Why Teddy scares GOP on Healthcare reform.

[Taichiliberal]

Actually in US history the average amn has benefited by the deaths of the ritch and famous.

Rail safety after a bunch of rich people died in train wrecks.
Enough life boats after the titanic.
And more but I just forget at this time of night.

True enough!

 

[Damocles]

True enough Damo, but I put it to both of you....what is the GOP offering as a viable alternative that isn't just a version of the HMO disaster we are now experiencing?

The majority of the American public want healthcare reform.....the Dems and Obama have "bi-partisaned" down from single payer to public option. I wonder as to what's going to happen later in September when the public that elected Obama puts a fire under the Dems....what those 5 proposals will finally reveal.

Nah, they've "bi-partisaned" down to health communes... They sound interesting and they are "not for profit" so they should keep even belme happy, while not being government for the people like me who will never trust the benevolence of the government and don't want to be force-fed by any company into the "government option" because that is what their company decides to opt into...

I prefer to wait and keep my best arguments for whatever they bring up when they return. If it is this dog, it doesn't even matter if it is named after Kennedy. He wasn't shot, and in the vast majority of the nation he wasn't liked. People from the East tend to think people around them comprise how the rest of us think.

One thing I know, it will not be reform if we do not decouple it from your employment. That was the worst crap the unions ever "won" for us. I'd prefer extra money and health care to be like car insurance than have people forced into keeping jobs that they despise in order to keep health insurance "won" by the unions for us.

 

[cawacko]

True enough!

Wasn't it the rich folks who survived the Titanic and the lower class folks the ones who died or was that just in the movie?

 

[uscitizen]

Wasn't it the rich folks who survived the Titanic and the lower class folks the ones who died or was that just in the movie?

some of the rich folks survived but many well connected rich folks died. Of course the poor died at a much higher rate than the rich though.
It is the American way

Healthcare/titanic some things do not change.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Nah, they've "bi-partisaned" down to health communes... Not quite....but it could be wittled down to such if the opposition found that acceptable, I guess. They sound interesting and they are "not for profit" so they should keep even belme happy, while not being government for the people like me who will never trust the benevolence of the government and don't want to be force-fed by any company into the "government option" because that is what their company decides to opt into... As opposed to being "force fed" by private insurance companies that your company decides to opt into? See Damo, there lies the rub....people falsely stating that the proposed health care reform is going to do what IN REALITY is what the current private insurance companies do.
I prefer to wait and keep my best arguments for whatever they bring up when they return. I concur. If it is this dog, it doesn't even matter if it is named after Kennedy. He wasn't shot, and in the vast majority of the nation he wasn't liked. People from the East tend to think people around them comprise how the rest of us think. Ahhh, but it's the working man that Kennedy's successful legislations have benefitted...that is uncontested, and that may turn the tide.
One thing I know, it will not be reform if we do not decouple it from your employment. That was the worst crap the unions ever "won" for us. I'd prefer extra money and health care to be like car insurance than have people forced into keeping jobs that they despise in order to keep health insurance "won" by the unions for us.

Well, I've worked for private companies that did a combination of what you say here. Worked out pretty good.

The "single payer" option was giving you what you wanted...and remember, it was an OPTION, like anything else. But as you say, let's see how this shakes out.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Wasn't it the rich folks who survived the Titanic and the lower class folks the ones who died or was that just in the movie?

Didn't the movie have all the rich folk bravely singing as the ship went down...the Clifton Webb version?

 

[Damocles]

Well, I've worked for private companies that did a combination of what you say here. Worked out pretty good.

The "single payer" option was giving you what you wanted...and remember, it was an OPTION, like anything else. But as you say, let's see how this shakes out.

Which is my fricking point. First it isn't a myth, it is reality. If my company decides to offer the government option, the government option is what I get.

That "single payer" option would not give me what I wanted. You haven't paid any attention if you think it would. Although I am not wholly against a "single payer" option just because I hate "single payer", so long as it is a regulated private venture rather than a government controlled public venture I would definitely consider it.

Picture an option more like the utility companies who have to beg the government for any price increase and justify it...

