Page 55 of 289 FirstFirst ... 54551525354555657585965105155 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 825 of 4335
  1. #811
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    If you can figure out why the president and the congress are so anxious to sell a bill that doesn’t exist I think you’ll have your answer.
    Is he? I thought he was saying we should have an open debate about what the bill should look like....maybe he has an evil twin too

    btw… Seniors aren’t sucking off the government’s tit they are collecting the money/benefits they paid into a big government monstrosity.
    Bad choice of words on my part....bottom line they are living on socialized health care and are rallying against socialized health care. You do the math.

  2. #812
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Yes scoot I responded to a post I hadn't responded to.
    Except the minor detail you had already responded to it:

    771

    & then a lil later:

    797

    No wonder you love Obama, the two of you have soo much in common. Don't believe my lying eyes..

    So, while you responded to that same post twice.. you conveniently skipped responding to me pointing out your hypocrisy:

    772

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    yes scoot. I'm sure you believe you shot down what you believed was my point and allow you to continue with the Obamanot tirade.
    Too bad you decided not to take my advise..

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc
    glad you now feel this way. so much better than the name calling. good for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    I'd recommend you step away from that "name calling" theme you are so fond of attributing to others. Glass houses and all that.
    Howcouldthathavepossiblyhappened...??

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    The only one spinning or having to repeat/multiple responses seems to be you. My posts stand.

    There is misinformation.

    There is obstructionism.

    There is astroturfing.

    I applaud members of the GOP and individuals getting involved with accurate points and information. I don't buy the lockout theory as anything other than obstructionism to fan the fires on a very important subject.

    An example is not equal to your need to make it an absolute and as such I refuse to play the game. Nor do I see the need to bring up past exchanges. We both had our say. You seem to need to repeatedly repeat them page after page after page as you do in this response.
    Ya.. we get it. Your usual partisan.. but somehow non-partisan.. that's not what I said.. despite the fact I did say it.. stance. Clear as mud.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #813
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    IBad choice of words on my part....bottom line they are living on socialized health care and are rallying against socialized health care. You do the math.
    Actually not a bad choice of words if taken apart from members of AARP like myself not on anything other than a private plan. The call against obama socialism was many times in concert with "don't touch my medicare" and not entirely linked to AARP members. I have a problem with that logic and would take it to where you did too. Considering the cost of medicare and medicaid not covered by actual individual contributions, you are not far off.

  4. #814
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Maybe Otoc really is Obama....now that would be pretty cool.

    Anyways, you guys have been warned about this crap before. Please stop discussing each other and discuss the topic at hand. Disagreement is fine. Constantly trying to point out each others hypocrisies doesn't solve anything.

    Thank you.

  5. #815
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Except the minor detail you had already responded to it:

    771

    & then a lil later:

    797

    No wonder you love Obama, the two of you have soo much in common. Don't believe my lying eyes..

    So, while you responded to that same post twice.. you conveniently skipped responding to me pointing out your hypocrisy:

    772



    Howcouldthathavepossiblyhappened...??



    Ya.. we get it. Your usual partisan.. but somehow non-partisan.. that's not what I said.. despite the fact I did say it.. stance. Clear as mud.

    what wasn't clear about the actual words you quoted and didn't respond to scoot? Is there a need to muddy things and say it's all about me again?

  6. #816
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    Is he? I thought he was saying we should have an open debate about what the bill should look like....maybe he has an evil twin too
    Odd.. I seem to remember him pushing a deadline as before the recess. Or are we to take it that the "open debate" would occur sometime after the house and senate already had voted on and passed their perspective bills? I guess the rest of us are just being silly for thinking the time for debate is before voting on legislation.. not after. Then again.. we're the same "un-Americans" who think legislation should actually be read before it gets passed.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    Bad choice of words on my part....bottom line they are living on socialized health care and are rallying against socialized health care. You do the math.
    I'd argue what they have is not socialized by leaps and bounds. It's inefficient and costly in some respects like socialized medicine but that's where the similarities end. And the seniors know the difference.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #817
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Actually not a bad choice of words if taken apart from members of AARP like myself not on anything other than a private plan. The call against obama socialism was many times in concert with "don't touch my medicare" and not entirely linked to AARP members. I have a problem with that logic and would take it to where you did too. Considering the cost of medicare and medicaid not covered by actual individual contributions, you are not far off.
    And one could argue that tucker's argument about how they are collecting from payments they made into a big government monstrosity should apply to everyone. We all pay into a huge government monstrosity. I have no children, yet I pay taxes to the education system whether I like it or not. We live in a giant government monstrosity....there's no way back from it. I'd like to "collect" from my payments as well.

