Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Health care concession riles left; right unmoved

Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 PM EDT
politics, us, barack-obama, care, overhaul, health-care-overhaul
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent

In this Aug. 15, 2009, President Barack Obama talks about health care during a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. Obama's weekend concession on a health care "government option" drew complaints from liberals and scarce interest from Republicans and other critics on Monday, Aug. 17, 2009, a fresh sign of the challenge the administration confronts in finding middle ground in an increasingly partisan political struggle. (AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's weekend concession on a health care "government option" drew complaints from liberals and scarce interest from Republicans and other critics on Monday, a fresh sign of the daunting challenge in finding middle ground in an increasingly partisan political struggle.

The White House insisted there had been no shift in position, adding the president still favors a federal option for the sale of health insurance. "The bottom line is this: Nothing has changed," said a memo containing suggested answers for administration allies to use if asked about the issue.

But some supporters of health care overhaul sounded less than reassured.

"You really can't do health reform" without allowing the government to compete with private insurers, said Howard Dean, a former Democratic Party chairman. "Let's not say we're doing health reform without a public option," he added in a slap at the administration's latest move.

His remarks were echoed by lawmakers as well as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who said the option was the only way to force "real competition" on the insurance industry.

Obama and his top aides signaled retreat over the weekend on proposals for a provision under which consumers could choose from health insurance policies sold by the federal government as well as those marketed by private companies. "All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," the president told a town hall-style audience in Grand Junction, Colo., on Saturday. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

The government option has emerged as one of the most contentious elements of legislation taking shape in Congress, with critics saying it is a step toward a federal takeover of health care and supporters arguing it is essential to create competition with private firms.

Proposals for creation of nonprofit cooperative ventures have emerged as an alternative, but so far, neither liberals nor conservatives have shown great interest.

Obama made his remarks as he struggled to regain momentum for a health care overhaul that has generated controversy among Democrats and near unanimous opposition among Republicans. Recent polls show a lessening of support, and the administration and its allies were thrown on the defensive earlier this month when angry protesters turned up at widely publicized town hall events held by Democratic lawmakers.

Republicans ratcheted up the attacks during the day. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House GOP leader, likened the administration to a school yard bully intent on stealing lunch money, and accused the nation's drug makers of "cutting a deal with the bully."

In a letter to Billy Tauzin, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Boehner said the industry had agreed to a deal with the White House "in hopes of securing favorable treatment and future profits."

PhRMA agreed to pick up no more than $80 billion in costs for health care overhaul over the next decade, under a deal with the White House. It also will spend as much as $150 million in the next few months on television ads to promote health care legislation.

Ken Johnson, senior vice president at PhRMA, said in response to Boehner's letter: "We have been working diligently for more than a year to advance bipartisan health care reform. We're proud of those efforts, and they are completely consistent with our core principals."

The bill faces numerous obstacles when lawmakers return to the Capitol after Labor Day.

In the House, where Democrats hold a 256-178 majority, passage of legislation will hinge on the ability of the administration and Democratic leaders to satisfy liberals who favor a robust government option and centrists who prefer the co-op approach.

Because they cannot realistically count on any Republican votes, the margin for error is reduced. At the same time, House leaders want to protect their rank-and-file centrists, who tend to come from swing districts, and whose victories in 2006 and 2008 helped give the party its large majority.

In a statement, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "There is strong support in the House for a public option," adding it is the best way "to lower costs, improve the quality of health care, ensure choice and expand coverage."

But the statement did not rule out legislation that lacks a government option.

There are similar Democratic divisions in the Senate, where the party controls 60 seats to 40 for the Republicans. A bipartisan group of six senators has been meeting for weeks on a possible compromise that would not include a government option. It is not clear whether they will be successful in reaching a final agreement.

While the president says he favors a bipartisan approach, he has also said it may ultimately be necessary for Democrats to produce a bill more to their own liking.

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the Nevada lawmaker "supports a public option" because it could keep insurance companies in check. "But he also knows that 60 votes will be needed to get anything done. Senator Reid recognizes there are different proposals on the table that could accomplish this goal," the spokesman said, a clear reference to the co-op alternative.

Dean made his remarks in interviews on NBC and CBS. He and Obama are not close, and the administration snubbed the former party chairman earlier this year when it did not invite him to be present when his successor was named.

"Leaving private insurance companies the job of controlling the costs of health care is like making a pyromaniac the fire chief," said Rep., Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. Weiner is one of dozens of Democrats who favor creation of a so-called "single payer" approach under which the government would take over the health care system. For many of them, the government option represents a significant retreat.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, issued a statement that called the weekend administration statements deeply troubling. "The Congressional Black Caucus remains committed to ensuring that health reform is meaningful, and that means making sure that a public option is part of the package," she said.

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, issued a statement that emphasized other complaints about Obama's proposals.

"While both political parties believe we need to reform our health care system, particularly in the areas of cost and access, Americans are rightly skeptical about the administration's approach to overhauling everyone's health care and about the more than $1 trillion price tag. Moreover, Americans are concerned about funding new government programs through massive cuts to Medicare and taxes on small business," he said

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • David Espo's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (223)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
R. Donald Snyder

I am a Democrat, a proud liberal and a strong supporter of Barack Obama. That said, any health care bill that does not have a public option is a bill I'll fight against. It will not be health care reform, it'll be a huge failure. I'll email my Congressman and both State Senators (all Democrats) urging them to vote against any bill without a public option. and I'll urge others to do so too. No matter what concessions Barack proposes the republicans are not going to vote for health care reform because they want to score political points against Barack and don't give a damn how it may hurt America and Americans. It's completely 100% politics with them so I urge Barack to tell them to F off and get this done the right way! With a public option! Or drop it completely.

  • 28 votes
#1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:01 PM EDT
Evil 1

R. Donald:

Seems you were led down the primrose path by someone who has a totally self serving agenda. Do the 'consumate 'lip-flop' when it benefits you or your agenda, forget about what you have promised to the voters. This is normal for Obama and it's just really starting to come to realization. He is proving himself a liar and loser on a daily basis.

  • 22 votes
#1.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:24 PM EDT
chanseng-1243251

That said, any health care bill that does not have a public option is a bill I'll fight against. It will not be health care reform, it'll be a huge failure.

That is true for me to I oppose any health-care bill that doesn't have a public option. No public option mean no public support. Everyone except a majority of Republicans want the public option in the health-care bill. They should not take the public option off the table and they should continue to fight for it.

  • 16 votes
#1.2 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:48 PM EDT
JoulesBeefExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

Evil1 yeah i just love this privatized SS bush gave us like he promised was his primary goal when he was elected.
also that bringing peace to the middle east.. like god choose him for.. was a bit disppointing.

  • 18 votes
#1.3 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
Good Time DJ

When a staunch Liberal Democrat from a predominantly Liberal State such as R Donald Snyder has any questions about this Healtcare Reform Bill then I say Everyone should question it and not support it. PERIOD! If this were such a great thing for the America people then why do so many Americans oppose it? This bill is not about Healthcare. Not one bit. It is 100% about politics and who can control what.

I was always told that if something looks good today it will look good tomorrow. But I believe that if somethig looks bad today no matter how you try to change it, it will will be bad tomorrow. As Barry O. once said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig!" Talk about the pot calling the kettle Black (no pun intended).

  • 11 votes
#1.4 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:04 PM EDT
Good Time DJ

JoulesBeef - you need to layoff from drinking that Mule kool-aid. Blaming Bush is no longer fashionable. SS would have been reformed if the Democrats in Congress stepped up and did Something instead of sitting on their thumbs the last 4 yrs he was in office. Now they complain how the GOP is so against what their President wants. Typical two-faced politics. Libs always seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth. Like how Barry O. was so against a single payer health plan but now he is for it. Democrat Party should be know as the Flip-Flop Party. Like John Kerry, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Democrats will never change; they just say they will.

  • 22 votes
#1.5 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:20 PM EDT
Evil 1

Joules:

It would be amazing if you ever brought anything worthwhile to the debate other than your constant referral to Bush. Contrary to your minuscule scope of observation Obama has been in control since his inauguration and the continued, unsubstantiated, infantile cry by the left of blaming Bush for Obamas mistakes is in all reality comical! It is about time for Obama and his idiotic followers to accept responsibility for his incomprehensible actions and be adults! Your continued, non-realistic, moronic responses have become nothing more than comic relief for those of us on the vine with any common sense and/or have validity to our posts.

  • 23 votes
#1.6 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:30 PM EDT
Snowshoes00

I agree without single payer and no public option you have nothing to control costs at all.

The insurance industry and the GOP gain.

Co ops have no model of success and the GOP knows that. The want failure.

When will the democrats stand tall and fight for what is right rather than cave.

Caving in and dispelling promises is not change we can believe in.

its Washington at its worst.

  • 10 votes
#1.7 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:43 PM EDT
Norcal2

Maybe this was the best thing to happen if it makes supporters get busy and write. Thus far all we have heard are a handful of people shouting against it in townhall meetings. If we want this done we better let our views be known.

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:56 PM EDT
Bubba-939441

Dems control both houses and yet blame Republicans. Admit it, the public option does not have the Democratic votes. Admit that enough Democrats sold out to lobbyists so it does not have support. Not all were blue dogs.

  • 5 votes
#1.9 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:17 PM EDT
Good Time DJ

Hey Norcal2. Your views are respected. The problem is your views (that of the Liberal Democrats) lack substance. It is nice to want healthcare for every American. But at what cost? I would love to live in Utopia where I have a big house, a beautiful wife no bills, never having to worry about healthcare costs, utilities, pollution, war & terrorism and everyone has a job. But unfortunately we live in the real world where we have to work for what we get. Those that don't want to work that are standing out there with their hands our expecting to have the taxpayers support them seem to have the loudest voice in this administration's ears. Wake-up and smell the coffee, Norcal2. Obama has awaken the silent majority and we don't like what we see. Change his way will not happen quietly. We choose Free America not Give It To Me Free America.