 

[cawacko]

Didn't the movie have all the rich folk bravely singing as the ship went down...the Clifton Webb version?

Maybe you are right. I remember the scenes where they had the rich women get on the few life boats and they kept the lower class folk locked downstairs.

 

[Minister of Truth]

His behaviour over Chappaquidick was shitty but he certainly embraced the social justice agenda of the Catholic church. I'm not embarrassed by that but I am embarrassed by Catholics and Christians who use abortion only as the litmus test of the church's teachings.

MASS MURDER RULEZ!!!





Oh, and let's stop judging the Nazis so harshly, because genocide was merely one piece of the whole puzzle...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Which is my fricking point. First it isn't a myth, it is reality. If my company decides to offer the government option, the government option is what I get.

And if your company decides to switch to another private insurance company that doesn't give you what you want, you're screwed! See, this is what I consistently find in the anti-Obama health reform folk......contratidictions and inconsistencies....there is no more a guarantee that your company will automatically switch to the gov't health care plan then there is a guarantee that they will switch to another private insurance company.

That "single payer" option would not give me what I wanted. You haven't paid any attention if you think it would. Although I am not wholly against a "single payer" option just because I hate "single payer", so long as it is a regulated private venture rather than a government controlled public venture I would definitely consider it. I've paid attention...and since the very insurance companies that you are supporting fought tooth and nail AGAINST gov't regulation, what makes you think they would gladly offer a single payer options with gov't oversight that curtails their profit margin?

Picture an option more like the utility companies who have to beg the government for any price increase and justify it...

As opposed to non-regulated utility company that raises it's rates whenever it damned well pleases without justification?

 

[Damocles]

As opposed to non-regulated utility company that raises it's rates whenever it damned well pleases without justification?

Which again is my fricking point.

What part of "it is not reform unless we decouple it from employment" and "this is the worst crap the unions ever 'gave' us" means that I want my company to make those choices whether government enforced or not?

Are you deliberately obtuse or is it natural?

And which utility company is "non-regulated", seriously you are myopic and totally incapable of any thought other than what you are given by party apparatchik. As a certain Congressman would say, arguing with you is like arguing with the dinner table.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As opposed to non-regulated utility company that raises it's rates whenever it damned well pleases without justification?

Which again is my fricking point. You're "fricking point" seems to have a very gray area that covers a lot of territory....in effect you have "fricking pointS" which boil down to anti-Obama initiated reform...period.

What part of "it is not reform unless we decouple it from employment" and "this is the worst crap the unions ever 'gave' us" means that I want my company to make those choices whether government enforced or not? And what part of my responses can't you comprehend? So far, all you've done is just stamp your feet and repeat yourself WITHOUT directly addressing the content of my responses.

Are you deliberately obtuse or is it natural? No, I'm just deconstructing your anti-gov't BS and convoluted logic that is so common in the self contradictory neocon mantras that have been bullhorning across the 3 news mediums for the last 8 1/2 years.

And which utility company is "non-regulated", it's an exaggeration, genius....just like your nonsense about "have to beg the government for any price increase". Maybe you were asleep in the last 2 decades and missed the fights about regulation regarding utility companies....Lord knows us folks in Long Island, New York didn't. I seriously you are myopic and totally incapable of any thought other than what you are given by party apparatchik. Oh blow it out your ass, Damo! Every damned time you neocon clowns are presented with logic that your mantras can't drown out, you get all pissy and continue the repetition. As a certain Congressman would say, arguing with you is like arguing with the dinner table.

Translation: Damo's neocon bullshit doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: There is NO obligation or madatory rule in the proposed healthcare reforms (gov't options) that force companies to switch....no more so than companies presently have the option to change from one insurance company to another. To even suggest that the insurance companies that are raking in the profits while fighting gov't regulation, denying people coverage and hiking up rates will suddenly do the right thing by offering a better option plan is at best laughable.

 

[christiefan915]

MASS MURDER RULEZ!!!



Oh, and let's stop judging the Nazis so harshly, because genocide was merely one piece of the whole puzzle...

Abortion isn't murder.

