summed it up perfectly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8iRF-0keFI
Can someone explain to me what exactly is being reformed with this Healthcare Reform bill after it got gutted by the Hoyda dems who didn't just man up and push it through the way it should be?
This is one of the reasons we're going to get a public option...
"If you are going to mandate that people must buy insurance, why would you throw them into the lion's den of the insurance industry without some leverage with a public option?" - Nancy Pelosi
Yes, now that the bill has left the realm of the overblown finance committee every day it's looking more and more likely it will pass by 50+ votes. I'm very much looking forward to dusting off my "FAIL"s for Bowzer, the insurance companies, and every Repubelican which votes against it (which will probably be all of them).
Quote from: ATV on October 17, 2009, 03:22:02 PM
This is one of the reasons we're going to get a public option...
"If you are going to mandate that people must buy insurance, why would you throw them into the lion's den of the insurance industry without some leverage with a public option?" - Nancy Pelosi
Yes, now that the bill has left the realm of the overblown finance committee every day it's looking more and more likely it will pass by 50+ votes. I'm very much looking forward to dusting off my "FAIL"s for Bowzer, the insurance companies, and every Repubelican which votes against it (which will probably be all of them).
Didn't you say the bill would be passed into law before the year end? Or even quicker?
There won't be a public option.
I don't recall ever arguing when it would be passed. At least I never intended to.
There will be a public option. Else there will be no bill. There must be a bill, therefore there will be a public option. I'm not sure where this logic breaks down for you. I assume that you assume a bill can pass without one. I don't think there are sixty votes or even fifty votes for a bill without one.
Quote from: ATV on October 17, 2009, 06:04:33 PM
I don't recall ever arguing when it would be passed. At least I never intended to.
There will be a public option. Else there will be no bill. There must be a bill, therefore there will be a public option. I'm not sure where this logic breaks down for you. I assume that you assume a bill can pass without one. I don't think there are sixty votes or even fifty votes for a bill without one.
Great logic... you should be a lawyer. Health care reform can be passed without a public option. The healthcare bill in its current form sucks.
Democrats from swing states in highly contested elections in 2010 aren't going to go for a public option bill as its political suicide.
You lose.. game over.. and if you are so confident on the public option why won't you bet on it. Whoever is wrong leaves the general board for 6 months.
Voting for something that about half the country supports isn't political suicide...
You're right - There are some Democrats in the Senate who aren't going to vote for a public option. Unfortunately for you there aren't more than 9 of them. Game over.
The only people who are against health care reform are the corksuckers who make mint off the sickness and suffering of others. They're the same douchebags who are spending billions organizing the ignorant sheep who you see protesting Obama.
Quote from: Munson on October 17, 2009, 07:52:11 PM
Voting for something that about half the country supports isn't political suicide...
Half? wow, since when.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html
nate silver is the shtein.
That's the first credible source I can ever remember you giving. your getting better.
its pretty much common knowledge support for a public option has always and still is in the 65% range
the problem is
1. the people who support it are sitting on their recliners at home and watching the teabaggers rage against it instead of getting out and making their side heard
2. the media has given an inordinate amount of coverage to the teabaggers to the point where people like bowzer think its actually the popular opinion
3. america is really dumb
...On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.) ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html?hpid=topnews
Quote from: ice grillin you on October 18, 2009, 10:03:12 AM
its pretty much common knowledge support for a public option has always and still is in the 65% range
the problem is
1. the people who support it are sitting on their recliners at home and watching the teabaggers rage against it instead of getting out and making their side heard
2. the media has given an inordinate amount of coverage to the teabaggers to the point where people like bowzer think its actually the popular opinion
3. america is really dumb
Sixty five percent???
Did you just pull that number out of your ass.
Oh yes.. you did.
Quote from: ATV on October 20, 2009, 01:55:59 AM
...On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.) ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html?hpid=topnews
Remember when I was bashed for posting a Washington Post poll.. saying it was skewed for the right.
farging hypocrites only using a poll when it back's up your bull shtein.
I think you forget this part of the article.
QuoteBut in a sign of the fragile coalition politics that influence the negotiations in Congress, Obama's approval ratings on health-care reform are slipping among his fellow Democrats even as they are solidifying among independents and seniors. Among Democrats, strong approval of his handling of the issue has dropped 15 percentage points since mid-September.
These numbers underscore the challenges ahead for the president and Democratic leaders in Congress as they attempt to maintain support among liberals and moderates in their own party while continuing to win over at least a few Republican lawmakers.
Overall, 45 percent of Americans favor the broad outlines of the proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent are opposed, about the same division that existed in August, at the height of angry town hall meetings over health-care reform. Seven in 10 Democrats back the plan, while almost nine in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents divide 52 percent against, 42 percent in favor of the legislation.
.
The rest of the article has little to do with the public option. Thus I didn't paste it. Regarding you posting a Washington Post poll and people bashing it because it was skewed for the Right, no who can remember. Maybe it was a Washington Times poll.
This is why Bowzer, despite the recent news, believes there won't be a public option...
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002293/
LOL.
I found this interesting and visually simplistic for the monkeys out there...
(http://www.pollster.com/blogs/2009-12-30_NGM-health-graphic.jpg)
wow.
what happened to my boy ATV
are you serious?
gayness
The single greatest thing that ever happened on this board.
short of someone spamming the board with porn banning anyone is wrong...i wouldnt even ban munson and i wish death on him
Applying moral guidelines to internet football message boards is a sign that you may need a new hobby.
perhaps porn
Are you saying there isn't enough porn here? Because I agree.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 31, 2009, 09:26:31 AM
Applying moral guidelines to internet football message boards is a sign that you may need a new hobby.
well when you spend nine hours of day on the internet it becomes an important hobby and this place is hurting for traffic as is
Quote from: rjs246 on December 31, 2009, 09:38:12 AM
Are you saying there isn't enough porn here? Because I agree.
Every day I go to the Asian porn section and come away disappointed, then have to settle for looking at Chuggie's avatar. Perhaps I should visit other sites too.
Quote from: ice grillin you on December 31, 2009, 09:50:46 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on December 31, 2009, 09:26:31 AM
Applying moral guidelines to internet football message boards is a sign that you may need a new hobby.
well when you spend nine hours of day on the internet it becomes an important hobby and this place is hurting for traffic as is
Seek help.
Krugman weighs in. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22krugman.html)
To summarize, Krugman suggests that the House just accept the Senate bill, bypassing the need for reconcilliation and a revote on the bill. The Senate Bill is decidedly more conservative than the House bill, which is why Pelosi is puffing up her feathers and jerking her cock and swearing up and down that the House Democrats won't vote for it. She's more interested in cowtowing to unions and inflating her own political influence than she is achieving reform.
My opinion:
There are two options. One, vote in the Senate bill, which is good, not great, but definitely better than nothing and definitely more conservative. Or, two, start from scratch and craft a bi-partisan bill which may not actually work given the obstructionist wall on the Right.
If Republicans had shown any inclination to work with the Dems on this, I would be be much more in favor of the second option. Since all they have done is huddle up and scream 'No' to everything, I think the first option is the only reasonable one. Plus it would deflate Pelosi and that would be farging outstanding.
Obama is making things worse on the Health Care front. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/22/the_fight_for_health_care_reform.html)
He's been losing the war to get the right message out on health care reform for months. Now his ambivilence is making progress less likely. Big misstep.