H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 06:43 am


The Sales-pitch

I don't think this pitch made it over the plate either...
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 06:48 am
@Yankee,
Idiot: some people (responsible too) DID have savings and got wiped out. Ever think of that possibility? Could it be that such people had their health suffer in such a way that monies became depleted or lost their homes. Ever hear of medications that cost more than $500 per month? How irresponsible of them to have picked an illness and a time (of economic upheaval) that wiped them out. Should we sterilize such people so they don't propagate?

WTF are you on? Think!...Feel! And then try to speak!
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 07:03 am
@Ragman,
Idiot?????

Well, trying to be reasonable may be difficult with you but let's give it a try.

In your stunning example, did this person have health insurance and was denied coverage?

Did they not have health insurance because they chose not to have it?

Were they unemployed and decided not to carry over their health insurance?

Each of the above would cause a different response.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 07:05 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

Idiot: some people (responsible too) DID have savings and got wiped out. Ever think of that possibility? Could it be that such people had their health suffer in such a way that monies became depleted or lost their homes. Ever hear of medications that cost more than $500 per month? How irresponsible of them to have picked an illness and a time (of economic upheaval) that wiped them out. Should we sterilize such people so they don't propagate?

WTF are you on? Think!...Feel! And then try to speak!


Okay, it is true that crushing medical costs can in fact ruin people financially. So can a lawsuit or a burnout after you let your home insurance lapse or your financial broker cheating you out of your investment.

But the real issue is, should your government make you responsible to restore me to financial solvency no matter what the circumstances? If not, then why are medical costs any different? Why should I be legally responsible for yours? Or you for mine?

Certainly there are plenty of ways that government can help. Make insurance portable. Let insurance companies offer pick and choose plans as automobile and home insurance policies do instead of requiring medical insurance to over everything. Tighten regulations to make it more difficult for insurance companies to drop you if you get something awful. Do tort reform so that more physicians can afford the malpractice insurance to do general practice, something that is a disappearing medical profession. Let insurance companies form assigned risk pools for the 'hard to insure' cases like they do for liability insurance.

We already make it illegal to deny people emergency healthcare. It isn't like we are allowing people to die on the hospital front steps.

But given the government's abysmal track record in cost control, efficiency, and effectiveness in running anything, do you honestly trust it to take care of you and your family better than you can do that for yourself?
Yankee
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 07:38 am
From last evenings "press" conference...

""Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."

What a stupid example, as if this is the norm.
0 Replies
 
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 07:39 am
Quote:
The president’s remarks on his chosen subject, health care, were cautious and choreographed, hemmed in on one side by the calculations of his professional wordsmiths, on the other by the delicacy of negotiations with two houses of Congress.

He never detailed his own plan, or named a single victim of America’s broken system, and he spoke largely in the abstractions of blue pills, red pills, and legislative processes. It’s not easy to turn delivery system reform into a rallying cry for change, but at times, it was as if Obama wasn’t even trying.

His dryness was all the more striking by contrast with the press conference’s conclusion, when he suddenly re-engaged with a question that he’s spent much of his life mulling, race, in the form of the arrest of a black Harvard professor.

The appearance was striking by its absence of a move that’s long characterized Obama’s political career: When in trouble, go big. Faced with a crisis of confidence or with a political furor, he’s repeatedly shown an ability to rise above the storm, and to broaden the playing field, as when he turned a flap over his pastor into a meditation on race in America.

Now, facing his hardest test as President, Obama chose to go small.

In the bulk of the news conference, the president marched through a series of parries and recalibrations in his effort to steer a change in America’s health insurance system to passage this year. His goals were transparent, and defensive: He sought to reframe his plans as a matter of improving the lives of most Americans, not just rescuing the uninsured, and to remind voters that he’s trying to avert a health care crisis, not to provoke one.

And after a campaign that culminated with his call for “a new spirit of sacrifice,” Obama was at pains to claim that the only sacrifices would be unneeded tests and procedures.

Under his plan Americans are “going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier " and speaking as an American I think that’s the kind of change you want,” Obama said.

Though the press conference will not stand as a model of inspiration, it proceeded largely on the president’s terms. The press cooperatively devoted all but two questions to the White House’s chosen topic, health care, and Obama repeatedly tried to focus the country’s attention on the urgency of the need for health care legislation this year.

“The stars are aligned and we need to take advantage of that,” Obama said.

And the stars seemed similarly to have aligned for a classic Obama tour de force Wednesday night, with an issue poised at its tipping point and ready to be pushed past it.

Despite worrying signs " a slowing timetable, dipping poll numbers, and a growing sense of uncertainty " Obama stepped to the podium as his allies seemed to be retaking the initiative in the battle for a large-scale change to the way America pays for health care. His administration reached a tentative agreement Tuesday with conservative Democrats to create a commission with enhanced powers to rein in Medicare spending. And the White House political arm had found a groove in attacks on Republicans for boastful, macho talk about “breaking” the president and “killing” his bill " rather than helping American families stay healthy. (“You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans,” Obama said, despite his party’s full-throated attempts to do just that.)

