Yup. For Republicans it's all about political power. From day one they tried to delay & kill any bill, not because America doesn't need h.c. reform and not because the bills don't contain much needed reforms. They did it because they made a political decision that it was a way to bring Obama down & increase chances to get their own worthless GOP asses back in power. And they, being sleazeball politicians, continue to spread lies & propaganda & misrepresent the issues.
You are arguing with an idiot. Anyone that doesn't see the difference between auto insurance (to protect the other guy from your mistakes when you exercise the PRIVILEGE of DRIVING) and some marxist bastard using a gun to force you to buy government health insurance is an idiot. You must remember these parasites are not looking at what is good for America as always it's what's in it for them. Of course page 1 in the demoncrap handbook is "it's fror the children". They make you want to puke
the Senate plan would extend coverage to the uninsured--by forcing them to buy policies, whether they can afford them or not. Millions of people will have to buy high-premium, low-quality insurance through private health insurance exchanges, or be forced to pay a penalty.
remember President Barack Obama's vow to prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions? That's in the proposed bill--but if you've got such a condition, you could pay up to 50 percent more for your coverage. Ditto for older people, who could pay premiums up to three times higher than younger people.
If you're lucky enough to have a high-quality employer-sponsored insurance plan, you can keep it if you want, as Obama often says. But you'll pay for it, big-time. The Senate has taken Obama's plan to tax "Cadillac" health insurance plans--typically those won by union members over decades--even further, so now more modest "Chevy" plans will be taxed, too.
With current legislation, today's unaccountable corporate health insurance giants would become even more monstrous. They'd be able to move their nominal base of operations to states with the weakest consumer protection laws in order to shield themselves from patients with complaints. And they'd be shielded from much of current regulation.
Forcing the purchase of insurance is conversion if not seizure. Useful idiots believe government is going to care for them. Health care isn't the issue, it's about liberty being eroded by rogue politicians. This is no longer a democratic republic when payola is used to pass law or non-elected officials like czars or EPA goons dictate policy by arbitrary order or decree. "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson
@megarational is a vietnam draft dadger who moved to Canada because he has a big yellow streak running down his back..then wants to sit in canada and complain about American health care...Kiss my american a**, traitor!..No one give a shit about your opinion because you are traitor.go stick your head back in the snow
I have a pitchfork for congressmen.. for you I have a 9mm...you can't add nothing in here either since your a traitor...cuz we are lauging at you chicken.
I can see the yellow streak right through to the front...did you help Canada get as screwd up as it is while you've been there the last 50 years...biggest bunch of pussies in one place on this planet...thats right all of our draft dodgers are there...there whole lot of youins there...you in a union up there traitor?
i am a very poor madafucking immigrant , but i have green card and i have right for health coverage , wat i understand is that the rich american assholes will pay for my health insurance lol , thank u america , thank u obama !
you may be right about what you say but i DOUBT you're actually a poor mad... -whatever. you wouldn't have a computer and it would be unlikely you'd have a youtube account in the first place so please don't say things you don't believe in
Your eyes are open wise one. And the numbers we hear today will change by the time 2016 comes around...When did you ever see anything the government touches go down in price? Never, it always goes down in service instead...so in 2016 it will be as good as it will ever get...all down hill from there.
I'm now completely convinced that if you some time checking into what this healthcare bill is about and then still think it's a good idea then you truly are a socialist (or an idiot).
I checked out what this healthcare bill is about and I support almost all aspects of it (I'm just a little skeptical about the public option. If the government does not crowd out the private insurers by charging premiums that are sub-competitive, then it should be fine). Oh and to let you know, I am a pseudo-socialist.
Most Americans don't support a public option. How does creating another bureaucracy which is ALWAYS less efficient than private industry that will provide AND regulate insurance REDUCE costs without increasing the deficit? What government run program do you know of that saves money? Did you know that just in the creation of this bill they have included $100's of millions of dollars to just give away to Senators states, just for their votes? The govn't is more corrupt that anyone else.
98DevilDog 79 just leaps into the debate and like all good little Republicons starts with a complete lie. He says "most Americans don't support a public option". Really?
See next comment for the factual poll results which prove just how big a liar you are.
You get your results from the most liberal outlets what do you expect? And you pick and choose your facts and call me a liar? You pull out FOX's Nov poll and disregard their Dec 10th poll that says 54% say change NOTHING. Secondly, your numbers for the ABC/Washington Post poll are bs - the REAL numbers for Nov were 49% against and 48% in favor.
First devildog lies by stating "the majority of Americans don't favor a public option". Then when confronted by the results of 7 major polls proving otherwise, he tries to dismiss all of them. His pathetic attempt to hide his lie then takes the form of picking out one poll and trying to portray the results for a question other than on the public option as being the results applicable to a question on the public option.
Wow like a true second grader lets excalate this to name calling... Did someone steal your toys? You get your facts from liberal news outlets. Rasmussen Reports poll is 50% against 35% pro, that's a fact. As far as being a bitch is concerned my guess is only one of us spent 18 of the last 36 months in Iraq as a foward observer in the 23rd Marines. You're a gullible idiot if you think the liberal polls are the only ones out there and they all agree.
I did that before ever posting all the poll results. It's like I said, you use results from a question other than one about the public option & try to pass that off as applicable to the public option. The reason you do that is because it is a liars way of deflecting attention from your lie that "the majority of Americans are against the public option". I knew and predicted that you wouldn't cite any actual link, and you didn't. You are still a lying bitch.
Yes what an idiot living in Canada injecting his two cents where it doesn't belong...Glad he is not living in this country, we have enough idiots here already
Yes they do...the lazy sheepels wanting a handout...did you think they wouldn't? Most are too lazy to help themselves and they want the government to do it for them...can't save money, always maxing out credit cards, buying lotto tickets instead of healthcare...Give them the public option so they can keep buying those lotto tickets..another tax on the ignorant and poor...Those people need to quit waiting and get off their butts and help themselves and quit waiting on a handout!
Actually, I can list plenty of government plans that are more efficient than private industry. They include the universal health systems of Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K. All of these governments have health systems that are significantly less than in the U.S. with all-around better (or at least equal) results.
Eisen. Your trying to compare apples and oranges. The government currently controls 40% of health care RIGHT now. IF you want to know what health care is expensive, look at medicaid and what they pay out. Look at mal practice insurance. To say what we have now is indicative of private control just goes to show how little to nothing you know about the US health cares system. Between the gov't and the inssurance companies, the individual controls < 25% of the market - that isn't private.
Actually, I'm not comparing apples to oranges. In the countries I just mentioned, the individual has far less control than here, even if your numbers are correct. Given that, you can't argue that the numbers backing the fact that the systems in the aforementioned countries are indeed superior to ours in many respects. Oh and I do know a lot about the current system. I'm an economist who happened to spend last semester learning about our system from a Ph.D economist from Princeton.
There numbers arn't better. They pay 52% taxes and thier GNP is 1/9 th that of the US. When it comes to breast cancer treatments and patient wating time for surgeries, the US is far better. The time it takes to get a doctor in general in Canada for elective surgury is a joke, and I'm somewhat surprised this is the first time you've heard it. There have been enough cases of Canadians coming here for surgury, I'd like you to find me even one US citizen that CHOSE to go to Canada, UK, etc...
Actually, if you really want to know, only 2% of Canadians polled dislike their system. In all honesty, the U.S. is better with high-tech treatments like cancer, but we're bad with chronic care (like diabetes) and preventative treatments. I will send you some info in a couple of minutes. If anybody wants it, let me know. Nobody should contact me who's close-minded.
At least 85,000 Americans choose to travel abroad for medical procedures each year, according to a recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Treatment includes dental implants, hip and knee replacements, heart valve replacements and bypass surgery. The cost of surgery performed overseas can be as little as 20 percent of the price of the same procedure in the United States, according to a recent report by the American Medical Association.
... of course for trival procedures that are done purely based on cost. These other countries health care systems are susidized by their tax payers, is it not obvious why it's cheaper? My VA benifits are completely paid for by tax payers, but I don't get paid shit for risking my life for the past 10 years. If anyone wants government run health care so bad, join the fuck up it only takes a signature. Give back to your country instead of asking for a hand out for nothing. It aint a right.
First you say "I'd like you to find me even one US citizen that CHOSE to go to Canada, UK, etc.." (for h.c.). Then when confronted with a study which showed an average of 85 thousand Americans go abroad annually for lower cost operations or h.c. procedures you try to dismiss the "dental implants, hip and knee replacements, heart valve replacements and bypass surgery" as just "trivial procedures".
Then you try to rationalize the lower cost procedures in Canada as being due to taxpayer subsidy of the medical system, ignoring the fact that the Canadian government does not reimburse doctors or h.c. providers for any operations or medical treatment for patients who are not Canadian citizens & who don't have a provincial h.c card, in such cases the h.c. providers recover the entire cost from the patient.
lol a disgrace to the uniform because you suck at math? This may come as surprise to a moron, but US hosptials eat the cost for millions of uninsured a year, a little bit more than 85,000. The hospitals in Canada can afford lower cost procedures because of this fuckin giganatic difference you're neglecting. It's not that I'm a liar, it's that the blatently obvious eludes the idiot.
