IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@Cycloptichorn,

But isnt this exactly what many of you are opposed to?

That a rich person went to the front of the line instead of getting the same health care that those of us that arent rich get?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

But isnt this exactly what many of you are opposed to?

That a rich person went to the front of the line instead of getting the same health care that those of us that arent rich get?

Is that what I'm opposed to? I don't seem to have any recollection of being opposed to that.

While I would like to see our current system reformed, nobody in Congress is proposing a Canadian-style, single-payer system - or one in which rich people will be barred from traveling to other countries for surgery.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You persistently fail to deal with the fact that the public option has gone nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Obama hasn't even included it in "his" new plan now on the web, which he will presumably try to try to ram through the Congress on reconciliation.

Does this indicate that the president thinks your polls are wrong?

Do you forecast that the reconciliation ram through will succeed. If it doesn't (and failure appears very likely) what will that tell you about public opinion (at least as it is perceived by DSemocrat legislators)???

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You persistently fail to deal with the fact that the public option has gone nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Obama hasn't even included it in "his" new plan now on the web, which he will presumably try to try to ram through the Congress on reconciliation.

Does this indicate that the president thinks your polls are wrong?

Well, in the words of Gibbs today, 'the votes aren't there.' I don't think that the Dems care enough to make the necessary push to include the public option; it pisses off too many corporate donors and incites anger in the dems who are owned by the insurance industry.

Quote:

Do you forecast that the reconciliation ram through will succeed. If it doesn't (and failure appears very likely) what will that tell you about public opinion (at least as it is perceived by Democrat legislators)???

You mis-characterize the process by using the phrase 'ram through.' Reconciliation isn't a ram, it's part of the Senate rules in the same way that the Filibuster is. You just don't like it now because it is your ox being gored. I doubt you complained one bit when it was used to pass tax cuts under Republican Congresses, or the Contract with America changes back in '95.

I think it will succeed, and why not? The Dems are realizing that failure to get some sort of bill through is a death knell for this Fall's elections, and getting one through would boost their numbers tremendously while taking the wind out of the right's sails, who - like yourself - began to preen and congratulate themselves just a little too early.

Let us turn it around - if it does pass, and the bill ends up being signed, are you going to man up and come talk about how poor your predicting abilities are?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Is it possible that support for Universal Health Care dryed up along with the public option? That's where they lost me.

I would agree with George's earlier opinion that the "public option" would have eventually rendered private options all but untenable, and therefore essentially constituted a back door to a single payer system. That was certainly my hope.

Universal Insurance, on the other hand, mandates private profit at the point of a government gun… and that we can do without. Private profit should NEVER be regulated that way.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Where you go wrong at the start of figuring this out, cyclops, is the fact that the majority of Americans are satisfied with their current health insurance, and they simply don't want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to screw it up, as they surely will if they get their way.

When are you going to figure out that your views, Okie, represent only a small part of Americans?

I believe my opinions line up with a huge percentage of Americans that could be part of what used to be called the silent majority, perhaps a minority in regard to the last presidential election, but if more people would become informed, and if the media would present facts, I believe the silent majority could in fact become a vocal majority.

Quote:

You are not mainstream. No matter how much you want to present yourself that way, you represent the right-wing of thought in a country which represents the right-wing of thought in the world.

I am more mainstream than Marxists and Marxist sympathizers, which is who you represent, and what Obama represents. Unfortunately, the populace has not yet been properly informed and educated yet, but that is being worked on.

Quote:

I would also note that poll after poll shows that people trust Obama and Pelosi more with the health-care issue then they do any Republican. This is because people haven't forgotten what failures and fuckups the Republicans are when they get in power.

Cycloptichorn

That is absolutely wrong. Rasmussen shows Republicans are more trusted now on virtually every issue, including health care. In the case of health care, it is 49% more trust in Republicans versus 37% for Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

But Obama and his socialist minions insist upon trying to ram his health care down our throat. And he continues to lie. We now find out that he wants billions to support "community health centers," another name for Planned Parenthood. Very weird they are, Democrats, they call murdering the unborn as heatlh treatments. And they want to do it with our tax money.