  • 12 votes
#1.10 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:19 PM EDT
jacq24

I am with you on this one R. Donald. What a complete utter waste of political capital. He has rattled the cages of all the right wing crazies to lead a campaign against him and watched his favorability plummet. Now is when you stand your ground. These people are not going away because you compromise. They will be out there yelling they won and using it to continue their agenda. Go out ram through the public option, declare victory and no one will care how many Republicans joined in the vote. I can't believe Emanual blew this one so badly.

  • 8 votes
#1.11 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:20 PM EDT
Chuck1968

Go out ram through the public option, declare victory and no one will care how many Republicans joined in the vote.

I second that!!

  • 7 votes
#1.12 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:25 PM EDT
R. Donald Snyder

I have little doubt that something called health care reform will pass both Houses and will be signed by Barack. However, if it doesn't include a real public option then I and I think most liberals will consider it to be a huge policy failure. It will be a serious dent in our support. Will we desert Barack and stop supporting him altogether? No, of course not. On the other hand it will be one of the many things we consider, one of the pluses and minuses we will look at, when we are trying to decide if we're going to make the effort to get him re-elected like we did to get him elected or if we're just going to sit on our hands and refuse to participate in the 2012 elections at all. He must remember that it is us, the Democratic liberals, the activists on the left, that are the ones manning the phone banks and stuffing the envelopes and going door to door in his campaign, not the republicans. Forget bipartisanship Barack and be just a Democrat for once.

  • 8 votes
#1.13 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:38 PM EDT
netprophet

The problem is that the Bluedogs are bought and paid for...the insurance companies are and have been pumping millions into the wallets of the Bluedogs and they've been paying off Baucus for years.

McConnell's comments are predictable. President Obama's proposal would help small businesses with less than 250 employees to compete with larger companies (i.e. the ones who own McConnell). The cuts in Medicare would come in part by cutting the $177 Billion subsidy to the health insurance industry (who also own McConnell). So if you're keeping score, that's one lie and one half-truth- both in the best interests of...you guessed it...Sen McConnell. Why would he give up that gravy train to save the lives of some poor and middle class people?

President Obama knows that he'll never get support from the Republicans. It's Baucus and the Bluedogs who are in the way of a public option. Lobbyist money knows no party affiliation- it all spends the same...

  • 6 votes
#1.14 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:47 PM EDT
Spectator99

The president has put himself in a difficult position. He has already made a big compromise in dropping the single payer system in a failed effort to get Republican support. Now he is becoming wobbly on the public option in another effort to appease Republicans and the Blue Dogs at the expense of possibly a hundred Democratic votes in the House.

My feelings are in line with R. Donald. A bill without a strong public option will provide no real leverage over the insurance companies who are the real culprits in the huge health care cost run up. You have me totally confused Mr. President. Is there a move on the Chess board that I am not seeing?

  • 4 votes
#1.15 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:52 PM EDT
Norcal2

That is the problem good times. If you are middle class you are already paying for the poor and their medical care. The wealthy are covered because they can afford to be. The seniors are beautifully covered because they are 65 or more. YOU are the only one not covered well. YOU are the one who can't change jobs with existing conditions. You are the one who must file bankruptcy because there is no plans for you if you find out the great insurance you have has an unknown limit. If you have any kind of home, YOU can't get help. YOU are the one who can lose your home to foreclosure just as the 1.5 million a year who lose their home due to medical bills. You are concerned that you will end up footing the bill for the poor? You have been all along and you will continue to pay for them until we get a better medical delivery system. Only YOU have a stake in this. I assume you didn't know this? Truly, this is about YOU representing all middleclass. Middleclass is the only unprotected of the group so stop worrying about maybe paying for the poor, you already do.

Check out these figures:

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

  • 7 votes
#1.16 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:01 PM EDT
DanaR-1273622

R. Donald Snyder

said

"I am a Democrat, a proud liberal and a strong supporter of Barack Obama. That said, any health care bill that does not have a public option is a bill I'll fight against. It will not be health care reform"

A public option is not reform, a public option is socialised medicine, and not something we need.

You want to reform healthcare, well first you have to have real tort reform, second you have to undo obama's secret deal with the drug companies, that allow them to charge high prices for the prescription drugs, for four years longer than they do today.

  • 3 votes
#1.17 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:23 PM EDT
DanaR-1273622

Why do people say they are a strong supporter of obama. They do realize that they are supporting a known racist.

  • 4 votes
#1.18 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:24 PM EDT
R. Donald Snyder

A public option is not reform, a public option is socialised medicine, and not something we need.

No, it's just a very small step toward Socialised medicine, which I support.

  • 5 votes
#1.19 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:59 PM EDT
Julian in Dallas

I agree R Donald Snyder.

I too am a proud, liberal, left-wing, left-handed, Texas Democrat. Blue is my favorite color. You get the point. As an educated, Black American male, I was proud to cast a vote for Barack Obama. Not just because of the historical significance, or his race even, but because I saw a kindred spirit. Finally, an educated, articulate brother making some sense. Not some loud mouth jackass looking for a photo op. Someone who will make a real difference. I am confident in my decision so far. Having said that, I will certainly not support anything less than true healthcare reform, which includes a public option. No public option, no healthcare reform. Plain and simple. That should be easy enough for the average republican to understand. In fact most right-wingers are to damned stupid to grasp anything more than a "this or that" paradigm. It's either healthcare reform with a public option, or no healthcare reform at all.

President should not back down from the GOP on this. If he does, I will do what the dumbass Bush voters should have done back in 2004. I will revisit my decision.

  • 6 votes
#1.20 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:03 PM EDT
RonBlack66

Nothing is stopping Democrats and President Obama from passing whatever it is they want to pass. If they pass a public option, it's all on them. If they fail to pass a public option, it's still all on them.

Republicans have nothing to do with whatever passes or fails to pass. Dems and Obama have the super-majority and the White House.

RDS and Julian. Obama is not a stupid man. He knows he already has your votes in 2012, regardless what you say or write. He knows that nothing he does will change that. Therefore, he's working on trying to keep the independents; the ones that are bailing out on him in droves when it comes to the health care bill.

  • 4 votes
#1.21 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:50 AM EDT
herecomedajudge

It's either healthcare reform with a public option, or no healthcare reform at all.

GREAT! Let's have no healthcare reform while the three lying stooges Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are in charge. Everyone knows they will fork-up anything they touch. By the way, it's not the "public" option, it is the Marxist option, the option that governmentizes and collectivizes the medical industry. The foot in the door for the takeover of healthcare. The plan for the early demise of the elderly for using healthcare dollars. The beginning of Democrap death panels deciding who to sacrifice each year to balance the budget. Democraps are too dumb to take care of themselves so they use the government to force others to pay for their upkeep. The Democrap constituency is well below average in intelligence and skills, and stealing and robbing, using the government if necessary, is what they do.

The Democraps have the majority. Pass that sorry butt HR 3200. It will be undone and there will be a landslide Republican HoR takeover in 2010. And with that large majority, we can impeach that political godfather Obama, for collecting data for his hit list of opposing Americans. Obama is an incompetent bood like the majority of his supporters. The fact the most radical element of the Democrap party demands the "public" option tells us it is evil and an attack on America and Americans.

It would be best if you re-visit the decision to vote at all next election.

  • 2 votes
#1.22 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:47 AM EDT
jacq24

The republicans are going to bail on the "co-op", the so-called compromise. Pat Buchanan basically said as much this morning. So we have gone from single-payer to public option to co-op to nothing. I have an idea, let's pass a bill making everyone buy insurance, especially low-risk young people just out of college trying to pay school loans and then let's not offer any real reform. Republicans and blue-dogs will vote for that! That's about the only reform we are going to get - unless it is something useless and anti-consumer like tort reform - one that creates higher profits for insurance companies.

    #1.23 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:33 AM EDT
    herecomedajudge

    We know the government "co-op" is not a co-op but another name for government healthcare. We knew the Obama retreat was just a respite until new phraseology for a takeover plan could be focus tested. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are Marxists, their goal is US Marxism, and their proposals are for the purpose of imposing Marxist ideology. Those 3 don't give a crap about the people, their eyes are on power only. Get some new blood into power, some America loving honest decent people, and maybe we can further constructive thought for governance.

    • 2 votes
    #1.24 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:38 AM EDT
    Spectator99

    There is a reason why other industrialized countries have gone to socialized medicine. When health care is privatized, every player in the game is out to cover costs and produce a nice profit. That goes from the corner "doc in the box", local family medicine physician groups, the drug companies, home health services, labs and X-ray providers, most hospitals, physician specialists and health insurers. If you covered the costs only, which socialized medicine does, you save money on profits. It's the profits that are bankrupting the American people, businesses and the government. For example, the ten largest health insurers made $13 billion in profits in 2007.

    It's time that we socialize all of the health care in our country. Health care now accounts for 17% of our GDP and is forecast to go to 40% by 2040(1). People, our house is on fire and it's time to act!

    (1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601757.html

    • 2 votes
    #1.25 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
    herecomedajudge

    There is a reason why other industrialized countries have gone to socialized medicine.

    There is a reason the founding fathers broke away from those other countries who now have government medicine and it was because those governments would do what they've done and try to take over private enterprises and become the master of the people. Governmentized medicine is a step backward for America. The argument that taking the profit motive out of it can and will be made for every industry, every business, and that too would "save money". Forget it causes stagnation of progress and defeats the spirit of the people, as long as it saves money. That is Marxism to its core. No profits, no motivation, everyone (except the ruling elite) sinking to the lowest level of existence and government dependence -- that is the Obama, Reid, and Pelosi plan.

    • 2 votes
    #1.26 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:48 AM EDT
    Mike-584822

    Snowshoes wrote "......Co ops have no model of success and the GOP knows that. The want failure.

    When will the democrats stand tall and fight for what is right rather than cave. "

    I guess Beck, Hannity and the Messiah Rush can't be overruled. They are the voice of reason for the right wing. If they asked their parishioners for money I can only believe that they would. This is Evangelism only this is evangelism for news.