So why does the U.S. have those millions of uninsured? Because it's been too fucking stupid to institute h.c. reforms to do anything about the problem.
And by the way I could be mathematically challenged or an Einstein.
You'd still be a disgrace to the uniform because you are such a bald-faced liar.
There you go calling names again... I think the 33 men in my platoon and the Iraqi children I've saved my first tour would beg to differ. Your a key-fucking youtube blogger and just because you pick and choose your facts, doesn't make me a liar. I gave you the link for the 50% opposed - lie debunked. I clarrified my second question to "quality of care", not cost - dismiss debunked. You got nothing but insults, like a true liberal. Bitching and whining when you don't get your way.
How the fuck do you get off calling me a disgrace. Have you ever served? I love you liberals that haven't given shit to this country, then criticize those you couldn't emulate if god shoved his golden trident up your ass. I'm a US Marine you zit popping blog nerd. You couldn't fill a fuckin sperms Marine uniform.
Since you have dodged posting a specific link I reviewed old Rasmussen poll results. The closest I found to your quoted figures was from Mon. June 15, 2009 copy of Rasmussen Reports, which said: 49% believe private insur. co.s will provide better service and more choice than the gov.t option & 34% hold the opposite view. However, it also said 41% believe it would be a good idea to set up a gov..t health insur. co. to compete with private insur. co's.. an identical number (41%) disagree.
I can see why you dodge posting a link. Either you cant remember where you got the figures, or you're afraid that the link would show that you are using outdated poll results or misrepresenting the figures.
Either way, if your rationale for saying that the majority of Americans dont support a public option is some dimly remembered reference in one poll, compared to the 7 recent major poll results I quoted, then there is only one thing I can say: how typical of you.
I just posted the Rasmussen poll on your homepage. You can't post links on youtube comments. And again, the latest FOX poll done on the 10th of Dec shows a majority of people want NOTHING to be done to health care which includes the public option.
All the 7 major recent poll results I cited were the results on the question specific to the public option, and all showed that regardless of opinion on the total bill, most Americans favored a public option, contrary to your lie.
Your last sentence clearly shows that you tied & then tried to back up your lie with poll results from a question not specific to the public option. Shows I was right all along by calling you a liar.
Also the latest Bloomberg poll shows 46% approve 45% oppose which shows that there probably isn't a concensus. Regardless of what people think of a public option (63% don't even know what the public option is), this is just another atempt b liberals to give people something for free and create more dependant victims. The hard truth is that medical care is a commodity, it's not a right any more than owning a house. Reform is needed, but the government needs to stay out.
The question on the Rasmussen Poll was the exact question on the public option 50% opposed 35% approve. You're right I admit the question was not specific to the public option but only a complete idiot would dismiss the result that NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE and say that has nothing to do with the public option, unless your liberal mind equates public option with nothing. If your that dumb then I suppose I'll take being a liar as a compliment.
All of the 7 major recent poll results I cited were for the question specific to the public option and they showed that the majority supported the public option.. Therefore you lied when you said that "the majority of Americans were against the public option". You can't weasel out of it.
The majority favored the public option even when they were against the h.c. bill as a whole.
Your continual attempts to cover your lie with more bullshit is a pathetic as your lying.
You say 7 major like your not sighting 7 liberal news sources. Secondly a lie is when you intentionally deceive, and since I gave you two polls that to anyone with half a brain showed opposition to the public option, it's clearly not a lie. You are a liberal, and unless you can demonize those that don't agree with you, you have little skills to debate. You can whine and moan all you want but the turth is you a mental infant, and the debate really isn't even about what the majority wants.
The 7 "major" polls are "majorly liberal", what do you expect? There's only one FOX (whose latest poll you didn't mention) and 19 majorly liberal news outlets (UCSB measure of media bias p58), so you found 7 whoopdy fuckin do -you missed 12 others that would have continued to shovel shit into your head. Rasmussen, NPR, etc. are the only main stream non biased media you can trust.
Compared to the other polls which survey all citizens Rasmussen's poll includes only "likely voters" which excludes lower income individuals who as a group tend to be disproportionately in favor of the public option.
There is a reason Fox news uses the Rasmussen polls. Those surveys seem to exist solely to advance GOP talking points. Its the Reason those poll results are often at odds with other polls and always more in favor of GOP talking points.
Medical care is not a right. A right is something you are born with like the right to own your body and all the gifts that eminate from our bodies. Speech, life, to develop personalities, travel, defend ourselves, etc. All these things the governement doesn't pay for, give us, take away unless we have violated someone elses rights. And because health care is not a right the government has no buisness mandating it and thus anyone that supports the public option is a socialist.
Easy to take that position... interesting. I don't get tax payer subsidized health care because I sit behind a desk, I sit behind a .50 cal on of a Humvee. After work I don't drive 30 minutes back to my son and wife, I spend 6-8 months in a shit hot tent in Ramadi and only talk to them through email. What I love about people like you, is that you illuminate everything that fuckin sucks about the US. Dumb victim leaches that need more shit from me and everyone else who is self sufficient.
You are a proven liar, and a simple minded twit. If you are in the military I have only one thing to say: Try to remember the little round pointy hole in the gun should be pointed away from you.
I'm not a liar and the fact that you're still throwing insults is only telling of your simplton nature. I'm glad that people like you speak out so everyone can see exactly what kind of person you are.
@megarational "It's easy to take that position..." I served in the military to get my health care payed by the tax payer, since I've given up my rightss as a citizen and sign my life away to my goverment. If all you socialist loving bastards want to do the same, you can get gov't run health care too. But we all know, absolutely know that won't happen. Give, earn are not words in a socialists vocabulary. Get, free, tax the rich, I can't take care of myself, are words you probably relate to.
Accessing good basic health care is not synonomous with the public option so I don't know what your talking about when you say it reflects poorly on me. The reasons you choose to support the public option don't make sence. Your not going to reduce the number of tests unless you have tort reform and elimnate the gov't fines on docs. That has nothing to do with gov't ownership or insurance in general. It's the gov't right now that mandates excessive testing NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Again, the CBO analyzed that tort reform would not significantly affect either the skyrocketing h.c. costs nor the problem of millions of uninsured.
I have not taken a position on tort reform other than there is no reason to kill much needed h.c. reforms simply because they don't also include tort reform. There is nothing stopping the U.S. from subsequently visiting tort reform with a separate bill, as opposed to cramming yet one more controversial and complex issue into the present bills.
The CBO is worhtless then. My sister is an EM doc and she orders every test known to man for the uninsured because she doesn't want to get sued. If she doesn't, and the patient developes some unrelated disease that she could even have the gov't fine her 60k personally. The CBO is worthless then and doesn't know what is going... that's confidence building... either that or you are confused.
... I just read the CBO's study I take it back, they are not worhtless you are, because you can't read. See Table 2 all three studies showed a decrease in primiums... Dare I call you a liar???
Um, I guess you could, if I had ever claimed that premiums would operate differently than whatever source you are looking at. Maybe you would be so kind as to post a link so that we can see just what you are looking at.
And by the way, you "take it back that the CBO is worthless? What, if it comes out with findings that are contrary to your opinions it's worthless, but if you think you found something that you think agrees with your opinions suddenly it's not worthless?
See, you posted a link. That wasn't so hard was it? Here's a cut & paste from that link: "As a whole, the studies provided little systematic evidence that any one type of reform had a significant impact on any of the various outcome measures studied. Few of the findings--except for a reduction in the losses experienced by insurers--were independently corroborated by other studies. Some studies were unable to document any measurable effects from the tort reforms..."
@megarational: I don't know why you bothered posting that additional information: - "Some studies were unable to document... " When it came specifically to reducing the cost of medical care the section labeled "Cap on non economic damages" of the 2 stuides that provided data 100% of them (both Viscussi and others 1993 and Born and Viscussi 1998) noted lower premiums. It's not debatable since this was YOUR SOURCE.
Not to educate you any further but your definition of a "link" is not a link at all. It's a search phrase. A link is a web address that takes you directly to the web page when you stick in the web address textbox.
Here's another "cut & paste from that link" that shows while tort reform would have a favorable effect on h.c. premiums, that effect is not significant compared to the total problem: "The (CBO) estimates that implementing a nationwide package of tort reform proposals would result in reductions of h.c. spending of about 0.5 percent...this figure represents a reduction of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and a 0.3 percent reduction from less utilization of health care services.
Your exact statement was "the CBO analyzed that tort reform would not significantly affect either the skyrocketing h.c. costs blkah blah". If you read the CBO report, which you obviously didn't, you would see that primiums would be affected (not insignificantly as you said). For the 100's of millions currently insured, lower premiums for that amount of people is also not "insignificant" and makes perfect sence with what my sister and other doctors say would "actually happen."
And when you make statements like "medical care is not a right" I can't see how that is any different from saying that a person should only be able to receive medical care if they can afford it.
