To quote Inspector Callahan.. "Go Ahead Obama.. Make my Day"... Try to ram this through.

Obama to spell out new Healthcare Plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is expected to publish his healthcare plan as early as Sunday or Monday, combining features of the two Democratic bills passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, congressional aides and healthcare advocates said on Friday.

The administration's bill will aim to jump-start the stalled healthcare overhaul and comes just days ahead of a planned televised White House summit with congressional Republicans, who are calling on Democrats to scrap the bills and start over with a far less sweeping proposal.

Democrats are struggling to push healthcare legislation over the finish line in the face of sagging public support and solid Republican opposition bolstered by recent election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey.


The legislation the White House will post on its website is expected to reflect common ground negotiated over the past several weeks by House and Senate Democratic leaders.

But no negotiations with Republicans. OK... so why is Obama wanting to meet with the Republcans on Health Care? Is this a "take it or leave it" deal just like the Credit Card Law?

Those agreements are likely to be combined as a privileged budget reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple 51-vote majority to pass the 100-member Senate instead of the 60-vote supermajority that has become routine in the Senate and gives Republicans power to block the healthcare bill.



"I believe that's the path we are going to take," a senior congressional Democratic aide said.

But it is not clear, even to Congressional Democrats, what the White House will include in its legislation and whether Obama will try to add proposals aimed at attracting at least some Republican support.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have not signed off on any final agreement, several Democratic aides have said.

"We are still waiting for the president to present to Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi his plan," a Democratic leadership aide told Reuters.

Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisers, said the President would post his draft healthcare bill on the Internet in "the next couple of days."

"The president is going to craft what he thinks is a good bill. It's not going to be a perfect bill but it's going to be a good bill," she said at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

FACE-OFF WITH REPUBLICANS

A move to use the budget reconciliation process would fuel Republican opposition even as Obama has called for more bipartisanship in the process.

"If the president is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan fashion, he must take the reconciliation process -- which will be used to jam through legislation that a majority of Americans do not want -- off the table," said Representative Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican.

The Obama face-off with Republicans will give Democrats an opportunity to try to sell their plan to the public and explain why a sweeping, comprehensive proposal is needed instead of the go slow, step-by-step approach advocated by Republicans.

At a campaign event on Friday for Reid in Nevada, Obama blasted Republicans for opposing his healthcare overhaul. "The Republicans say that they've got a better way of doing it. So, I want them to put it on the table," he said.

"We're going to move forward the Democratic proposal -- we hope the Republicans have one too," Obama said. "And we'll sit down and let's hammer it out. We'll go section by section. America can't solve our economic problems unless we tackle some of these structural problems."

Healthcare advocacy groups are looking to the White House proposal and next Thursday's summit to shore up public support, and Democratic votes, in the push to get comprehensive legislation to Obama this year.

"As soon as the president and (congressional Democratic) leadership are totally together on substance and a strategy, I think the votes will be there," said Ron Pollack, who heads the Families USA healthcare advocacy group.

The administration, congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have been turning up the rhetorical heat on health insurers that have in recent weeks announced huge premium increases against the backdrop of sizable profits and growing numbers of uninsured people.

"The premium increases are a powerful reminder that the healthcare problems are not going away," said David Kendall, a senior health policy advisor at centrist think tank Third Way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/pl_n...ealthcare1

(02-19-2010 10:00 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:   To quote Inspector Callahan.. "Go Ahead Obama.. Make my Day"... Try to ram this through.

Obama to spell out new Healthcare Plan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is expected to publish his healthcare plan as early as Sunday or Monday, combining features of the two Democratic bills passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, congressional aides and healthcare advocates said on Friday.

The administration's bill will aim to jump-start the stalled healthcare overhaul and comes just days ahead of a planned televised White House summit with congressional Republicans, who are calling on Democrats to scrap the bills and start over with a far less sweeping proposal.

Democrats are struggling to push healthcare legislation over the finish line in the face of sagging public support and solid Republican opposition bolstered by recent election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey.


