@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I find most of your quotes troubling. So, what's your point? Because she's a woman, she's not allowed to make any verbal mistakes?
It has nothing to do with being a woman, or a hispanic, it has to do with interpreting the law and the constitution. Being a woman or hispanic should have nothing to do with it, that is the point, but she does not believe that, apparently, as indicated by what she has said. If you actually believe what you have said, you would oppose her based upon that very point.
Verbal mistakes? It isn't about mistakes, it is about what she believes, wake up.
@okie,
Here you go again making accusations against Sotomayor that do not hold up to the facts.
What have I been saying about this nut? Another emergency! He demands a bill by weeks end. You know what they should tell him. Stick his bill somewhere, how would that be. He wants to rush a bill that would be that huge without it seeing the light of day. Whats the rush? Probably before his poll numbers slide further into the gutter, and he knows it. After all, do not waste a good crisis. People might wake up to the fact there is no crisis. Why this weekend, after more than 200 years without Obama care? Can't we go at least one more week without Lord Obama saving the day? Is there any more proof this guy is a dud? When are they going to get the gumption to tell him no way, he can lump it. We will see if any of these people in Congress have a backbone.
I think he must believe he is already a dictator. He is acting like it already, "demanding" stuff that is really pretty impractical if not foolish.
"Obama Wants Health Reform Bill This Week
Officials say the president delivered his message Monday to Sen. Max Baucus in a White House meeting attended by administration officials and Democratic lawmakers."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/obama-wants-health-reform-week/
@okie,
Well, okie, rather than bitching again, how about giving us information on what Obama's health plan looks like? You know, the pros and cons, the way you see it.
Universal health planning in the US didn't start on January 20 of this year. It's been in the planning stages for many years - even before GW Bush took over the white house.
Going on for about a decade or more, it's not a "rush." The real rush is that the health care system of our country is squashing our budget by higher cost, our competitiveness around the world, and too many losing their health insurance. That's the urgency. Something you "compassionate conservatives" will never understand.
@okie,
Another sign of transparency in Obama's government, a quote from the news story:
"The officials who spoke did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss private meetings."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/obama-wants-health-reform-week/
I think its time some people with an ounce of gumption should begin telling this guy, no, no, no, and then no again. I think we should be tired of being pushed around, being told spending 700 billion is essential and has to be approved by the end of that week, now a bill that will affect every man, woman, and child in the country, it is an emergency, after more than 200 years without it. He is not a dictator, even if he thinks he is already. I want to see somebody tell him no, and then see the look on his face, that would be nice. He needs it.
@cicerone imposter,
You know what, I don't care about Obama care, I don't want it, period. Why would I even want to debate the merits of a health plan put together by somebody that knows nothing about it. What expertise does he bring to the table? None, ci, I am not interested in Obamacare at all.
Obama has no expertise, unless you count community organizing. I am not interested in his health care plan, not at all. If something is passed, I will obviously have to live with it, but I will not like it because it will be a dud. Count on it.
@okie,
If you don't care about, and know nothing about it, and don't want it, why do you denigrate it?
Typical conservative; bitch bitch bitch...and offer no solutions even if it's of no personal interest.
@cicerone imposter,
As usual, you misrepresent again and again. I have offered many solutions, as have Republicans in congress. Your "no solutions" accusation is totally false. You and your fellow liberal Democrats just don't want our solutions. And we don't want yours. Ours are better.
It's your "solutions" that got us into the economic meltdown and the healthcare mess in the first place, okie. Not what any sane person would consider "better".
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
It's your "solutions" that got us into the economic meltdown and the healthcare mess in the first place, okie.
Slobbering Barney Frank and his Pimp boyfriend have more to do with the economic meltdown than anything else...
@okie,
"Ours are better" says Okie, pointing to the eight years Bush was in the WH. Heckava job, Brownie!
@JTT,
That's not the only thing Bush was incompetent at; he tried to change our social security into a "self-investment" program as the stock market crashed to new lows. This was also the time when conservatives were also in favor of his program. How many Americans would have survived living off of 50% less retirement funds for social security?
Maybe okie and his family and friends are wealthy enough to have survived; none lost their jobs or homes, and they don't need any of the bailout funds (extended unemployment and food stamps) to survive. After all, they're all "above average."
From FRAC:
Quote:What's going on at the Federal level?
* 80 national organizations push for inclusion of food stamps and extended unemployment benefits in the next economic stimulus package - click here for the May 1, 2008 sign-on letter to Congress. (pdf)
* Progressive caucus pushes for second stimulus package (The Hill, March 4, 2008)
* Congressional Progressive Caucus letter to House Democratic Leaders (pdf) (April 8, 2008)
* Towards Shared Recovery: Congress Must Do More to Reverse the Recession (April 11, 2008; Coalition on Human Needs)
What can states do?
* Access and Access Barriers to Getting Food Stamps: A Review of the Literature (PDF)
* Good Choices in Hard Times: Fifteen ideas for states to reduce hunger and stimulate the economy (PDF)
What are some tools that we can use to get more people using food stamps?
* Toolkit: Stimulating State and Local Economies: Reaching More Eligible People with Food Stamps (PDF)
What do the experts say about how foods stamps stimulate the economy?
Just one dollar of food stamp benefits creates a “ripple effect” through the economy.
* Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis, it is estimated that each $5 of federal food stamp benefits generates nearly twice that in economic activity. See USDA research.