      #1.27 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:08 AM EDT
      DeMock

      herecomedajudge wrote:

      Governmentized medicine is a step backward for America.

      so I guess you are against Medicare and Medicaid... that is without any doubt a government program. Is VA Health Care is a "step backward" too? The fact that nobody is talking about "Governmentized medicine" did you just miss that? I guess that doesn't mater to you ? Nobody is talking about changing medicine just the way we pay for some small part of it... getting the millions of people without health care covered... The CBO report concludes that private insurers will see many new customers not less. You have been duped by special interest...if you live in America the curent system leaves you at risk of losing everything you own... house, car, savings... you are one illness away. More than half of bankruptcies in this country are linked to a health issue.

      herecomedajudge wrote:

      The argument that taking the profit motive out of it...their goal is US Marxism,

      What are you talking about? Taking the profit motive out of what? I guess you have never heard of Blue Cross - Blue Shield many of which are non profits.... (many have been bought up by for profit company too) Non profits have as much place in America as any other business... they just have a different goal than money. Credit Unions must be bad too... they are member owned for the benefit of members... not profits. "Good will" must be bad will... Churches must be a commie plot. OMG America is just pure commie! Please try to think....

      • 4 votes
      #1.28 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:09 AM EDT
      Maik

      I am honestly entertained to watch liberals say they are going to fight against a bill that doesn't have their precious public option in it, when these were the same people not a week ago who were saying the it was the Republicans who were refusing to negotiate.

      You all need to surrender to the fact that you are going to have to give up some things to get some things. Just be glad something is getting done in the right direction like making it so that people cannot be dropped from or denied insurance, etc.

      Now Congress can actually focus on how to reduce healthcare cost and not how it is all going to get paid.

      • 2 votes
      #1.29 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:30 PM EDT
      gamerk2

      The problem is the Senate; I simply don't see the house being a major issue.

      Theres really only three ways this gets done:

      1: Democrats get all 60 senators to vote yes (not likely: Liberman and Spectre)

      2: Get the Maine Senators to vote for the bill (possible; their state is heavy blue, and one of them is up in 2010, the next in 2012)

      3: Senate Rule Change and remove the fillabuster. Bill passes with ease (REALLY ticks of every conservative, regardless of party. Use with caution)

      • 1 vote
      #1.30 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:07 PM EDT
      herecomedajudge

      Nobody is talking about changing medicine just the way we pay for some small part of it... getting the millions of people without health care covered...

      Now THAT is so very indicative of complete lack of knowledge of how the government contols what it funds. Federal funds come with many strings and complicated rules putting the borrower at risk of fines and imprisonment and those pesky little corporate integrity agreements.

      The "co-ops" are to be started with government "seed" money, which will never be repaid, and which will make the "co-ops" subordinate to the government, with the government the major share holder and the rule maker. Thse "co-ops" will be able to run at a loss with lower premiums than truly private insurance, again putting private insurers out of business, as is the intention.

      so I guess you are against Medicare and Medicaid...

      I am against government run medicine, whatever the name, whatever the form. There are ways to fund better care for those beneficiaries without the government dictating their medical care.

      I guess you are against freedom and liberty with your support of government seizure of the healthcare industry?

        #1.31 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:23 PM EDT
        Minan59

        I guess you are against freedom and liberty with your support of government seizure of the healthcare industry?

        I guess you support the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries lock on corporate fascism.

          #1.32 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
          herecomedajudge

          I guess you support the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries lock on corporate fascism.

          I suggest you boycott them all.

            #1.33 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:05 PM EDT
            DeMock

            I said (DEMOCK) to herecomethejudge

            so I guess you are against Medicare and Medicaid...

            herecomethejudge said in response :

            I am against government run medicine, whatever the name, whatever the form.

            So now we ARE clear... you don't want Medicare/Medicaid two of the most popular successful programs our country has. That puts you squarely out in left field(or right field in this case:))

            Some folks out there might think you are on the fringe of this group that is trying to stop reform... the fact is you are not. Dick Armey of "Freedom Works" and former republican majority leader is right with herecomethejudge and Armey even wants to do away with Social security. Armey made those statements on "Meet the Press" Sunday. So, this is the crew that is trying to stop reform... join them or not... but know their stand: "Against Medicare and Social Security ... government is the problem."

            • 2 votes
            #1.34 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:16 PM EDT
            herecomedajudge

            So now we ARE clear... you don't want Medicare/Medicaid two of the most popular successful programs our country has.

            Your wonderful programs are non-sustainable, destined to bankruptcy, destructive to the American tenets of freedom and liberty, and demoralizing to the medical professionals in this country. Neither would be successful as structured without the goodwill and charity of the medical professionals. Neither is structured as a sustainable business. Those programs are attractive because the beneficiaries get more in return than they pay in premiums, the definition of success to liberals, a form of wealth redistribution. There is only so much wealth to redistribute and we've exceeded the capacity to keep the wealth redistribution promises politicians made to get elected. We are, in fact, committing generational theft exactly like conservatives have described, stealing the wealth of coming generations for Americans today to live large. Government, liberal government, statist government, Marxist government, is the problem, absolutely.

            Of course libs will take the facts and turn them into Republicans want to take away those wonderful programs because they are mean and uncaring, their ridiculous form of discussion of serious topics. There are ways to ensure care for the elderly and everyone without the government prescribing care and prescribing the time to die, as is the ObamaCare plan.

              #1.35 - Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:09 AM EDT
              DeMock

              herecomethejudge wrote:

              the definition of success to liberals, a form of wealth redistribution.

              That dog didn't hunt for John McCain... I don't think it will now.

              herecomethejudge wrote:

              the government prescribing care and prescribing the time to die, as is the ObamaCare plan.

              Now you are just bleating total nonsense! ... there are no "death panels"

              here are the FACTS about Advance Planning Consultations in H.R. 3200 Sec. 1233

              Here are the groups that support it.... I hardly think these groups are for "death Panels"

              AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine,
              American College of Physicians, American Hospice Foundation, Center to Advance Palliative Care, Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association, Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization,
              National Palliative Care Research Center, Providence Health and Services,
              and the Supportive Care Coalition.

              Please ask the doctors to loosen the chin strap on your helmet... it must be cutting off the oxygen to your brain...

              • 3 votes
              #1.36 - Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:34 AM EDT
              herecomedajudge

              The death panels I am concerned about are the ones who will decide the allocation of resources, the panels that will decide who doesn't get care to save money and to further a political agenda, the death panels that prescribe the time to die.

              I'm shocked! Left wing political organizations and end of life advocating organizations support ObamaCare? Many of them stand to directly benefit from the early enrollment in end-of-life care programs -- typical liberal voting for what benefits them personally to the detriment of others.

                #1.37 - Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:58 PM EDT
                Kate In Greensboro

                "herecomedajudge":

                The death panels I am concerned about are the ones who will decide the allocation of resources, the panels that will decide who doesn't get care to save money and to further a political agenda, the death panels that prescribe the time to die.

                OK, so you're against the fictional death panels and those that are part of CIGNA, BCBS, UnitedHealthcare, AETNA, etc. Glad we cleared that up.

                • 3 votes
                #1.38 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
                herecomedajudge

                Yes, I'm against the all-too-real private sector death panels, too. At least with the private sector one can shop around or pay cash. With ObamaCare, their will eventually be only the government option, immune from liability, run by political hacks and thugs, just like this administration, and private pay outlawed.

                Anyone denying there will be panels deciding life and death under ObamaCare are liars or cognitively substandard by more than 5 standard deviations with a p<0.005.

                • 1 vote
                #1.39 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:01 PM EDT
                Kate In Greensboro

                cognitively substandard by more than 5 standard deviations with a p<0.005.

                Wow. Just wow.

                • 3 votes
                #1.40 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:21 PM EDT
                DeMock

                Kate In Greensboro wrote:

                Wow. Just wow.

                I might add... anyone on the web defending "death panels" at this point is not the brightest bulb in the box... As everyone else on the web knows they have been disproved, fact checked, roundly condemned... by every respected organization that has checked in to them. Including AARP the organization that would seem to have the biggest stake of all.

                Thank you for taking up where I left off last night... I think if all people that want change will pull together like that we will get this thing passed! Rock ON!

                BTW we are neighbors I am in Mebane.

                • 2 votes
                #1.41 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:38 PM EDT
                Kate In Greensboro

                Well hello neighbor! I've never been to Mebane but I've driven past Mebane exits many times. Always nice to "meet" a neighbor.

                • 2 votes
                #1.42 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:38 PM EDT
                herecomedajudge

                Sounds like you're related, explaining the standard deviations from normal. Inbreeding can lead to severe genetic cognitive impairment.

                There will be death panels. All statements to the contrary are lies, just like Obama's no new taxes on people making less than $250,000 -- read his sphincter. Obama is a lying sack of doo-doo and so are those trying to deny there will be rationing and panels deciding who will die from the rationing.

                • 1 vote
                #1.43 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:37 PM EDT
                DeMock

                herecomedajudge wrote:

                There will be death panels.

                herecomethejudge, I guess someone had to be the last to figure out they were punked ... try to keep your chin up.

                http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--1

                • 2 votes
                #1.44 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:55 AM EDT
                DeMock

                Well hello neighbor! I've never been to Mebane... - Kate In Greensboro

                Kate you are not missing too much here in Mebane... I like it but it is sparse! Nice to see another "Tarheel" on the vine... even if they are a "city slicker" :) I posted this video for our resident "deviant" and I think you may like it and the part two I have attached for you.

                http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--1

                http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--2

                BTW: Betsy McCaughey was fired from her health care supply company job the day after this was aired ! LOL!

                • 1 vote
                #1.45 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:10 AM EDT
                herecomedajudge

                It is the people being subjugated by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi who will be punked if they let those three stooges seize the healthcare industry. ObamaCare will have death panels, period. It is a lie to say there will unlimited benefits to everyone. The limitations on the benefits will be determined by appointees, political appointees -- panels of appointees, whose job is to save money, not lives. Those appointee panels will decide who lives and dies by the government plan benefits. Those panels will be death panels. To way otherwise is a lie, a deception. ObamaCare will kill people to save money. Why so malicious with your protection of the healthcare takeover by Obama? Why do you hate the elderly and the infirm, the Americans who will suffer most under ObamaCare?

