A Power-Grab Republican Style

[NJ Stinks]

Republicans are so full of shit it is stunning. The latest crap involves the outrage GOPer's claim to be genuine because Dems are using reconcilation to pass healthcare reform in the Senate. The GOP wails that this is too important and too expensive to ever pass with a simple majority in the Senate. The two-faced SOB's ought to know better. From the New York Times:
_______________________________________________

His [Lamar Alexander's] fib on premiums was quickly followed by a fib on process. Democrats, having already passed a health bill with 60 votes in the Senate, now plan to use a simple majority vote to modify some of the numbers, a process known as reconciliation. Mr. Alexander declared that reconciliation has “never been used for something like this.” Well, I don’t know what “like this” means, but reconciliation has, in fact, been used for previous health reforms — and was used to push through both of the Bush tax cuts at a budget cost of $1.8 trillion, twice the bill for health reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html
__________________________________________________ __

I guess there is nothing illegal about using reconcilation to pass tax cuts while fighting a war at the same time. Just because cutting taxes had never been done while fighting a war in U.S. history doesn't make it disgustingly selfish and morally corrupt in and of itself. But now Family Values Party can't bear the idea that it may cost them half of the money Bush handed out to make healthcare more accessible to other American families that obviously need help.

Keep waving the American flag like you cornered the market on patriotism, GOP'ers. Hopefully, it helps you sleep at night. :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Is somebody going to now post all of the video links of virtually every Democratic leader (Reid, Obama, Biden, et al) screaming bloody murder about it at the time and how they would never do it... and let's just continue the cycle of reinforcing the common knowledge that they are ALL full of shit.

[ArlJim78]

this bill is unprecedented in size and scope. the fact that its such an unpopular piece of crap that it has to be written behind closed doors, people have to be bribed to vote for it, and to pass it they have to resort to special methods that eliminate debate or ammendents, should give any sane person cause for concern.

they'll never do it though. its a game of chicken and they'll cave in.

[GameTheory]

Are there in fact, any "GOP'ers" around here? Not many, I don't think. Conservatives, yes, but gung-ho Republican party supporters? Any? Any of you guys volunteer for Republican candidates? Donate money? The idea of working for or financially supporting either of these two joke parties makes me sick, always has.

It is true that Republicans used reconciliation plenty to pass what they wanted when they could. And it is also true that both sides wail-and-moan about the other side using X method when they have no problem using it themselves if they get the chance. I don't see either side being more hypocritical than the other here. I think the main failure is the public taking their protestations at face value every time. They are all lying when they say "things shouldn't be done this way" (when they don't agree with the goal) and they are all lying when they say "this way of doing things is OK" (when they do agree with the goal). They (again, talking about both sides here) will do whatever they can to get what they want and will do whatever they can to stop what they don't want. I don't think any of them believe anything they say even if they agree with themselves in theory. They are ALWAYS being dishonest. (In other words, they are being dishonest even when they are saying things they agree with, if that makes sense). It is dishonest because they aren't saying them because they are true (even if they happen to be, by coincidence), but to manipulate whoever might be listening. All rhetoric is a tactic and they couldn't care less if they said the exact opposite the week before because they don't have a true belief on the subject either way. They have all lost the ability to know what a true belief is.

[ArlJim78]

and about the title of this thread, where is the Republican power grap?
How is it a Republican power grab when its Democrats ramming through legislation to nationalize 1/6 of the economy?

[lamboguy]

Are there in fact, any "GOP'ers" around here? Not many, I don't think. Conservatives, yes, but gung-ho Republican party supporters? Any? Any of you guys volunteer for Republican candidates? Donate money? The idea of working for or financially supporting either of these two joke parties makes me sick, always has.

It is true that Republicans used reconciliation plenty to pass what they wanted when they could. And it is also true that both sides wail-and-moan about the other side using X method when they have no problem using it themselves if they get the chance. I don't see either side being more hypocritical than the other here. I think the main failure is the public taking their protestations at face value every time. They are all lying when they say "things shouldn't be done this way" (when they don't agree with the goal) and they are all lying when they say "this way of doing things is OK" (when they do agree with the goal). They (again, talking about both sides here) will do whatever they can to get what they want and will do whatever they can to stop what they don't want. I don't think any of them believe anything they say even if they agree with themselves in theory. They are ALWAYS being dishonest. (In other words, they are being dishonest even when they are saying things they agree with, if that makes sense). It is dishonest because they aren't saying them because they are true (even if they happen to be, by coincidence), but to manipulate whoever might be listening. All rhetoric is a tactic and they couldn't care less if they said the exact opposite the week before because they don't have a true belief on the subject either way. They have all lost the ability to know what a true belief is.the thing that gets me is that if you don't have health insurance then you will get fined, if you don't pay the fine then you go to jail. i think all doctor's suck, and when you go to them they give you bad drugs and make you worse than before you walk into their office's. try eating right, and exercise, you won't need doctor's or insurance.

[GameTheory]

the thing that gets me is that if you don't have health insurance then you will get fined, if you don't pay the fine then you go to jail. i think all doctor's suck, and when you go to them they give you bad drugs and make you worse than before you walk into their office's. try eating right, and exercise, you won't need doctor's or insurance.There's some truth in that, but they are good are some things, like mending broken bones, emergency trauma situations, etc. I've got a broken leg at the moment. Diet wouldn't have helped prevent it, and exercise is how I got it. I'm glad my surgeon knew how to put all the pieces back together. Once it heals it'll be stronger than the other one (thanks to a piece of steel).

[boxcar]

the thing that gets me is that if you don't have health insurance then you will get fined, if you don't pay the fine then you go to jail. i think all doctor's suck, and when you go to them they give you bad drugs and make you worse than before you walk into their office's. try eating right, and exercise, you won't need doctor's or insurance.

A man after me own heart! Well said! :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

common knowledge that they are ALL full of shit.
That's the fact. This latest chapter is rich.

Pull out the 'recon card' wait for reaction. Deny pulling the 'recon card' wait for reaction. Deride the reaction to the pulling of the 'recon card'. Wait.

And to top it off, you get a reaction from Stinky straight out of line from John Voight in Coming Home.

You ain't got no corner on the flag. I laughed, I cried.

Read my lips, Stinky & others.

Just do it!

[Snag]

and about the title of this thread, where is the Republican power grap?
How is it a Republican power grab when its Democrats ramming through legislation to nationalize 1/6 of the economy?

Shhhhhhhhh ArlJim. Facts confuse NJ!!

[NJ Stinks]

Read my lips, Stinky & others.

Just do it!

Consider it done. I don't think the Dems have one good reason not to use reconciliation now. Republicans are gambling that they are going to score in November by blocking healthcare reform today. Better yet, if the Dems don't use reconciliation,the GOP can brag in the fall about stopping this supposedly absurd Dem heathcare reform plan.

The only sane option left for Dems is to do it now. And let the American people decide later on if it is effective or not. If it is as good as most Dems believe it will be, they must be willing to prove it's true. Now.

[boxcar]

Consider it done. I don't think the Dems have one good reason not to use reconciliation now. Republicans are gambling that they are going to score in November by blocking healthcare reform today. Better yet, if the Dems don't use reconciliation,the GOP can brag in the fall about stopping this supposedly absurd Dem heathcare reform plan.

The only sane option left for Dems is to do it now. And let the American people decide later on if it is effective or not. If it is as good as most Dems believe it will be, they must be willing to prove it's true. Now.

The American people have already decided. By a margin of about 70-30, the people don't want what the Dems are dishing out.

Moreover, given the results of the three elections in 3 very blue states, I don't believe the Repugs are taking much of a gamble at all. The risk-taking is all on the side of the Dems -- and they know it!

As of right now (as other have previously pointed out) the votes are not there in the House. How many Dems do you think are going to be willing to fall on the sword for Obama? Give me a number, will ya?

Boxcar

[Leonard]

Consider it done. I don't think the Dems have one good reason not to use reconciliation now. Republicans are gambling that they are going to score in November by blocking healthcare reform today. Better yet, if the Dems don't use reconciliation,the GOP can brag in the fall about stopping this supposedly absurd Dem heathcare reform plan.

The only sane option left for Dems is to do it now. And let the American people decide later on if it is effective or not. If it is as good as most Dems believe it will be, they must be willing to prove it's true. Now.


"I don't think the Dems have one good reason not to use reconciliation now."
I would say there are about 10-12 good reasons that I can think of why they have not used it, are not using it, and will not use it. Not coincidentally, there are 10-12 Democrats in the House that will not vote for the Senate version of the bill which is needed before reconciliation can take place. Otherwise, Obama would have signed the bill into law last month.

[NJ Stinks]

Is somebody going to now post all of the video links of virtually every Democratic leader (Reid, Obama, Biden, et al) screaming bloody murder about it at the time and how they would never do it... and let's just continue the cycle of reinforcing the common knowledge that they are ALL full of shit.

No doubt. They both do it.

I just find it rather disgusting that those on the right did not scream when Bush bought votes with his $1.8 trillion tax cuts (hint: Jim, that's a power grab) while fighting a war but the Dems are the devil reincarnated with this supposed $.9 trillion (healthcare) power grab that will obviously benefit people who really need help.

And, Snag, when you are ready to dispute my facts with facts of your own, let me know.