* A study by industry research firm Moody's Economy.com looked at the potential impact of each stimulus dollar. According to economist Mark Zandi, "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't." Zandi said that the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food stamp program. "If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said. Tracking that single dollar shows what economists call the ripple effect, Zandi said. It helps to pay the salaries of the grocery clerks, pays the truckers who haul the food and produce cross-country, and finally goes to the farmer who grows the crops.
Across the board, economists and researchers agree that boosting food stamps benefits also boosts the economy.
* The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has rated a temporary increase in food stamp benefits highly for cost-effectiveness, short lag time, and relative certainty about the policy impact. See “Options for Responding to Short-Term Economic Weakness,” CBO (January 2008).
* At a Senate hearing on Thursday, Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified that increases in food stamps and unemployment benefits would have more immediate economic effects than rebates. ‘Food stamp and unemployment benefits can affect spending in two months,’ Mr. Orszag said. ‘Rebates would affect spending at the end of 2008.’” See “Bush and House in Accord for $150 Billion Stimulus,” by David M. Herszenhorn, The New York Times, 1/25/08.
* GOP Economist Martin Feldstein “embraced” the idea of increasing food stamp benefits as a way to stimulate the economy. At a Brooking Institution forum, Feldstein said he supported a flat rebate for all who pay taxes, as well as temporary increases in the food stamp and supplemental income programs. See “Dems Eye Tax Rebates, Fatter Benefits,” by Andrew Taylor, AP, 1/11/08, and “Bush tax guru backs stimulus plan,” by Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney, 1/24/08.
* Former Treasury Secretaries Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin agreed that additional food stamp benefits would have an immediate impact on the economy.
Just don't ask me in what.
We all know that okie knows best how to improve our economy. How many "real" suggestions has he made so far?
@cicerone imposter,
Interesting, but meaningless hypothetical cice girl. Nice try.
@H2O MAN,
Squirt..
I realize "hypothetical" must be the word of the day on your calender but you used it incorrectly. CI didn't propose a hypothetical.
Obamacare is floundering because the Dems can't yet agree amongst themselves.
With any luck, Obamacare will never see the light of day.
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
"Ours are better" says Okie, pointing to the eight years Bush was in the WH. Heckava job, Brownie!
One of the ideas, a medical savings account, already works good, if people use it. I have now started, and it is saving me money, I believe. The idea goes something like this, you carry a high deductible, set up the savings account which is tax deductible, and pay for most of your routine doctor visits, but the insurance protects you against the cost of catastropic medical problems. Sort of like you do not insure your car to change oil or put new brake pads on, you insure it for the serious body work or totalling it out. You do not insure your house for a new paint job, but you insure it for a possible fire or hail damage, etc. Common sense. Thus I can continue the freedom and luxury of choosing my own doctor, monitoring what he does, and being proactive with my own health care. Routine tests and doctoring is not that expensive compared to everything else we spend money on.
There a a number of good ideas for reform that needs doing, to turn a pretty good system into a much better one.
@okie,
Certainly that's a good idea.
Unfortunately, no one got it here. But we have to pay 10 Euros, when we go to the doctor (once any three months).
Certainly your system is a pretty good system. That's why don't have so many uninsured as without it.
And I'm sure, you'll can make it even better: every other nation even now is jealous of your excellent health system.
@okie,
I have a medical flexible spending account, which I do like. I just wish that it didn't expire every year.
@maporsche,
I think all of these accounts (medical, child care, etc...) are unnecessary and add red tape to things that should be straight forward. If all medical spending and dependent care spending were tax deductible then there would be no need to set up these accounts where, in some cases, money is forfeited to the companies who set them up at the end of the year, and where you often must still file claims in order to get reimbursed by your own account. They are set up this way so that benefits companies can make money off of the complexity of the tax code, and they often end up screwing people. Because they are set up as a benefit, you can only change your contributions to them during open enrollment or by separating from your employer. So, for instance, if you arranged to contribute to a medical savings account or dependent care spending account and had a change of circumstances mid year, like a spouse being laid off, you are still stuck with your contribution schedule even if you know you will not be able to get that money back out.
I think the root of the problem is the fee for service model and the insurance middle man.
The underlying principle here in Economics 101, is this, that the more directly a recipient of a service deals with the provider of that service is, the more efficient it will be. Secondly, relative to this principle, the payer for that service has primary control over that service. Thus, if people pay for routine medical service, the service becomes more efficient, more cost effective, and ultimately higher quality and more economical. The medical savings account, in conjunction with catastrophic health care insurance, helps accomplish the above. Maintaining an account vs simply paying for the service and later receiving a tax credit helps insure that people will have the money to pay for routine medical visits or treatment when it is needed. If people would simply volunteer to maintain their own accounts without this special provision in the tax code, it would also work, but people seem to lack the discipline to do that in some percentage of the people, thus this setup seems to help people be more disciplined in providing a fund for their own routine health care.
I am sure the policy could be tweaked for improvement, but always we must remember the principle that the closer the provider and receiver become in terms of economic control, the better and more efficient the service will be. Some people may wish to try to convince me that if you don't pay for it, the service can still be wonderful, perhaps to a point, but never will it be as good if the service provider knows the recipient is not the payer. The service becomes a duty, a job, and one that may be grudgingly provided in an inferior way. All kinds of oversights can be put into place, but none come up to the level of the recipient providing his or her own oversight with her best interests in mind.