The legislation the White House will post on its website is expected to reflect common ground negotiated over the past several weeks by House and Senate Democratic leaders.

But no negotiations with Republicans. OK... so why is Obama wanting to meet with the Republcans on Health Care? Is this a "take it or leave it" deal just like the Credit Card Law?

Those agreements are likely to be combined as a privileged budget reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple 51-vote majority to pass the 100-member Senate instead of the 60-vote supermajority that has become routine in the Senate and gives Republicans power to block the healthcare bill.



"I believe that's the path we are going to take," a senior congressional Democratic aide said.

But it is not clear, even to Congressional Democrats, what the White House will include in its legislation and whether Obama will try to add proposals aimed at attracting at least some Republican support.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have not signed off on any final agreement, several Democratic aides have said.

"We are still waiting for the president to present to Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi his plan," a Democratic leadership aide told Reuters.

Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisers, said the President would post his draft healthcare bill on the Internet in "the next couple of days."

"The president is going to craft what he thinks is a good bill. It's not going to be a perfect bill but it's going to be a good bill," she said at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

FACE-OFF WITH REPUBLICANS

A move to use the budget reconciliation process would fuel Republican opposition even as Obama has called for more bipartisanship in the process.

"If the president is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan fashion, he must take the reconciliation process -- which will be used to jam through legislation that a majority of Americans do not want -- off the table," said Representative Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican.

The Obama face-off with Republicans will give Democrats an opportunity to try to sell their plan to the public and explain why a sweeping, comprehensive proposal is needed instead of the go slow, step-by-step approach advocated by Republicans.

At a campaign event on Friday for Reid in Nevada, Obama blasted Republicans for opposing his healthcare overhaul. "The Republicans say that they've got a better way of doing it. So, I want them to put it on the table," he said.

"We're going to move forward the Democratic proposal -- we hope the Republicans have one too," Obama said. "And we'll sit down and let's hammer it out. We'll go section by section. America can't solve our economic problems unless we tackle some of these structural problems."

Healthcare advocacy groups are looking to the White House proposal and next Thursday's summit to shore up public support, and Democratic votes, in the push to get comprehensive legislation to Obama this year.

"As soon as the president and (congressional Democratic) leadership are totally together on substance and a strategy, I think the votes will be there," said Ron Pollack, who heads the Families USA healthcare advocacy group.

The administration, congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have been turning up the rhetorical heat on health insurers that have in recent weeks announced huge premium increases against the backdrop of sizable profits and growing numbers of uninsured people.

"The premium increases are a powerful reminder that the healthcare problems are not going away," said David Kendall, a senior health policy advisor at centrist think tank Third Way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/pl_n...ealthcare1

It is about time. They should have just gone ahead and done the reconcilliation a long time ago. THis will be discussed at the meeting if the chickenshit Repugs actually show up and actually discuss healthcare. If they don't, it is recon and the Republicans will make themselves look like fools in the eyes of most of the American public(except to far right-wingers such as yourself and most on this board).

We are going to have a third-world health care system.

Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.

But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.

How is is that people do not see that?

IF it passes with reconciliation, it can be repealed with reconciliation. One things for sure, they had a tough time getting 218 before in the house, now that the blue dogs know a vote for it ends their career in November I wonder if they can get the 216 needed to pass it now.

(02-20-2010 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are going to have a third-world health care system.

Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.

But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.

How is is that people do not see that?

Believe me. I see that we are becoming a third world country with powerfull elite and everyone else living in or near poverty. We can thank Republican policies mainly for this. As for healthcare, your comments about it being a third world system sound like a scare tactic that you heard from Faux News and has no basis in reality.

(02-20-2010 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are going to have a third-world health care system.

Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.

But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.

How is is that people do not see that?

Believe me. I see that we are becoming a third world country with powerfull elite and everyone else living in or near poverty. We can thank Republican policies mainly for this. As for healthcare, your comments about it being a third world system sound like a scare tactic that you heard from Faux News and has no basis in reality.

Do you believe what you say, or is it just a joke?

(02-20-2010 12:24 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are going to have a third-world health care system.

Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.

But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.

How is is that people do not see that?

Believe me. I see that we are becoming a third world country with powerfull elite and everyone else living in or near poverty. We can thank Republican policies mainly for this. As for healthcare, your comments about it being a third world system sound like a scare tactic that you heard from Faux News and has no basis in reality.

Do you believe what you say, or is it just a joke?

I believe what I wrote. Why do you ask?

(02-20-2010 12:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 12:24 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are going to have a third-world health care system.

Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.

But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.

How is is that people do not see that?

Believe me. I see that we are becoming a third world country with powerfull elite and everyone else living in or near poverty. We can thank Republican policies mainly for this. As for healthcare, your comments about it being a third world system sound like a scare tactic that you heard from Faux News and has no basis in reality.

Do you believe what you say, or is it just a joke?

I believe what I wrote. Why do you ask?

Your an idiot!!!

(02-20-2010 12:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 12:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 12:24 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are going to have a third-world health care system.

Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.

But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.

How is is that people do not see that?

Believe me. I see that we are becoming a third world country with powerfull elite and everyone else living in or near poverty. We can thank Republican policies mainly for this. As for healthcare, your comments about it being a third world system sound like a scare tactic that you heard from Faux News and has no basis in reality.

Do you believe what you say, or is it just a joke?

I believe what I wrote. Why do you ask?

Your an idiot!!!

Please explain. Why am I an idiot for what I posted?

(02-20-2010 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are going to have a third-world health care system.
Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.
But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.
How is is that people do not see that?

Believe me. I see that we are becoming a third world country with powerfull elite and everyone else living in or near poverty. We can thank Republican policies mainly for this. As for healthcare, your comments about it being a third world system sound like a scare tactic that you heard from Faux News and has no basis in reality.

Couple of responses.

First, it's republican AND democrat policies that are contributing to the decline of the middle class. We are driving value-added jobs offshore wile we become a retail and service economy. The guy who would have worked in a steel mill a generation ago is now delivering pizzas. And you can't pay as much for someone to deliver a pizza as you can pay for someone to run a steel mill. If socialism worked better than capitalism in this regard, it would have been the USSR and not the USA that had a large, vibrant middle class in the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, we have replaced market capitalism with crony corporatism, and BOTH major parties are to blame.

Second, I get my information about health care come not from Fox but from reviewing comparative studies that have been done by experts in the field during the last few years--for example, European Health Consumer Index 2005-06-07-08-09; Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index 2008-09; Commonwealth Fund studies 2004-06-07; OECD statistics (annual); and Gallup Poll public opinion surveys. The single-payer/single-provider model that Obama and the socialists want to emulate does very poorly in all those, just as it did in the 2000 WHO study--you know, the one where the US was 37th--and Canada was 30th.

You really ought to bother to learn some facts before opining. But I guess that's why some posters think you are an idiot.

(02-21-2010 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2010 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are going to have a third-world health care system.
Which will be appropriate, because we will be a third world country.
But that's okay, it will be equally bad for everyone. Except the ruling elite.
How is is that people do not see that?

Believe me. I see that we are becoming a third world country with powerfull elite and everyone else living in or near poverty. We can thank Republican policies mainly for this. As for healthcare, your comments about it being a third world system sound like a scare tactic that you heard from Faux News and has no basis in reality.

Couple of responses.

First, it's republican AND democrat policies that are contributing to the decline of the middle class. We are driving value-added jobs offshore wile we become a retail and service economy. The guy who would have worked in a steel mill a generation ago is now delivering pizzas. And you can't pay as much for someone to deliver a pizza as you can pay for someone to run a steel mill. If socialism worked better than capitalism in this regard, it would have been the USSR and not the USA that had a large, vibrant middle class in the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, we have replaced market capitalism with crony corporatism, and BOTH major parties are to blame.