Like I said, that not only reflects poorly on you, and poorly on America if it chooses that position, it has some huge costs associated with it.
I think everyone should be insured, but it shouldn't be at the tax payers expense and because it's not a right, the gov't should not force the tax payer to bare the burden. They could force everyone to buy insurance, regulate the insurance companies, and open up competition across state lines and start their. If that doesn't work I would conceed and say the public option is necessary.
Social programs all work the same way. Those at the top of the incomes contribute more than those at the bottom of the incomes. So saying that you favor having everyone is insured, but only if it doesn't cost anyone anything, is simply saying that people should have health care only if they can afford it. Why try to rephrase it to make it sound different?
No I'm saying government regulation of the insurance companies, how competition works currently, tort reform, gov't regulation of hospital procedures, all these things are broken. If the system were more captialistic, the purchaser had more buying power, costs would be lowered and health care would be more affordable. Many of the uninsured are under 30, and will just simply get free health insurance for nothing. The elderly on the other hand are the ones in need and will drive up costs.
No I'm saying that someone's go to pay for them and a large majority of the pool that will be getting free health care will be young people under 30 that could afford health care yet opt out to only pay a small penalty, and rejoin as soon as they get sick. The solution to this is centered around giving back the power to the consumer. Insurance companies have too much control, the consumer to little. A health saving fund would do that, but would only help the middle class.
Capititalism solves everything for those that can take care of themselves. And your lying. You can read the posts below where I've said repeatedly that further regulation is needed. But we all know Obama and people like you want a single payer system and put the insurance co.'s out of business. With the the tax payer subsidized public optioin and power to regulate, the government could drive private insurance out of the market.
Further regulation? Isn't that government intervention?
As for capitalism solving everything, will it solve the problem of insurance industry funding political campaigns & lobbying to get legislation & policies favorable to the insurance industry but not necessarily favorable to consumers?
The govn't has a duty to regulate, but of course it should tread lightly. Prevention of monopolies, consumer protection, etc. just like police, it's necessary, but it should be to guide industry in the right direction - productivity and high quality to the consumer. Of course a few pure capitalists will bitch and moan but they would be a small minority.
So one of the last amendments proposed to the Senate bill was regulation to force insurance companies to pay out for health care at least 85% of the premiums collected. Are you in favor of that regulation?
Also, some of the other regulations in the h.c. bills are to end the "preexisting condition" reason for refusing coverage; setting standards for plain easy to understand language in insurance plans: and ending insur. recission abuses. Are you in favor of those regulations?
Also, as for the public option driving the private insurance companies out of business, who cares if it did. However that doesn't answer the question of why it has not done so anywhere else in the world. Why would you buy into the propaganda that it's only in the U.S. where something like a public option would drive private insurance co.s out of business?
And by the way, is, for eg. a young person that contracts a critical illness, or has a major accident at the start of his/her career able to "take care of themselves"? If not I guess they can take consolation from the fact that the free enterprise system is operating as planned.
What about someone who loses insur. because their job was outsourced. Are they able to "take care of themselves"? If not I guess they can take consolation from the free enterprise system operating according to plan.
That's the point of getting insurance to share the burden, it's simple. If they lose their job then they can do what many people do, get a Cobra plan. If you made the reforms I mentioned, health care would be much cheaper and having thousands of competing insurance companies would allow for inexpensive plans with simple emergency coverage.
If your a such a staunch supporter of social programs then give half of your shit away to the Africans. You're only a supporter of social programs when your the one benifiting. How bout you give up half your shit to those less fortunate than you, then wail on about the glory of giving at the top. Like I said before the minimum wage workers in Canada and the US have a much better life than the middle class in most other countries so stop spewing your hypocritical bs and show me how great it is
Liberals want government run anything, and don't care about health care, nor choice, nor coverability. If they did, it could be easily and better done without a public option simply by opening up competition arcoss state lines, forcing everyone to buy insurance, tort reform, and regulating the insurance companies - simple. But again liberals don't really want to fix health care, they just want more dependant people and a bigger government.
Again, the CBO has analyzed that cross-state compettiion would not appreciably affect the problem of increasing h.c. costs nor the prob. of millions of uninsured, nor problems like the "pre-existing conditions" exclusions.
In any case, you have never answered the question of, if you claim to know so much about these bills how is it that you don't know that the exchange set up by the house bill in particular may effectively allow cross-state competition.
Because most don't have the discipline to pay their bills properly, they buy cell phones, lotto tickets, cigerettes, alcohol, name brand clothes, shoes, gold jewelery instead of insurance...they need to learn how to save...place the blame where it belongs...there are some who need help but not all of them...I sit behind them every Friday when I fill up my vehicle with gas...buying hundreds of dollars worth of lotto tickets...they don't need help.
we want health care reform...we don't want the governemnt to take it over...everything they touch ends up full of waste fraud and tax money abuse...if you lived here you might understand.
Who pulled the wool over your eyes...Altough those systems do work, they also have some bad side affects...France's system is 12 billion in the red...how much longer do you think it will work...that's the problem with government...they always operate in the red...it will never change...playing shell games with our tax money and digging a deeper hole all the time...one day the piper will have to be paid...then what?
Also in France they tell the doctors how much they can make, how much they can charge, and they also tell doctors what they can practice...with the knowledge that your salary has a cap and you might have to practice something you don't like would you spend the many years studying to be a doctor...quality will go down.
Don't listen to this @megarational he doesn't even live in this great country...he like Canada and thinks we want to listen to his two cents while he lives there.
If Fox had any integrity it would stop trying to represent itself as a "News" station & just admit that it is the communications department of the GOP.
Would a legitimate "unbiased" news channel help organize, promote, and participate in Tea-Bagger rallies?
This isn't FOX news. If you can read it clearly says FOX Business, and since any business that enjoys being profitable is capitolistic, having the government run anything is always a bad idea, unless you like throwing your money away. Why don't you thank Ben Nelson for taking 100 million dollars for his state, and having all other states pay his portion of medicare indefinately - thats right FOREVER. Seriously, if you guys only waisted your own money there'd be no need for FOX Buisness.
And if the U.S wasn't so full of ignoramuses like you, perhaps it could have figure out a way not to spend almost twice as much as any other country on h.c.. with no better overall results and the worst record of any advanced nation in terms of ensuring all citizens have access to basic affordable health care.
That's the Republican tactic. Claim that the bill is about power, government takeover, government health care, etc.
Why? They want to deny Obama any success so that the GOP have a better chance to get their worthless asses back in power.
They would look foolish fighting reforms to give more universal h.c. access & helping the millions of uninsured & under-insured Americans- so they misrepresent the whole issue.
Idiots like Tea Baggers swallow the GOP deception hook, line & sinker.
@megarational The Democrats (especially Obama) would LOVE it if the GOP takes over in 2010. Part of me thinks that is why the Admin is pushing this bill so hard.
Super majorities are a blessing in disguise. With majorities, you loose the BLAME. Liberals are making themselves look like idiots for blaming republicans for not getting anything done.
The GOP HAS NO SAY AT ALL!
A GOP Take over in 2010 would ensure an Obama victory in 2012 just like the Newt takeover of 94 secured 96 for Clinton
Nice redistribution of wealth! If only Stalin could be here to rejoice in 21st century socialism with you and Obama - hurray! I'm middle class and wish I could stick whatever Obama wants to give me from the rich back up his ass.
Wow you're grapsing for straws. First of all the private industry doesn't employ the armed services, so it's obvious to everyone that the government pays for my bullets and my health care. I don't refuse the bullets I get just because of liberals like you that have fucked everything up already. I can afford to give back tax money and give you and Obama the middle finger, I can't give back the bullets in need to protect my fellow Marines. But thanks for the stupid fuckin question.
Anyone that serves in the military deserves a lot more than having tax payers pay for their health care. There are 3 or 4 men just in my platoon that have PTSD so no you liberal piece of shit, were not going to give it up if we are sick.
Why don't you tells us again, you liar, how "the majority of Americans don't favor the public option". Then we can go through the whole thing again with you trying to dismiss the 7 recent poll results that prove you lied, and then listen to you endlessly weasel around trying to cover your ass with more bullshit.
I don't believe the majority of Americans support the public option. Why did the liberal controlled Senate take it out of the bill - because it was so popular? Most polls regardless of how liberal, show decreasing support, as people get educated. I gave you a poll that showed the public option was opposed by the majority and it didn't come from the biased media. So again I'm not a liar.
The Senate took the public option out because the bill needed a "supermajority", not just a majority, in order to pass. A couple of senators like that little weasel Leiberman, wanted the public option out to protect the insurance industries headquartered in his home state & funding his campaigns. He's always supported the insur. co.'s & his wife is even a lobbyist for an insurance co. But you should know all that if you kept up with things.
And just in case you didn't read my responses, those polls are inconclusive - FOX included. Search: The Public Option: No 'Perfect' Poll. They critique the wording used b y the baised media, you know - the shit you swallowed with a smile? Enjoy.
The ABC/Washington poll, for example, asked about support for "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans,". Tell us, if you can, how that is a biased question?