                Why the fork would I go to the Daily Show to get the news? That would be dumb. It is a comedy show.

                  #1.46 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:21 PM EDT
                  DeMock

                  Herecomethejudge (punked) wrote:

                  It is a lie to say there will unlimited benefits to everyone.

                  They do now though, right?

                  Herecomethejudge (punked) wrote:

                  ...panels of appointees....

                  What you are talking about is used by the very best hospitals in the country LIKE the MAYO CLINIC.

                  Herecomethejudge (punked) wrote:

                  Why so malicious with your protection of the healthcare takeover by Obama?

                  read your snarky posts... it may give you a hint.

                  Herecomethejudge (punked) wrote:

                  Why do you hate the elderly and the infirm

                  I don't... and I don't appreciate uninformed people attempting to scare them with lie's. Oh, and note the word ATTEMPTING... in polls it is the elderly that caught on to the lie first. Either you really are the last person on the net to realize you have been punked or you are a liar... either way it doesn't look good.

                  Herecomethejudge (punked) wrote:

                  Why the fork would I go to the Daily Show to get the news?

                  You would not understand the daily show... it would float right the "fork" over your head.

                  • 3 votes
                  #1.47 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:07 PM EDT
                  herecomedajudge

                  I trained at the Mayo Clinic.

                  You are the punked one. You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, doctors decide about treatments all the time, from a "what is best for this patient" perspective, not from the "it costs too much so let them die" perspective. Cost effectiveness decisions are made by "experts" detached from the individual patient involved in such decisions, for the purposes of public policy or administrative applications. If your doctor tells you there is a life saving treatment but they won't prescribe it because it costs too much, you have a bad doctor and should seek care elsewhere. Your doctor should be your advocate, not the government's advocate. Come on, get some sense about you.

                  I perfectly understand the Daily Show. It is satire and mockery and a little mischievous, a little Benny Hill and a little Monty Python and a little Saturday Night Live, with a heavy liberal slant. I get it. It isn't journalism or news.

                  You don't understand your government or history. Please refrain from trying to implement policies for all in areas beyond your comprehension.

                    #1.48 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:53 PM EDT
                    DeMock

                    herecomethejudge writes:

                    I trained at the Mayo Clinic.

                    But you don't know what Comparative Effectiveness is?!?! Hummmmmmmm?

                    You keep saying using scientific comparison of effectiveness is done for cost reasons... it simply is not... it does lower cost but it is done to improve outcomes... as your training should have shown you...

                    About the "Daily Show"... A study by Pew Research shows that viewers of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have the highest knowledge of national and international affairs, while Fox News viewers rank nearly dead last.

                    • 3 votes
                    #1.49 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:10 PM EDT
                    herecomedajudge

                    Did they question your gang that is imprisoned. Many of the left's dummies are incarcerated, skewing the values for the free liberals. Besides, I didn't say I didn't watch it, I just don't get my news there. It is for entertainment. Many conservatives watch the Daily Show.

                    What is it you want ot know about outcomes based medicine? You've said some things I never said or implied.

                      #1.50 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:59 PM EDT
                      DeMock

                      herecomethejudge wrote:

                      What is it you want ot know about outcomes based medicine? You've said some things I never said or implied.

                      the entire "death panel" bs boils down to the expert panels for comparative effectiveness studies ... nothing more or less. People with training at Mayo's should know that is not "death panels" ... as you must know Mayo's helped "write the book" comparative effectiveness studies.

                      You may look down your nose at John Stewart's interview of Betsy McCaughey ( the person who started the whole "death Panel" thing)... but Betsy McCaughey's employer look down their nose at it. They fired her the day after the interview aired. If you watched the interview which was unedited you KNOW she is full of bs(the web version may have beenedited I did not watch it). So why would you continue to say the stuff is true? You say you have medical training from Mayo's but you would even think twice about repeating this hair brain crap? Mayo's is supportive of the President's effort to reform the system and encouraged the use of Comparative Effectiveness (what you and the right wing-nut's continue to call "Death Panels"- that and payment for consults about living wills and end of life directives). Here is Mayo's open letter to congress.

                      Mayo's Open Letter to Congress:

                      Dear Members of Congress,

                      We wholeheartedly support President Obama's call for healthcare reform, and agree with his position that "the status quo is the one option that is not on the table". We applaud the House and the Senate for their ongoing efforts to obtain universal coverage for all Americans.

                      The President challenged you and your colleagues to look at high quality efficient healthcare providers for ways to improve health care. Congress must encourage all U.S. physicians and hospitals to focus on quality, not quantity of medical procedures. Currently, Medicare pays the most to ten states that often provide poorer outcomes, safety, and service at higher cost, and much less to most of the country where providers demonstrate generally better outcomes, safety and service at lower cost. As healthcare providers, we believe that insertion of a measurement of value into the payment system is a critical step to change provider behavior throughout the country and "bend the cost curve" in U.S. health spending without compromising health.

                      The Medicare Payment Improvement Act (H.R. 2844, S. 1249) is a simple, yet bold, concept that inserts value in to the Medicare physician payment schedule. We encourage you to talk to the bill's authors (Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Kind), and co-sponsors, about how this concept builds value and outcomes into the payment structure without interfering with the doctor-patient relationship. We believe that this legislation is an important first step to a healthcare system where value, not volume, prevails, so that future healthcare expenditures do not expand the Federal budget deficit. For the long term, we are also encouraged by other ideas that move toward paying for value, including an independent agency that could develop value-based payment methodologies for Medicare.

                      Under the current Medicare system, a majority of doctors and hospitals that care for Medicare patients are paid substantially less than it costs to treat them. Many providers are therefore already approaching a point where they can not afford to see Medicare patients. Expansion of a Medicare-type plan without a method to define, measure, and pay for healthy outcomes for patients will move many doctors and hospitals across this threshold, and ultimately hurt the patients who seek our care. We should not put more Americans into the current unsustainable system.

                      'Pay for value' is the only tactic that will "bend the cost curve" in U.S. health spending, improve the quality of care that our citizens deserve, and create a long and healthy future for both the American people and the American healthcare system.

                      Thank you for your leadership and commitment to health care reform.

                      Sincerely,

                      Dr. Casey Ryan, MD, President, Altru Health System

                      Dave Molmen, CEO, Altru Health System

                      Thomas Colacchio, MD, President, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health

                      Dr. James Weinstein, Director, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice

                      Scott Armstrong, President & CEO, Group Health Cooperative

                      Michael Soman, MD, President, Group Health Physicians

                      Jeff Thompson, MD, Chief Executive Officer, Gunderson Lutheran Health System

                      Mary Brainerd, President & CEO, HealthPartners (MN)

                      David Barrett, MD, President & CEO, Lahey Clinic

                      Karl J. Ulrich, MD, MMM, President/CEO, Marshfield Clinic

                      Denis A. Cortese, MD, President & CEO, Mayo Clinic

                      Jack McCallum, MD, PhD

                      Michael Kitchell, MD, President, McFarland Clinic

                      Patricia C. Briggs, CEO, Northwest Physicians Network

                      Ira N. Hollander, MD, President, North Texas Specialty Physicians

                      Alfred Knight, MD, President & CEO, Scott & White Healthcare

                      Ralph Koldinger, MD, President, Sutter Independent Physicians

                      Dr. Leonard L. Berry, Professor of Humanities in Medicine, College of Medicine Health Science Center, Texas A&M University

                      Gary S. Kaplan, MD, Chairman & CEO, Virginia Mason Health System

                      I too have a little medical training and certainly would not have ever let anyone hear me use the words "death panels" much less say they are anything other than a right wing political trick. The fact that you say you are a doctor, nurse or other medical pro and would lower yourself into the gutter to talk about "death panels" worries me. I worry less about paid off politicians... but when medical professionals stoop to dignifying such trash I have to wonder where the decency of the American people has gone. Scaring people with lies? Forget the ethical considerations and just target the moral ones and think. There are ways to argue against the health reform package that are reasoned and responsible but, acting like the web version of a town hall screamer should be beneath anyone who wears a white coat and isn't one. I hope you understand my position.

                      • 3 votes
                      #1.51 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:09 AM EDT
                      herecomedajudge

                      I am not here commenting as a doctor, but I can't remove that knowledge from my activities here, either. I know medical BS and fishy government gobbledygook when I see it. I have an historical perspective on what is said vs. what is done by our government.

                      I don't disagree in principle with the Mayo Clinic statement. Be aware that, like the AMA, the Mayo Clinic does not represent the opinion of all its physicians or alumni. The Mayo Clinic would be frowned upon for expressing cynicism about the government and no doubt fears retaliation if it opposes the government, but if we had a durable, compassionate, above the board government, there would be little opposition to a "public" option insurance. But history and current events tells us the government should not be trusted and should not be handed control of our freedoms and liberties. Also be aware the Mayo Clinic and other large medical institutions benefit from the research of new drugs, treatments, and by performing the outcomes research needed for the outcomes based medicine.

                      The pay-for-performance, P4P, initiative by Medicare starts out as a bonus and then transitions to penalties after several years. While that all sounds great to outsiders, it is nonetheless a penalty system. Penalties-for-physicians, a new behavior control and an insidious intrusion of the government into medical decision making.

                      Under a performance penalty system based on the physicians outcomes on key core diagnoses, the doctor has two ways to keep income up. Work really hard and see fewer patients making sure each gets the maximum attention needed to keep the outcomes as best possible (the intended goal), or the physician excludes the most difficult patients not likely to have a good outcome even with extra attention and gathers only the easiest to care for, compliant patients, into their practice. The most compassionate doctors who might not exclude anyone for any reason end up with the highest risk and worst outcome group of patients, which makes their outcomes worse, and they end up suffering the penalties because of that compassion.