Cyclops, if you think murdering the unborn is mainstream, I am sorry, you have to be partly nuts. And if nuts becomes mainstream, I am sorry, I will not join you. I do not have opinions based upon what other people think, nor should you or anyone. We should believe something based upon whether it is right or wrong.

Even though the percentages of people favoring abortions or opposing them are roughly split down the middle, I believe the vast majority of Americans believe that if you are compelled to kill your own offspring, at least you should pay for it yourself. At least have that much honor, don't make everyone else pay for your killings.

0 Replies

Limbaugh just said that health care reform is reparations to blacks.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let us turn it around - if it does pass, and the bill ends up being signed, are you going to man up and come talk about how poor your predicting abilities are?
Cycloptichorn

As you know, I generally try to avoid making specific predictions about a basically unknowable future. However, in this case I have indeed expressed my opinion that the Democrats won't find the votes within their own party for the reconciliation tactic, and in the unlikely event that it does pass I will acknowledge my error.

How about you?

I think your explanation for the behavior of the majority of Democrat Senators in rejecting the public option so favored by their beloved Teddy Kennedy (i.e. that they were bought and paid for by big pharma and other companies) is a bit unkind. I give them more credit than that. It is entirely possible that many of them feared unbounded cost growth; that the thing wouldn't work well in unionized government hands ; and/or recognized that a sizeable portion of the voting public had similar reservations. After all they are not utterly without principles or sensitivity to the preferences of the folks who elected them.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You persistently fail to deal with the fact that the public option has gone nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Obama hasn't even included it in "his" new plan now on the web, which he will presumably try to try to ram through the Congress on reconciliation.

Does this indicate that the president thinks your polls are wrong?

Do you forecast that the reconciliation ram through will succeed. If it doesn't (and failure appears very likely) what will that tell you about public opinion (at least as it is perceived by DSemocrat legislators)???

George, are you just oblivious? A government option plan passed in the House, and such a plan would have passed in the Senate were it not for the super-majority requirement. Incidentally, Medicare is a very successful single-payor plan, much beloved by the public.

Do you feel that our representatives should vote in accordance with referendum results?

1 Reply

Private insurance companies would co-exist with a government option, much like private schools co-exist with public schools. Fed-Ex, et al., co-exist with the U. S. Postal Service. Etc.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

George, are you just oblivious? A government option plan passed in the House, and such a plan would have passed in the Senate were it not for the super-majority requirement. Incidentally, Medicare is a very successful single-payor plan, much beloved by the public.

Do you feel that our representatives should vote in accordance with referendum results?

Poor Advocate. In Naval Aviation we had a "word", actually an acronym, for a phrase indicating how often the individual in question got things wrong. It was "WEFT". Advocate is WEFT.

The government option never got to the floor of the Senate. It was defeated in Committee and no Democrat Senator tried seriously to get it heard. It was never put to the whole Senate and never voted on.

Medicare, like all entitlements such as government subsidies for sugar producers (in a world with an excess of sugar) is much beloved by its recipients - though they are finding it increasingly difficult to find a doctor who will accept any more Medicare patients because of the low fee schedula.

1 Reply

An overwhelming majority of Americans, 73%, prefer that Congress either start from scratch (48%) or stop work completely on health care reform (25%).

Americans oppose the use of reconciliation 52% - 39%.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I never said it got to the floor. It would be silly to send it forward when it was clear that a super-majority would not support it.

How old are you? You come across as a bit demented.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

This is what you wrote;

Advocate wrote:

George, are you just oblivious? A government option plan passed in the House, and such a plan would have passed in the Senate were it not for the super-majority requirement.

What exactly did you mean by. "... such a plan would have passed in the Senate were it not for the supermajority requirement" ? The ONLY function of the supermajority requirement is to suspend debate so that the full Senate can vote on pending legislation.