 

[christiefan915]

As opposed to non-regulated utility company that raises it's rates whenever it damned well pleases without justification?

Re: this comment: "If my company decides to offer the government option, the government option is what I get."

If my company decides to offer BC/BS but I'd rather have Aetna, I either take BC/BS or opt out. It's ridiculous to think most employees have any say whatsoever in which insurance the employer decides to buy.

Periodically I get these notices from the utilities that they're contemplating a rate increase and if the consumer has any complaints or comments, a hearing will be held on a certain date for them to speak up. So how many increases were cancelled by consumers speaking up?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As opposed to non-regulated utility company that raises it's rates whenever it damned well pleases without justification?

Re: this comment: "If my company decides to offer the government option, the government option is what I get."

If my company decides to offer BC/BS but I'd rather have Aetna, I either take BC/BS or opt out. It's ridiculous to think most employees have any say whatsoever in which insurance the employer decides to buy.

Periodically I get these notices from the utilities that they're contemplating a rate increase and if the consumer has any complaints or comments, a hearing will be held on a certain date for them to speak up. So how many increases were cancelled by consumers speaking up?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

A little dose of reality that Damo and folks of his mindset just refuses to acknowledge.

 

[Damocles]

Translation: Damo's neocon bullshit doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: There is NO obligation or madatory rule in the proposed healthcare reforms (gov't options) that force companies to switch....no more so than companies presently have the option to change from one insurance company to another. To even suggest that the insurance companies that are raking in the profits while fighting gov't regulation, denying people coverage and hiking up rates will suddenly do the right thing by offering a better option plan is at best laughable.

Please.

Obama has initiated nothing, he has delegated all to the Congress who have come up with plan craptacular that the public is rejecting so soundly that he has decided that he needs to call a joint session early in his Presidency in order to try to revive what he once assumed would (and pressured Congress to) pass in July without debate.

Nobody said that reform would come from the companies, or that new regulation wouldn't be necessary, your argument is a poorly disguised straw man dressed up in what you hope I am arguing.

I have addressed your responses directly and repeatedly because your responses are merely repeats of previous straw man arguments.

Government run programs are increasingly being exposed as inadequate and far more restricted than anything the private companies bring us today. They are consistently moving towards more private care because even people in those programs see a need for reform. Instead of instituting what we already know to be inadequate and even further rationed than what we already have I suggest we work to find the cost and fix it through regulatory bodies rather than government "options" created with an advantage that limits recourse from the consumer.

We can and, if we continue to hold the elected representatives accountable, we will come up with a better solution than inadequate government debacles reaching past all logical resemblance of responsible reform.

 

[Damocles]

Re: this comment: "If my company decides to offer the government option, the government option is what I get."

If my company decides to offer BC/BS but I'd rather have Aetna, I either take BC/BS or opt out. It's ridiculous to think most employees have any say whatsoever in which insurance the employer decides to buy.

Periodically I get these notices from the utilities that they're contemplating a rate increase and if the consumer has any complaints or comments, a hearing will be held on a certain date for them to speak up. So how many increases were cancelled by consumers speaking up?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Which again is my point. If we do not decouple insurance from the companies it is the consumer that gets the shaft. Choices continue to be limited, and the employee continues to be at the mercy of employers. This, again, IMO is the worst "benefit" ever "won" by unions, it chains you to companies and limits your options creating monstrous unnatural monopolies. All that "benefit" happens while limiting your options for advancement because your insurance becomes your chain.

You continue to deliberately build this straw man so you don't have to deal with the fact that this "reform" isn't the best we can do, still leaves us attached to companies and without options, creates a government "option" (that we cannot select) with an unfair advantage by exempting itself from lawsuits and funding through taxes that they pretend are equal to premiums. Not only that but the tiers create new insurance levels inadequate to the task of making insurance affordable for those that most need it. The main problem remains unsolved while still costing us, according to the CBO, a bit over 1 Trillion in 10 years.

We can, should, and will do better than this so long as we continue to force our representatives to listen, to slow down and do it right.