As for Rasmussen poll: Compared to the other polls which survey all citizens Rasmussen's poll includes only "likely voters" which excludes lower income individuals who as a group tend to be disproportionately in favor of the public option.
There is a reason Fox news uses the Rasmussen polls. Those surveys seem to exist solely to advance GOP talking points and are often at odds with other polls and always more in favor of GOP talking points.
The one poll result you cited differed from all 7 of the other major poll results. So naturally you ignore all the other polls a use the Rasmussen poll, which asked the question in terms of setting up a government company, as opposed to an optional government insurance plan to compete with private insurance plans.
I don't care what other people like about the public option I'm asking you. Hiding behind biased poll numbers isn't going to enlighten anyone - I want to hear one good reason for it from you - other than I'm a liberal following orders and have no idea WHY.
It provides competition for the private insurance companies, which may prod them to provide insur. without diverting so much of your h.c. premiums to things like mega CEO salaries, corp. jets, and political campaign contributions & lobbying. It also will provide competition in terms of service.
It also has potential as another mechanism for polling individuals & small businesses purchasing power.
If it's a "robust" public option it can spread the risk and be of size to negotiate lower prices.
Instead of going to CEO's it will be going to waist in the government. Look at USPS and FedEx. FedEx has CEO's that make millions, yet even so they do things USPS cannot, send any wieght for a flat rate that fits a certain box, track millions of packages simultaneously, and do all this a more cheaper. Also the public option is one option. If they allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines you'd have 100 times the amount of competition, and it would be FREE.
It would also be a great experiment to see just how much less expensive insurance would be if you didn't have the advertising departments, profits, and other "diversions of h.c. $" of private insurance co.'s
The public option does not insure everyone - less than a half. Gov't run health care doesn't lower medical costs-regulation, reform, interstate competition, and forcing everyone to buy health insurance would. The gov't is inefficient. The greedy do more with less always- private vs gov't. The public option creates more dependant people. It gives more power ot the gov't over your life. If you want the DMV version of health care then the public option is for you.
CBO analyzed that neither tort reform nor cross-state competition would significantly affect either the h.c. cost problem nor the problem of millions of uninsured.
In any case, the House bill in particular creates an "exchange" which effectively allows cross-state competition.
As for "the government being inefficient", sometimes the achievement of a goal is even more important than any perceived perfect efficiency. Also, a public option would be technically under government supervision but would be operated day-to-day by insurance experts & professionals.
Is the goal to bankrupt the US. Starting with a 4 trillion dollar deficit, Social Secuirty is going bankrupt, medicare is going bankrupt, and now they want to add a trillion more dollars a year for a public option. Whose going to pay for it? You know it's nice we want to take care of everyone but the system is broken and the public option fixes none of the broken parts.
Actually, the h.c. reforms are funded, & the CBO points out that the reforms will reduce the deficit.
Fully funded, as opposed to for example the Bush tax cuts for the rich that cost more than the h.c. reforms but were totally unfunded.
As for the public option, you keep saying you want people to have choice but you seem obsessed with making sure no one has the choice of a public option.
I love you liberals that get so hung up on tax cuts for the rich. What you dependant victims don't realize is that IT'S THEIR MONEY NOT YOURS. Just because you can't provide for or take care of yourselves, doesn't mean it's THIER JOB TO TAKE CARE OF YOU, or pay for your shit. Yes tax cuts for those that are the best at what they do what a fuckin crime huh... Last time I checked, the poor weren't creating any jobs, they were.
Yup. For Republicans it's all about political power. From day one they tried to delay & kill any bill, not because America doesn't need h.c. reform and not because the bills don't contain much needed reforms. They did it because they made a political decision that it was a way to bring Obama down & increase chances to get their own worthless GOP asses back in power. And they, being sleazeball politicians, continue to spread lies & propaganda & misrepresent the issues.
megarational 2 years ago
You are arguing with an idiot. Anyone that doesn't see the difference between auto insurance (to protect the other guy from your mistakes when you exercise the PRIVILEGE of DRIVING) and some marxist bastard using a gun to force you to buy government health insurance is an idiot. You must remember these parasites are not looking at what is good for America as always it's what's in it for them. Of course page 1 in the demoncrap handbook is "it's fror the children". They make you want to puke
gbait3 2 years ago
the Senate plan would extend coverage to the uninsured--by forcing them to buy policies, whether they can afford them or not. Millions of people will have to buy high-premium, low-quality insurance through private health insurance exchanges, or be forced to pay a penalty.
starrw 2 years ago
remember President Barack Obama's vow to prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions? That's in the proposed bill--but if you've got such a condition, you could pay up to 50 percent more for your coverage. Ditto for older people, who could pay premiums up to three times higher than younger people.
starrw 2 years ago
If you're lucky enough to have a high-quality employer-sponsored insurance plan, you can keep it if you want, as Obama often says. But you'll pay for it, big-time. The Senate has taken Obama's plan to tax "Cadillac" health insurance plans--typically those won by union members over decades--even further, so now more modest "Chevy" plans will be taxed, too.
starrw 2 years ago
With current legislation, today's unaccountable corporate health insurance giants would become even more monstrous. They'd be able to move their nominal base of operations to states with the weakest consumer protection laws in order to shield themselves from patients with complaints. And they'd be shielded from much of current regulation.
starrw 2 years ago
We want reform not bullshit...they are trying to feed us bullshit.
starrw 2 years ago
The Dem's read the h.c. bills because they spent months writing it.
The GOP just scanned it for anything they could spin into propaganda.
megarational 2 years ago
You can't trust the dems...they lie too much
starrw 2 years ago
GO get them Michael!
they swore to uphold the US Constitution.
This health care bill is a violation to US Constitution!
As far as Im concerned, YOU Dem's FIRED!
You are a HYPOCRITE!
vaw32 2 years ago
Forcing the purchase of insurance is conversion if not seizure. Useful idiots believe government is going to care for them. Health care isn't the issue, it's about liberty being eroded by rogue politicians. This is no longer a democratic republic when payola is used to pass law or non-elected officials like czars or EPA goons dictate policy by arbitrary order or decree. "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson
bigdogphoto 2 years ago
Useful idiots is how the GOP views Tea-Baggers.
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational is a vietnam draft dadger who moved to Canada because he has a big yellow streak running down his back..then wants to sit in canada and complain about American health care...Kiss my american a**, traitor!..No one give a shit about your opinion because you are traitor.go stick your head back in the snow
starrw 2 years ago
Why don't you go polish your pitchfork, starrw. You aren't adding anything intelligent to the h.c. debate.
megarational 2 years ago
I have a pitchfork for congressmen.. for you I have a 9mm...you can't add nothing in here either since your a traitor...cuz we are lauging at you chicken.
starrw 2 years ago
I can see the yellow streak right through to the front...did you help Canada get as screwd up as it is while you've been there the last 50 years...biggest bunch of pussies in one place on this planet...thats right all of our draft dodgers are there...there whole lot of youins there...you in a union up there traitor?
starrw 2 years ago
Do you keep all your froth in a can starrw?
megarational 2 years ago
no we keep it in a can of whoop ass...and you don't want to open one!
starrw 2 years ago
How do you open it? With your pitchfork?
megarational 2 years ago
Come on down and we will show you...It is something you need to witness in person!
starrw 2 years ago
A pitchfork AND a 9mm?
My my, aren't you the scary widdle Tea-Bagger.
megarational 2 years ago
sheeples are how those of us with common sense see any one attached to the DNC...but your also scumbag traitor.
starrw 2 years ago
i am a very poor madafucking immigrant , but i have green card and i have right for health coverage , wat i understand is that the rich american assholes will pay for my health insurance lol , thank u america , thank u obama !
jasonnawawi 2 years ago
you may be right about what you say but i DOUBT you're actually a poor mad... -whatever. you wouldn't have a computer and it would be unlikely you'd have a youtube account in the first place so please don't say things you don't believe in
swissndl 2 years ago
see this is the kind of shit that happens with universal health care...pay attention sheepels
starrw 2 years ago
Is government run health care going to raise your taxes? FACT:Yes.
Is grhc going to create more jobs? FACT:No.
Is grhc going to make you more healthy? FACT:No.
Is grhc going to create more health care rationing? FACT:Yes.
Is grhc going to create doctor and nurse shortages? FACT:Yes.
Is grhc going to be the same "Top Notch" health care that congress gets? FACT:No.
Is grhc going to save more lives? FACT:No.
Is grhc going to cost more than what you're paying the insurance companies now? FACT:Yes.
demonpreyer 2 years ago
Your eyes are open wise one. And the numbers we hear today will change by the time 2016 comes around...When did you ever see anything the government touches go down in price? Never, it always goes down in service instead...so in 2016 it will be as good as it will ever get...all down hill from there.
starrw 2 years ago
@macmann17 are you serious? you think the sole purpose of liberals is to actually ruin their own country? how brainwashed are you?
the liberals might be doing things the wrong way, but to actually think they are intentionally trying to hurt the country?
ilikemike987 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm now completely convinced that if you some time checking into what this healthcare bill is about and then still think it's a good idea then you truly are a socialist (or an idiot).
Orchard6773 2 years ago
I checked out what this healthcare bill is about and I support almost all aspects of it (I'm just a little skeptical about the public option. If the government does not crowd out the private insurers by charging premiums that are sub-competitive, then it should be fine). Oh and to let you know, I am a pseudo-socialist.
Eisen89 2 years ago
Pass this bill. It does contain some of the necessary reforms, including ending some of the worst insurance company abuses.
Then have a separate bill only on the public option, which most Americans support.
Then have a bill for tort reform, etc.
This bill is a necessary start. It's not the be-all and end-all.
megarational 2 years ago
Most Americans don't support a public option. How does creating another bureaucracy which is ALWAYS less efficient than private industry that will provide AND regulate insurance REDUCE costs without increasing the deficit? What government run program do you know of that saves money? Did you know that just in the creation of this bill they have included $100's of millions of dollars to just give away to Senators states, just for their votes? The govn't is more corrupt that anyone else.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
98DevilDog 79 just leaps into the debate and like all good little Republicons starts with a complete lie. He says "most Americans don't support a public option". Really?
See next comment for the factual poll results which prove just how big a liar you are.
megarational 2 years ago
Poll results on the public option: CBS/ N.Y. Times. Dec. 4-8 Favor 46% Oppose 45%; Bloomberg Poll Dec. 3-7 Favor 53% Oppose 46 %; CNN/Opinion Research Corp.Dec. 2-3 Favor 53% Oppose 46%; USA Today/Gallup Nov. 20-22 Favor 52% oppose 36%
CBS News favor 61% oppose 28%; FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Nov. 17-18 favor 61% oppose 28%: ABC News/Washington Post Nov. 12-15 Support 53% Oppose 43%.
megarational 2 years ago
You get your results from the most liberal outlets what do you expect? And you pick and choose your facts and call me a liar? You pull out FOX's Nov poll and disregard their Dec 10th poll that says 54% say change NOTHING. Secondly, your numbers for the ABC/Washington Post poll are bs - the REAL numbers for Nov were 49% against and 48% in favor.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
First devildog lies by stating "the majority of Americans don't favor a public option". Then when confronted by the results of 7 major polls proving otherwise, he tries to dismiss all of them. His pathetic attempt to hide his lie then takes the form of picking out one poll and trying to portray the results for a question other than on the public option as being the results applicable to a question on the public option.
Have you no shame you lying bitch?
megarational 2 years ago
Wow like a true second grader lets excalate this to name calling... Did someone steal your toys? You get your facts from liberal news outlets. Rasmussen Reports poll is 50% against 35% pro, that's a fact. As far as being a bitch is concerned my guess is only one of us spent 18 of the last 36 months in Iraq as a foward observer in the 23rd Marines. You're a gullible idiot if you think the liberal polls are the only ones out there and they all agree.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Don't use military service as an excuse for lying. You discredit our soldiers.
I'm calling you on your bullshit. Cite the link that supposedly backs up your one reference.
Come on.
I'm waiting.
Don't dance around the issue - just cite the link.
megarational 2 years ago
I can give you the link dip shit. Just google search Rasmussen and CBS polls differ greatly.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
I did that before ever posting all the poll results. It's like I said, you use results from a question other than one about the public option & try to pass that off as applicable to the public option. The reason you do that is because it is a liars way of deflecting attention from your lie that "the majority of Americans are against the public option". I knew and predicted that you wouldn't cite any actual link, and you didn't. You are still a lying bitch.
megarational 2 years ago
Yes what an idiot living in Canada injecting his two cents where it doesn't belong...Glad he is not living in this country, we have enough idiots here already
starrw 2 years ago
Yes they do...the lazy sheepels wanting a handout...did you think they wouldn't? Most are too lazy to help themselves and they want the government to do it for them...can't save money, always maxing out credit cards, buying lotto tickets instead of healthcare...Give them the public option so they can keep buying those lotto tickets..another tax on the ignorant and poor...Those people need to quit waiting and get off their butts and help themselves and quit waiting on a handout!
starrw 2 years ago
Actually, I can list plenty of government plans that are more efficient than private industry. They include the universal health systems of Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K. All of these governments have health systems that are significantly less than in the U.S. with all-around better (or at least equal) results.
Eisen89 2 years ago
Eisen. Your trying to compare apples and oranges. The government currently controls 40% of health care RIGHT now. IF you want to know what health care is expensive, look at medicaid and what they pay out. Look at mal practice insurance. To say what we have now is indicative of private control just goes to show how little to nothing you know about the US health cares system. Between the gov't and the inssurance companies, the individual controls < 25% of the market - that isn't private.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Actually, I'm not comparing apples to oranges. In the countries I just mentioned, the individual has far less control than here, even if your numbers are correct. Given that, you can't argue that the numbers backing the fact that the systems in the aforementioned countries are indeed superior to ours in many respects. Oh and I do know a lot about the current system. I'm an economist who happened to spend last semester learning about our system from a Ph.D economist from Princeton.
Eisen89 2 years ago
There numbers arn't better. They pay 52% taxes and thier GNP is 1/9 th that of the US. When it comes to breast cancer treatments and patient wating time for surgeries, the US is far better. The time it takes to get a doctor in general in Canada for elective surgury is a joke, and I'm somewhat surprised this is the first time you've heard it. There have been enough cases of Canadians coming here for surgury, I'd like you to find me even one US citizen that CHOSE to go to Canada, UK, etc...
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Actually, if you really want to know, only 2% of Canadians polled dislike their system. In all honesty, the U.S. is better with high-tech treatments like cancer, but we're bad with chronic care (like diabetes) and preventative treatments. I will send you some info in a couple of minutes. If anybody wants it, let me know. Nobody should contact me who's close-minded.
Eisen89 2 years ago
At least 85,000 Americans choose to travel abroad for medical procedures each year, according to a recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Treatment includes dental implants, hip and knee replacements, heart valve replacements and bypass surgery. The cost of surgery performed overseas can be as little as 20 percent of the price of the same procedure in the United States, according to a recent report by the American Medical Association.
megarational 2 years ago
... of course for trival procedures that are done purely based on cost. These other countries health care systems are susidized by their tax payers, is it not obvious why it's cheaper? My VA benifits are completely paid for by tax payers, but I don't get paid shit for risking my life for the past 10 years. If anyone wants government run health care so bad, join the fuck up it only takes a signature. Give back to your country instead of asking for a hand out for nothing. It aint a right.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
First you say "I'd like you to find me even one US citizen that CHOSE to go to Canada, UK, etc.." (for h.c.). Then when confronted with a study which showed an average of 85 thousand Americans go abroad annually for lower cost operations or h.c. procedures you try to dismiss the "dental implants, hip and knee replacements, heart valve replacements and bypass surgery" as just "trivial procedures".
megarational 2 years ago
Then you try to rationalize the lower cost procedures in Canada as being due to taxpayer subsidy of the medical system, ignoring the fact that the Canadian government does not reimburse doctors or h.c. providers for any operations or medical treatment for patients who are not Canadian citizens & who don't have a provincial h.c card, in such cases the h.c. providers recover the entire cost from the patient.
You lie and lie and deceive and deceive.
You are a disgrace to the uniform.
megarational 2 years ago
lol a disgrace to the uniform because you suck at math? This may come as surprise to a moron, but US hosptials eat the cost for millions of uninsured a year, a little bit more than 85,000. The hospitals in Canada can afford lower cost procedures because of this fuckin giganatic difference you're neglecting. It's not that I'm a liar, it's that the blatently obvious eludes the idiot.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
So why does the U.S. have those millions of uninsured? Because it's been too fucking stupid to institute h.c. reforms to do anything about the problem.
And by the way I could be mathematically challenged or an Einstein.
You'd still be a disgrace to the uniform because you are such a bald-faced liar.
megarational 2 years ago
There you go calling names again... I think the 33 men in my platoon and the Iraqi children I've saved my first tour would beg to differ. Your a key-fucking youtube blogger and just because you pick and choose your facts, doesn't make me a liar. I gave you the link for the 50% opposed - lie debunked. I clarrified my second question to "quality of care", not cost - dismiss debunked. You got nothing but insults, like a true liberal. Bitching and whining when you don't get your way.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
You seem to be bitching and whining because your bullshit didn't fly & you didn't get your way.
megarational 2 years ago
How the fuck do you get off calling me a disgrace. Have you ever served? I love you liberals that haven't given shit to this country, then criticize those you couldn't emulate if god shoved his golden trident up your ass. I'm a US Marine you zit popping blog nerd. You couldn't fill a fuckin sperms Marine uniform.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
I call you a disgrace because you routinely lie and make things up. Aren't soldiers supposed to have integrity?
As for filling "a sperms Marine uniform..", just what size is your uniform?