[NJ Stinks]

"I don't think the Dems have one good reason not to use reconciliation now."
I would say there are about 10-12 good reasons that I can think of why they have not used it, are not using it, and will not use it. Not coincidentally, there are 10-12 Democrats in the House that will not vote for the Senate version of the bill which is needed before reconciliation can take place. Otherwise, Obama would have signed the bill into law last month.

If you are right, reconciliation will not be used. We'll find out soon enough.

[bigmack]

The only sane option left for Dems is to do it now. And let the American people decide later on if it is effective or not. If it is as good as most Dems believe it will be, they must be willing to prove it's true. Now.
Right on & outta sight. Don't worry about public opinion.

Shove that baby through, don't let anything stop you now.

GL

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/xopen.gif

[NJ Stinks]

Right on & outta sight. Don't worry about public opinion.

Shove that baby through, don't let anything stop you now.

GL

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/xopen.gif


I wish I knew how to illustrate my posts like you do, Bigmack. I'm not kidding. :ThmbUp:

[Leonard]

No doubt. They both do it.

I just find it rather disgusting that those on the right did not scream when Bush bought votes with his $1.8 trillion tax cuts (hint: Jim, that's a power grab) while fighting a war but the Dems are the devil reincarnated with this supposed $.9 trillion (healthcare) power grab that will obviously benefit people who really need help.

And, Snag, when you are ready to dispute my facts with facts of your own, let me know.

"...the Dems are the devil reincarnated with this supposed $.9 trillion (healthcare) power grab that will obviously benefit people who really need help."

1. I would say you make a compelling argument with that portion of your statement, even if I did take it a wee bit out of context ;)

2. Just who are all these people who really need help and why do they need trillions of dollars? That seems rather extravagant considering they have nothing now. Or do they have nothing?

[JustRalph]

Political suicide if they do it.


Let's hope they do it..........

[prospector]

Political suicide if they do it.


Let's hope they do it..........
ditto! and tax cuts are a great reason to wave the flag..:)

[newtothegame]

Consider it done. I don't think the Dems have one good reason not to use reconciliation now. Republicans are gambling that they are going to score in November by blocking healthcare reform today. Better yet, if the Dems don't use reconciliation,the GOP can brag in the fall about stopping this supposedly absurd Dem heathcare reform plan.

The only sane option left for Dems is to do it now. And let the American people decide later on if it is effective or not. If it is as good as most Dems believe it will be, they must be willing to prove it's true. Now.

Well...NJ...I think your right in some aspects. but, I believe you may have the parties backwards. And let me preface this by saying as I have contended from day one....I am not for the GOP repugs either. I am conservative!
but I believe the way it stands, the repugs are in a win win situation. The party of "no" as some would call them has the population on their side now. Polls have shown this. If reform does not go through, the repugs win as being seen as having stopped it. If healthcare gets passed, the repugs win because the american population will show the progressives in the upcoming elections their displeasure. The idea that somehow the people will be able to see if it works if passed, ...well nothing of substance will be able to be seen for sometime. Definitely not by the Nov elections.
It is the Dems who are gambling that this healthcare plan will be succesful. Any ideas of Obama having a second term in my opinion is now relying solely on this. The Dems have placed their entire electoral lives on this plan. That is why Obama made his comment at the end of the summit about letting the elections make the determination. That was in referrence to reconcilliation.
If you don't believe that this is true, then you need not look any further then Mass. That was a vote in my opinion solely of the people saying they are "tired of the B.S".

[NJ Stinks]

2. Just who are all these people who really need help and why do they need trillions of dollars? That seems rather extravagant considering they have nothing now. Or do they have nothing?

People who need help:

1. People who cannot afford decent health insurance.

2. People who cannot get or now cannot afford decent health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

3. People who can't afford 15-40% premium increases year after year.


I'd say about 70% of the country fits into one of those three categories. The rest of us can keep rolling along. We might not like the premium increases but what the hell. It's doable. (shrug)

Honestly, I would say the top 10% of people in terms of wealth got the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts and those people did not need those tax cuts. At all. Here we are spending a lot less money for a much better reason.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The only sane option left for Dems is to do it now. And let the American people decide later on if it is effective or not. If it is as good as most Dems believe it will be, they must be willing to prove it's true. Now.

This party was thrilled to have attained the power to do what they pleased. Super majority, control of both houses, a rubber stamp in the White House...

What is mind boggling is the repeated mantra that the opposition party is somehow killing this legislation. It just isn't true, it can't be true. There is nothing the opposition can do to prevent it.

What is stopping it is this funny little catch-22 that comes into play when you have all the power - if you use it against the will of the people that you represent - you lose that power. That's why we don't have this legislation at this point. The majority gambled that because they could do it, that it would happen. They simply didn't expect that a voting public which had given them the impression that they had their unchecked seal of approval would recoil from their leadership.

Blame the repugs for poisoning their minds through Fox and Beck and Rush and swaying them - hey, I don't really believe that theory - but shame on you for being in such a powerful position of life altering consequences for so many and being subverted by cartoon characters on TV. If Beck or Hannity somehow tranformed the prototypical Obama lover that voted him into office convincingly into angry teabaggers opposed to the two (or three or four) HC bills, then all I can say is the majority is a failure of epic proportions, not a victim of subversion. I don't buy it.

If there is subversion undermining the majority, it is from its own leaders, and I really don't mean Obama. People have had the misfortune of being exposed on a national level to the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Sanders, Tom's hero Chucky, the human rat Waxman, and the rest of these goofballs - and they don't like them, trust them, or identify with them. The people were never squarely in the corner of these representatives, they were giving them the benefit of the doubt and voted for a change in attitude, in climate, in representation. What they got is the far left variation of the same attitude, climate, and representation that they voted out.

So I say use the power - you wanted it baby, you got it. I don't know if it was Mao, Chewbacca, Captain Kirk, or 46Zilzal that said something about great power coming with great responsibility - but it applies well here.

Go ahead and use your power, but please, I beg of you, be prepared to take responsibility for it just one time.

[NJ Stinks]

Well...NJ...I think your right in some aspects. but, I believe you may have the parties backwards. And let me preface this by saying as I have contended from day one....I am not for the GOP repugs either. I am conservative!
but I believe the way it stands, the repugs are in a win win situation. The party of "no" as some would call them has the population on their side now. Polls have shown this. If reform does not go through, the repugs win as being seen as having stopped it. If healthcare gets passed, the repugs win because the american population will show the progressives in the upcoming elections their displeasure. The idea that somehow the people will be able to see if it works if passed, ...well nothing of substance will be able to be seen for sometime. Definitely not by the Nov elections.
It is the Dems who are gambling that this healthcare plan will be succesful. Any ideas of Obama having a second term in my opinion is now relying solely on this. The Dems have placed their entire electoral lives on this plan. That is why Obama made his comment at the end of the summit about letting the elections make the determination. That was in referrence to reconcilliation.
If you don't believe that this is true, then you need not look any further then Mass. That was a vote in my opinion solely of the people saying they are "tired of the B.S".

I agree with you - the Dems are in too deep now and probably will pay in November. I blame Blue Dog Dems for this travesty. If the Dems had been united last summer, the bill would have been passed and Obama could have moved on to other important issues.

If you can't even act like you know what you're doing, if you can't even unite when your president and party needs you, your party does not deserve to lead. Like most teams, you are only as good as your weakest link.

[Leonard]

People who need help:

1. People who cannot afford decent health insurance.

2. People who cannot get or now cannot afford decent health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

3. People who can't afford 15-40% premium increases year after year.


I'd say about 70% of the country fits into one of those three categories. The rest of us can keep rolling along. We might not like the premium increases but what the hell. It's doable. (shrug)

Honestly, I would say the top 10% of people in terms of wealth got the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts and those people did not need those tax cuts. At all. Here we are spending a lot less money for a much better reason.

And the healthcare plan you advocate does NOTHING to solve any of those problems. 30 million Americans would remain uninsured. Those that can't afford the increases you mention (which will increase under the Dem plan) then get slapped with a fine or jail.

70% :lol: You got your statistics mixed up. That is the percentage of Americans that DO NOT WANT this healthcare fiasco.

How the heck did Bush get into this? I didn't like the guy very much as president but that is another argument for another time.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I've got to admit NJ, you may be as stubborn as the rest of us, but you are a pretty good sport being outnumbered about 10-1 lately and yet you keep throwing that jab... where the hell are your reinforcements with data and venn diagrams to help you out in here?... I swear I'd help you out if you'd just stop saying stuff I can't agree with... :p

[NJ Stinks]

This party was thrilled to have attained the power to do what they pleased. Super majority, control of both houses, a rubber stamp in the White House...

What is mind boggling is the repeated mantra that the opposition party is somehow killing this legislation. It just isn't true, it can't be true. There is nothing the opposition can do to prevent it.



I did not see your post before I posted last time John.

Besides Blue Dog Dems I blame people on Medicare for this fiasco. Good luck finding a 65 year old or older who wants real healthcare reform. Seniors have a healthcare gravy train - especially if they can afford a secondary health insurer after Medicare. These seniors showed up in big numbers at those Congressional town halls last summer and angrily denounced anything that may hurt what they have now. Seeing old people protest so passionately was a powerful image for the rest of the country. Seniors definitely affected public opinion on the healthcare reforms proposed by the Dems. It's unpopular to say it but I've said it before and I'll say it again. Seniors were and are being selfish by showing no regard for their kids and grandkids. Something substantial needs to be done. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are going to kill Medicare sooner or later unless something is done to curb those costs.

