I'm generally conservative in the way that I'm not a fan of a large fed and I think we've created a system that coddles stupid people. However I hate the religous right as much as anyone else which is why I voted for Obama.

Also the international race card is pretty great.

8/10/2009 1:28:35 PM

Boone I hate to contribute to this further distraction from the actual subject of this thread (health care), but several leading members of "the conservative movement" broke for Obama in 2008.

Bruce Barlett was one of them and the one that sticks out most in mind. Just to give you a flavor of his conservative credentials he's a former Reagan domestic policy adviser, a former fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and author of the book "The Supply Side Solution." And if you have not heard of him, you should prob brush up on your domestic policy reading because he's been important enough to be called an idiot by such liberal luminaries as Paul Krugman and Brad Delong.

Here he is in The New Republic (hardly an obscure rag) writing about other conservatives and libertarians supporting Obama in 2008:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4-fbeac17bcfca

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ``]

8/10/2009 1:34:19 PM

I don't understand....and perhaps I'm missing something as I've been trying to avoid getting worked up by this bill, like the plague....but

1) Am I to understand correctly that those in congress have NOT read the bill? Some saying it would take too many lawyers to figure out? Is that their possible way of having a way to plead ignorance when/if the shit hits the fan later on? Or....?

2) All those that work in government (senate, congress etc) have their own healthcare plan that would remain, effectively making them exempt from the HC reform bill they are trying to pass?

8/10/2009 1:55:29 PM

^ A lot of people don't read a lot of the bills. This one is about 1,100 pages and full of legal jargon. No one wants to read it.

And in reality, they don't read a lot of stuff they sign off on. That's what they pay other people to do. I would advocate for reading something as important as this. But for as much stuff as comes across their desks, and this isn't even a finished version, I am not surprised.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2009 1:59:46 PM

Quote :

"1) Am I to understand correctly that those in congress have NOT read the bill? Some saying it would take too many lawyers to figure out? Is that their possible way of having a way to plead ignorance when/if the shit hits the fan later on? Or....?"

Most members of congress didn't read the Patriot Act either. Or the Stimulus Bill. I'm not saying it's right or I agree with it, but it's pretty common and accepted practice. Most large pieces of legislation like this aren't read word for word by every member of Congress. At this point, it's not something to get bent out of shape about it.

Quote :

"2) All those that work in government (senate, congress etc) have their own healthcare plan that would remain, effectively making them exempt from the HC reform bill they are trying to pass?"

And if you have your own health care plan, guess what, you'll be able to keep it too. The only difference is, your insurance company will no longer be able to drop your coverage if you get some sort of illness that requires expensive treatment because you misreported your weight when you signed up 4 years ago. They also won't be able to arbitrarily jack up your premiums.

8/10/2009 2:03:13 PM

^^ & ^
Thanks for answers

Regarding question 2....so let's say that I have health insurance through my job and in 3 years I quit/get fired/laid off....does this mean that in my next job, whomever it's with, I will have to go onto the government insurance...and will have to be on it for the rest of my life?

I also believe that if I am on an individual plan right now (not insured through an employer) then I will no longer be able to keep that plan and will be forced to go on to the govt's plan....correct?

8/10/2009 2:18:49 PM

So, the only thing I see now is people asking how things will be under the new plan. Does that pretty much mean that this shit is an inevitability? Is there even any point in resisting, at this point?

8/10/2009 2:30:24 PM

Quote :

"And if you have your own health care plan, guess what, you'll be able to keep it too. "

Not exactly true. Most people get their insurance through their employers. And if this bill causes your company to re-evaluate where and how they buy their insurance, well guess what, your health care plan will change too.

Pretending that the proposed reforms will have no impact on anyone's existing health care plan a is pretty dishonest way to sell this plan, imho.

8/10/2009 2:30:49 PM

Neither of those is correct. If the bill passes, if you switch to a new plan it will be a part of the new exchange system, meaning basically that it just abides by the new regulations. Hopefully, if Republicans and weak-willed Democrats don't kill it, one of your many options will be a public plan, but it will simply be one of the many selections you will have available.