                      The exclusion of difficult patients from practices already happens. P4P will be a rationing system, causing low end patients to have access problems and even worse outcomes.

                      The other down side to outcomes based medicine is it requires multiple, complex, long-term studies of the multiple treatments available and a new study every time a new drug or other treatment becomes available. It could substantially slow progress and slow the widespread use of newer treatments and technology. What invariably happens is a new treatment is approved, but only studied in a particular patient population, leaving the individual doctors to "guess" if it is an appropriate treatment for their patients. For example, an expensive cancer treatment drug proves highly effective, but the safety and effectiveness test subjects excluded dialysis patients from the study group. So the community treating doctor can't, with high confidence, expect the same outcomes in the dialysis population. Under this outcomes based medicine, with cost being the number one consideration, will dialysis patients be denied access to that new highly effective treatment? It might be years before a study of the therapy occurs in those dialysis patients to gain acceptance and coverage. There are many potential abuses of the outcomes based medicine scenario, incuding denial of coverage because of potential drug-drug interactions, failure to do outcomes clinical trials, which would slow progress but save costs, etc.

                      My big concern is government perverting medicine and payment and coverage decisions for its own purposes. I don't trust the government, particularly this government. I would also like to remain a free man, an independent physician, who can study the data and make my own decisions. Decisions by panels are rarely unanimous, so that means the panel experts have reached differing conclusions, just like a community physician might do, but now they are working from a government created medicine cookbook.

                      Writing as an American citizen concerned for this country and believing the founding fathers knew what would happen with a more powerful central government, I don't want Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, etc. making healthcare policy. There is no such thing as independent boards or bodies making policy. Each and every American has their own goals and objectives and are susceptible to outside influence. These government policy making panels will not be pure scientists detached from the personal rewards and personal politics when making decisions. Look at the FDA, even Medicare itself.

                      Think what you want about the death panel terminology. The fact is, from the outcome based perspective, panels making healthcare coverage decisions decide who lives and who dies, so they are, in fact, death panels. I don't trust the government panels deciding anything affecting my life and neither should the elderly or the infirm.

                      As you probably know, your communications should be geared to the intended audience. Speaking in medical terminology and using big fancy words communicatiing to the average American works best, and death panels was an acceptable term to communicate that there will be political appointees making such life and death decisions. I am also confident there will be encouragements to the elederly to forego treatments that are expensive and hospice expanded, whether specific wording exists in the final bill or not. Saving money will be the government's prime directive.

                        #1.52 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:44 AM EDT
                        herecomedajudge

                        Speaking in medical terminology and using big fancy words communicatiing to the average American works best

                        There was an error in that sentence and is should have been:

                        "Speaking in medical terminology and using big fancy words communicatiing to the average American is not what works best".

                        I regret the error.

                          #1.53 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:50 AM EDT
                          Kate In Greensboro

                          I trained at the Mayo Clinic.

                          I'm impressed. My niece trained in data entry at Sloan-Kettering.

                          • 2 votes
                          #1.54 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:06 AM EDT
                          herecomedajudge

                          Fantastic! The health care system will fail entirely if we don't keep motivated professional people in that field. Congratulations to your niece.

                          Sloan-Kettering is a fantastic institution, as is the Mayo Clinic. It was an honor to be allowed to train there. I encourage everyone, if they have the chance and the need, to see why it is said America has the best medical care in the world, and vist the Mayo Clinic or Sloan-Kettering. We had people from all over the world with every known disorder coming there for diagnosis and treatment.

                            #1.55 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
                            DeMock

                            herecomethejudge writes:

                            I am not here commenting as a doctor, but I can't remove that knowledge from my activities here

                            So you ARE a MD? Did you think folks might think you had a conflict so you did not disclose before? I mean that seems a big bit of info to leave out.... given this IS a health care thread. Hummmmm??????? I don't have time right now to do the type of point by point I would like to on the rest of your post . Needless to say it too gives me reason to wonder about your "sincerity". I will not call you a liar outright but I will say I I can't R/O deception. I find it VERY odd that a MD that trained at Mayo's would be against the very type of delivery system that makes them famous.

                            • 2 votes
                            #1.56 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
                            DeMock

                            Kate in Greensboro wrote:

                            My niece trained in data entry at Sloan-Kettering.

                            Is she an MD? :)

                            • 2 votes
                            #1.57 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:30 PM EDT
                            DeMock

                            Herecomethejudge wrote:

                            America has the best medical care in the world....

                            Yes, if you call 37 on the World Health Organization list "the best" we are that.

                            • 3 votes
                            #1.58 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:38 PM EDT
                            herecomedajudge

                            The WHO is a political organization. It doesn't care about demographic variations or data collection variations, and is quite happy to put out misleading information. I know people come to this country to get the highest level specialty diagnosis and care. The system is under strain from government intrusions and a deterioration of the morals and ethics in this country, and the relative scarcity of resources for the demand, partly due to massive illegal immigration.

                            DeMock, I've made it no secret I'm a doctor, but I am not here as a doctor. I value my country's freedom over my profession. I have volunteered my life for the country through military service. I strongly, and as you guessed correctly, immutably, am in keeping the federal government small and limited in its scope and power. A Cosntitutional amendment should be enacted to move to national healthcare. That is the seriousnes of the matter, that is the level of change needed to remain in keeping the seizure of healthcare Constitutional. It is to the advantage of doctors nearing retirement to get a guaranteed wage in a government system, where the hours and call will be less for not much less money. I have not fallen back or down to that mindset, yet. It is the coming generations that will suffer. The doctors will unionize under government medicine and the doctor-patient relationship will become even more contentious than this mucked up medical malpractice system has caused. The doctors and patients will be less free and the federal government stronger. Neither is acceptable.

                            We all have a conflict of interest in the healthcare debate. Everyone stands to gain or lose something. That is what makes it so important, and why motives and long term consequences must be debated. The rush to pass a bill, any bill, is ludicrous and reason of itself to doubt the good intentions of the left. The ruling left wants it for power and control and more milk from the government teat at little or no cost to themselves, my opinion. The right gains freedom and liberty if the government takeover of healthcare is defeated, but it will be said they are working for insurance companies, etc.

                            Why do you think I oppose the delivery system of the Mayo Clinic? I will tell you that at the time I was at the Mayo Clinic, its greatest "profit", and the reason it could offer what it offered, was from very generous estate and private donations and investment revenue income, not patient care revenue. Whether that is true today I don't know, but it hasn't gotten any easier to keep afloat with the changes in the payment system since I was there. Those of us in the smaller community facilities don't have that luxury of donated revenue. No one has ever donated their estate to my business (not that I've asked). We have to survive on the patient care revenue for the most part. I don't take drug company consulting fees, etc., but I do have administrative income, without which I'd likely be doing something else. It is difficult to be compassionate, spend time with patients, and still pay the employees, rent, taxes, and malpractice insurance just with reimbursement for patient care. Medicaid is usually a net loss, Medicare is breakeven to small profit. In my state, one of the state programs is still working on December 2008 claims.

                            The issue is more than the average American could understand and it is not an issue for a pure democractic process. Maybe we could get all Americans up to speed to know what there vote or poll answers means, but I doubt it.

                              #1.59 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:25 PM EDT
                              DeMock

                              herecomesthejudge:

                              The WHO is a political organization.

                              it is with any doubt the most respected medical reference and statistical compiler in the world today... not a " political organization" and if you truly were a "doctor" you would know that. Conversation over.

                              • 3 votes
                              #1.60 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:26 PM EDT
                              herecomedajudge

                              I don't respect the WHO and I don't respect you. Your punking the people with this healthcare horseshirt is over in my thread. You don't know what you are talking about. And you are a liar. Now the conversation we never had is over.

                                #1.61 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:19 PM EDT
                                DeMock

                                herecomesthejudge wrote:

                                The WHO is a political organization...

                                I don't respect the WHO....

                                yep, yep, who needs that old ICD-10! LOL! Rant on "Doc"...

                                • 3 votes
                                #1.62 - Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:54 AM EDT
                                DeMock

                                Herecomedajudge said

                                I am not here commenting as a doctor, but I can't remove that knowledge from my activities here, either.

                                THEN SAID:

                                The WHO is a political organization. It doesn't care about demographic variations or data collection variations, and is quite happy to put out misleading information.

                                Let me explain something to you FAKE Doctor .... the WHO writes the book that ALL doctors use to describe diseases... IT is called the ICD and every REAL doctor uses it everyday. You are a fraud...."DOC"

                                • 3 votes
                                #1.63 - Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:14 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                More Than Happy

                                Having a public option really is the best way right now. The insurance industry need a fire lit under its ass; it hasn't had one to motivate it in a long time.

                                • 12 votes
                                #2 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:04 PM EDT
                                antoniojvr

                                Yup, last time it had a "fire lit under its ass" was when government intervened the first time. Now our healthcare system is out of control. Again. Let's do the same thing and "hope for change".

                                • 8 votes
                                #2.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:01 PM EDT
                                HonestIndy

                                I find it halorious that the Democrats who have complete control of the Senate try to put blame on Republicans for the bill not flying through the senate. The republicans CAN'T STOP the democrats. Harry Reid just needs to put it on the floor for a vote and see who votes Yes and who votes No, and count the hands at the end of the vote. If it doesn't pass than it didn't pass because the democrats didn't vote for it. Reid only needs 60 to bring the issue up for a vote, and only 50 to pass it. I say 50, because if its a tie Biden gets to toss in his vote and we all know he will vote for it. The democrats have only themselves to blame if they don't pass something.

                                Pelosi and Reid have both stated that most Americans are for it, so just bring it up for vote and get it done already and in 2010 we will see exactly if Americans were for it or not come election time.

                                • 12 votes
                                #2.2 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:24 PM EDT
                                JoulesBeef

                                quiz HonestIndy
                                lets see what party is 100% opposed to it.?
                                which party is spreading lies and has the town hall stooges shouting down the reps trying to explain what the plan is on the table?
                                which party added the end of life care part of the bill that has the gov payign for living wills and then claim it will make your grandmother commit suicide?
                                which party started the blue dog democrats?