I guess I could say Republicans are next to blame after Blue Dogs and seniors. But I never believed Republicans wanted healthcare reform in the first place. So I can't say I'm disappointed in them like I am the Blue Dogs and seniors.

[NJ Stinks]

I've got to admit NJ, you may be as stubborn as the rest of us, but you are a pretty good sport being outnumbered about 10-1 lately and yet you keep throwing that jab... where the hell are your reinforcements with data and venn diagrams to help you out in here?... I swear I'd help you out if you'd just stop saying stuff I can't agree with... :p

:D

Actually, I saw on the news tonight that Monroe, NY just got 31 inches of snow so I'm guessing Hcap may be out of commission. :) As for the rest of the gang, they are probably watching Bill Maher! :p

[boxcar]

I did not see your post before I posted last time John.

Besides Blue Dog Dems I blame people on Medicare for this fiasco. Good luck finding a 65 year old or older who wants real healthcare reform. Seniors have a healthcare gravy train - especially if they can afford a secondary health insurer after Medicare. These seniors showed up in big numbers at those Congressional town halls last summer and angrily denounced anything that may hurt what they have now. Seeing old people protest so passionately was a powerful image for the rest of the country. Seniors definitely affected public opinion on the healthcare reforms proposed by the Dems. It's unpopular to say it but I've said it before and I'll say it again. Seniors were and are being selfish by showing no regard for their kids and grandkids. Something substantial needs to be done. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are going to kill Medicare sooner or later unless something is done to curb those costs.

I guess I could say Republicans are next to blame after Blue Dogs and seniors. But I never believed Republicans wanted healthcare reform in the first place. So I can't say I'm disappointed in them like I am the Blue Dogs and seniors.

And just WHO -- Was it Liberals or Conservatives who created this horrible class monster known as "seniors"!? Who gave seniors what they "wanted"? Who in past years and decades preached to that world that seniors ought to live out their remaining days in dignity -- first with SS, then with Medicare, etc.? Who fed this horrendous monster with the entitlement attitude!? I tell ya what: I love what is going on because the federal government has fed this "monster" so much over such a long period of time, that it has grown [politically] powerful and even vicious. First, liberals wooed the "monster" then it carefully and methodically cultivated the idea of entitlements within each. This monster now is more than willing and able to bite the very hand that has been feeding it! Megabytes of irony in all this, isn't there? Lots of of those nasty monsters out there, and you don't want to tick them off -- especially since, unlike their youthful counterparts, they faithfully vote!

Rush was talking about some NY Slimes blog that came down hard on seniors. We should all expect to see more of this. Rush read excerpts and the blog essentially said that seniors are making too much money in their old age. They're getting too many benefits. They're living too comfortably, etc., etc. Well, if seniors are "greedy" (as Mosty recently claimed) who really is at fault for having cultivated that greed over these many decades? (Have I not repeated stated that socialist ideals breed, endorse and support and encourage wickedness!?) You really expect the seniors to roll over and play dead and easily give up all that has been given to them -- especially for a markedly inferior health care plan? You libs are living in La La Land if you believe this is what seniors should do. Good luck with that!

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

And just WHO -- Was it Liberals or Conservatives who created this horrible class monster known as "seniors"!? Who gave seniors what they "wanted"? Who in past years and decades preached to that world that seniors ought to live out their remaining days in dignity -- first with SS, then with Medicare, etc.? Who fed this horrendous monster with the entitlement attitude!? I tell ya what: I love what is going on because the federal government has fed this "monster" so much over such a long period of time, that it has grown [politically] powerful and even vicious. First, liberals wooed the "monster" then it carefully and methodically cultivated the idea of entitlements within each. This monster now is more than willing and able to bite the very hand that has been feeding it! Megabytes of irony in all this, isn't there? Lots of of those nasty monsters out there, and you don't want to tick them off -- especially since, unlike their youthful counterparts, they faithfully vote!

Rush was talking about some NY Slimes blog that came down hard on seniors. We should all expect to see more of this. Rush read excerpts and the blog essentially said that seniors are making too much money in their old age. They're getting too many benefits. They're living too comfortably, etc., etc. Well, if seniors are "greedy" (as Mosty recently claimed) who really is at fault for having cultivated that greed over these many decades? (Have I not repeated stated that socialist ideals breed, endorse and support and encourage wickedness!?) You really expect the seniors to roll over and play dead and easily give up all that has been given to them -- especially for a markedly inferior health care plan? You libs are living in La La Land if you believe this is what seniors should do. Good luck with that!

Boxcar

Boxcar, nice rant. Except for one little item you ignored. Medicare is running out of money because the cost of healthcare has gone off the charts the last 10 years. Before that Medicare was doing OK. If if wasn't for the rocketing costs of healthcare, nobody would be discussing Medicare recipients here - or healthcare reform itself for that matter.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, nice rant. Except for one little item you ignored. Medicare is running out of money because the cost of healthcare has gone off the charts the last 10 years. Before that Medicare was doing OK. If if wasn't for the rocketing costs of healthcare, nobody would be discussing Medicare recipients here - or healthcare reform itself for that matter.

Then all those libs who found the gazillion bucks worth of fraud and abuse several months ago need to get working on correcting that problem. (You recall that discovery, right? Correcting that was going to help offset the cost of ObamaCare. :rolleyes: ) That's for starters. And then...BO could always raise the taxes on the rich to keeping feeding the Medicare system. :rolleyes:

And also you forgot to mention that SS is going to go bust soon, too. All ponzi schemes are doomed to fail. Everyone knows this except for you libs.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

And the healthcare plan you advocate does NOTHING to solve any of those problems. 30 million Americans would remain uninsured. Those that can't afford the increases you mention (which will increase under the Dem plan) then get slapped with a fine or jail.

70% :lol: You got your statistics mixed up. That is the percentage of Americans that DO NOT WANT this healthcare fiasco.

How the heck did Bush get into this? I didn't like the guy very much as president but that is another argument for another time.

Didn't mean to ignore your post, Leonard.

Bush got into this because the thread is called "A Power Grab Republican Style".

I'm not an advocate for this bill, believe it or not. I want single payor or at least a public option. That's the only way I believe we can curb healthcare costs although maybe exchanges might help. I'm not against tort reform or buying policies across state lines either.

But I do think Dems have boxed themselves in a corner and there may be only one way out.

[newtothegame]

I did not see your post before I posted last time John.

Besides Blue Dog Dems I blame people on Medicare for this fiasco. Good luck finding a 65 year old or older who wants real healthcare reform. Seniors have a healthcare gravy train - especially if they can afford a secondary health insurer after Medicare. These seniors showed up in big numbers at those Congressional town halls last summer and angrily denounced anything that may hurt what they have now. Seeing old people protest so passionately was a powerful image for the rest of the country. Seniors definitely affected public opinion on the healthcare reforms proposed by the Dems. It's unpopular to say it but I've said it before and I'll say it again. Seniors were and are being selfish by showing no regard for their kids and grandkids. Something substantial needs to be done. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are going to kill Medicare sooner or later unless something is done to curb those costs.

I guess I could say Republicans are next to blame after Blue Dogs and seniors. But I never believed Republicans wanted healthcare reform in the first place. So I can't say I'm disappointed in them like I am the Blue Dogs and seniors.

NJ...you do a good job of holding the party line and progressive fight here. What I mean by that is placing blame everywhere other then where it should be. You blame the seniors, ( I am guessing that blame is for their lack of support on this). Then you blame the blue dog dems ( I again am guessing its because of the fear of re-election or lack of thats causing their not wanting to support this). Next you blame repugs...(well obviously any opposing party, dem or repug is gonna oppose the opposite).

Here's an idea.....why not blame the progressives who are going against the will of the people? What I have said from day one is all the SOB's , repugs and dems, in congress need to go. Congress needs to made up of people who wish to support the will of the people. Not the will of business, not the will of unions, not the will of lobbyist, etc etc.
Now you could easily say well "people in this certain sector wish this". And you would be right. But the majority of the people in the U.S do NOT want this bill. So how to provide for the californians who might want it versus the Kentuckians who might not want it?? Here ya go...(and this is what true conservatives have been saying all along.....let the states handle their own issues. It does not need to be GOVERNMENT as in DC.
Each state can provide their own laws for their own people. If you don't like the law in a certain state, move to another. Mass has its own form of healthcare. Thats just an example. And to not steal thunder from another poster....another poster mentioned these same things in another thread.
But it does not, should not , and hopefully will not be run by the U.S government.
You posted in another thread topic and ended your post by saying that in essence history repeats itself I believe. Your right....the Government run programs are almost all complete and utter failures. Why would this one be any different???

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=newtothegame. Why would this one be any different???[/QUOTE]

Because BO promised us all Hope and Change...that we can believe in. :lol: :lol: :lol: So..."logically" (at least to a lib's way of thinking) we have to Change the current system so that we can then Hope it'll be better. :lol:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

NJ...you do a good job of holding the party line and progressive fight here. What I mean by that is placing blame everywhere other then where it should be. You blame the seniors, ( I am guessing that blame is for their lack of support on this). Then you blame the blue dog dems ( I again am guessing its because of the fear of re-election or lack of thats causing their not wanting to support this). Next you blame repugs...(well obviously any opposing party, dem or repug is gonna oppose the opposite).