    And just for the record, so it is clear, I don't need Obama's plan...right now. I work for a big corporation that pays 95% of my health care costs and I have EXCELLENT insurance. And I still think that a government option is necessary for folks who cannot afford health care. I guess that's why I'm a democrat

  8. #818
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    And one could argue that tucker's argument about how they are collecting from payments they made into a big government monstrosity should apply to everyone. We all pay into a huge government monstrosity. I have no children, yet I pay taxes to the education system whether I like it or not. We live in a giant government monstrosity....there's no way back from it. I'd like to "collect" from my payments as well.

    And just for the record, so it is clear, I don't need Obama's plan...right now. I work for a big corporation that pays 95% of my health care costs and I have EXCELLENT insurance. And I still think that a government option is necessary for folks who cannot afford health care. I guess that's why I'm a democrat
    I understand tucker's comment and was reflecting on the socialism/medicare/medicaid issue. I too have issues with taxes and fees, but this is not that battle...

    To that point, I am happy with my private insurance too, or for that matter impressed with the medicare/medicaid.

    But this isn't (or wasn't) all about the uninsured. It was about cost to existing plans continuing at the status quo rate of increase.

    Consider yourself lucky at a 95% employer contribution. Many companies have reduced contributions or coverage. Plus there is the drag on both private businesses and government budgets because of these increases.

  9. #819
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    what wasn't clear about the actual words you quoted and didn't respond to scoot? Is there a need to muddy things and say it's all about me again?
    Your words were clear... they just happen to be provably untrue. So I took the time to point that out along with your



    approach to responding to having your hypocrisy pointed out.

    772

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    yes scoot. I'm sure you believe you shot down what you believed was my point and allow you to continue with the Obamanot tirade.
    Too bad you decided not to take my advise..

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc
    glad you now feel this way. so much better than the name calling. good for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter
    I'd recommend you step away from that "name calling" theme you are so fond of attributing to others. Glass houses and all that.
    I love the tact though.

    Responding to you is "personalizing".
    Calling out your hypocrisy is "personalizing".
    Pointing out your own posts being at odds with each other is "personalizing".

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #820
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24 View Post
    Maybe Otoc really is Obama....now that would be pretty cool.

    Anyways, you guys have been warned about this crap before. Please stop discussing each other and discuss the topic at hand. Disagreement is fine. Constantly trying to point out each others hypocrisies doesn't solve anything.

    Thank you.
    I'm not sure how letting hypocrisy slide leads to a better debate. If you habitually let someone take one position then let them reverse it when it becomes intolerable to defend you are not having a debate. You are running for congress.. And ok.. I'll cool it after this.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #821
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Your words were clear... they just happen to be provably untrue. So I took the time to point that out along with your



    approach to responding to having your hypocrisy pointed out.

    772



    I love the tact though.

    Responding to you is "personalizing".
    Calling out your hypocrisy is "personalizing".
    Pointing out your own posts being at odds with each other is "personalizing".

    still have a need to repeat your point? OK.

    I guess you missed my simple point. I gave you bullet points to make sure you understood my position and all you could say was that I'm muddy.

    And responding is not making it about me, to be clear, I was talking about making things muddy as in that response and then saying it was me being muddy. There you go off on your own tangent again with the need to make it an absolute.

    edit: meanwhile, the conversation actually moves forward with others. If you have a need to stay on this scoot, you'll have to take it alone. I'm done with the need to hear your opinion of me.
    Last edited by otoc; 08-18-2009 at 09:16 PM. Reason: scoot, there is a difference between responding and initiating--thought you missed that simple point in your need to win...

  12. #822
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    still have a need to repeat your point? OK.

    I guess you missed my simple point. I gave you bullet points to make sure you understood my position and all you could say was that I'm muddy.

    And responding is not making it about me, to be clear, I was talking about making things muddy as in that response and then saying it was me being muddy. There you go off on your own tangent again with the need to make it an absolute.
    No. I simply refuse to let you spin, in bullet points or any other format. You claimed you did not repeat a response.. several times now. The links I provided state otherwise. And I've done a darn sigh more than state you were "muddy" although that description is also accurate.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #823
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Hmmm... no executive experience having a predictable(and predicted) effect.

    Why 'Obama-care' is failing

    The president and his supporters are blaming the wrong people for his healthcare woes -- they should look in the mirror.