But instead of shaking the rafters, he spent most of his hour just checking rhetorical boxes, with language so poll-tested and focus-grouped, it was bleached of life.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25320.html#ixzz0M5cSbqce


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25320.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 07:49 am
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu09072220090722115708.jpg
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 07:58 am
@Foxfyre,
Thanks for your reasoned and eloquent response.

No, I don't trust the gov';t due to it' horrid history of program cost overruns, poor oversight and poor efficiency. However, if someone is in dire need of car and has no means (not due to their irresponsibility), something has to be done for their care. Placing such cases in an 'assigned risk pool' following the auto insurance model could be a direction in which to go. Gov't financial backing for malpractice insurance so doctors on a sliding scale can afford it might be a solution.

Yes, all these costs have to be spelled out so the light of day shows us all where and what is being spent.

No, the current administration has a clue yet of what the scope of the cost will be and what it will cover. I've heard numbers bandied about saying it will cost $1 trillion over the next 10 yrs.

The next few weeks are going to be interesting for us all, but far more challenging for Obama's Administration and Congress. Let's hope they can rise to the challenge. Our lives may depend upon it at some point. Certainly our financial security rests in their shaky hands.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 10:50 am
@Gargamel,
Gargamel wrote:

H2O Man Successfully Removes Rib To Facilitate More Efficient Self-Fellatio


nice.
Below viewing threshold (view)
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 12:33 pm


SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID SAYS NO HEALTH CARE VOTE UNTIL AFTER AUGUST RECESS
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:04 pm
Both Senators and all three congressmen from New Mexico are Democrats and we have been receiving reams of information from them in the mail, via on air presentations, and almost daily emails, all pushing, among other things, the healthcare reform initiative.

Republican members of Congress have been prohibited from sending this chart out to their constituents. Even though some of the propaganda they are sending out is inaccurate, the Democrats say that the Republican's chart has some misleading information and therefore it breaks the rules to send it.

http://www.newmajority.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/democratic_health_plan_organizational_chart.jpg
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 05:33 pm
but i don't see anything on the "chart" that tells me anything about what the republicans propose.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 05:18 am


Critics Question Obama's Assertion No One Would Be Forced to Change Health Plans
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 06:00 am


It's time for the nation to unite and defeat Obamacare.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:06 am
@H2O MAN,


It is simple actually. If I am running a business and I can acquire the same product from Supplier B at a cost significantly less than Supplier A, I am going to go with Supplier B. And unless there is some significant snob appeal involved, all or most others will follow suit. Supplier A either has to reduce prices to compete or, if unable to do so and continue to make a profit, Supplier A goes out of business.

If the government requires me to provide healthcare for my employees--will in fact fine me if I do not--and the government offers a plan at a fraction of the cost of private insurance, I will of course choose the government plan. The government doesn't care much about customer satisfaction, doesn't care how its product is rated in comparison with others, and it doesn't have to show a profit, so there is no way that private insurance would be able to compete for long against a massive govenrment program. Most especially since the President has inferred that he doesn't think private insurance companies should actually be making a profit.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 11:39 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
The government doesn't care much about customer satisfaction, doesn't care how its product is rated in comparison with others, and it doesn't have to show a profit, so there is no way that private insurance would be able to compete for long against a massive government program. Most especially since the President has inferred that he doesn't think private insurance companies should actually be making a profit.


Obama has inferred that ALL profit made in the private sector is evil.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
This raises a pretty good question: why should insurance companies be for-profit companies? If they exist to serve the health needs of Americans, why is the profit motive an important part of the equation?

It seems to me that you take as a given something which isn't - at all.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 12:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,


This raises an excellent question: why should Cyclotroll be allowed to make a profit?
Cyclotroll exists to serve Obama, why does Cyclotroll or any Obamabot need to make a profit?
0 Replies
 
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 01:46 pm
House healthcare talks break down in anger
By Jared Allen, Mike Soraghan and Lauren Burke
Posted: 07/24/09 03:27 PM [ET]

House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders.

The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill.

“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.

“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.

Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.

If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the only hope for passage of the bill in the House will be to go straight to the floor, an option leaders shied away from endorsing but said was an option.

But the Blue Dogs issued dire warnings to leaders contemplating that approach.

"Waxman simply does not have votes in committee and process should not be bypassed to bring the bill straight to floor,” Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.”

Melancon said there would be 40-45 “solid no” votes from the 52-strong Blue Dogs, among other problems throughout the caucus.

“If they try to bring it to the floor, I think they’ll find out they have more problems with the Blue Dogs.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-healthcare-talks-break-down-in-anger-2009-07-24.html

How could they Democrats lie to their own party members?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.4 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:17:58