Here's an idea.....why not blame the progressives who are going against the will of the people? What I have said from day one is all the SOB's , repugs and dems, in congress need to go. Congress needs to made up of people who wish to support the will of the people. Not the will of business, not the will of unions, not the will of lobbyist, etc etc.
Now you could easily say well "people in this certain sector wish this". And you would be right. But the majority of the people in the U.S do NOT want this bill. So how to provide for the californians who might want it versus the Kentuckians who might not want it?? Here ya go...(and this is what true conservatives have been saying all along.....let the states handle their own issues. It does not need to be GOVERNMENT as in DC.
Each state can provide their own laws for their own people. If you don't like the law in a certain state, move to another. Mass has its own form of healthcare. Thats just an example. And to not steal thunder from another poster....another poster mentioned these same things in another thread.
But it does not, should not , and hopefully will not be run by the U.S government.
You posted in another thread topic and ended your post by saying that in essence history repeats itself I believe. Your right....the Government run programs are almost all complete and utter failures. Why would this one be any different???

Overall, I think you make a lot of good points. However, I do think the federal government needs to do healthcare reform rather than the individual states for a few reasons:

1. Healthcare costs are effecting the entire U.S. economy - not just the individual states.

2. Meaningful healthcare reform is going to cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. Taxing those who can most afford it makes the most sense to me. A federal tax covers everybody. Wealthy people can't take up residence in another state to avoid paying their fair share if it's a federal tax.

[Leonard]

Boxcar, nice rant. Except for one little item you ignored. Medicare is running out of money because the cost of healthcare has gone off the charts the last 10 years. Before that Medicare was doing OK. If if wasn't for the rocketing costs of healthcare, nobody would be discussing Medicare recipients here - or healthcare reform itself for that matter.

Medicare is running out of money because it was never thought through. The demographics at the time Medicare was implemented looked like an inverse pyramid. Lots of money flowing in at the top from the young to disperse down to the old. The demographics have changed to the point that it now looks like a normal pyramid -- Bernie Madoff style. Too few to pay in for so many.

The rising cost of healthcare doesn't come into play that much regarding Medicare. Medicare payment schedules, set by the government, are the standard used by the healthcare industry in general and by insurance companies in particular. Some variation, yes; but not much.

I will agree that if those costs were not artificially inflated by the government there would be no need to discuss healthcare reform.

[boxcar]

Overall, I think you make a lot of good points. However, I do think the federal government needs to do healthcare reform rather than the individual states for a few reasons:

1. Healthcare costs are effecting the entire U.S. economy - not just the individual states.

2. Meaningful healthcare reform is going to cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. Taxing those who can most afford it makes the most sense to me. A federal tax covers everybody. Wealthy people can't take up residence in another state to avoid paying their fair share if it's a federal tax.

When a person pays his own way, that is his fair share, as he is not burdening society with any of his financial responsibility. But when a person pays his own way and others', too, that is an injustice. There's nothing fair about that, unless such a person desires to do this willingly. But very many are not willing to have the fruit of our labors confiscated and redistributed according to the dictates of the state, and the reasons are easily understood by all but greedy statists who desire to "contract" with the state through the voting process and through perverse laws crafted by their elected officials to rob from one class to pay another. There is not one thing that is fair or just or equitable or honorable about thievery. Thieves are among the lowest lifeforms on the planet.

As it is written in the Commandment:

Ex 20:15
15 "You shall not steal .
NASB

Meditate upon my tag line...if you dare to plumb the depths of its profound implications.

Boxcar

[Leonard]

Overall, I think you make a lot of good points. However, I do think the federal government needs to do healthcare reform rather than the individual states for a few reasons:

1. Healthcare costs are effecting the entire U.S. economy - not just the individual states.

2. Meaningful healthcare reform is going to cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. Taxing those who can most afford it makes the most sense to me. A federal tax covers everybody. Wealthy people can't take up residence in another state to avoid paying their fair share if it's a federal tax.

I think newtothegame pretty much nailed it. Tyranny of the majority is bad enough. Tyranny of the minority is far, far worse. Are there problems with the current health insurance system? Sure. Then look at those problems and address those specifically -- do not turn 1/6 of the entire US economy over to the government because portions of it could be improved.

Medicare is broke. It is riddled with waste, fraud and abuse and is completely unsustainable. The government cannot run this program yet wants to run a similar system an order of magnitude larger -- and it will get that one right?????

Read the last three paragraphs of newtothegame's post again. It looks like good, common sense -- and so crazy it just might work.

[NJ Stinks]

The rising cost of healthcare doesn't come into play that much regarding Medicare. Medicare payment schedules, set by the government, are the standard used by the healthcare industry in general and by insurance companies in particular. Some variation, yes; but not much.



I find this part hard to believe, Leonard. I gave examples in another thread relating to a 2009 radiology bill my mother (on Medicare) got and then a 2009 radiology bill my wife got. (My wife is not on Medicare.) Medicare knocked down Mom's radiology bill 47% and then paid 80% of the knocked down number. My wife's bill was knocked down by our private insurance company 2.5% and then our private insurer paid 50% of the knocked down bill. The numbers looked like this:

Mom's radiology bill submitted to Medicare - $565.
Medicare approved only $300 of the $565 bill and paid $240 to the radiology clinic. (Medicare is always good for 80% of the bill after Medicare knocks it down.) Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $60 ($240 + $60 = $300). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.

My wife's radiology bill submitted to our private insurer - $271.
Our primary insurer approved $264 of the $271 bill and paid $132.
My wife paid the remainder - $132.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples of huge variations.

[NJ Stinks]

When a person pays his own way, that is his fair share, as he is not burdening society with any of his financial responsibility.

Boxcar, you don't have to keep hitting me over the head with this. You believe my use of the term "fair share" is BS. I get it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I find this part hard to believe, Leonard. I gave examples in another thread relating to a 2009 radiology bill my mother (on Medicare) got and then a 2009 radiology bill my wife got. (My wife is not on Medicare.) Medicare knocked down Mom's radiology bill 47% and then paid 80% of the knocked down number. My wife's bill was knocked down by our private insurance company 2.5% and then our private insurer paid 50% of the knocked down bill. The numbers looked like this:

Mom's radiology bill submitted to Medicare - $565.
Medicare approved only $300 of the $565 bill and paid $240 to the radiology clinic. (Medicare is always good for 80% of the bill after Medicare knocks it down.) Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $60 ($240 + $60 = $300). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.

My wife's radiology bill submitted to our private insurer - $271.
Our primary insurer approved $264 of the $271 bill and paid $132.
My wife paid the remainder - $132.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples of huge variations.

Imagine mom's Medicare scenario (mom paid nothing...) extrapolated over every citizen in the land, covering 80% of everything, and relying on Government revenues for subsidization. Even under a perfect left-wing scenario, I don't think there would be enough rich people left in a half-dozen years to keep that ship from capsizing.

[Warren Henry]

Boxcar, nice rant. Except for one little item you ignored. Medicare is running out of money because the cost of healthcare has gone off the charts the last 10 years. Before that Medicare was doing OK. If if wasn't for the rocketing costs of healthcare, nobody would be discussing Medicare recipients here - or healthcare reform itself for that matter.

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason that healthcare costs are spiraling up out of control is BECAUSE of Medicare? In the beginning, Medicare pumped a lot of money into the system. People who had never used much healthcare now had no incentive to use the system rationally, costs skyrocketed because so many more people sought care. Then the government attempted to control costs by cutting the amount of reimbursement per procedure. So, the doctors started ordering more procedures. Then the doctors who played halfway straight lost malpractice suits because they failed to order as many tests as some other doctor might have ordered in the same circumstance. Then most doctors started ordering ALL the tests as a defensive strategy.

With the increased amounts of dollars being pumped into the system, more money was available for research and more effective (but more expensive) procedures became available. Since all older folks had access to these new procedures, the overall cost ratcheted up. Etc, etc.

Government meddling in financial systems never results in what the government intended. This is the reason I wish we could back the government out of our lives.

I am 67 and think that Medicare is one of the WORST things to happen to our country.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, you don't have to keep hitting me over the head with this. You believe my use of the term "fair share" is BS. I get it.

No, you don't. Just like I cannot understand for the life of me what can possibly be "fair" about stealing. Stealing comes in many forms and shapes. Just because crooked politicians pass laws legalizing evil acts, doesn't magically transform those acts into something virtuous, wholesome or good. The bible clearly teaches that one of Man's inalienable rights is that of property ownership. A man has a God-given right to do with his property as he sees fit (Acts 5:4), and even has a God-given right to protect what is his -- even if that means killing the thief! These are God-given rights, which certainly trump any phony, mutable rights that power and money-hungry wicked politicians can bestow upon us one day, but revoke the next.

Boxcar

[riskman]

Medicare is running out of money because it was never thought through. The demographics at the time Medicare was implemented looked like an inverse pyramid. Lots of money flowing in at the top from the young to disperse down to the old. The demographics have changed to the point that it now looks like a normal pyramid -- Bernie Madoff style. Too few to pay in for so many.

The rising cost of healthcare doesn't come into play that much regarding Medicare. Medicare payment schedules, set by the government, are the standard used by the healthcare industry in general and by insurance companies in particular. Some variation, yes; but not much.

I will agree that if those costs were not artificially inflated by the government there would be no need to discuss healthcare reform.