    Jonah Goldberg

    August 18, 2009


    To listen to the White House and its supporters, in and out of the media, you would think that opposition to "Obama-care" is the hobgoblin of a few small minds on the right. Racists, fascists, Neanderthals, the whole "Star Wars" cantina of boogeymen and cranks stand opposed to much-needed reform.

    Left out of this fairly naked effort to demonize a great many with the actions of a tiny few is the simple fact that Obama-care -- however defined -- has been tanking in the polls for weeks. President Obama's handling of healthcare is unpopular with a majority of Americans and a majority of self-proclaimed independents.

    Focusing on the town halls certainly has its merits, but if you actually wanted Obama-care to pass, casting a majority of Americans as being stooges of racist goons may not be the best way to go.

    Imagine if President George W. Bush, in his effort to partially privatize Social Security, had insisted that the "time for talking is over." Picture, if you will, the Bush White House asking Americans to turn in their e-mails, in the pursuit of "fishy" dissent. Conjure a scenario under which then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) derided critics as "evil-mongers" the way Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently described town hall protesters. Or if then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) had called vocal critics "un-American" the way Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) did last week, or if White House strategist Karl Rove had been Sir Spam-a-lot instead of David Axelrod.

    Now I'm not asking you, dear reader, to do this so that you might be able to see through the glare of Obama's halo or the outlines of the media's staggering double standard when it comes to covering this White House. Rather it is to grasp that the Obama administration has been astoundingly incompetent.

    Lashing out at the town hall protesters, playing the race card, whining about angry white men and whispering ominously about right-wing militias is almost always a sign of liberalism's weakness -- a failure of the imagination.

    The left, broadly speaking, has been attacking conservative talk radio and all it allegedly represents for the better part of 20 years now. When Bill Clinton needed a convenient villain, he attacked Rush Limbaugh. When Bush emerged victorious from the Florida recount, liberals concluded that what they really needed was their own version of Limbaugh. Last March, at the first sign of resistance from congressional Republicans, Obama immediately complained that the GOP was Limbaugh's lap dog, and both the White House and much of the press corps went into anti-Limbaugh campaign mode.

    It's funny how these supposed champions of the Enlightenment can't grasp that people can disagree with them for honest reasons. Instead, we simply must be Limbaugh's automatons, which is to say racist, fascist thugs.

    In addition to the slander, such complaints are monumentally, incandescently lame coming from a party that controls Washington. Indeed, according to liberals themselves, these evil-mongers are a tiny minority, a bunch of "Astro Turf" frauds. So why not ignore them and get on with the work you were elected to do?

    Well, because they can't -- or won't.

    One of the reasons the term "Obama-care" has become a journalistic convention is that there is no bill. You can't talk about Obama's actual healthcare plan because there isn't one. There are a bunch of competing bills, proposals, ideas swirling around the halls of Congress like flotsam in a sewer. As even Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor secretary, recently conceded, the failure to put forward a concrete proposal allows opponents to pick from a menu of scary ideas and possibilities, all of which can be labeled Obama-care.

    Suspicion of bad motives are only reinforced by Obama's determination to steamroll to victory. Indeed, Democratic dudgeon that the town hall protesters don't want the civil debate we desperately need is hysterical, given that Obama wanted this over before the August recess. No wonder the president who thought the time for talk was over long ago now doesn't like the talk he's getting.

    Some might say the real story is to be found in the eroding support from independent voters and Blue Dog Democratic congressmen. Or in the panic among seniors that Obama will raid Medicare. Or in his inability to get progressive Democrats to agree to a bipartisan approach. Or maybe the real story is Obama's manifest inability to sell a program he's invested his presidency in.

    But no. Obama wants the debate to be about angry white men. And, as lame as that is, that's what's happening. It won't make Obama-care a reality, but it will shift the blame from where it rightly belongs.

    jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #824
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    40
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Its about goddam time. I've been saying this for weeks now. You don't negotiate with people who have no interest in true negotiations. And when you have the majority, you don't need to.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/he...s.html?_r=4&hp

  15. #825
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,761

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    For the conservators here I have read your posts and other blogs along with what my republican representatives have sent me. I have found a blog that I would like for you to tare apart or agree with point by point because I want to make the best possible decision as to how I view one payer system. If inacted would our system reflect the Canadian health care system? I don't know it would depend on who puts up the most money to get what they want.

    Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I

    2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.

    I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.

    To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

    1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
    False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

    The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

    2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
    True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

    First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

    Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.

    One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

    Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

    Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

    Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

    3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
    True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

    You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

    And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

    Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

    4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
    False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

    It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •