IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@roger,

They have been discussing UHC legislation for many months, and most know what's in the bills. It still requires the house and senate versions to be worked on to reconcile the differences. The last vote was to continue discussion, not to approve UHC.

They have a long ways to go before any UHC bill is approved, and we know it's going to be a long and tedious battle to get things accomplished.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger, out of principle, they should have to read it all first, then it can be read on the floor of the senate. Then they can argue about what it all means, but at least we the public would have a record of what it says, as read.

I am not at all convinced that all of the senators can even read with comprehension, and I am equally unconvinced in regard to members of the House as well, that they can read with comprehension. I think most of this crap has been prepared by staffers, Democratic staffers that have hidden all kinds of crap in there in veiled sorts of ways.

1 Reply

@okie,

What is ideal in how congress approves legislation is not reality; it happens in both democratic and republican congress. They learn to rub each other's backs to gain favor when they want something, and that's been going on forever.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Now, that just doesn't make any sense. Why should they be voting on a bill that they haven't read? Sure, they can pretend to understand it, and it looks good to the voters back home, but how can they possibly know what is in it?

Legislators don't have the time to read most bills. Raw legislation is highly legalistic (e.g., it incorporates by reference in many places, etc.). They have briefing papers on the legislation from staff and elsewhere, and know precisely what is covered in the legislation. As usual, the right is distorting the situation.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

That clearly explains all the unexpected consequences of the many laws passed and the equally large number of contradictions later arising between laws that so often conflict in their many provisions, particularly including the add on and earmarked additions that have little relationship with eother the name or the central purpose of the legislation.

Advocate is quick to mischaracterize those who don't accept his many prejudices, but amazingly naive and credulous on matters that conform to them. In short he is one whose opinions are of little value.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

People can't seem to grasp the simple fact that the Senate only approved the Debate on health care; UHC is still not law of the land. The legislators will now have to study those few thousand pages they've written so far - to continue their "discussion" on health care.

0 Replies

I know right? what a crock of ****. Makes me sick...except that I can't afford to get sick.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

As usual, George talks and talks and says nothing. He makes me think of Rush: full of gas.

1 Reply

Is anyone familiar with "concierge care"? I'd never heard of it but it seems to be a growing trend.

Quote:

Here’s how concierge medicine works: Doctors charge anywhere from $1,500 per person per year up to $25,000 or more for a family. This fee acts as a retainer on top of all the insurance-covered services.

In some programs, those who don’t pay are forced to leave the practice. In others, they’re likely to see a nurse practitioner, a physician assistant or a newer, different doctor hired to handle the traditional patients.

The move to smaller, premium practices will worsen an already dire shortage of primary care doctors, creating an elite group of well-compensated physicians who see fewer and fewer upscale patients, dumping the rest on their increasingly harried colleagues, critics contend.

The U.S. is short by between 40,000 and 50,000 primary care doctors now, a figure that’s expected to top 125,000 by 2020, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. That means people who don’t want or can’t afford concierge plans will have a harder time than ever finding a doctor. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34019606/ns/health-health_care/

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

As usual, George talks and talks and says nothing. He makes me think of Rush: full of gas.

George has disagreed with me on some points, but one thing about George, his opinions seem to be based upon a cogent pattern of thinking and evidence. George is one of the credible posters here on this forum, and frankly a big breath of fresh air as compared to many.

And Rush Limbaugh has far more reasoned information and valid news items than many on this forum, or even in the mainstream media. Rush does alot more research into many issues than a goodly percentage of the sad lot of journalists out there, in my opinion. It will be up to conservative researchers to dig up what is hidden and to make known what is in the health care legislation.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

And Rush Limbaugh has far more reasoned information and valid news items than many on this forum, or even in the mainstream media. Rush does alot more research into many issues than a goodly percentage of the sad lot of journalists out there, in my opinion. It will be up to conservative researchers to dig up what is hidden and to make known what is in the health care legislation.

Well, as Limbaugh once said: the poorest American gets better healthcare than an average European family ...

0 Replies

@okie,

The reason Rush Limbaugh is a "breath of fresh air" for okie is because okie believes the lies Limbaugh tells his audience.

From mediamatters:

Quote:

During the February 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely stated that President Obama said "that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again." Limbaugh also stated: "This is what I mean by him talking down the economy. Don't think of your house as going up in value anytime soon." However, Obama actually said during a February 18 speech in Mesa, Arizona, that we should "not assume that housing prices are going to go up 20, 30, 40 percent every year" [emphasis added], not "over our lifetimes" as Limbaugh asserted.

From the February 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Obama said that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again.

Jane here with a great question: then why the hell buy one? Well, the answer is you need shelter, and a home is the American dream. Yeah, but it's also the -- for most people -- their number one asset as they establish equity in it.

This is what I mean by him talking down the economy. Don't think of your house as going up in value anytime soon. Don't -- we've got -- you've got to get realistic here. The days of prosperity are over. Can I translate it for you? The days of prosperity are over, quote, the president of the United States, unquote.

What? Well, of course I say screw that, but not everybody can. Not everybody is in the position to say "screw that, I'm going to be prosperous." Some people are not self-starters. Some people need others to start businesses so they can go apply for jobs there. Fact of life. It's a reality. And we're targeting the people who start jobs. We're targeting the people who start businesses.

From digg.com:

Quote:

Rush Limbaugh Lies About President Obama (Again)

mediamatters.org " "Obama said that we all must learn to live within our means and not expect the values of our homes to go up 10, 20 percent over our lifetimes ever again." Not what Obama said AT ALL. -- Later, Rush continues his lies with: "Can I translate it for you? The days of prosperity are over, quote, the president of the United States, unquote." [audio too]

0 Replies

@JPB,

I've heard of it. I hate citing works of fiction, but concierge care was a central theme of one of Robin Cook's books. For what it's worth, the fee is more of an admission fee than payment for service, but you are guaranteed an appointment within a certain length of time, and you do spend more time with the doctor. In an afterward to Marker, he finally came out in favor of some sort of universal health care, partly because of insurance companies' ability to predict payments based on genetic markers.

Again, I am referring to works of fiction.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

My own opinion on what they know is in the bills is reinforced by Georgeob's post. These things are written by staffers. They may have their own agendas, and they are not up for election.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

My own opinion on what they know is in the bills is reinforced by Georgeob's post. These things are written by staffers. They may have their own agendas, and they are not up for election.

yeah well Roger the staffers are the government, btw since you're bringing twice baked potatoes on thursday, what the hell are twice baked potatoes?

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

Maybe roger still doesn't know that "staffers" write presidential speeches.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Is that supposed to get Obama off the hook, c.i.?

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Why, potatoes that have been baked twice. They've been baked once here, and will get the treatment once more down there. Great way to get rid of leftovers.

How many should I bring? No problem, I work with large quantities and usually have leftover leftovers.

1 Reply

@roger,

FYI, that also applies to legislators who use staffers to write their stuff. DUH!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

FYI, that also applies to legislators who use staffers to write their stuff. DUH!

So in regards to our congresspeople, multiple choice question for you:

"The buck stops ____________"

a) with the congressperson
b) with their specific staffer (who shall remain nameless) who wrote the legislature or the summary of the legislature
c) with some other person

2 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know