It's true that in 1965, few could anticipate how dramatically health care costs would increase in the ensuing decades, nor could any but the most visionary have foreseen a society that includes thousands of 80-year-olds running around on artificial knees, sustained by implanted defibrillators. And it would have been almost impossible to envision the size, complexity, and sheer economic magnitude of the contemporary American health system.

Prior to Medicare being established it was extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain insurance for seniors over aged 65 (normal retirement date). Very few companies offered coverage to their retired employees and the private insurance market was extremely limited. Thus Medicare was born. Medicare is one of the reasons why people live much longer having access to health care.

And those damn baby boomers whose fathers sacrificed so much in WW2 and Korea who then had to take up arms in Vietnam should be thrown under the bus becrause of rising health care costs. Medicare's costs and the more general problem of health care cost inflation are one and the same. Medicare's outlays track very closely (if often with a slight lag) the growth in total health care spending. So we can't realistically expect to control the growth of Medicare spending without controlling the growth of health care costs generally.Got it.

[newtothegame]

I find this part hard to believe, Leonard. I gave examples in another thread relating to a 2009 radiology bill my mother (on Medicare) got and then a 2009 radiology bill my wife got. (My wife is not on Medicare.) Medicare knocked down Mom's radiology bill 47% and then paid 80% of the knocked down number. My wife's bill was knocked down by our private insurance company 2.5% and then our private insurer paid 50% of the knocked down bill. The numbers looked like this:

Mom's radiology bill submitted to Medicare - $565.
Medicare approved only $300 of the $565 bill and paid $240 to the radiology clinic. (Medicare is always good for 80% of the bill after Medicare knocks it down.) Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $60 ($240 + $60 = $300). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.

My wife's radiology bill submitted to our private insurer - $271.
Our primary insurer approved $264 of the $271 bill and paid $132.
My wife paid the remainder - $132.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples of huge variations.

Here's another question I have for ya NJ.....
(Now I am making an assumption here but reading your post you used the two examples of the radiology bill to show differences)
I am assuming both radiology test were the same??
If so, why the two different bills submitted to Medicare, and private insurer?
Now i am not asking you to justify this...what I am trying to do is point out what I think is a small (yet still a problem) in the medical field. I have seen two identical services rendered, by the same provider, and two totally different bills submitted based on who they were being submitted too. That to me seems absurd.
The same sevices provided should have the same cost to the provider and which the same bills should be submitted to both insureres whether it be medicare or private.
Then I never really understood the whole "negotiated" things. yes, I understand the term and its definition but if service "X" cost 150 dollars to provide, and a bill for 150 dollars is submitted to insurance...how in the hell does it come back at a lower negotiated price. If I were the provider of this service, I would want my money that it cost me. Not what the insurance company feels they can pay me.
So this leads me to draw a few conclusions of which I am probably wrong and hopefully someone can explain it to me.
1. The medical providers are OVER CHARGING knowing that the price will be negotiated down.
2. The insurance company is outright robbing the medical provider by lowering what it actually cost. This would in turn drive up medical cost as providers have to make up their money some how. (maybe passing the cost on to other consumers in the form of higher cost)?
3. Medicare (from what I have heard ..also in your post above),...is usually charged more for the same services rendered then private insurance companies. Medical providers are stealing from Medicare (In essence tax payers) to make up for the lower cost that private insurance pays???

But see, we are doing what our elected officials cant seem to do...we are talking. We are discussing problems we see. Its obvious they in DC do NOT want to resolve any issues. Cause to truly get cost down, someone is gonna pay for it in the pocket book. Which in turn will cause those same elected officials to pay for it in the form of campaign contributions. Guess that would lead to a loss in an election. Hmmmm guess it leads me back to campaign reform too....

[boxcar]

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason that healthcare costs are spiraling up out of control is BECAUSE of Medicare? In the beginning, Medicare pumped a lot of money into the system. People who had never used much healthcare now had no incentive to use the system rationally, costs skyrocketed because so many more people sought care. Then the government attempted to control costs by cutting the amount of reimbursement per procedure. So, the doctors started ordering more procedures. Then the doctors who played halfway straight lost malpractice suits because they failed to order as many tests as some other doctor might have ordered in the same circumstance. Then most doctors started ordering ALL the tests as a defensive strategy.

With the increased amounts of dollars being pumped into the system, more money was available for research and more effective (but more expensive) procedures became available. Since all older folks had access to these new procedures, the overall cost ratcheted up. Etc, etc.

Government meddling in financial systems never results in what the government intended. This is the reason I wish we could back the government out of our lives.

I am 67 and think that Medicare is one of the WORST things to happen to our country.


:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Excellent post! When government meddles in the free market, it is inevitable that the Law of Unintended Consequences will at some point in time kick in. Whatever the U.S. government touches in the market place, it turns into horse manure pretty quickly -- really stinking the place up.

Boxcar

[Leonard]

I find this part hard to believe, Leonard. I gave examples in another thread relating to a 2009 radiology bill my mother (on Medicare) got and then a 2009 radiology bill my wife got. (My wife is not on Medicare.) Medicare knocked down Mom's radiology bill 47% and then paid 80% of the knocked down number. My wife's bill was knocked down by our private insurance company 2.5% and then our private insurer paid 50% of the knocked down bill. The numbers looked like this:

Mom's radiology bill submitted to Medicare - $565.
Medicare approved only $300 of the $565 bill and paid $240 to the radiology clinic. (Medicare is always good for 80% of the bill after Medicare knocks it down.) Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $60 ($240 + $60 = $300). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.

My wife's radiology bill submitted to our private insurer - $271.
Our primary insurer approved $264 of the $271 bill and paid $132.
My wife paid the remainder - $132.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples of huge variations.


I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. There seem to be obvious differences in that the amounts submitted to Medicare on your mother's behalf and the amount submitted to the private insurer on your wife's behalf. The amount submitted to Medicare is more than twice as large as that submitted to the private insurer.

Medicare then immediately stiffed the radiology clinic for $265. The private insurer only stiffed the clinic for $7. Roughly double it to make it comparable (since the the first bill was originally twice as large) and it is still only like 15 bucks compared to $265.

The way I see it so far is that government has shafted the healthcare industry whereas the private insurer paid (with patient share) the industry almost all of what it was owed. You wonder why healthcare is in such sad shape -- that may be an indicator right there.

Then you have Medicare paying 80%. Your mother's supplemental picked up the rest (having supplemental is almost always a great idea, btw).

Your wife still had to pay 50%. The amount she had to pay out of pocket, however, can be due to many things. The plan itself, deductables, screening costs charges at a different percentage than medical... whatever is in the private plan -- obviously I don't have it in front of me. Let's just say it was the plan which covers 50% of radiology charges. Why does she have that particular plan? There are many that cover 80% and even cadillac plans that pay everything above a deductible (though, of couse, the premiums for those are higher. Your mothers premiums are compliments of everyone).

Where is your wife's supplemental coverage? That is another apple v orange right there. I suspect there are quite a few oranges rolling around in that basket because of the private insurance plan that was chosen and it is not comparable to Medicare.

P.S. I sincerely hope that both mother and spouse are okay.

[Leonard]

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Excellent post! When government meddles in the free market, it is inevitable that the Law of Unintended Consequences will at some point in time kick in. Whatever the U.S. government touches in the market place, it turns into horse manure pretty quickly -- really stinking the place up.

Boxcar

Boxcar -- you should have added a few more of these :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Warren Henry did a far better job than I did when I tried to state the same thing. His explanation I could understand. Mine, not so much. :D

[boxcar]

Boxcar -- you should have added a few more of these :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Warren Henry did a far better job than I did when I tried to state the same thing. His explanation I could understand. Mine, not so much. :D

But I only have two thumbs in real life. However, when it comes working with my hands, I'm all thumbs. :D

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

The propaganda is flooding the airwaves. Old Blue Cross, Humana, Kaiser and the like are bleeding at all the orifices trying to frighten everyone with their brand of bull shit.

I have many a friend who really hate working for HMO's and having accountants telling them how to practice medicine.

[boxcar]

The propaganda is flooding the airwaves. Old Blue Cross, Humana, Kaiser and the like are bleeding at all the orifices trying to frighten everyone with their brand of bull shit.

I have many a friend who really hate working for HMO's and having accountants telling them how to practice medicine.

Oh, yes. The People will be so much better off having some federal career bureaucrat dictate to doctors instead. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[jonnielu]

and about the title of this thread, where is the Republican power grap?
How is it a Republican power grab when its Democrats ramming through legislation to nationalize 1/6 of the economy?

If anyone is actually concerned about their power being grabbed, they might go take a look at the original big power grab of 1868. AKA, the 14th amendment. If the people ever reversed that one, no one would be even talking about nationalizing 1/6 of the economy.

That power grab was a District of Columbia power grab, as are all subsequent power grabs. Actually, people might be able to get it if the term were changed to power yields.

jdl

jdl

[jonnielu]

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason that healthcare costs are spiraling up out of control is BECAUSE of Medicare? In the beginning, Medicare pumped a lot of money into the system. People who had never used much healthcare now had no incentive to use the system rationally, costs skyrocketed because so many more people sought care. Then the government attempted to control costs by cutting the amount of reimbursement per procedure. So, the doctors started ordering more procedures. Then the doctors who played halfway straight lost malpractice suits because they failed to order as many tests as some other doctor might have ordered in the same circumstance. Then most doctors started ordering ALL the tests as a defensive strategy.

With the increased amounts of dollars being pumped into the system, more money was available for research and more effective (but more expensive) procedures became available. Since all older folks had access to these new procedures, the overall cost ratcheted up. Etc, etc.

Government meddling in financial systems never results in what the government intended. This is the reason I wish we could back the government out of our lives.

I am 67 and think that Medicare is one of the WORST things to happen to our country.

Government meddling in financial systems ALWAYS results in what the government intended.

Just look at history since the federal reserve act of 1913. Every financial calamity has been instigated/promoted/sponsored by the District of Columbia, and the result is that people always yield their power to the District of Columbia as a result.

jdl

[Robert Goren]

Government meddling in financial systems ALWAYS results in what the government intended.

Just look at history since the federal reserve act of 1913. Every financial calamity has been instigated/promoted/sponsored by the District of Columbia, and the result is that people always yield their power to the District of Columbia as a result.

jdl You might want to try looking at a little history before 1913. There were plenty of financial calamities before the federal reserve came into existence.

[Leonard]

The propaganda is flooding the airwaves. Old Blue Cross, Humana, Kaiser and the like are bleeding at all the orifices trying to frighten everyone with their brand of bull shit.

I have many a friend who really hate working for HMO's and having accountants telling them how to practice medicine.

I have been scratching my head trying to figure this post out for a while now. You seem to be accusing health insurers of fear mongering. These companies make net profits in the 2% to5% range. They are, after all, businesses and are entitled to make a profit. Their profits are not what would I would consider excessive.

If you don't like the fact that these companies are making such outrageous profits (just above break even) there is no reason for you to be angry with them. You too can profit right along with them. Many are publicly traded and will send you dividend checks based on your percentage of ownership and their profitablility so feel free to invest in them.

I am not sure I would call it propoganda on their part either. More like a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

As for your friends -- no one forces them to work for HMOs so I cannot see a point here.

[boxcar]

I have been scratching my head trying to figure this post out for a while now. You seem to be accusing health insurers of fear mongering. These companies make net profits in the 2% to5% range. They are, after all, businesses and are entitled to make a profit. Their profits are not what would I would consider excessive.

If you don't like the fact that these companies are making such outrageous profits (just above break even) there is no reason for you to be angry with them. You too can profit right along with them. Many are publicly traded and will send you dividend checks based on your percentage of ownership and their profitablility so feel free to invest in them.

I am not sure I would call it propoganda on their part either. More like a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

As for your friends -- no one forces them to work for HMOs so I cannot see a point here.

Very many libs operate with the Mosty mentality. A piddly 2% profit matters not to such people because they only think of profits in terms of the actia; $$$$$$. Such people usually have zero business sense, not realizing how many dollars it took to generate that profit. It takes money to generate more money (profits) but they care not a whit about this little "factoid". :rolleyes: It takes money to meet payrolls. It takes money to buy materials. It takes money to pay the rent or mortgage on the business facilities. It takes money to pay the utilities, etc, etc, etc. The list of business expenses is seemingly endless. Yet, this matters not to libs either because capitalism is eeeevil to the core. :rolleyes: I'm amazed they haven't yet come down hard on Big Food. A well run supermarket chain can actually generate 2-cent profit on every dollar of sales. Imagine that! Selling commodities that human beings need in order to live -- and they make that kind of obscene profit on stuff that we cannot do without.

Boxcar

[Leonard]

Very many libs operate with the Mosty mentality. A piddly 2% profit matters not to such people because they only think of profits in terms of the actia; $$$$$$. Such people usually have zero business sense, not realizing how many dollars it took to generate that profit. It takes money to generate more money (profits) but they care not a whit about this little "factoid". :rolleyes: It takes money to meet payrolls. It takes money to buy materials. It takes money to pay the rent or mortgage on the business facilities. It takes money to pay the utilities, etc, etc, etc. The list of business expenses is seemingly endless. Yet, this matters not to libs either because capitalism is eeeevil to the core. :rolleyes: I'm amazed they haven't yet come down hard on Big Food. A well run supermarket chain can actually generate 2-cent profit on every dollar of sales. Imagine that! Selling commodities that human beings need in order to live -- and they make that kind of obscene profit on stuff that we cannot do without.

Boxcar

The "hate the rich" mentality does become tiresome, doesn't it?

Let's look at Bill Gates as an example. He is about as rich as anyone can ever hope to be so let's hate him for a minute.

He wasn't always wealthy. Through the free market he came up with a product. He marketed it successfully. He built his business up. He eventually built an evil capitalist empire. In the process he was able to employ something like the 90,000 people that are on his current payroll.

Through taxes -- his personal income taxes, corporate, sales and the income taxes his employees pay -- this evil rich man contributes more to the coffers of government than is humanly imaginable.

His foundation (what he did with all that evil capitalist money he acquired) recently made the largest charitable donation in the history of mankind -- TEN BILLION dollars.

Those who want to tax the wealthy and tax businesses because "they can afford it" conveniently overlook the fact that at some point taxation stifles growth. What if that evil, wealthy man named Bill Gates, only making a few hundred thousand dollars a year, was taxed to the point that expansion wasn't possible? If plain old run of the mill Millionaire Bill were taxed to the point that he couldn't expand I wonder how much less the government would earn in revenues? If the government decided that no individual "needs" billions of dollars and that the government should take all of those excess funds I wonder what would have happened to that TEN BILLION dollar charitable donation that will alleviate the suffering of countless millions?

Those that hate the rich, those that want them to pay "their fair share" ignore the actual devastation that they would cause by ceasing to raise the condition of man -- and, yes, even tax revenue -- that capitalism provides.

I have never worked for a poor man.

[JustRalph]

The fact that you don't understand the problem with the scenario that you outlined is the real problem......step back and put yourself in the shoes of the Hospital............read about your two scenarios and decide what the problem is ........then you might get it.

Think about it......this way. Your Mom came in first for treatment, and two days later your wife did. Now tell me why Medicare doesn't have an effect on prices ?

I find this part hard to believe, Leonard. I gave examples in another thread relating to a 2009 radiology bill my mother (on Medicare) got and then a 2009 radiology bill my wife got. (My wife is not on Medicare.) Medicare knocked down Mom's radiology bill 47% and then paid 80% of the knocked down number. My wife's bill was knocked down by our private insurance company 2.5% and then our private insurer paid 50% of the knocked down bill. The numbers looked like this:

Mom's radiology bill submitted to Medicare - $565.
Medicare approved only $300 of the $565 bill and paid $240 to the radiology clinic. (Medicare is always good for 80% of the bill after Medicare knocks it down.) Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $60 ($240 + $60 = $300). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.

My wife's radiology bill submitted to our private insurer - $271.
Our primary insurer approved $264 of the $271 bill and paid $132.
My wife paid the remainder - $132.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples of huge variations.

[boxcar]

I have never worked for a poor man.

Yeah...but according to Obamanomics, money/wealth trickles up, which of course is all backwards! (If BO really believes his own nonsense, maybe he really is that stupid. :rolleyes: )

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

I find this part hard to believe, Leonard. I gave examples in another thread relating to a 2009 radiology bill my mother (on Medicare) got and then a 2009 radiology bill my wife got. (My wife is not on Medicare.) Medicare knocked down Mom's radiology bill 47% and then paid 80% of the knocked down number. My wife's bill was knocked down by our private insurance company 2.5% and then our private insurer paid 50% of the knocked down bill. The numbers looked like this:

Mom's radiology bill submitted to Medicare - $565.
Medicare approved only $300 of the $565 bill and paid $240 to the radiology clinic. (Medicare is always good for 80% of the bill after Medicare knocks it down.) Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $60 ($240 + $60 = $300). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.

My wife's radiology bill submitted to our private insurer - $271.
Our primary insurer approved $264 of the $271 bill and paid $132.
My wife paid the remainder - $132.

I'm sure I could dig up other examples of huge variations.

What would the private insurer do with the bill your mother had?
What would Medicare do with the bill your wife had?

Then you could compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Right now your comparing apples to oranges and drawing conclusions.

I've found my insurance company (Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield) is all over the map with allowable charges and billing modifications.

Many times the source billing amount is 3-5 times the approved amount. The original billing amount(List Price) is often a joke.

[ArlJim78]

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason that healthcare costs are spiraling up out of control is BECAUSE of Medicare?

Government meddling in financial systems never results in what the government intended. This is the reason I wish we could back the government out of our lives.

I am 67 and think that Medicare is one of the WORST things to happen to our country.
Amen Warren, perfectly said. Not enough people realize that the source of our problems IS government meddling. It IS the reason why we have a healthcare problem now, and what do they want to do? turn it all over to the government?!
thats always their answer, let the "fair" government take care of things for us.

there are no examples of successful government entitlement programs, they all cause moral hazards and ultimately fail and go broke.

[DRIVEWAY]

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason that healthcare costs are spiraling up out of control is BECAUSE of Medicare? In the beginning, Medicare pumped a lot of money into the system. People who had never used much healthcare now had no incentive to use the system rationally, costs skyrocketed because so many more people sought care. Then the government attempted to control costs by cutting the amount of reimbursement per procedure. So, the doctors started ordering more procedures. Then the doctors who played halfway straight lost malpractice suits because they failed to order as many tests as some other doctor might have ordered in the same circumstance. Then most doctors started ordering ALL the tests as a defensive strategy.

With the increased amounts of dollars being pumped into the system, more money was available for research and more effective (but more expensive) procedures became available. Since all older folks had access to these new procedures, the overall cost ratcheted up. Etc, etc.

Government meddling in financial systems never results in what the government intended. This is the reason I wish we could back the government out of our lives.

I am 67 and think that Medicare is one of the WORST things to happen to our country.


The improvements are available to everyone. This enhances the overall quality of helathcare in the USA. The improvement in quality is a good thing. Everyone benefits. Do you consider this quality improvement as an unintended consequence. Not being able to manage the cost is a bad thing. Unscrupulous physicians need to be reigned in. Defensive medicine is clearly counterproductive.

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of your contemporary 67 yr olds are happy with Medicare and think it's one of the BEST things to happen in our country. Do you respect their opinions?

Do you have Medicare Part A, Medicare Part B, Medicare Part D, Advantage Plan, Supplement Plan and/or other private insurance?

If there was only private insurance for people age 65 or older, how many would be able to afford the premiums and what would society do with all the people with pre-existing conditions?

Of the 100 senators what percent would support the elimination of medicare?
My quess is 1% and his name is Jim Bunning.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[NJ Stinks]

I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. There seem to be obvious differences in that the amounts submitted to Medicare on your mother's behalf and the amount submitted to the private insurer on your wife's behalf. The amount submitted to Medicare is more than twice as large as that submitted to the private insurer.

Medicare then immediately stiffed the radiology clinic for $265. The private insurer only stiffed the clinic for $7. Roughly double it to make it comparable (since the the first bill was originally twice as large) and it is still only like 15 bucks compared to $265.

The way I see it so far is that government has shafted the healthcare industry whereas the private insurer paid (with patient share) the industry almost all of what it was owed. You wonder why healthcare is in such sad shape -- that may be an indicator right there.

Then you have Medicare paying 80%. Your mother's supplemental picked up the rest (having supplemental is almost always a great idea, btw).

Your wife still had to pay 50%. The amount she had to pay out of pocket, however, can be due to many things. The plan itself, deductables, screening costs charges at a different percentage than medical... whatever is in the private plan -- obviously I don't have it in front of me. Let's just say it was the plan which covers 50% of radiology charges. Why does she have that particular plan? There are many that cover 80% and even cadillac plans that pay everything above a deductible (though, of couse, the premiums for those are higher. Your mothers premiums are compliments of everyone).

Where is your wife's supplemental coverage? That is another apple v orange right there. I suspect there are quite a few oranges rolling around in that basket because of the private insurance plan that was chosen and it is not comparable to Medicare.

P.S. I sincerely hope that both mother and spouse are okay.

Thanks for the kind wishes, Leonard. Both are doing well today although Mom has dementia that's getting worse as time goes by.

My health insurance policy is a mixed bag - some good and some not so good. But overall we are happy with it. When my wife was treated for cancer two years, we felt they dealt with our bills fairly.

We don't have supplemental health insurance.

Maybe my comparison is not valid (apples to apples). I am not an expert on the subject by any means. (But don't tell anybody! :D )

[jonnielu]

You might want to try looking at a little history before 1913. There were plenty of financial calamities before the federal reserve came into existence.

No S**t! Which ones were due to the manipulations of Congress?

jdl

[46zilzal]

PBS ran a great series where a fellow reviewed the make-up, cost and problems of major national medical insurances throughout the world and proved a duet of realities: It is both workable and necessary.

[jonnielu]

Those who want to tax the wealthy and tax businesses because "they can afford it" conveniently overlook the fact that at some point taxation stifles growth.

Like right off the bat since the taxes are just added to the price of the goods. Microsoft doesn't pay taxes, people pay taxes.

jdl

[NJ Stinks]

The "hate the rich" mentality does become tiresome, doesn't it?

Let's look at Bill Gates as an example. He is about as rich as anyone can ever hope to be so let's hate him for a minute.

He wasn't always wealthy. Through the free market he came up with a product. He marketed it successfully. He built his business up. He eventually built an evil capitalist empire. In the process he was able to employ something like the 90,000 people that are on his current payroll.

Through taxes -- his personal income taxes, corporate, sales and the income taxes his employees pay -- this evil rich man contributes more to the coffers of government than is humanly imaginable.

His foundation (what he did with all that evil capitalist money he acquired) recently made the largest charitable donation in the history of mankind -- TEN BILLION dollars.

Those who want to tax the wealthy and tax businesses because "they can afford it" conveniently overlook the fact that at some point taxation stifles growth. What if that evil, wealthy man named Bill Gates, only making a few hundred thousand dollars a year, was taxed to the point that expansion wasn't possible? If plain old run of the mill Millionaire Bill were taxed to the point that he couldn't expand I wonder how much less the government would earn in revenues? If the government decided that no individual "needs" billions of dollars and that the government should take all of those excess funds I wonder what would have happened to that TEN BILLION dollar charitable donation that will alleviate the suffering of countless millions?

Those that hate the rich, those that want them to pay "their fair share" ignore the actual devastation that they would cause by ceasing to raise the condition of man -- and, yes, even tax revenue -- that capitalism provides.

I have never worked for a poor man.

Saying the rich should pay their fair share has nothing to do with hate. Let's hear what Bill Gates himself said about paying higher higher federal income taxes since you brought up his name, Leonard.
________________________________________________

--Recent tax cuts have benefited the wealthy, Buffett said. "Bill and I should have a much higher tax rate." Gates said a rate as high as 40 percent or even 50 percent would be "not that bad" for very wealthy people. Buffett drew applause when he said, "There are people fighting in Iraq that are paying higher tax rates than mine."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/260603/bill_gates_and_warren_buffett_talk_with_unl_studen ts_about/

_______________________________________________

Blaming a belief in progressive income taxes on hate means many "rich" people must have hated themselves consistently from around 1913 through 1980. Unless you believe "poor" people were elected to serve in Congress throughout that period and spitefully inflicted progressive income taxes on "rich" people because they were bitter. :bang:

[Tom]

I have been scratching my head trying to figure this post out for a while now. You seem to be accusing health insurers of fear mongering. These companies make net profits in the 2% to5% range. They are, after all, businesses and are entitled to make a profit. Their profits are not what would I would consider excessive.

As for your friends -- no one forces them to work for HMOs so I cannot see a point here.

I love it when these folks who have no training nor knowledge of how the industry world shoot off their un-informed mouths.

Sound familiar, zilly?

[johnhannibalsmith]

PBS ran a great series where a fellow reviewed the make-up, cost and problems of major national medical insurances throughout the world and proved a duet of realities: It is both workable and necessary.

How did they prove that government run health care was necessary?

[Tom]

The fact that you don't understand the problem with the scenario that you outlined is the real problem......step back and put yourself in the shoes of the Hospital............read about your two scenarios and decide what the problem is ........then you might get it.

Think about it......this way. Your Mom came in first for treatment, and two days later your wife did. Now tell me why Medicare doesn't have an effect on prices ?

Duh.

Thank you for the voice of reason.
The main problem here is that libs always expect someone else to foot the bills. They always think they are somehow entitled to have other pay their bills. Having the insurance company pay out two bill and only collect one premium is lost on them.

NJ has unwittinglydescribed the real problem...

Libs cain't do math!:bang:

The problem will never be solved as long as libs cling to the belief that money grows and tress.

[Tom]

PBS ran a great series where a fellow reviewed the make-up, cost and problems of major national medical insurances throughout the world and proved a duet of realities: It is both workable and necessary.

PBS.
The welfare network? :lol::lol::lol:

[NJ Stinks]

The fact that you don't understand the problem with the scenario that you outlined is the real problem......step back and put yourself in the shoes of the Hospital............read about your two scenarios and decide what the problem is ........then you might get it.

Think about it......this way. Your Mom came in first for treatment, and two days later your wife did. Now tell me why Medicare doesn't have an effect on prices ?

These two different radiology companies are not connected to any hospital. Both have been in business for many years.

Medicare does affect price. No argument there.

[Snag]

And, Snag, when you are ready to dispute my facts with facts of your own, let me know.

NJ, you may want to understand what reconciliation means in the US Senate.
It is intended for BUDGET BILLS. The Health Care Reform is NOT a budget bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

Care to dispute that?

[NJ Stinks]

NJ, you may want to understand what reconciliation means in the US Senate.
It is intended for BUDGET BILLS. The Health Care Reform is NOT a budget bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

Care to dispute that?

You may find this interesting:
______________________________________________

The real story on health-care 'reconciliation'



By E.J. Dionne | February 26, 2010; 11:05 AM ET

Chuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill. And he pointed out that some of those amendments (notably broadening the "Nebraska deal" on Medicaid relief for all states) are actually things the Republicans have called for. My hunch, judging from some of the things Rep. George Miller (D) of California said at the summit, is that Democrats may consider adding a few other Republican ideas to the reconciliation package.

I do not expect what I will call the Todd Clarification to stop Republicans from condemning the Democrats if they get a bill through with the reconciliation amendments. But shouldn't all of us be referring to them just that way -- as "amendments" rather than as "a bill"? Todd’s point also brings home the fact that both houses have used a thoroughly conventional legislative process to get the bill this far. We might then begin to ask the obvious question: Why should we take it for granted that one election result in one state (Massachusetts) ought to be allowed to derail a year's worth of legislative work? In any event, my conservative friends have told me for years that my dear native state of Massachusetts is unrepresentative of the country. I don't hear them saying that now.