8/10/2009 2:32:41 PM

Quote :

"So, the only thing I see now is people asking how things will be under the new plan. Does that pretty much mean that this shit is an inevitability? Is there even any point in resisting, at this point?"

I think it's inevitable that some sort of health care reform will be passed by or during October. What's up the air is whether or not a public option will be part of it. Things are much farther along than when Clinton attempted this in 1993. For one, there wasn't a single bill that got through committees in the House and Senate back then. This time, 1 Senate bill and 3 House bill's have already gotten through their respective committees.

8/10/2009 2:37:25 PM

I only know of three bills - which is the fourth?

8/10/2009 2:43:05 PM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php

Republicans can't catch a break.

The black dude that was beaten (well, maybe) is now accepting donations towards his medical bills, since he has no health insurance.

8/10/2009 2:51:35 PM

Quote :

"The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year." One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on. The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care. People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHADHSFASLDJFAS;LDJFSADFEAIDHFASDFHAHAHAAAAAAAA

8/10/2009 2:51:39 PM

Quote :

"I only know of three bills - which is the fourth?"

Well, it's really 3 versions of the same bill in the House (HR 3200) each passed by a different committee that has jurisdiction on these issues. Those 3 are supposedly being merged and amended over the recess so a final bill can get voted on. Then there is the Senate bill passed by the HELP committee.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM. Reason : :]

8/10/2009 2:57:52 PM

Quote :

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.""

Um, he resides in Cambridge, England. And he recently recovered from an infection where he had to be hospitalized.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 3:11:32 PM

Nevertheless, the linked article was cited as a source for a mass email titled "Grandmas and Unborn Babies Face Extermination by Obama’s “Health” Care Plan" by Human Events magazine, a publication with articles written by such respected Republican luminaries as Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin, and Ollie North.

8/10/2009 3:15:17 PM

I find it even funnier that they would call Stephen Hawking a brilliant man, seeing as how his studies of the universe and the way it works have been ignored by damn near everyone who believes the bullshit that publication is trying to spew (god fearing conservatives).

8/10/2009 3:19:06 PM

Quote :

"When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee. It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

8/10/2009 3:27:37 PM

^that has been covered multiple times. it's a definition section for what the health exchange is and it basically means that new plans post-passage of that bill would have to be a part of the exchange under those new rules.

8/10/2009 3:47:12 PM

There isn't a facepalm big enough in the entire world...

^ Not to mention the fact that she's quoting from the same web site I just posted that said the NHS wouldn't have let Hawking survive had he lived in England.

8/10/2009 3:49:18 PM

Quote :

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

fucking amazing

8/10/2009 3:52:04 PM

Well, if ObamaCare is so goddamned popular, why don't these overwhelming masses of its supporters simply go to the town hall meetings and drown out the opposition?

8/10/2009 4:15:52 PM

it's the problem of the vocal minority.

if you've got 5% of people who are really pissed off, they're going to be louder likely than the 40% who are in support. not to mention there's a not a specific bill to rally around. there are multiple versions to consider.

also, it's a lot easier to protest something by yelling. it's a little harder to get people to rally around being pleased with something to show up (especially when it's basically a compromise in many ways that doesn't really thrill much of anyone)

8/10/2009 4:19:59 PM

btw, if ObamaCare is so fucking great, why doesn;t the bill REQUIRE CONGRESS TO BE ON IT? Oh, right...

8/10/2009 4:21:22 PM

^^ So the health-care issue isn't important enough for this supposed majority to get off their asses and be heard? Gotcha--then they deserve whatever they get.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ^]

8/10/2009 4:22:34 PM

Quote :

"So the health-care issue isn't important enough for this supposed majority to get off their asses and be heard?"

I guess we might if we thought these nazi-holding mobs were going to stop health reform.

But they won't. I'd even wager they're doing more to hurt their cause than harm it.