(And before DNC comes on and says 'we need it now' remember that the plan, if passed, still won't even start for a bit over 5 years hiding the brunt of the cost 5 more years after that...)

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Translation: Damo's neocon bullshit doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Bottom line: There is NO obligation or madatory rule in the proposed healthcare reforms (gov't options) that force companies to switch....no more so than companies presently have the option to change from one insurance company to another. To even suggest that the insurance companies that are raking in the profits while fighting gov't regulation, denying people coverage and hiking up rates will suddenly do the right thing by offering a better option plan is at best laughable.

Please. Oh okay, I'll endulge more of your neocon riddled clap trap and condescending attitude......but only because you asked nicely.

Obama has initiated nothing, he has delegated all to the Congress who have come up with plan craptacular that the public is rejecting so soundly that he has decided that he needs to call a joint session early in his Presidency in order to try to revive what he once assumed would (and pressured Congress to) pass in July without debate.

Man, Hannity/Levin/Beck/Limbaugh/Crowley/Maulkin/O'Reilly/the WND/Newsmax/etc., couldn't have written that better....you should apply for a job with them. The level of half truths, pure supposition and conjecture and just plain long disproven BS is just what they're looking for.

Nobody said that reform would come from the companies, or that new regulation wouldn't be necessary, your argument is a poorly disguised straw man dressed up in what you hope I am arguing.

You're freaking delusional, Damo! The recorded thread shows EXACTLY what I was responding to and EXACTLY what I stated, which has NOTHING to do with the painfully obvious dodge you're trying to foster here. Unless you can copy and paste where and how I do as you say IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, you're just blowing neocon smoke.

I have addressed your responses directly and repeatedly because your responses are merely repeats of previous straw man arguments.

Man, you've taken a page right out of the same book as Southie, USFreedom, Dixie and the rest of that peanut gallery. Unfortunately for you, the recorded posts shows you to be either self deluded or a full blown liar.

Government run programs are increasingly being exposed as inadequate and far more restricted than anything the private companies bring us today. No one is denying that there is waste and/or fraud in some gov't programs. But that is NOT the status quo....just as there are private run programs are increasingly being exposed as inadequate and far more restricted than anything the gov't run agency brings us today...or have you forgotten Enron? The S&L Scandal and the current bank mortgage inspired Wall St. meltdown? They are consistently moving towards more private care because even people in those programs see a need for reform. What planet are you on? The HMO is the VERY REASON why there is a pressing need for healthcare reform...or do we have to rehash the past few months of news for you? Instead of instituting what we already know to be inadequate and even further rationed than what we already have I suggest we work to find the cost and fix it through regulatory bodies rather than government "options" created with an advantage that limits recourse from the consumer.

Stop and think....you want mimic what the federal gov't can do in order to get the HMO system to straighten up and fly right(although you grudgingly admit they are screwing over the public at will). Who is going to head up this "regulatory body" of yours? Or are you advocating the federal gov't ramp up the very apparatus that the HMO's have lobbied so hard against over the years? And isn't that a bit of a contradiction for someone who has stated time and again how inept and corrupt and almost unconstitutional the federal gov't is? .

We can and, if we continue to hold the elected representatives accountable, we will come up with a better solution than inadequate government debacles reaching past all logical resemblance of responsible reform.

Once again, you condemn the federal gov't on one end, and then you suddenly put faith into the system IF it had the elected officials that you want. You want regulation of a system that you swear does a better job than a proposed federal agency, yet when that system is proven corrupt and inept to a degree, you forbid gov't sponsored alternative, and you seldom acknowledge how the private system fights and lobbies NOT to be regulated by the fed gov't.

You can't have it both ways. C'mon Damo, get your ass in gear!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by christiefan915
Re: this comment: "If my company decides to offer the government option, the government option is what I get."

If my company decides to offer BC/BS but I'd rather have Aetna, I either take BC/BS or opt out. It's ridiculous to think most employees have any say whatsoever in which insurance the employer decides to buy.

Periodically I get these notices from the utilities that they're contemplating a rate increase and if the consumer has any complaints or comments, a hearing will be held on a certain date for them to speak up. So how many increases were cancelled by consumers speaking up?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Which again is my point. If we do not decouple insurance from the companies it is the consumer that gets the shaft.