Do your VA benefits cover your psychiatric services?
megarational 2 years ago
I don't make things up. Rasmussen's poll show's 50% opposition 35% pro PUBLIC OPTION period. I'm not a liar, but you are disrespectful.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Since you have dodged posting a specific link I reviewed old Rasmussen poll results. The closest I found to your quoted figures was from Mon. June 15, 2009 copy of Rasmussen Reports, which said: 49% believe private insur. co.s will provide better service and more choice than the gov.t option & 34% hold the opposite view. However, it also said 41% believe it would be a good idea to set up a gov..t health insur. co. to compete with private insur. co's.. an identical number (41%) disagree.
megarational 2 years ago
I can see why you dodge posting a link. Either you cant remember where you got the figures, or you're afraid that the link would show that you are using outdated poll results or misrepresenting the figures.
Either way, if your rationale for saying that the majority of Americans dont support a public option is some dimly remembered reference in one poll, compared to the 7 recent major poll results I quoted, then there is only one thing I can say: how typical of you.
megarational 2 years ago
I just posted the Rasmussen poll on your homepage. You can't post links on youtube comments. And again, the latest FOX poll done on the 10th of Dec shows a majority of people want NOTHING to be done to health care which includes the public option.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
I'v posted links on utube.
All the 7 major recent poll results I cited were the results on the question specific to the public option, and all showed that regardless of opinion on the total bill, most Americans favored a public option, contrary to your lie.
Your last sentence clearly shows that you tied & then tried to back up your lie with poll results from a question not specific to the public option. Shows I was right all along by calling you a liar.
megarational 2 years ago
i totally dont want the fucking public option!! i'll go to jail!! what fucking idiots support this!!! i wont pay a cent to this govt healthcare
dawallaby82 2 years ago
Based on your rabid comments, you are probably no stranger to jail.
megarational 2 years ago
never been, and i don't plan too. and once again, people like you avoid the arguement and just trash, and make sarcastic remarks.
dawallaby82 2 years ago
Also the latest Bloomberg poll shows 46% approve 45% oppose which shows that there probably isn't a concensus. Regardless of what people think of a public option (63% don't even know what the public option is), this is just another atempt b liberals to give people something for free and create more dependant victims. The hard truth is that medical care is a commodity, it's not a right any more than owning a house. Reform is needed, but the government needs to stay out.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
The question on the Rasmussen Poll was the exact question on the public option 50% opposed 35% approve. You're right I admit the question was not specific to the public option but only a complete idiot would dismiss the result that NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE and say that has nothing to do with the public option, unless your liberal mind equates public option with nothing. If your that dumb then I suppose I'll take being a liar as a compliment.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
All of the 7 major recent poll results I cited were for the question specific to the public option and they showed that the majority supported the public option.. Therefore you lied when you said that "the majority of Americans were against the public option". You can't weasel out of it.
The majority favored the public option even when they were against the h.c. bill as a whole.
Your continual attempts to cover your lie with more bullshit is a pathetic as your lying.
megarational 2 years ago
You say 7 major like your not sighting 7 liberal news sources. Secondly a lie is when you intentionally deceive, and since I gave you two polls that to anyone with half a brain showed opposition to the public option, it's clearly not a lie. You are a liberal, and unless you can demonize those that don't agree with you, you have little skills to debate. You can whine and moan all you want but the turth is you a mental infant, and the debate really isn't even about what the majority wants.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Still covering your lie with bullshit I see.
A disgrace to the uniform.
megarational 2 years ago
The 7 "major" polls are "majorly liberal", what do you expect? There's only one FOX (whose latest poll you didn't mention) and 19 majorly liberal news outlets (UCSB measure of media bias p58), so you found 7 whoopdy fuckin do -you missed 12 others that would have continued to shovel shit into your head. Rasmussen, NPR, etc. are the only main stream non biased media you can trust.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Compared to the other polls which survey all citizens Rasmussen's poll includes only "likely voters" which excludes lower income individuals who as a group tend to be disproportionately in favor of the public option.
There is a reason Fox news uses the Rasmussen polls. Those surveys seem to exist solely to advance GOP talking points. Its the Reason those poll results are often at odds with other polls and always more in favor of GOP talking points.
megarational 2 years ago
Medical care is not a right. A right is something you are born with like the right to own your body and all the gifts that eminate from our bodies. Speech, life, to develop personalities, travel, defend ourselves, etc. All these things the governement doesn't pay for, give us, take away unless we have violated someone elses rights. And because health care is not a right the government has no buisness mandating it and thus anyone that supports the public option is a socialist.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Easy to take that position when you're covered by government health care, eh Devildog?
megarational 2 years ago
Easy to take that position... interesting. I don't get tax payer subsidized health care because I sit behind a desk, I sit behind a .50 cal on of a Humvee. After work I don't drive 30 minutes back to my son and wife, I spend 6-8 months in a shit hot tent in Ramadi and only talk to them through email. What I love about people like you, is that you illuminate everything that fuckin sucks about the US. Dumb victim leaches that need more shit from me and everyone else who is self sufficient.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
You are a proven liar, and a simple minded twit. If you are in the military I have only one thing to say: Try to remember the little round pointy hole in the gun should be pointed away from you.
megarational 2 years ago
I'm not a liar and the fact that you're still throwing insults is only telling of your simplton nature. I'm glad that people like you speak out so everyone can see exactly what kind of person you are.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
And everyone cam review the tread of comments to see what a liar you are.
megarational 2 years ago
So, like i said, easy to take the position that health care should not be a right, when you already have gov't health care coverage, eh devildog?
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational "It's easy to take that position..." I served in the military to get my health care payed by the tax payer, since I've given up my rightss as a citizen and sign my life away to my goverment. If all you socialist loving bastards want to do the same, you can get gov't run health care too. But we all know, absolutely know that won't happen. Give, earn are not words in a socialists vocabulary. Get, free, tax the rich, I can't take care of myself, are words you probably relate to.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
So you want access to good basic health care (& not just emergency room stabilization) to be only for those who can afford it.
You are entitled to that opinion, though I think it reflects poorly on you and if the nation choses that position it would reflect poorly on America.
Doesn't excuse you from lying and misrepresenting facts.
megarational 2 years ago
Accessing good basic health care is not synonomous with the public option so I don't know what your talking about when you say it reflects poorly on me. The reasons you choose to support the public option don't make sence. Your not going to reduce the number of tests unless you have tort reform and elimnate the gov't fines on docs. That has nothing to do with gov't ownership or insurance in general. It's the gov't right now that mandates excessive testing NOT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Again, the CBO analyzed that tort reform would not significantly affect either the skyrocketing h.c. costs nor the problem of millions of uninsured.
I have not taken a position on tort reform other than there is no reason to kill much needed h.c. reforms simply because they don't also include tort reform. There is nothing stopping the U.S. from subsequently visiting tort reform with a separate bill, as opposed to cramming yet one more controversial and complex issue into the present bills.
megarational 2 years ago
The CBO is worhtless then. My sister is an EM doc and she orders every test known to man for the uninsured because she doesn't want to get sued. If she doesn't, and the patient developes some unrelated disease that she could even have the gov't fine her 60k personally. The CBO is worthless then and doesn't know what is going... that's confidence building... either that or you are confused.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
The CBO is worthless, the major polls are worthless, the h.c. bills are worthless.
I think the gist of it is that according to you anything which doesn't agree with your narrow minded way of looking at things is worthless.
Frankly, it's looking more and more like you are the only thing that is worthless.
megarational 2 years ago
... I just read the CBO's study I take it back, they are not worhtless you are, because you can't read. See Table 2 all three studies showed a decrease in primiums... Dare I call you a liar???
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Um, I guess you could, if I had ever claimed that premiums would operate differently than whatever source you are looking at. Maybe you would be so kind as to post a link so that we can see just what you are looking at.
And by the way, you "take it back that the CBO is worthless? What, if it comes out with findings that are contrary to your opinions it's worthless, but if you think you found something that you think agrees with your opinions suddenly it's not worthless?
megarational 2 years ago
Here's the link to the pdf: The Effects of Tort Reform: Evidence from the States
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
See, you posted a link. That wasn't so hard was it? Here's a cut & paste from that link: "As a whole, the studies provided little systematic evidence that any one type of reform had a significant impact on any of the various outcome measures studied. Few of the findings--except for a reduction in the losses experienced by insurers--were independently corroborated by other studies. Some studies were unable to document any measurable effects from the tort reforms..."
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational: I don't know why you bothered posting that additional information: - "Some studies were unable to document... " When it came specifically to reducing the cost of medical care the section labeled "Cap on non economic damages" of the 2 stuides that provided data 100% of them (both Viscussi and others 1993 and Born and Viscussi 1998) noted lower premiums. It's not debatable since this was YOUR SOURCE.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Not to educate you any further but your definition of a "link" is not a link at all. It's a search phrase. A link is a web address that takes you directly to the web page when you stick in the web address textbox.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Here's another "cut & paste from that link" that shows while tort reform would have a favorable effect on h.c. premiums, that effect is not significant compared to the total problem: "The (CBO) estimates that implementing a nationwide package of tort reform proposals would result in reductions of h.c. spending of about 0.5 percent...this figure represents a reduction of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and a 0.3 percent reduction from less utilization of health care services.
megarational 2 years ago
Your exact statement was "the CBO analyzed that tort reform would not significantly affect either the skyrocketing h.c. costs blkah blah". If you read the CBO report, which you obviously didn't, you would see that primiums would be affected (not insignificantly as you said). For the 100's of millions currently insured, lower premiums for that amount of people is also not "insignificant" and makes perfect sence with what my sister and other doctors say would "actually happen."