8/10/2009 4:27:58 PM

^^ i personally prefer directly contacting my representatives rather than yelling in a mob.

8/10/2009 4:33:49 PM

The only convincing point I've heard in this debate is that Medicare/Medicaid are costing us big bucks. Would this plan make those things go away? Or are they still going to be there in the background, bankrupting the shit out of us? If this plan isn't going to actually save money eventually, then I can't support it...it'd just be another Obama "free money" program.

8/10/2009 4:34:40 PM

First of all....yeah...so then that means that health care plans that people sign up for POST passage, must meet all the requirements (the same requirements) that the public option would...right? So how is that being able to have your same plan with the same benefits or even a different plan with the benefits you WANT?

Sure, you can go from Los Angeles to NY by whatever means you choose even though we recommend you travel there via our bus line 'American Bus Company' which while it makes no less than 35 stops, takes more than 2 weeks to make the whole trip, gives you a choice of McDonalds or Burger King as your meals, and has the right to boot you off should you fail to meet our weight requirements, it's FREE!!!!!!

Now of course you could take one of the many other modes of transportation including driving via car, another bus company, trains, planes, etc... but they have to meet our same requirements which includes: not allowing planes to use airspace to travel, not allowing cars to drive on gov't funded roads, not using trains to cross state lines, not allowing food to be purchased from places other than McDonalds and Burger King, and not allowing a single person to weigh over a certain amount due to road safety conditions.

I realize that's an oversimplification (I certainly can't be expected to read 1000 pages either) How is that any different? I'm not arguing one side or another here, I'm just asking how 'The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage' means something different to 'you can do whatever you want as long as it follows all of our rules....all 1018 pages of them.'

Unless the whole point of the 1018 pages is to intentionally confuse and mislead people into what this bill means...


Second....so anything I read on that website is garbage? Just so I have a running list of where I can and cannot get credible information from. kkthx

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2009 4:36:51 PM

I've heard it sold as a means to making Medica-- solvent. I haven't looked into it, though.

8/10/2009 4:38:15 PM

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/death-panel-architect-a-pro-life-republican-from-georgia.html

Quote :

" "Death panel" architect a pro-life Republican from Georgia? Last week former Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a statement to her Facebook page in which she warned that President Obama's health care reform plan would result in a so-called "death panel" with the power to kill elderly people and those with disabilities: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) also recently accused the Democrats' health care reform plan of putting seniors "to death." But there is nothing resembling the alleged "death panel" in the health care reform plan. A spokesperson for Palin told ABC News that the former governor was referring to a section promoting advance care planning that appears on page 425 of the House Democrats' bill. Advance care planning includes living wills and durable powers of attorney that allow individuals to make clear their wishes for end-of-life care, whatever they may be. And as it turns out, the cause of advance planning has been championed especially strongly by a pro-life Republican -- U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. Isakson (photo above) is a member of Senate Health committee that played a key role in shaping the health care reform legislation. He successfully offered an amendment in committee that allows funds for a government-funded program that provides in-home services to people with disabilities to be used for advance care planning, according to the national Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. Isakson has been promoting advance care planning for years. In 2007, for example, he co-sponsored two bills to encourage such planning -- the Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act and the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act. In 2005, Isakson joined with state lawmakers to publicly sign a personal "Directive for Final Health Care" to encourage Georgians to discuss their personal wishes for end-of-life care. He cited the controversial case of Terry Schiavo -- a Florida woman who lived for several years in a persistent vegetative state before her husband had her disconnected from a feeding tube -- to illustrate the importance of advance planning. "I believe it is every person's right and responsibility to make sure their loved ones are prepared to make decisions on their behalf by discussing and documenting their wishes," Isakson said at the time. "It is my sincere hope that all Georgians will join me in following the lead of the Georgia General Assembly's Resolution and make their final wishes known." Isakson is a pro-life politician who opposes abortion as well as stem cell research entailing the destruction of human embryos. So far Isakson has remained silent publicly on the "death panel" brouhaha. Facing South called his press office for comment today but no one was available. Meanwhile, another prominent Georgia Republican has rushed to Palin's defense: Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich told ABC's "This Week" that people are being asked "to trust turning power over to the government when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards." But other at least one Georgia politician has tried to distance himself from Palin, with Congressman Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) telling Bill Maher that her "death panel" allegation was "a scare tactic.""