Second, I get my information about health care come not from Fox but from reviewing comparative studies that have been done by experts in the field during the last few years--for example, European Health Consumer Index 2005-06-07-08-09; Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index 2008-09; Commonwealth Fund studies 2004-06-07; OECD statistics (annual); and Gallup Poll public opinion surveys. The single-payer/single-provider model that Obama and the socialists want to emulate does very poorly in all those, just as it did in the 2000 WHO study--you know, the one where the US was 37th--and Canada was 30th.

You really ought to bother to learn some facts before opining. But I guess that's why some posters think you are an idiot.

Well, I agree that Clinton was part of the problem by passing the free trade agreements without any protections for our country if the other country doesn't want to play fair. Having said that, free trade is a right-wing policy and some Democrats trying to play to the center-right think this is good policy for re-election.

Second, so Canada was rated HIGHER than the US with the current private-based system. I can now see why the party of "pro-life" wants healthcare to remain the same.

Third, we aren't going to become socialists and Obama and most Democrats aren't a socialists. That is just scare tactics because the majority of the Republican party is old white males. THese tactics are to bring back the "evil" USSR image to frighten them. From your response, sadly, I guess it is effective among that group.

(02-21-2010 03:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, I agree that Clinton was part of the problem by passing the free trade agreements without any protections for our country if the other country doesn't want to play fair. Having said that, free trade is a right-wing policy and some Democrats trying to play to the center-right think this is good policy for re-election.

Second, so Canada was rated HIGHER than the US with the current private-based system. I can now see why the party of "pro-life" wants healthcare to remain the same.

Third, we aren't going to become socialists and Obama and most Democrats aren't a socialists. That is just scare tactics because the majority of the Republican party is old white males. THese tactics are to bring back the "evil" USSR image to frighten them. From your response, sadly, I guess it is effective among that group.

First, free trade is not why jobs are going overseas. The places we are losing most of the jobs to are not the places we have free trade agreements with. And most of the jobs we lose to places we have free trade agreements with are jobs that we were going to lose anyway, and all the free trade agreement did was mean that we lost it to Canada or Mexico instead of to Poland or China. The worldwide market is bigger than the US, and that's the driver. We're not competitive in the worldwide marketplace now, and Obama's changes to health care, cap-and-trade, card-check, and taxing the "rich" will all make us less so. The "giant sucking sound" you will hear will be jobs leaving the US--never to return.

Second, you obviously didn't bother to look at any of the studies I referenced. They are all available online. Instead of spending $2.5 trillion to move from 37th to 30th, why not take a look at #1, particularly since it is both better and cheaper. By the way, if you look at the WHO study (also available online) you'll see that the results don't really say we have the "37th best" health care; what they really say is that we have the 37th most equitable and cheapest. The one component measure that comes closest to "best"? We actually ranked 1st there. It was just that cost drove us down in the rankings. And our costs are going up, not down, as a result of Obamacare--wanna bet otherwise?

Third, I will concede that most democrats may not be socialists. For that matter, Obama, Reid, or Pelosi may not be, either--socialism may be well to the right of where they are.

(02-21-2010 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 03:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, I agree that Clinton was part of the problem by passing the free trade agreements without any protections for our country if the other country doesn't want to play fair. Having said that, free trade is a right-wing policy and some Democrats trying to play to the center-right think this is good policy for re-election.

Second, so Canada was rated HIGHER than the US with the current private-based system. I can now see why the party of "pro-life" wants healthcare to remain the same.

Third, we aren't going to become socialists and Obama and most Democrats aren't a socialists. That is just scare tactics because the majority of the Republican party is old white males. THese tactics are to bring back the "evil" USSR image to frighten them. From your response, sadly, I guess it is effective among that group.