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
And when you make statements like "medical care is not a right" I can't see how that is any different from saying that a person should only be able to receive medical care if they can afford it.
Like I said, that not only reflects poorly on you, and poorly on America if it chooses that position, it has some huge costs associated with it.
megarational 2 years ago
I think everyone should be insured, but it shouldn't be at the tax payers expense and because it's not a right, the gov't should not force the tax payer to bare the burden. They could force everyone to buy insurance, regulate the insurance companies, and open up competition across state lines and start their. If that doesn't work I would conceed and say the public option is necessary.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Social programs all work the same way. Those at the top of the incomes contribute more than those at the bottom of the incomes. So saying that you favor having everyone is insured, but only if it doesn't cost anyone anything, is simply saying that people should have health care only if they can afford it. Why try to rephrase it to make it sound different?
megarational 2 years ago
No I'm saying government regulation of the insurance companies, how competition works currently, tort reform, gov't regulation of hospital procedures, all these things are broken. If the system were more captialistic, the purchaser had more buying power, costs would be lowered and health care would be more affordable. Many of the uninsured are under 30, and will just simply get free health insurance for nothing. The elderly on the other hand are the ones in need and will drive up costs.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
So what are you saying, get rid of those pesky elders who drive up h.c. costs?
You ramble & babble but come up with no real solutions.
megarational 2 years ago
No I'm saying that someone's go to pay for them and a large majority of the pool that will be getting free health care will be young people under 30 that could afford health care yet opt out to only pay a small penalty, and rejoin as soon as they get sick. The solution to this is centered around giving back the power to the consumer. Insurance companies have too much control, the consumer to little. A health saving fund would do that, but would only help the middle class.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
So increase the penalty.
megarational 2 years ago
Yeah, some people will be getting subsidized h.c. & some in poverty will be paying nothing.
So what? Is there any other way to have universal coverage?
megarational 2 years ago
Ok, we all long ago got your view, 'free for all" unregulated & unrestricted capitalism will solve everything.
Thanks for coming out devildog.
megarational 2 years ago
Capititalism solves everything for those that can take care of themselves. And your lying. You can read the posts below where I've said repeatedly that further regulation is needed. But we all know Obama and people like you want a single payer system and put the insurance co.'s out of business. With the the tax payer subsidized public optioin and power to regulate, the government could drive private insurance out of the market.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Further regulation? Isn't that government intervention?
As for capitalism solving everything, will it solve the problem of insurance industry funding political campaigns & lobbying to get legislation & policies favorable to the insurance industry but not necessarily favorable to consumers?
megarational 2 years ago
The govn't has a duty to regulate, but of course it should tread lightly. Prevention of monopolies, consumer protection, etc. just like police, it's necessary, but it should be to guide industry in the right direction - productivity and high quality to the consumer. Of course a few pure capitalists will bitch and moan but they would be a small minority.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
So one of the last amendments proposed to the Senate bill was regulation to force insurance companies to pay out for health care at least 85% of the premiums collected. Are you in favor of that regulation?
megarational 2 years ago
Also, some of the other regulations in the h.c. bills are to end the "preexisting condition" reason for refusing coverage; setting standards for plain easy to understand language in insurance plans: and ending insur. recission abuses. Are you in favor of those regulations?
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational Yes.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Also, as for the public option driving the private insurance companies out of business, who cares if it did. However that doesn't answer the question of why it has not done so anywhere else in the world. Why would you buy into the propaganda that it's only in the U.S. where something like a public option would drive private insurance co.s out of business?
megarational 2 years ago
And by the way, is, for eg. a young person that contracts a critical illness, or has a major accident at the start of his/her career able to "take care of themselves"? If not I guess they can take consolation from the fact that the free enterprise system is operating as planned.
What about someone who loses insur. because their job was outsourced. Are they able to "take care of themselves"? If not I guess they can take consolation from the free enterprise system operating according to plan.
megarational 2 years ago
That's the point of getting insurance to share the burden, it's simple. If they lose their job then they can do what many people do, get a Cobra plan. If you made the reforms I mentioned, health care would be much cheaper and having thousands of competing insurance companies would allow for inexpensive plans with simple emergency coverage.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Have you seen the price tag for Cobra?
How is someone out a job supposed to afford that?
megarational 2 years ago
If your a such a staunch supporter of social programs then give half of your shit away to the Africans. You're only a supporter of social programs when your the one benifiting. How bout you give up half your shit to those less fortunate than you, then wail on about the glory of giving at the top. Like I said before the minimum wage workers in Canada and the US have a much better life than the middle class in most other countries so stop spewing your hypocritical bs and show me how great it is
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Liberals want government run anything, and don't care about health care, nor choice, nor coverability. If they did, it could be easily and better done without a public option simply by opening up competition arcoss state lines, forcing everyone to buy insurance, tort reform, and regulating the insurance companies - simple. But again liberals don't really want to fix health care, they just want more dependant people and a bigger government.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Again, the CBO has analyzed that cross-state compettiion would not appreciably affect the problem of increasing h.c. costs nor the prob. of millions of uninsured, nor problems like the "pre-existing conditions" exclusions.
In any case, you have never answered the question of, if you claim to know so much about these bills how is it that you don't know that the exchange set up by the house bill in particular may effectively allow cross-state competition.
megarational 2 years ago
We do care about choice. One of the choices we want is a public option.
megarational 2 years ago
Because most don't have the discipline to pay their bills properly, they buy cell phones, lotto tickets, cigerettes, alcohol, name brand clothes, shoes, gold jewelery instead of insurance...they need to learn how to save...place the blame where it belongs...there are some who need help but not all of them...I sit behind them every Friday when I fill up my vehicle with gas...buying hundreds of dollars worth of lotto tickets...they don't need help.
starrw 2 years ago
we want health care reform...we don't want the governemnt to take it over...everything they touch ends up full of waste fraud and tax money abuse...if you lived here you might understand.
starrw 2 years ago
Who pulled the wool over your eyes...Altough those systems do work, they also have some bad side affects...France's system is 12 billion in the red...how much longer do you think it will work...that's the problem with government...they always operate in the red...it will never change...playing shell games with our tax money and digging a deeper hole all the time...one day the piper will have to be paid...then what?
starrw 2 years ago
Also in France they tell the doctors how much they can make, how much they can charge, and they also tell doctors what they can practice...with the knowledge that your salary has a cap and you might have to practice something you don't like would you spend the many years studying to be a doctor...quality will go down.
starrw 2 years ago
you live in canada...we don't care what you think...your vote does not count here.
starrw 2 years ago
I wasn't aware that Utube comments counted as a "vote".
Widdle kid starrw sounds all miffed.
Anything intelligent to say numb-nuts?
megarational 2 years ago
Don't listen to this @megarational he doesn't even live in this great country...he like Canada and thinks we want to listen to his two cents while he lives there.
starrw 2 years ago
Fox News interviewing a Republican.
It's incest.
If Fox had any integrity it would stop trying to represent itself as a "News" station & just admit that it is the communications department of the GOP.
Would a legitimate "unbiased" news channel help organize, promote, and participate in Tea-Bagger rallies?
megarational 2 years ago
This isn't FOX news. If you can read it clearly says FOX Business, and since any business that enjoys being profitable is capitolistic, having the government run anything is always a bad idea, unless you like throwing your money away. Why don't you thank Ben Nelson for taking 100 million dollars for his state, and having all other states pay his portion of medicare indefinately - thats right FOREVER. Seriously, if you guys only waisted your own money there'd be no need for FOX Buisness.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
And if the U.S wasn't so full of ignoramuses like you, perhaps it could have figure out a way not to spend almost twice as much as any other country on h.c.. with no better overall results and the worst record of any advanced nation in terms of ensuring all citizens have access to basic affordable health care.
megarational 2 years ago
That's the Republican tactic. Claim that the bill is about power, government takeover, government health care, etc.
Why? They want to deny Obama any success so that the GOP have a better chance to get their worthless asses back in power.
They would look foolish fighting reforms to give more universal h.c. access & helping the millions of uninsured & under-insured Americans- so they misrepresent the whole issue.
Idiots like Tea Baggers swallow the GOP deception hook, line & sinker.
megarational 2 years ago
@megarational The Democrats (especially Obama) would LOVE it if the GOP takes over in 2010. Part of me thinks that is why the Admin is pushing this bill so hard.
Super majorities are a blessing in disguise. With majorities, you loose the BLAME. Liberals are making themselves look like idiots for blaming republicans for not getting anything done.
The GOP HAS NO SAY AT ALL!