                                HonestIndy you are crazy if you think the public wont balme the gop and the blue dogs

                                • 10 votes
                                #2.3 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:56 PM EDT
                                Awake

                                quiz joules

                                did anything in your post refute or even address what HonestIndy said in his post?

                                nice non sequiter, although grats on the spelling improvement

                                • 6 votes
                                #2.4 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:21 PM EDT
                                Bubba-939441

                                "HonestIndy you are crazy if you think the public wont balme the gop and the blue dog

                                I would blame Democrats who sold out to lobbyists. Not all blue dogs either. I gotta feeling some liberal democrats sold out as well. Admit it, Joules.

                                • 2 votes
                                #2.5 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:20 PM EDT
                                Spectator99

                                herecomedajudge

                                By the way, it's not the "public" option, it is the Marxist option, the option that governmentizes and collectivizes the medical industry.

                                Be afraid everyone, be VERY AFRAID, the commies are coming to get you and make frenzied love to your girlfriends and force you to eat borscht and drink vodka.

                                Soviet style Marxism went out in the 1980's dude. But most major industrialized nations have adopted socialized medicine because it works. It keeps cost at half of what we pay. So unless you're rich and make money off the health insurance companies, you would prefer to pay half, wouldn't you?

                                • 2 votes
                                #2.6 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:44 PM EDT
                                herecomedajudge

                                you would prefer to pay half, wouldn't you?

                                Yes, I would like to pay half, a quarter, a tenth, myself, no government intrusions, no government mandates and edicts or permissions for who I see and how I structure my relationship and payment with my doctor and hospital. And that could happen if the government quit micromanaging medicine, quit promoting destructive behaviors, quit demonizing religion and traditional morals and ethics, stopped the ridiculous drain of healthcare funds to trial lawyer's pockets, and quit taxing the shirt off everyone's back.

                                By the way, I would like to pay half, a quarter, a tenth, for my food and my car and my gas and my house and my kids education, and especially my TAXES. Solve those pressing problems Democrap geniuses. I know, I know, Marxism.

                                Be afraid everyone, be VERY AFRAID, the commies are coming to get you and make frenzied love to your girlfriends and force you to eat borscht and drink vodka.

                                Is that what they do in China and Cuba and North Korea?

                                Be afraid everyone, be VERY AFRAID, the Democraps are coming to get you and make frenzied love to your farm animals and children, and force you to eat tofu and drink Kool Aid.

                                  #2.7 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:56 PM EDT
                                  Spectator99

                                  herecomedajudge

                                  the Democraps are coming to get you and make frenzied love to your farm animals and children, and force you to eat tofu and drink Kool Aid.

                                  No, I think it is a proven fact that most conservatives, being extremely sexually repressed and Glen Beck lovers and having far better access, are the ones making love to farm animals. I wouldn't make a joke about abusing children. We will take credit for the tofu and Kool-Aid part. By the way, my comment was sarcasm, yours was very crass and vulgar.

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #2.8 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:13 PM EDT
                                  herecomedajudge

                                  By the way, my comment was sarcasm, yours was very crass and vulgar.

                                  That means I won, right? Those are the game rules used by liberals. Punch back twice as hard, like your supreme leader was heard to say, and if they bring a knife you bring a gun as was one of his other sayings. My extremisms have that grain of truth that makes them even more infuriating to their intended targets.

                                    #2.9 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:38 PM EDT
                                    Spectator99

                                    herecomedajudge

                                    That means I won, right?

                                    No, it just means that you are crude, vulgar and have bizarre sexual fixations. I would suggest that you consider psychological help. You also sound like you could be the next Timmothy McVeiigh. Help is available.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #2.10 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:15 PM EDT
                                    herecomedajudge

                                    Spect.ate.her99, you are the reincarnation Jeffrey Dahmer. Don't eat me, bro!

                                      #2.11 - Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:05 AM EDT
                                      Kate In Greensboro

                                      Yes, I would like to pay half, a quarter, a tenth, myself, no government intrusions, no government mandates and edicts or permissions for who I see and how I structure my relationship and payment with my doctor and hospital. And that could happen if the government quit micromanaging medicine, quit promoting destructive behaviors, quit demonizing religion and traditional morals and ethics, stopped the ridiculous drain of healthcare funds to trial lawyer's pockets, and quit taxing the shirt off everyone's back.

                                      The government is micromanaging the relationship with my doctor and hospital? How, exactly is it doing that?

                                      What destructive behaviors is it promoting?

                                      How is it demonizing religion? Traditional morals and ethics?

                                      Draining health care funds to line trial lawyers pockets? Seems to me I've heard that talking point before, but here in the North Carolina part of the real world, that's just not the case when real medical malpractice happens. It just is not the case. Laws vary by state, of course.

                                      Taxing the shirt off everyone's back? Not to pry, but is your effective tax rate really so high that you must go shirtless?! Actually I'll let that one pass - we' re all entitled to a bit of hype now and then; it's Friday.

                                      • 3 votes
                                      #2.12 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:50 PM EDT
                                      herecomedajudge

                                      Seems to me I've heard that talking point before, but here in the North Carolina part of the real world, that's just not the case when real medical malpractice happens. It just is not the case. Laws vary by state, of course.

                                      NC, the state of John Edwards, the scoundrel lawyer multimillionaire-by-scamming-undeserved-medical-malpractice-awards-by-parading-damaged-children-in-front-of-ignorant-juries, cheat-on-wife-and father-illegitimate-children Edwards? You have no idea what the scam by lawsuit industry costs this country and not just by by medical malpractice litigation.

                                      Taxing the shirt off everyone's back?Not to pry, but is your effective tax rate really so high that you must go shirtless?! Actually I'll let that one pass - we' re all entitled to a bit of hype now and then; it's Friday.

                                      I went shirtless one time and immediately got so many donations of clothing I'm good for a long time.

                                      How is it demonizing religion? Traditional morals and ethics?

                                      The government is pro-abortion, an affront to morality and ethics in many religions. And the Democrats demonize those opposing abortion and continue to do so from their offices. The use of "separation of church and state" to exclude those of religion from practicing their religion while captive in a government institution is a violation of the Constitution itself. Democrats made fun and were vicious about Bush praying, etc. The sanctity of marriage as a one-man one-woman institution is under attack.

                                      The government is micromanaging the relationship with my doctor and hospital? How, exactly is it doing that?

                                      Come and take a peek at the United States kidney dialysis industry to see how invasive, pervasive, and mean-spirited the government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship and the micromanagement of healthcare is and how it will soon be for every segment of healthcare.

                                        #2.13 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:19 PM EDT
                                        Kate In Greensboro

                                        The state of John Edwards, the multimillionaire by scamming undeserved awards by scamming medical malpractice, cheat-on-wife-and father-illegitimate-children Edwards? You have no idea what the scam by lawsuit industry costs this country and not just by by medical malpractice litigation.

                                        John Edwards, unfaithful husband, ... blah, blah, ... Medical malpractice is a state - not federal - issue.

                                        The... government is pro-abortion, an affront ...

                                        I'll type slowly for you.

                                        The government is not pro-abortion. However, abortion is LEGAL. Get over it. It's also legal to shoot wolves from aircraft in Alaska but that doesn't mean anyone should do it.

                                        No offense, but I'm going to skip the rest of your response because, in all honesty, there's only so much of this kind of stuff I can handle on a work night.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #2.14 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:39 PM EDT
                                        DeMock

                                        Herecomesthejudge wrote:

                                        You have no idea what the scam by lawsuit industry costs this country and not just by by medical malpractice litigation.

                                        No, I(we) do have an "idea"... around (2% CBO est.)... this at least is an argument based in some reality we all share... as opposed to the wild paranoid "Death Panel" non sense. In that 2% most are perfectly legitimate law suits dealing with negligence and addressing cost associated with remedies. So, tort reform could save some very small amount of money but would be a very slippery slope... America has at it's foundation that anyone can go to court and get a fair hearing.... tort reform would by necessity be "putting a thumb on the scales of justice" favoring insurance and doctors. That is a very tricky thing and I would say it should be a last resort not the first move.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #2.15 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:11 AM EDT
                                        herecomedajudge

                                        You have no idea how many tests and how the threshold for testing has changed for defensive medicine. I do, at least for myself. The 2% is bogus, an order of magnitude low. The 2% is probably the actual claims and insurance costs. It is not close to the defensive medicine cost.

                                        You are putting your foot on the scales of justice when you take away my rights to private insurance, no insurance, self pay, and private relationships of choice between doctors and patients.

                                          #2.16 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:34 PM EDT
                                          DeMock

                                          hecomethejudge (MD) says:

                                          You are putting your foot on the scales of justice when you take away my rights to private insurance

                                          wow... who is saying that? I don't know where you get your "news" but the versions of the legislation under debate are on-line...may I suggest glancing at them. Your arguments are either wildly hyperbolic, disingenuous or, uninformed.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          #2.17 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:13 PM EDT
                                          Kate In Greensboro

                                          DeMock - you really think all that comes from an MD? I think it is Mighty Doubtful.

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #2.18 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:20 PM EDT
                                          herecomedajudge

                                          I'll give you both honorary MDs -- Marxist Democraps (that is the nice version).

                                            #2.19 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:58 PM EDT
                                            DeMock

                                            Kate In Greensboro wrote:

                                            Mighty Doubtful

                                            LOL!

                                            Yes, an MD that calls the WHO an unreliable "political organization". I knew if he kept talking he would expose himself.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #2.20 - Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            cm-1156161

                                            I am so tired of the "discussion" on healthcare. The Republicans hate Obama and they will never do anything that make him look good. I commend Obama for trying to make it a bi-partison healthcare, but it is not doing any good. I also think Obama gives in to much to the Republicans, it seems if they complain about something in the healthcare bill, he changes it. Quit worrying about them, think of the people of the US. Like he said,there are millions of people without insurance, so pass the bill so they can have some. We ALL know that some of the Repubicans put those people up to the disruption at the townhall meetings, and nothing was done about it.

                                            I don't even know how Sarah Palin can even make a comment about anything, she does't understand the bill anymore than we do. In my mind she is really stupid. She is part of the problem we're having now.

                                            GET MORE AGRESSIVE WITH THE REPUBLICANS OBAMA.

                                            • 13 votes
                                            Reply#3 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:13 PM EDT
                                            R. Donald Snyder

                                            I agree. He needs to drop the farce of bipartisanship because the GOP hates him and wants him to fail for purely political reasons. To hell with them.

                                            • 16 votes
                                            #3.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:37 PM EDT
                                            HonestIndy

                                            The Republicans hate Obama and they will never do anything that make him look good.

                                            Thats the thing, Obama doesn't need the republicans. Reid just needs to put it up for vote in the senate just like Pelosi did in the house. If it don't pass its the democrats to blame, they have the super majority in the senate, the republicans can't filibuster it (need 41 to filibuster). The democrats are trying to make it look bi-partisian so if stuff goes down hill they can spread the blame to the republicans also. If the democrats pass it, and it works they get all the credit, but if it fails they get all the blame - they are playing it safe with your health care and trying to get some republicans on the hook for supporting it so if it fails they can share the blame. Basicaly its all just politics to the democrats at this point and what they need to do, is to put their votes on the table and see which democrats aren't gonna vote for it and only make the changes they want than pass the bill, forget about the Republicans.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #3.2 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:38 PM EDT
                                            JoulesBeef

                                            he should use reconsilation. so we only need a 50% vote.

                                            tell me honestindy..
                                            if there is a filibuster with every single solitary gopr and specter the former gop
                                            who do you think the people will blame

                                            • 11 votes
                                            #3.3 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:59 PM EDT
                                            Awake

                                            I agree. He needs to drop the farce of bipartisanship because the GOP hates him and wants him to fail for purely political reasons.

                                            And this is an entirely new development in politics?

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #3.4 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:34 PM EDT
                                            DanaR-1273622

                                            R. Donald Snyder

                                            Said

                                            "I agree. He needs to drop the farce of bipartisanship because the GOP hates him and wants him to fail for purely political reasons. To hell with them."

                                            Here is a clue for you, obama has been partisan from day one, he has not reached out to the republicans at all.

                                            So your ignorant statement above only shows how little you really know.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #3.5 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:30 PM EDT
                                            Julian in Dallas

                                            For real, Obama needs to show some nuts to the GOP and put his whole left leg up their behinds. This bipartisan crap isn't working. The republicans weren't bipartisan for the last 8 years of hell they put this country through, so why give them the luxury now.

                                            DanaR, stop watching so much Glen Beck. He's got you brainwashed.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #3.6 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:28 PM EDT
                                            dwillie

                                            The GOP has proven time and time again that there is absolutely zero possibility of compromise with them. They have their special interests to which they are beholden will say and do anything to protect them. Taxpayers already pay for the worst possible form of Universal Coverage. We already pay for the poor people. We already pay for the sick people. We pay for the people that the insurance companies think might get sick. We wind up paying for the people that insurance companies drop after they get sick. In short, the taxpayer subsidizes and supports insurance company profits. The only system that works for everyone (not directly paid by the health insurance industry that is) is single payer, universal coverage. The public option is a poor substitute for that and the President is walking it back in the face of a rabid mob of vacuous, gullible, wilfully ignorant people brought to town halls to do the bidding of an industry that would drop them all the moment they suffered a catastrophic illness.

                                            There is absolutely no reason to waste time engaging the GOP in any attempt at bi-partisianship. The President is bogged down by an ideal that will never occur because the other side is absolutely uninterested in that ideal. Have the vote, up or down, and let the people decide who deserves to stay in office.

                                            • 6 votes
                                            #3.7 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
                                            Maik

                                            I find it funny you say that the GOP is unwilling to compromise and yet...they are in the process of compromising now.

                                            It is you liberals right here that are saying that they are unwilling to negotiate.

                                            You all need to get it in your heads that whether you like it or not, you NEED the Republicans and Conservatives on board with you in order to get anything done in this country...and the Dems in Congress know this because otherwise they will lose their jobs there.

                                            You can bluff all you want about being "in control" but the fact is that the Republicans and Conservatives of this nation are holding the cards at this point. I dare you...go rogue and see what happens.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #3.8 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:37 PM EDT
                                            dwillie

                                            We don't need conservatives who act solely for the short-term benefit of the moneyed interests: insurance companies, oil companies and on and on and on. The GOP has had one objective only and that is to stop health insurance reform at all costs. Boehner said it himself. Jim DeMint's objective is not to resolve the massive expense, clear inefficiency and private sector financial subsidy from the taxpayers. His objective is to "break" the President (DeMint's words). Scumbucket liars from Sarah Palin to Chuck Grassley have repeated lie after lie after lie about so called death panels based on language that republicans themselves have put into legislation.

                                            The negotiation has gone one way only, with democrats working to accomodate those who really aren't interested in any legislation occurring at all. The attempt at bipartisanship has gone one way only, with democrats attempting to find common ground and republicans offering zero solutions. The Obama Administration has tried and republicans have refused. Republicans will go after democratic legislators anyway, regardless of how the democrats handle the health finance issue so there is absolutely zero upside in engaging republicans as anything other than what they are: duplicitous protectors of those who leech off of the American people.

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #3.9 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:58 PM EDT
                                            Spectator99

                                            herecomedajudge

                                            those governments would do what they've done and try to take over private enterprises and become the master of the people.

                                            Oh, I'm soooooo much better off in the hands of the health insurance cartel where I can count on my insurance going up 10 or more percent a year. Yipee - you sure showed those government thugs ad thing or two, didn't ya?.

                                            What control do I have over the insurance cartel, answer - ABSOLUTELY NONE. What's that you say? I'm free to shop another company. No, all their rates are within a few dollars of each other. Also, I'm screwed if I change companies because all of my medical care to date would count as a pre-existing condition. Lucky me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                            With government controlled health care, I can at least reach my representative and vote the bums out of office every now and then.

                                            Your love affair with the insurance companies has one of four causes. You work in the industry. You're rich and love the shareholder profits. You're employer pays the bill, at least for NOW, and you don't have the foggiest idea how much they charge him/her. You're already on government insurance such as Medicare or the VA. Which is it?

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #3.10 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:05 PM EDT
                                            Spectator99

                                            Mark

                                            I find it funny you say that the GOP is unwilling to compromise and yet...they are in the process of compromising now.

                                            Me thinks you think we be fools. Maybe one or two Republicans would vote if the bill were diluted enough. Thanks, with friends like the Republicans, who needs enemies?

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #3.11 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:17 PM EDT
                                            Kate In Greensboro

                                            Taxpayers already pay for the worst possible form of Universal Coverage. We already pay for the poor people. We already pay for the sick people. We pay for the people that the insurance companies think might get sick. We wind up paying for the people that insurance companies drop after they get sick. In short, the taxpayer subsidizes and supports insurance company profits.

                                            Exactly. What we have today is a mutated private/public "partnership": the insurance company profits are private, the losses are socialized. It is a great deal for the insurance industry, though.

                                            Removing the public option permits this mutation - continues to force the taxpayers to subsidize corporate profit on the backs of the uninsured and underinsured. OF COURSE THE LEFT IS RILED - There's no reform without a public option!

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #3.12 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
                                            herecomedajudge

                                            It was never bipartisan. Obama is fighting to get his own Democrats to commit political suicide and vote for the bill. The Republicans can't stop it. How goofy to think Obama gives a ship about bipartisanship.

                                              #3.13 - Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:42 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              chicagorieco-1Deleted
                                              chanseng-1243251

                                              The Democrats shouldn't bailout on the public option because they are afraid to crash and burn. They should do whatever it takes to keep the public option on the table. They need for this health-care bill to be passed with a public option or the Democrats could be saying goodbye to their Senate seats and bye bye to the magic number 60.

                                              • 10 votes
                                              Reply#5 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:52 PM EDT
                                              JoulesBeef

                                              i think it is on the table this is just political bs to show the blue dogs they will be in trouble no matter how much campaign money they get from the drug lobbyists.

                                              • 9 votes
                                              #5.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:00 PM EDT
                                              Buckeye Voter

                                              Interesting take, Joules.

                                              Could this be Obama showing the reluctant Democrats that, even without the public option, any health care bill will receive zero support from the Republicans? In which case, there's no downside for proposing a D-only bill that contains no Republican concessions.

                                              • 4 votes
                                              #5.2 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:07 PM EDT
                                              econenthusiast

                                              chanseng-1243251 I think you have it backwards. They are trying to save there seats. Do you think that these people at these town hall meeting only a select few? They are the heart of America and they are givin it to these lying dems. This is one time where we finally made them listen, but they don't want to admit it. They are afraid it might embolden people to do this more often.

                                              • 3 votes
                                              #5.3 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:09 PM EDT
                                              chanseng-1243251

                                              econenthusiast

                                              The protesters at the town halls were a select few and they were either Republicans or senior citizens who were lied to and scare of nothing. These protesters are not the heart of America they are the minority because the majority of Americans want a public option. Many of the Democrats in Senate who is flaking on the public option will make their mostly liberal constituent mad and they may not be voted in to serve another term.

                                              • 9 votes
                                              #5.4 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:21 PM EDT
                                              econenthusiast

                                              everyone that I talk to seem to be on the side of these people at the town halls. If you have been watching then you should know that these people were citing the house bill that had already passed. These senators would clearly say thats not in the senate bill. But you see it doesn't need to be in both bills. So this senate bill had to be shut down because of the house bill. They were clearly trying to ram it down everybodies throat like it or not.

                                              I think the idea of covering everyone is a noble one, but this is not the way.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #5.5 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:45 PM EDT
                                              Maik

                                              I right there with you econenthusiast...having everyone insured is a very noble goal and one that I respect deeply. The Dems plan though was not a good one and a vast portion of the American people saw that...and that's why so many people turned out to protest at townhall meeting.