First, free trade is not why jobs are going overseas. The places we are losing most of the jobs to are not the places we have free trade agreements with. And most of the jobs we lose to places we have free trade agreements with are jobs that we were going to lose anyway, and all the free trade agreement did was mean that we lost it to Canada or Mexico instead of to Poland or China. The worldwide market is bigger than the US, and that's the driver. We're not competitive in the worldwide marketplace now, and Obama's changes to health care, cap-and-trade, card-check, and taxing the "rich" will all make us less so. The "giant sucking sound" you will hear will be jobs leaving the US--never to return.

Second, you obviously didn't bother to look at any of the studies I referenced. They are all available online. Instead of spending $2.5 trillion to move from 37th to 30th, why not take a look at #1, particularly since it is both better and cheaper. By the way, if you look at the WHO study (also available online) you'll see that the results don't really say we have the "37th best" health care; what they really say is that we have the 37th most equitable and cheapest. The one component measure that comes closest to "best"? We actually ranked 1st there. It was just that cost drove us down in the rankings. And our costs are going up, not down, as a result of Obamacare--wanna bet otherwise?

Third, I will concede that most democrats may not be socialists. For that matter, Obama, Reid, or Pelosi may not be, either--socialism may be well to the right of where they are.

First, it is a big reason. Second, I suppose we could go to the French system but hey, they are socialists so we will never have that system here. THird, that isn't funny. They are not even close to socialists, communists or fascists that you righties keep portraying them as.

(02-21-2010 04:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 03:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, I agree that Clinton was part of the problem by passing the free trade agreements without any protections for our country if the other country doesn't want to play fair. Having said that, free trade is a right-wing policy and some Democrats trying to play to the center-right think this is good policy for re-election.

Second, so Canada was rated HIGHER than the US with the current private-based system. I can now see why the party of "pro-life" wants healthcare to remain the same.

Third, we aren't going to become socialists and Obama and most Democrats aren't a socialists. That is just scare tactics because the majority of the Republican party is old white males. THese tactics are to bring back the "evil" USSR image to frighten them. From your response, sadly, I guess it is effective among that group.

First, free trade is not why jobs are going overseas. The places we are losing most of the jobs to are not the places we have free trade agreements with. And most of the jobs we lose to places we have free trade agreements with are jobs that we were going to lose anyway, and all the free trade agreement did was mean that we lost it to Canada or Mexico instead of to Poland or China. The worldwide market is bigger than the US, and that's the driver. We're not competitive in the worldwide marketplace now, and Obama's changes to health care, cap-and-trade, card-check, and taxing the "rich" will all make us less so. The "giant sucking sound" you will hear will be jobs leaving the US--never to return.

Second, you obviously didn't bother to look at any of the studies I referenced. They are all available online. Instead of spending $2.5 trillion to move from 37th to 30th, why not take a look at #1, particularly since it is both better and cheaper. By the way, if you look at the WHO study (also available online) you'll see that the results don't really say we have the "37th best" health care; what they really say is that we have the 37th most equitable and cheapest. The one component measure that comes closest to "best"? We actually ranked 1st there. It was just that cost drove us down in the rankings. And our costs are going up, not down, as a result of Obamacare--wanna bet otherwise?

Third, I will concede that most democrats may not be socialists. For that matter, Obama, Reid, or Pelosi may not be, either--socialism may be well to the right of where they are.

First, it is a big reason. Second, I suppose we could go to the French system but hey, they are socialists so we will never have that system here. THird, that isn't funny. They are not even close to socialists, communists or fascists that you righties keep portraying them as.

Is universal healthcare not a socialist ideal?

(02-21-2010 04:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  First, it is a big reason. Second, I suppose we could go to the French system but hey, they are socialists so we will never have that system here. THird, that isn't funny. They are not even close to socialists, communists or fascists that you righties keep portraying them as.