A GOP Take over in 2010 would ensure an Obama victory in 2012 just like the Newt takeover of 94 secured 96 for Clinton
kencan98 2 years ago
GOP has any chance at all in 2010 only if Americans have short memories and low IQ's.
megarational 2 years ago
Partisanship plus the mega-majority custom equals gridlock.
megarational 2 years ago
obama and the demacrats will TAX U TO DEATH FOE EVERY WORKING AMERICAN
READ THE BILL
ryen1992 2 years ago
Obama is repealing the Bush tax cuts to the rich and gave tax cuts instead to the middle class.
Maybe you should quit getting blow jobs from Glen Beck.
megarational 2 years ago
Nice redistribution of wealth! If only Stalin could be here to rejoice in 21st century socialism with you and Obama - hurray! I'm middle class and wish I could stick whatever Obama wants to give me from the rich back up his ass.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
I thought you said you were a soldier & receive VA coverage?
Who do you think pays for that?
The rich pay for it more than the lower class.
So are you going to "stick your VA coverage" somewhere and refuse it?
if not, then you're a hypocrite as well as a liar.
megarational 2 years ago
Wow you're grapsing for straws. First of all the private industry doesn't employ the armed services, so it's obvious to everyone that the government pays for my bullets and my health care. I don't refuse the bullets I get just because of liberals like you that have fucked everything up already. I can afford to give back tax money and give you and Obama the middle finger, I can't give back the bullets in need to protect my fellow Marines. But thanks for the stupid fuckin question.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
So if you get sick you are going to refuse your VA medical coverage?
Fat chance.
megarational 2 years ago
Anyone that serves in the military deserves a lot more than having tax payers pay for their health care. There are 3 or 4 men just in my platoon that have PTSD so no you liberal piece of shit, were not going to give it up if we are sick.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Liars deserve no respect.
Why don't you tells us again, you liar, how "the majority of Americans don't favor the public option". Then we can go through the whole thing again with you trying to dismiss the 7 recent poll results that prove you lied, and then listen to you endlessly weasel around trying to cover your ass with more bullshit.
megarational 2 years ago
I don't believe the majority of Americans support the public option. Why did the liberal controlled Senate take it out of the bill - because it was so popular? Most polls regardless of how liberal, show decreasing support, as people get educated. I gave you a poll that showed the public option was opposed by the majority and it didn't come from the biased media. So again I'm not a liar.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Still no link posted & still trying to cover your lying ass with more bullshit.
So post the link already, otherwise you just continue to embarrass yourself even more with your lie and continual attempts to weasel out of it.
megarational 2 years ago
I posted the link to your home page 3 days ago. YOU CAN'T POST WEBPAGES IN THIS AREA.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Here's an example of a link posted in this area:
"Gallup Poll: Americans Turning Against Federal Reserve".
Cut & paste it in google & you'll see that it works.
Any other excuses?
megarational 2 years ago
Here's the one I posted to your web page: Rasmussen and CBS polls differ greatly on public option in health ... 50% opposed 35% approve.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
The Senate took the public option out because the bill needed a "supermajority", not just a majority, in order to pass. A couple of senators like that little weasel Leiberman, wanted the public option out to protect the insurance industries headquartered in his home state & funding his campaigns. He's always supported the insur. co.'s & his wife is even a lobbyist for an insurance co. But you should know all that if you kept up with things.
Maybe you are too busy making up more lies?
megarational 2 years ago
No they took it out because the blue dog democrats wouldn't vote for it and a clear majorit of the public did not support it, it's as simple as that.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
:A clear majority of the public did not support it" (the public option).
I see you are still the same old liar.
In case you have a short memory, the poll results are again posted below.
megarational 2 years ago
And just in case you didn't read my responses, those polls are inconclusive - FOX included. Search: The Public Option: No 'Perfect' Poll. They critique the wording used b y the baised media, you know - the shit you swallowed with a smile? Enjoy.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Comment removed
megarational 2 years ago
The ABC/Washington poll, for example, asked about support for "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans,". Tell us, if you can, how that is a biased question?
megarational 2 years ago
As for Rasmussen poll: Compared to the other polls which survey all citizens Rasmussen's poll includes only "likely voters" which excludes lower income individuals who as a group tend to be disproportionately in favor of the public option.
There is a reason Fox news uses the Rasmussen polls. Those surveys seem to exist solely to advance GOP talking points and are often at odds with other polls and always more in favor of GOP talking points.
megarational 2 years ago
The one poll result you cited differed from all 7 of the other major poll results. So naturally you ignore all the other polls a use the Rasmussen poll, which asked the question in terms of setting up a government company, as opposed to an optional government insurance plan to compete with private insurance plans.
megarational 2 years ago
Would the Senate bill have passed without removal of the public option if a "super-majority" were not required by custom?
megarational 2 years ago
The Senate only needed 60 votes and they weren't going to get it. It's democratically controlled and they can't even agree on their own bill.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
No one said that no democrats weren't more concerned with the votes in their particular district than about what the majority of Americans favor.
megarational 2 years ago
Instead of waisting your time callinng me a liar why don't you give me some intellectual points on why you want the public option.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Here's two links to videos which outline most, but not all, of the reasons a pubic option is desirable:
"Sheldon Joins Colleagues at Press Conference to Support a Public Option"
and
"Sen. Brown Discusses How The Public Option Creates Competition And Lowers Costs For Americans"
megarational 2 years ago
I don't care what other people like about the public option I'm asking you. Hiding behind biased poll numbers isn't going to enlighten anyone - I want to hear one good reason for it from you - other than I'm a liberal following orders and have no idea WHY.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
It provides competition for the private insurance companies, which may prod them to provide insur. without diverting so much of your h.c. premiums to things like mega CEO salaries, corp. jets, and political campaign contributions & lobbying. It also will provide competition in terms of service.
It also has potential as another mechanism for polling individuals & small businesses purchasing power.
If it's a "robust" public option it can spread the risk and be of size to negotiate lower prices.
megarational 2 years ago
Instead of going to CEO's it will be going to waist in the government. Look at USPS and FedEx. FedEx has CEO's that make millions, yet even so they do things USPS cannot, send any wieght for a flat rate that fits a certain box, track millions of packages simultaneously, and do all this a more cheaper. Also the public option is one option. If they allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines you'd have 100 times the amount of competition, and it would be FREE.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Again, the public option under the house bill operates on premiums collected from those who choose to enroll in that plan.
Naturally, the insurance companies fight this competition harder than any other aspect of the h.c. reforms.'
megarational 2 years ago
It would also be a great experiment to see just how much less expensive insurance would be if you didn't have the advertising departments, profits, and other "diversions of h.c. $" of private insurance co.'s
megarational 2 years ago
By the way, did you even bother to watch the 2 video links I provided?
Or are you afraid you might accidentally watch something that doesn't fit your preconceived notions?
megarational 2 years ago
Resend me the videos.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Sheldon Joins Colleagues at Press Conference to Support a Public Option
and
Sen. Brown Discusses How The Public Option Creates Competition And Lowers Costs For Americans
megarational 2 years ago
Those were utube links, not google links.
megarational 2 years ago
The public option does not insure everyone - less than a half. Gov't run health care doesn't lower medical costs-regulation, reform, interstate competition, and forcing everyone to buy health insurance would. The gov't is inefficient. The greedy do more with less always- private vs gov't. The public option creates more dependant people. It gives more power ot the gov't over your life. If you want the DMV version of health care then the public option is for you.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
CBO analyzed that neither tort reform nor cross-state competition would significantly affect either the h.c. cost problem nor the problem of millions of uninsured.
In any case, the House bill in particular creates an "exchange" which effectively allows cross-state competition.
megarational 2 years ago
As for "the government being inefficient", sometimes the achievement of a goal is even more important than any perceived perfect efficiency. Also, a public option would be technically under government supervision but would be operated day-to-day by insurance experts & professionals.
megarational 2 years ago
Is the goal to bankrupt the US. Starting with a 4 trillion dollar deficit, Social Secuirty is going bankrupt, medicare is going bankrupt, and now they want to add a trillion more dollars a year for a public option. Whose going to pay for it? You know it's nice we want to take care of everyone but the system is broken and the public option fixes none of the broken parts.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
Actually, the h.c. reforms are funded, & the CBO points out that the reforms will reduce the deficit.
Fully funded, as opposed to for example the Bush tax cuts for the rich that cost more than the h.c. reforms but were totally unfunded.
As for the public option, you keep saying you want people to have choice but you seem obsessed with making sure no one has the choice of a public option.
megarational 2 years ago
I love you liberals that get so hung up on tax cuts for the rich. What you dependant victims don't realize is that IT'S THEIR MONEY NOT YOURS. Just because you can't provide for or take care of yourselves, doesn't mean it's THIER JOB TO TAKE CARE OF YOU, or pay for your shit. Yes tax cuts for those that are the best at what they do what a fuckin crime huh... Last time I checked, the poor weren't creating any jobs, they were.
98DevilDog79 2 years ago
actually, they are not creating jobs, they are moving them overseas.
megarational 2 years ago