Bull Fucking Shit! If it weren't for insurance through employment, the vast majority of working Americans WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE....Period. Or did forget (or don't know) how this came about? Because UNIONS fought for it...because without it you couldn't afford health care based on your salary alone. Now, if you're against the concept of unions in general, just say so. Then at least we can all understand just what is the basis for some of the revisionist bullshit you keep trying to pass off as fact based logic.

Why the hell do Choices continue to be limited, and the employee continues to be at the mercy of employers. This, again, IMO is the worst "benefit" ever "won" by unions, it chains you to companies and limits your options creating monstrous unnatural monopolies. All that "benefit" happens while limiting your options for advancement because your insurance becomes your chain.

What planet are you on? The employer and the employee are to varying degrees at the mercy of the insurance companies. As Christie pointed out, the employee is free to opt for their own insurance....problem is that for most folk THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE RATES FOR DECENT HEALTH INSURANCE ON THEIR SALARIES ALONE.

You continue to deliberately build this straw man so you don't have to deal with the fact that this "reform" isn't the best we can do, still leaves us attached to companies and without options, creates a government "option" (that we cannot select....to date you have not given proof that the gov't option would be forced on people any more than any other insurance option.) with an unfair advantage by exempting itself from lawsuits and funding through taxes that they pretend are equal to premiums. Well, federal gov't agencies have been sued in the past, and I don't recall all of the proposals stipulating what you state here. Not only that but the tiers create new insurance levels inadequate to the task of making insurance affordable for those that most need it. Says who? If you create an option designed for affordability, the only a moron would gear his company to NOT be in competition with that option. In other words, perhaps private rates would reduce The main problem remains unsolved while still costing us, according to the CBO, a bit over 1 Trillion in 10 years. An estimate...which will change when the final proposal comes out. And of course, you'll have to compare this to what current HMO costs will be in the next 10 years.
We can, should, and will do better than this so long as we continue to force our representatives to listen, to slow down and do it right. But aren't these the same representatives that are in the federal gov't that you say is grossly incompetent and corrupt? Precisely whom do you want into office that you trust to sternly revamp and oversee the HMO system? But didnt' you say that too much gov't involvment in the private health industry is unwanted by you? A lot of contradictions to your logic. You can't have it both ways.

(And before DNC comes on and says 'we need it now' remember that the plan, if passed, still won't even start for a bit over 5 years hiding the brunt of the cost 5 more years after that...)

Who says the cost will be hidden?

 

[Damocles]

Once again, you condemn the federal gov't on one end, and then you suddenly put faith into the system IF it had the elected officials that you want. You want regulation of a system that you swear does a better job than a proposed federal agency, yet when that system is proven corrupt and inept to a degree, you forbid gov't sponsored alternative, and you seldom acknowledge how the private system fights and lobbies NOT to be regulated by the fed gov't.

You can't have it both ways. C'mon Damo, get your ass in gear!

Talk about somebody standing in the dark closet and assuming therefore that nobody else can see...

I don't care if it "fights" not to be regulated, it can still be regulated and that is the better way to deal with this than creating a government-owned system that simply will be worse, has been shown to be inadequate elsewhere, and even if it were perfectly run doesn't solve the problem to begin with. All that "awesome" fail with no recourse when it becomes corrupt, bureaucrats are not elected and are rarely held accountable.

The reality is, there is recourse with private entities that you do not have with government programs that have been specifically exempted from lawsuit (all from the same group that argues that tort reform wouldn't save money in the current system yet are willing to give their own mess this advantage in the artificial market), and they can still be regulated even if they lobby not to be. Your excuse seems to be, "Well they can't be regulated because they pay our Ds money!"

You can't have it both ways, either you can pass huge systemic changes that create government-owned systems that fail at their assigned task at inception (poor people still won't be able to afford care) or you can't even pass actual reform in legislation because your politicians are paid off... Which is it?

We can do better than this mess. And if this mess is forced on people it will seriously be reflected in 2010....