First, you're wrong. NAFTA may be a factor when jobs move to Canada or Mexico, but only in the sense that they moved to Canada or Mexico instead of Poland or China. If you think otherwise, you do not understand the global economy.
Second, wrong again. Actually, the French have a term of ridicule for UK health care--"socialized medicine." Their health care is more free market than ours is now.
Third, wrong again. Give me a list of votes in the US congress or the Illinois legislature where Obama--or Reid--or Pelosi--has voted in opposition to the way a socialist would vote. Name one--for any of them.

You get to have your own opinion. You don't get to have your own facts.

(02-21-2010 04:46 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 04:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 03:04 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, I agree that Clinton was part of the problem by passing the free trade agreements without any protections for our country if the other country doesn't want to play fair. Having said that, free trade is a right-wing policy and some Democrats trying to play to the center-right think this is good policy for re-election.

Second, so Canada was rated HIGHER than the US with the current private-based system. I can now see why the party of "pro-life" wants healthcare to remain the same.

Third, we aren't going to become socialists and Obama and most Democrats aren't a socialists. That is just scare tactics because the majority of the Republican party is old white males. THese tactics are to bring back the "evil" USSR image to frighten them. From your response, sadly, I guess it is effective among that group.

First, free trade is not why jobs are going overseas. The places we are losing most of the jobs to are not the places we have free trade agreements with. And most of the jobs we lose to places we have free trade agreements with are jobs that we were going to lose anyway, and all the free trade agreement did was mean that we lost it to Canada or Mexico instead of to Poland or China. The worldwide market is bigger than the US, and that's the driver. We're not competitive in the worldwide marketplace now, and Obama's changes to health care, cap-and-trade, card-check, and taxing the "rich" will all make us less so. The "giant sucking sound" you will hear will be jobs leaving the US--never to return.

Second, you obviously didn't bother to look at any of the studies I referenced. They are all available online. Instead of spending $2.5 trillion to move from 37th to 30th, why not take a look at #1, particularly since it is both better and cheaper. By the way, if you look at the WHO study (also available online) you'll see that the results don't really say we have the "37th best" health care; what they really say is that we have the 37th most equitable and cheapest. The one component measure that comes closest to "best"? We actually ranked 1st there. It was just that cost drove us down in the rankings. And our costs are going up, not down, as a result of Obamacare--wanna bet otherwise?

Third, I will concede that most democrats may not be socialists. For that matter, Obama, Reid, or Pelosi may not be, either--socialism may be well to the right of where they are.

First, it is a big reason. Second, I suppose we could go to the French system but hey, they are socialists so we will never have that system here. THird, that isn't funny. They are not even close to socialists, communists or fascists that you righties keep portraying them as.

Is universal healthcare not a socialist ideal?

Is all the European countries socialist because they have universal healthcare? Was Iraq socialist when we provided all Iraqi's free healthcare with our tax dollars(I don't recall anyone on the right denouncing it like they are for providing it for the American people)? Countries might incorporate a few ideas that might(note I said might) be considered "socialist" but it is a balance of free market capitalism and "socialist" ideas.

(02-21-2010 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 04:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  First, it is a big reason. Second, I suppose we could go to the French system but hey, they are socialists so we will never have that system here. THird, that isn't funny. They are not even close to socialists, communists or fascists that you righties keep portraying them as.

First, you're wrong. NAFTA may be a factor when jobs move to Canada or Mexico, but only in the sense that they moved to Canada or Mexico instead of Poland or China. If you think otherwise, you do not understand the global economy.
Second, wrong again. Actually, the French have a term of ridicule for UK health care--"socialized medicine." Their health care is more free market than ours is now.
Third, wrong again. Give me a list of votes in the US congress or the Illinois legislature where Obama--or Reid--or Pelosi--has voted in opposition to the way a socialist would vote. Name one--for any of them.

You get to have your own opinion. You don't get to have your own facts.