8/10/2009 4:42:14 PM

^^^if you actually read the surrounding SENTENCES in that bill, it would be clear. and no, the rules for the exchange are not that they have to be exactly like the federal program. and of course that article is from nearly a month ago, when pretty much everything in that article (and plenty of other articles like it) were debunked.

8/10/2009 4:45:44 PM

surrounding sentences? There are 1018 pages of them.

8/10/2009 4:47:27 PM

i mean the sentences immediately surrounding the quoted part.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM. Reason : pretty sure it's outlined earlier in this thread by me and others.]

this page should help:/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=3

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 4:48:53 PM

To Boone-Tard:



Bush was called and depicted and made in effigy as a Nazi on a daily basis by a variety of left-wing loons--get over it. And do you have proof that your allegations are widespread at the protests or are you just doing your guilt-by-association bullshit again.

8/10/2009 4:56:38 PM

that's not even in america

8/10/2009 4:59:38 PM

Clearly the solution is to go to town hall meetings and scream, at the top of your lungs, "I SUPPORT A CIVIL AND WELL-REASONED DEBATE!!!" While armed.

8/10/2009 5:00:18 PM

This. . .

Quote :

"I don't think people should be shouting down others--I've been consistent in this. And concerning health care, I would much rather see a reasoned debate and discussion in the arena of ideas."

hooksaw

. . .was my actual quotation. And it happens to be true, no matter how much you and your cohorts try to distort it.

It's the left in this country that has a history of silencing debate. You realize this, right?

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 5:12:20 PM

if you said protesting, i'd agree. silencing debate happens on both ends of the spectrum.

8/10/2009 5:16:35 PM

Everyone knows that if you disagree with Pelosi you are immoral and are a villain. Duh...

8/10/2009 5:16:41 PM

^ Hell, you're downright "un-American" if you do--Pelosi said so!



Maybe Pelosi will dig up McCarthy and start the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings again.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : PS: ]

8/10/2009 5:37:39 PM

actually michelle bachmann's got the button on that

8/10/2009 5:39:10 PM

I didn't realize this was the bash-on-Pelosi thread.

I'll share.

Her face looks plastic and funny.

8/10/2009 5:39:43 PM

^ Her facial muscles collapsed from blinking so much.

8/10/2009 5:41:40 PM

At Canada-US-Mexico summit, Obama says Canadian health care system would be too radical for US

Quote :

""We've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem," Obama said at the final news conference of his North American summit with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon."

Quote :

"Obama noted the U.S. system is based on employers providing health insurance for most Americans. Throwing that out would be too radical an overhaul, he said. "The Canadian model won't work in the United States," he said. However, he said he expects opponents of health-care legislation to continue to make what he called the misleading comparison between proposed U.S. legislation and Canada's system. "I suspect that you Canadians are going to continue to get dragged into the debate," he said."

- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/10/obama-canadian-health-care-model-wont-work-in-u-s/

8/10/2009 5:43:22 PM

OBAMA'S GOT BIG EARS HUR DUR

8/10/2009 5:43:46 PM

Quote :

"i mean the sentences immediately surrounding the quoted part. [Edited on August 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM. Reason : pretty sure it's outlined earlier in this thread by me and others.]"

That still doesn't address her concern that plans available now will probably not be available in the exchange (e.g. high-deductible plans coupled with HSAs)

8/10/2009 5:53:14 PM

Quote :

"Maybe Pelosi will dig up McCarthy and start the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings again. "

Bush and the House republicans already dug him up back in 2001.

8/10/2009 6:12:43 PM

^^except that's not what she said at all.

8/10/2009 6:17:35 PM

8/10/2009 6:19:34 PM