Obama '08?

You wrote:

Quote:

Nothings worse than the president himself lying when he is claiming he is debunking lies.

That could be true, but you haven't shown what he said that is a lie. All you've done is make general accusations without showing the evidence of those lies. YOu never seem to provide support for any of your claims; just your imagination at work without an ounce of facts.

Not the only one, but the most obvious is when he says it is untrue that this is a government takeover of health care. It is a matter of semantics, kind of like the meaning of the word "is."

I watched the video posted last page, and not only does he want the public option but he goes on to talk about the government forcing alot more rules and mandates on existing insurance coverages, so by offering the public option and by controlling everything the insurance companies do, I don't know what else it is besides a government takeover of the system.

I would love it if I owned a company and I could not only compete with all my competition, but I could also force their customers to support my company even when they don't buy anything from me, and I could also make all the rules for how all my competition operates. So if they buy my product, they pay me, and if they buy the product from my competition, they still pay me. How long do you think my competition would last, Diest? We are not a bunch of chumps out here.

This is entirely reminiscent of the doomsday predictions that surrounded the creation of Medicare and Social Security; all sort of wild claims by the right-wing, which thankfully were ignored.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Its HR 3200

You wrote:

Quote:

Nothings worse than the president himself lying when he is claiming he is debunking lies.

November 29, 2005:

Bush : The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand.

With pleasure, but you can do a little research on your own.

Lets start with Section 101, which is on page 14 of the bill.
It says quite clearly that a health benefits plan wont qualify unless it meets certain arbitrary govt definitions.
That means that the govt can say that ANY plan other then their own plan doesnt qualify.

Then read Section 102 (a) 1
That says that a health insurer cannot enroll anyone if the first effective day of coverage is AFTER Y1 (Y1 is the day the govt plan goes into effect)

It also says that the insurer cannot change anything after Y1.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.

This bill (HR3200) has so many flaws in it that I dont see how anyone can support it.
It should be thrown out totally and rewritten.

(BTW, I would copy and paste the relevant parts, but I am not sure how to do it from a pdf file.)

If you hit the little button which says 'select' (it's got a little hand next to it), you can copy and paste text.

Cycloptichorn

I think you are missing the point here. The rules that you say will merely enable the government to prevent insurance companies from "screwing over" their clients will also enable the government to control all (or any aspect ) of the market that it chooses. This will instantly kill any innovation that doesn't arise out of the government brueaucracy that itself writes the definitions and the rules.

The track record for such institutions suggests that incompetence and political corruption - and not reform or efficiency - will be the chief outcomes.

That such power in the hands of a government brueaucracy will kill private sector investment of capital is beyond doubt.

This is indeed a formula - intended or not - to ensure the eventual death of all alternatives to a government plan. Most reasonably effective government regulatory systems are constrained by law to limiting specifically designate actions: the power to exercise a priori control is a major new step. It appears to me that this is indeed an objective of at least some of those supporting the so called "health care reform" agenda out there. It is simply disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

This is entirely akin to the anti-Medicare arguments your party put forth 40 years ago, most of which turned out to be completely wrong.

Quote:

This is entirely akin to the anti-Medicare arguments your party put forth 40 years ago, most of which turned out to be completely wrong.

That may be, but the govt projections of what it would cost were also completely WRONG, as were the estimates of the cost of Social Security.

Now, if the govt was so wrong then, why do you think they will be right now about cost.
I think you are placing to much trust in the govt to get it right and to ACCURATELY show the cost.

mysteryman wrote:

So the Dems that have received money from the health care industry have also sold their souls and their ethics, is that it?

I'd say that's pretty accurate, starting primarily with one Max Baucus

Cycloptichorn

Kent Conrad, the Democratic Senator who declared the public health insurance option dead on Sunday, portrays his activism on behalf of health insurance cooperatives as the conscripted service of a pragmatic warrior.

The public option, he has said over and over, just doesn't have the 60 votes he thinks are needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

The accuracy of that supposed whip-count aside, Conrad's opposition to offering consumers a government-run alternative to private insurance companies goes deeper than political pragmatism.

Though he has refused to take a public position on the matter, in private meetings with colleagues and staff dating back to the beginning of the year, Conrad has repeatedly expressed his opposition to a public option, four top Democratic aides who've sat in meetings with him told the Huffington Post.

Conrad, they say, sees the public option as a dangerous expansion of federal responsibility for health care spending. "His position seems based on ideology more than practicality," said one of the aides.

Without fundamental changes to the health care system, Conrad sees the public option as unable to reduce the cost of health care. The argument by proponents of the public option that a government-run alternative within the insurance market would drive that fundamental change and help push health costs lower apparently doesn't hold any water with him.

Instead, he has presented a vague proposal to create health insurance cooperatives as an alternative.

* * *

Beyond ideology or pragmatism, however, the North Dakota Democrat has a pocketful of other reasons to oppose a public option. Despite being from a state where campaigns cost a relative pittance, Conrad has found himself the recipient of largess from a host of private actors with interests in the health care debate. Over the course of his career he has received more than $828,000 from insurance companies, $610,000 from health professionals, and $255,000 from Pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In 2009 alone, Conrad has watched industry cash pour in at a high rate, according to a review of FEC filings. His Political Action Committee, DAKPAC, received a $2,500 donation from the American Medical Association; $2,000 donations from the pharmaceutical companies Merck & Company and Eli Lilly; as well as $1,000 donations from Johnson & Johnson, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, American Hospital Association, AstroZeneca, Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, and the Federation of American Hospitals.