First. Second, it isn't the free market you think it is(and want ours to be) when they are regulated extensively-like they are. It is socialistic to regulate extensively. That is what you conservative guys tell me(note: I didn't say Republican because you corrected me on that) all the time. Third, I guess it depends on your definition and ideals of socialists. I am quite sure your idea of what makes one a socialist is different then mine. Do you not think that businesses would be better off dumping the cost of healthcare from their books? Don't you think that the cost of workman's comp would be greatly reduced if we had government run healthcare? Don't you think your car insurance would decrease if you didn't have to pay for the medical part of your car insurance?

(02-21-2010 07:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 04:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  First, it is a big reason. Second, I suppose we could go to the French system but hey, they are socialists so we will never have that system here. THird, that isn't funny. They are not even close to socialists, communists or fascists that you righties keep portraying them as.

First, you're wrong. NAFTA may be a factor when jobs move to Canada or Mexico, but only in the sense that they moved to Canada or Mexico instead of Poland or China. If you think otherwise, you do not understand the global economy.
Second, wrong again. Actually, the French have a term of ridicule for UK health care--"socialized medicine." Their health care is more free market than ours is now.
Third, wrong again. Give me a list of votes in the US congress or the Illinois legislature where Obama--or Reid--or Pelosi--has voted in opposition to the way a socialist would vote. Name one--for any of them.

You get to have your own opinion. You don't get to have your own facts.

First. Second, it isn't the free market you think it is(and want ours to be) when they are regulated extensively-like they are. It is socialistic to regulate extensively. That is what you conservative guys tell me(note: I didn't say Republican because you corrected me on that) all the time. Third, I guess it depends on your definition and ideals of socialists. I am quite sure your idea of what makes one a socialist is different then mine. Do you not think that businesses would be better off dumping the cost of healthcare from their books? Don't you think that the cost of workman's comp would be greatly reduced if we had government run healthcare? Don't you think your car insurance would decrease if you didn't have to pay for the medical part of your car insurance?

So, you can't think of a vote against socialism by any of them either?

Somebody's going to have to pay some taxes to pay for health care, so I don't know that anyone is going to be better off. We're being sold something here that makes no sense. We're supposedly going to cover more people and it's going to cost less. That's not going to work, not without something to cut costs, and we don't have that. Oh yes, we do, the death panels will just start to exclude some things and delay others. As long as private health insurance remains an option, I'll do that. Once that is taken away, I'll go to France for health care. Sucks, but that's going to be the best way out. One idea that I hear being floated about (literally) is hospital ships that will operate in international waters.

Where are the cost savings going to come from? Better administration by the federal government? The same way they manage everything else better? Where?

So what happens when a doc wants to order a procedure but government health care won't pay for it, but if he doesn't do it and loses the patient he's going to be sued for malpractice? How does that get resolved?

I know the CBO has issued a few reports that have been reported as saying Obamacare (in its various permutations) is deficit neutral. But they make a bunch of revenue and expense assumptions to get there, and if you read the reports in detail, you find that there are all sorts of really questionable assumptions. Given that, plus the fact that no federal health or welfare program has ever come in on budget--ever--and the whole idea of deficit neutrality becomes pretty unlikely. Obviously, the first 10 years of estimates, including 10 years of revenues and 6-7 years of expenditures, are clearly misleading. Beyond year 10, for example, in the letter to Harry Reid late last year evaluating the senate bill, CBO assumes the tax on "cadillac plans" will produce $35 billion in year 11, and increase 10-15% annually thereafter. They go on to admit that these revenues are unlikely because what will most likely happen is that those plans will be rewritten to avoid the tax. That's half a trillion dollars gone, right there.

We're being lied to, big time. And most Americans are too lazy to read the fine print and figure it out. But of course, that's just what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are hoping for.

(02-21-2010 08:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 07:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2010 04:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  First, it is a big reason. Second, I suppose we could go to the French system but hey, they are socialists so we will never have that system here. THird, that isn't funny. They are not even close to socialists, communists or fascists that you righties keep portraying them as.