Kudos to Todd for stating a truth that just about all of us have missed.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/the_real_story_on_health-care.html

[bigmack]

The justification for reconciliation is still afoot? Boy, they sure is on their tippy toes. Seems kinda girlie in a way.

Chuck Todd. I don't get this guy. He pens, How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election, he's continually throwing around editorials that favor the administration and yet he's the NBC News Chief White House Correspondent. :rolleyes:

Major Garrett he ain't.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Maybe he made a great point... so why was the President, Vice-President, and Majority Leader outraged by the tactic during the previous administration? Maybe we just needed Chuck Todd and Chris Matthews back then to explain it to them?

[riskman]

You may find this interesting:
______________________________________________

The real story on health-care 'reconciliation'



By E.J. Dionne | February 26, 2010; 11:05 AM ET

Chuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill.]

Most do not realize the health care bill was passed by both the House and Senate. The health summit was all smoke and mirrors -- a big show. If they go to reconcillation in the Senate there is no guarantee that the Dems will get the 51 votes needed to mesh together the house and Senate bill in addition to other amendments to fine tune the bill ie., Republican additions. There are some Dems that are sitting on the fence that could derail the process. The horse trading and extortion is ready to start.

[Snag]

You may find this interesting:
______________________________________________
By E.J. Dionne | February 26, 2010; 11:05 AM ET

Chuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Sorry NJ. The Senate version passed the Senate. The House version passed the house. THERE IS NO BILL. Man, you and Todd and Hardball could spin a bucket of sh.. into a Mars bar.

[NJ Stinks]

Sorry NJ. The Senate version passed the Senate. The House version passed the house. THERE IS NO BILL. Man, you and Todd and Hardball could spin a bucket of sh.. into a Mars bar.

Snag, all I said is you might find it interesting. :)

[rastajenk]

How did they prove that government run health care was necessary?
Maybe they invoked some kind of Fairness Doctrine? More likely, they just said it was so, and all the True Believers believed.

[boxcar]

Sorry NJ. The Senate version passed the Senate. The House version passed the house. THERE IS NO BILL. Man, you and Todd and Hardball could spin a bucket of sh.. into a Mars bar.

:lol: :lol:

But here is my gut feeling on this: These radical leftists in both Houses will find a way to get this monstrosity passed into law for several reasons for which I don't have time elaborate at the moment. They are so radical, they will find a way to get enough of their liberal colleagues to fall on the sword for the Party. They will be willing to lose elections for the short term because what these libs will be banking on is that even if the Republicans should gain control of both Houses by 2012 and even win the White House, they won't have the guts to repeal ObamaCare. They are banking on history. No major entitlement program has ever been repealed. However, they're forgetting one very important difference between those Acts and this one: The Public was in favor of SS, Medicare and Medicaid, but currently a large majority of people are opposed to a government takeover of their personal health care.

Furthermore, I think that if the libs insist on forcing ObamaCare down the throats of the people, it would alienate even more people from the Democrat Party because the true colors of the Democrat Party would finally be flying high enough for all to see. I think a grassroots movement to pressure the future congress to repeal ObamaCare would be a real possibility. And if this should happen, this would cause even more damage to the Democrat Party.
The Dems would finally reveal what they're really all about. Plus, we'd witness the classic case of the Party biting its own nose off to spite its face!

Additionally, the mood of this country would turn even more ugly because money is already very tight, but with the passage of this bill, people would have even less money in their pockets. Plus on the horizon, BO wants to increase the people's tax burdens even further by repealing the Bush tax cuts. And then increase taxes even further with Cap and Trade, etc. The Dems seem to be so disconnected from reality, they forget that the percentage of left wing radicals in this country is small compared to the combined percentages of conservatives and independents.

In addition to all the above, ObamaCare, if passed, would almost immediately face even more difficulties in the courts. States are already lining up to challenge it, if it should pass. This bill would wind up up becoming the most controversial piece of legislation in American history -- all because BO and his thugs in Congress want to advance their socialist agenda upon the people by seizing control of the health care industry, which in turn would give the state even more control over our personal lives. With BO in office, they see this as their golden opportunity. And they're so blinded by their lust for raw power, they are miscalculating the backlash that would inevitably follow in the wake this legislation.

What this all boils down to is this: The liberal politicians in this country want to stupidly put all their eggs in one basket -- ObamaCare. They want to bank on and invest in something that the large majority of Americans don't want! Not only will such a strategy backfire on them in upcoming elections, but it would turn the mood of this country uglier than it already is, and distrust of this present administration and congress would spread so far and wide across these fruited plains (to borrow an El Rushbo phrase), that this congress and BO could wind up becoming the most unpopular and disliked politicians in this country's history. This whole Democrat strategy will only serve to antagonize and alienate the electorate and probably cripple or even kill passage of any other Democrat-sponsored bills that would follow ObamaCare. How much credibility are the Dems going to have with other bills after they have so brazenly and audaciously thumbed their noses at the people's wishes with health care reform?

Like others here have said, "Bring it on, Mr. President." Bring it on -- at your own peril! Soon after the last election, some of us have said that the deep rooted narcissism in BO would probably cause him to overreach. He's nigh to doing this very thing. And if he does, serving out the remainder his first and last term would not be an enjoyable or rewarding experience.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

:lol: :lol:

....across these fruited plains (to borrow an El Rushbo phrase)....

Your entire post sounds like an El Rushbo phrase. :rolleyes:

And you say libs/Dems can't think for themselves. :bang:

[boxcar]

Your entire post sounds like an El Rushbo phrase. :rolleyes:

And you say libs/Dems can't think for themselves. :bang:

Like I said: Let BO bring it one. Or to use his phrase, "Let's get it done." There! You happy now? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[riskman]

Boxcar
Like others here have said, "Bring it on, Mr. President." Bring it on -- at your own peril! Soon after the last election, some of us have said that the deep rooted narcissism in BO would probably cause him to overreach. He's nigh to doing this very thing. And if he does, serving out the remainder his first and last term would not be an enjoyable or rewarding experience.

Serious people assure us that there just aren't the votes for the Public option, even to pass it through reconciliation where you only need a simple majority. You know, there is one way to find out.Take the damn vote.

In taking the vote the public can find out which Democrats sold out their voters for some campaign cash from health care companies. Now do you see why they're not anxious for a vote? The Republicans are already owned by big Pharma and the Health Care Industry, so we can expect a NO vote. Oops! They want Exchanges with Health Insurance Carriers robbing and pillaging us instead of the Feds. Of course, the Exchanges will be subsidized by government reinsurance because all the Exchanges will be stuck with poorer risks that have been rejected by the regular market. The private market will take the risks if the government will re-insure them. Yeah, collect the premiums , pawn off the risk !

Well, that's exactly why we should put pressure on them to do the bare minimum -- take the vote.

[Tom]

How come it used to be the evil "nuclear option" and now it is the compassionate "reconciliation?"

Let's call it what it really is....... :lol:

[boxcar]

Serious people assure us that there just aren't the votes for the Public option, even to pass it through reconciliation where you only need a simple majority. You know, there is one way to find out.Take the damn vote.

In taking the vote the public can find out which Democrats sold out their voters for some campaign cash from health care companies. Now do you see why they're not anxious for a vote? The Republicans are already owned by big Pharma and the Health Care Industry, so we can expect a NO vote. Oops! They want Exchanges with Health Insurance Carriers robbing and pillaging us instead of the Feds. Of course, the Exchanges will be subsidized by government reinsurance because all the Exchanges will be stuck with poorer risks that have been rejected by the regular market. The private market will take the risks if the government will re-insure them. Yeah, collect the premiums , pawn off the risk !

Well, that's exactly why we should put pressure on them to do the bare minimum -- take the vote.

I agree completely, Riskman. Let them take that "up and down" vote. In fact, I don't even think Dems have enough votes it in the House, let alone the Senate! It would strictly be an uphill battle. And things would get stickier and more complicated because big bucks would have to be spent to buy those missing votes. But the public is already disgusted with the corrupt process, so this would infuriate the people further.

The megabytes of irony here is that while in one sense the Dems are in a position of strength (due to their numbers in both chambers), nonetheless they're arguing from a position of weakness in that they're swimming against the public tide. This is why BO wanted to get even one measly Republican in the senate aboard. That alone would have changed everything. And all talk of reconciliation would have been scrapped! We would have heard nothing more about this. And the headlines in all the state-sympathetic newspapers the next day would have read along these lines: Obama has Garnered Bi-partisan Support for Health Care Reform. But the key here is that the Republicans must not break ranks. They must stand their ground. They must stand fast. Otherwise, all would assuredly be lost.

Give the Dems their head. Let them have it their way. Let them try to get this thing passed the hard way. And then we'll see which way the chips would fall. Let the whole heath care reform thing fall on the Dems' heads. Under the weight of the gazillion-page bills, it surely would crush them all to death!

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Consider it done. I don't think the Dems have one good reason not to use reconciliation now.



Oh, I don't know --- how about to save their country ?

[boxcar]

Oh, I don't know --- how about to save their country ?

The sad thing is that they think they are! - :bang: :bang:

Boxcar