Before that the legislation must be approved by the relevant committees - all of which are controlled by Democrat majorities: and in these committees a majority vote is all that is required. The house public option died in a Democrat-controlled committee. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

You are either subject to severe lapses in logical ability, or merely a sniveling weasel trying hard to appear right when you are not. I vote for the weasel option.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Private "profit" should NEVER be regulated that way.

The problem, single payer advocates will tell you, is exactly that -profit. Health care is not the bottom line under our current private insurance system. The bottom line is profit.
"In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/anthem-blue-cross-owner-wellpoint-fire-lawmakers-insurance/story?id=9931601
You are dealing with human lives. There are those of us who believe that you don't throw human lives under the bus* for the sake of profit.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_under_the_bus
Matt.16:26 KJB
URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-3916776

1 Reply

@auroreII,

Thats what Karl Marx would have said too!!! But the man that hated profits allowed some of his children die of starvation and his family was left in squalor because he was too pathetic of a man that spent most of his time wasting it away writing his stupid ideas about capitalism and trying to figure it out, which is something he never accomplished anyway.

1 Reply

@okie,

I don't have any problem with profits- Don't believe in a purely socialist society.
If we get universal single payer heath care it shouldn't come from the result of government mandate. It should come from the hearts and minds of the american people who want to see that their fellow citizens receive health care not based on the fact of whether or not they can afford it, but because they need it. Whether or not you have health care in this country is based on your ability to afford it , not your need. One third of every dollar spent on health care does not go for actual health care. We stand to save billions by switching to a single payer health care system. This is money that will go toward seeing that some of these people who cannot afford yet need health care get it, instead of going into the pockets of some private insurer as profit or paying for duplicate administrative services.
A lot of people are starting to realize as private insurance raise their rates- (americans pay some of the highest insurance costs in the world) and cancel policies on those who thought they had insurance only to learn differently when they actually needed them that we have a very disfunctional health care system. Maybe single payer isn't the answer to our insurance woes, but at least as it stands now under proposition HR676 you would be automatically covered and the cost would be cheaper than what most americans are now paying.

2 Replies

@auroreII,

Profits are not the only problem. The profit margins for health insurance companies, at least according to this one source, are 3.3%.

If profits are SO evil, you should really be getting pissed at the utility companies, they're pulling a 400% greater profit margin by overcharging families who are just trying to heat their homes.

That means, if you mandated that all health insurance companies made zero profit, you'd only shave, at most, 3.3% off of someone's health insurance premiums.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

0 Replies

I wonder why many of the same people who are against opening up health insurance to be sold across state lines ARE in favor of a public option.

I mean, there would only be 1 public option, it would likely not meet all of the individual states' requirements. The policies would be no different than Blue Cross developing a similar plan and administering it across all 50 states.

Can someone who is against opening up inter-state insurance sales please explain how they reconcile that opposition with a similar public option plan.

Part of the reason these health insurance companies have high overhead is that they have to comply with different insurance mandates between every single state; that requires people and processes to manage. The government wouldn't do that, so it can be done cheaper.

1 Reply

@auroreII,

auroreII wrote:

I don't have any problem with profits- Don't believe in a purely socialist society.
If we get universal single payer heath care it shouldn't come from the result of government mandate. It should come from the hearts and minds of the american people who want to see that their fellow citizens receive health care not based on the fact of whether or not they can afford it, but because they need it.

Sorry, but you are mouthing Communist philosophy, to each according to his need. It has been shown to not work, plain and simple, tens of millions if not hundreds of millions have died for the sake of ruthless dictators that have attempted to make it work. You really need to educate yourself on history. And it isn't as if people don't help people in need, they do. Charities are far more efficient than the government, we know that as well, plus we already have programs for the truly poor, why not fix that before ramming universal health care down everyone else's throat? Obama and the Democrats really need to quit acting like dictators and quit their nonsense.

3 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know