First, you're wrong. NAFTA may be a factor when jobs move to Canada or Mexico, but only in the sense that they moved to Canada or Mexico instead of Poland or China. If you think otherwise, you do not understand the global economy.
Second, wrong again. Actually, the French have a term of ridicule for UK health care--"socialized medicine." Their health care is more free market than ours is now.
Third, wrong again. Give me a list of votes in the US congress or the Illinois legislature where Obama--or Reid--or Pelosi--has voted in opposition to the way a socialist would vote. Name one--for any of them.

You get to have your own opinion. You don't get to have your own facts.

First. Second, it isn't the free market you think it is(and want ours to be) when they are regulated extensively-like they are. It is socialistic to regulate extensively. That is what you conservative guys tell me(note: I didn't say Republican because you corrected me on that) all the time. Third, I guess it depends on your definition and ideals of socialists. I am quite sure your idea of what makes one a socialist is different then mine. Do you not think that businesses would be better off dumping the cost of healthcare from their books? Don't you think that the cost of workman's comp would be greatly reduced if we had government run healthcare? Don't you think your car insurance would decrease if you didn't have to pay for the medical part of your car insurance?

So, you can't think of a vote against socialism by any of them either?

Somebody's going to have to pay some taxes to pay for health care, so I don't know that anyone is going to be better off. We're being sold something here that makes no sense. We're supposedly going to cover more people and it's going to cost less. That's not going to work, not without something to cut costs, and we don't have that. Oh yes, we do, the death panels will just start to exclude some things and delay others. As long as private health insurance remains an option, I'll do that. Once that is taken away, I'll go to France for health care. Sucks, but that's going to be the best way out. One idea that I hear being floated about (literally) is hospital ships that will operate in international waters.

Where are the cost savings going to come from? Better administration by the federal government? The same way they manage everything else better? Where?

So what happens when a doc wants to order a procedure but government health care won't pay for it, but if he doesn't do it and loses the patient he's going to be sued for malpractice? How does that get resolved?

I know the CBO has issued a few reports that have been reported as saying Obamacare (in its various permutations) is deficit neutral. But they make a bunch of revenue and expense assumptions to get there, and if you read the reports in detail, you find that there are all sorts of really questionable assumptions. Given that, plus the fact that no federal health or welfare program has ever come in on budget--ever--and the whole idea of deficit neutrality becomes pretty unlikely. Obviously, the first 10 years of estimates, including 10 years of revenues and 6-7 years of expenditures, are clearly misleading. Beyond year 10, for example, in the letter to Harry Reid late last year evaluating the senate bill, CBO assumes the tax on "cadillac plans" will produce $35 billion in year 11, and increase 10-15% annually thereafter. They go on to admit that these revenues are unlikely because what will most likely happen is that those plans will be rewritten to avoid the tax. That's half a trillion dollars gone, right there.

We're being lied to, big time. And most Americans are too lazy to read the fine print and figure it out. But of course, that's just what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are hoping for.

I am sorry. I don't really have time to look up all their histories of what they voted for to prove you wrong. Of course, you have already made up your mind that he and the Democrats you mentioned are socialists so even if I did find something, you will still find some way to spin it and continue believing they are socialists. Not to mention you will NEVER believe that any government program can work and that only private companies can work so I don't expect you to believe a government plan can work and cost less than what we are paying now.

(02-21-2010 09:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I am sorry. I don't really have time to look up all their histories of what they voted for to prove you wrong. Of course, you have already made up your mind that he and the Democrats you mentioned are socialists so even if I did find something, you will still find some way to spin it and continue believing they are socialists. Not to mention you will NEVER believe that any government program can work and that only private companies can work so I don't expect you to believe a government plan can work and cost less than what we are paying now.

Why don't you look up those voting histories, and while you're at it, why don't you look up a government program that has actually worked and provided products or services at lower cost than the private sector?

You'll look for a long time before finding either one.

Without the profit motive, there is no incentive for government programs to cut costs. And at the end of the day, there are always more costs than profits, so if they cut profits to zero but costs balloon out of control it's a losing proposition. That's what happens when government tries to run things.