                                              People who think protestors are only a small portion of America are only kidding themselves.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #5.6 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:42 PM EDT
                                              Reply
                                              No More!

                                              Liberals complain over Obama's promise to be bipartisan?

                                              All independents who are either center right or left need to form a new party. I can't be the only who is feed up with this joke of a two party system.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              Reply#6 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:03 PM EDT
                                              econenthusiast

                                              What kind of party would you like?

                                              1 a socially conservative party like the repubs with a job protection side or

                                              2 a socially liberal party like the dems with a free market side.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #6.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:13 PM EDT
                                              No More!

                                              Anything is better than the system we have now!

                                              • 4 votes
                                              #6.2 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:41 PM EDT
                                              Maik

                                              Anything would NOT be better. We could be like Venezuela with Hugo Chavez in charge. I don't think anyone would want that.

                                                #6.3 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:46 PM EDT
                                                No More!

                                                Isn't Hugo Chavez Obamas homey?

                                                http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/04/18/alg_obama-chavez.jpg

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #6.4 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:57 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                Sebbydad

                                                Bipartisanship is not what is needed here. The GOP has been clear and firm on their stance that they do not want any type of meaningful reform. If scuh a thing had ever been on thier agenda, it would have been passed 6 years ago. There is no appeasing those who are steadfastly against you, there is no middle ground where they will meet you half way. If there were I would say it would be worth consideration, but there intent is to kill the reform and anything you bend on that they would accept gives them that. You have two senators from Maine, dozens of Republican lead amendments, call that bipartisan and call it good. KEEP THE PUBLIC OPTION!

                                                • 7 votes
                                                Reply#7 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:10 PM EDT
                                                Bubba-939441

                                                "there is no middle ground where they will meet you half way"

                                                Kinda like abortion huh?

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #7.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:32 PM EDT
                                                Craig-303171

                                                Bubba- Great reply!

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #7.2 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:49 AM EDT
                                                Kate In Greensboro

                                                We don't need bipartisanship, we don't need friends, we don't need good press.

                                                We need health care reform. Now. With Public Option.

                                                The Party of No can go play in their own sand box and slap each other's backs and tell each other how brilliant they are; that's fine, really and I hope they have a great time. If they're right and we're wrong and they win every house seat in 2010 and every open senate seat they can have a big party and say "we told you so." That works for me.

                                                Until then I wish they'd go to their sand box and shut the hell up. If they're not going to be part of the solution they could at least get the hell out of the way and quit making the problem worse.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #7.3 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:59 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                Brad_440

                                                You guys that say any bill without a public option should fail are part of the problem. There is a little thing called compromise and working together. What is the problem if the government option is replaced by a non-profit option? The government option would have basically acted as a non-profit option. Both could provide those that need it with insurance. More important than creating a government option is reducing the cost of insurance and medical procedures, the latter being the big one. I am not against a government option but do not find it worth risking no progress as in the past because I don't get exactly what I want.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                Reply#8 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:10 PM EDT
                                                Perrdj

                                                I agree that without a public option this reform will fail to live up to it's potential. When it fails to deliver significant change then the Democrats will get killed in 2010. If we take it to the floor and let the GOP fillibuster than I believe many Americans will see them as an obstacle to reform, a naysayer without a counterproposal. This probably would have a negative backlash in 2010, there are many moderates out there, myself included, who are getting sick of all the negative and unproductive sniping that seems to encompass both wings of our political system. But you won't get my support if the Dems keep rolling over submissively, at some point I need to see a leadership that fights for it's ideals. Win or lose take it to the mats or else you'll break my heart Fredo.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                Reply#9 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:33 PM EDT
                                                Ferrari5k

                                                If you want a Public Option then we want Tort reform. Who's paying for the Public Option? We also don't want Govt interfereing with Private Providers, forcing them to cover things like Hair Transplants that I don;'t want to pay for.

                                                This existing bill DILBERATELY gets 100% control of ALL Private Plans with the idea of driving their costs up so the Public Plans looks cheaper. That's UNFAIR and Costly. NO Federal Intervention, the States already regulate coverage.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #9.1 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:34 AM EDT
                                                Perrdj

                                                I want TORT reform as well, I don't want federal money to pay for any elective abortions, I don't want fedral money to pay for invitro fertilization, and I seriously dont want the Government paying for hair transplants. Although, if we had universal healthcare in which we all contributed then perhaps your place of employment may offer some kind of healthcare supplement plan that would cover such things. The bill does not give 100% control of private plans to the government, and the arguement that a public plan would make insurance to affordable is just ludicrous. That makles about as much sense as going to your employer and asking for a paycut because you don't like the tax bracket you're in. We knew what the President's agenda was when we elected him, it's why he won. The tone of the GOP is like a spoiled brat who throws the board when losing a game. The President is willing to compromise but so far the GOP isn't willing to do anything, they have no stated purpose other than defeat the President. States do not have the ability to regulate a national plan. If we truly want to salvage Medicare than we need a national plan in which we all contribute and all have a voice on.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #9.2 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
                                                Kate In Greensboro

                                                If you want a Public Option then we want Tort reform.

                                                I'm not a lawyer but I believe Tort reform is an issue for each state to address individually.

                                                We also don't want Govt interfereing with Private Providers, forcing them to cover things like Hair Transplants that I don;'t want to pay for.

                                                Talk to your representatives. I seriously doubt elective procedures like hair transplants would be covered. (Are there private plans that cover them now?!)

                                                This existing bill DILBERATELY gets 100% control of ALL Private Plans with the idea of driving their costs up so the Public Plans looks cheaper.

                                                What does that even mean?

                                                "This existing bill" is not even final, there are multiple bills in various stages.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #9.3 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:07 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                chicagorieco-1Deleted
                                                FeelTheLove252Deleted
                                                klm-547227

                                                Obama needs to understand he could do everything the republicans want from today and throughout his presidency and they will still work against him and hate him. It seems he wants to try and make both sides happy but its an impossible task and even if he could it would garner little if any republican satisfaction. They don't care what the bill they only care about crippling him pollitically. He should focus on those who voted for him and support him and forget about reaching across the isle.

                                                • 6 votes
                                                Reply#12 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:46 PM EDT
                                                Ferrari5k

                                                Obama started this war when he fake Bi-Partisianship for the camera's but would let the Republicans offer anything, he started this fight when he forced us to accept 2 Giant Bills without Debate and with no chance of us speaking with our Representatives.

                                                He deserves what he gets. He didn't unite anyone, he caused a bigger rift than we already had. We may be too far apart now for any agreements.

                                                I sincerely believe if he keeps this "shove it to 'em" attitude up, people will start talking about Violent Civil Disobedience.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #12.1 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:39 AM EDT
                                                Kate In Greensboro

                                                people will start talking about Violent Civil Disobedience.

                                                Violent Civil Disobedience? For real? Is that an oxymoron or are you just a --------

                                                • 2 votes
                                                #12.2 - Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:12 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                Bighorn

                                                The government health care plan is not a partisan issue. American citizens of all political parties are deeply concerned about this life and death issue especially when the government tells its citizens "Trust me" and you will be happy for ever and ever providing you sit down, shut up and do as I say. American citizens are looking at all of the government programs that are currently operating and see nothing but doom and gloom. There is not one program under government management that is not running out of money or is already in deep financial problems. They now tell us that Social Security and Medicare will be bankrupt in less than five years. USPS, Am-track, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are all on the ropes with huge losses that the tax payers will end up having to bail out. After reviewing all of these pending disasters you finally have to give some credit to the American citizens for not blindly going along with Obamacare.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                Reply#13 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:47 PM EDT
                                                Jorge-958303

                                                Being the President of the USA is a can't win situation nowadays. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

                                                I do agree to a point that Obama is either flip-flopping or being weak. This is what the ultra right calls a Hitler???? C'mon, if Obama were a gun it would be a water gun.

                                                The USA will badly need a 3rd Party or for a Democrat to challenge Obama in a primary if Barack cannot figure this whole thing out.

                                                It's good to negotiate and such but what if the other side still doesn't concede? Then what?

                                                • 2 votes
                                                Reply#14 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:48 PM EDT
                                                Truth Hurts-840829

                                                as long as they do not mandate we buy insurance from either the gov or private, I am cool with that

                                                but the day we have to prove to the IRS/GOV we have insurance - things just went to far.

                                                • 4 votes
                                                Reply#15 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:01 PM EDT
                                                Ferrari5k

                                                They are DEFINATELY mandating everyone gets insurance, none of these plans works without it. The FEDS must find the 250 Billion somewhere so we're elected to pay it.

                                                  #15.1 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
                                                  Mike-584822

                                                  I believe that if you did not have any health insurance then the government is going to hit you for $1000. Agreed that is going too far.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #15.2 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
                                                  Truth Hurts-840829

                                                  I am 46 with some nice "payed for" assets.

                                                  if this socialist health care bill flys

                                                  I will be liquidating everything and refusing to work ever again

                                                  then I will just go surfing in mexico at my leisure - if I get sick I will just have "working" America pay for it.

                                                  think health care is broken now? wait till its fixed with mandates that Americans pay for the lazy from cradle to grave and you will see just how broke it gets then

                                                    #15.3 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
                                                    Reply
                                                    Rixar13

                                                    Seems interesting to me that Republicans could care less as long as no changes are made to Health Care.

                                                    President Barack Obama's weekend concession on a health care "government option" drew complaints from liberals and scarce interest from Republicans

                                                    Focus on this -"and scarce interest from Republicans", are Republicans Evil or help me to understand.....?? Pubilc Option is very important and I ask will our country go the way of the dinosaur?

                                                    • 3 votes
                                                    Reply#16 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:14 PM EDT
                                                    rcox-537931

                                                    I would rather have no bill than one WITH A PUBLIC PLAN. I am sick of the federal government's intrusion in our personal lives. Show me where in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence your right to a healthcare plan. The new head of the Canadian Healthcare Plan said that they are in a mess and are considering inviting in private health insurance companies. Does not sound so good up there. So if they vote this massive, invasive healthcare plan, see you at the polls. The citizens of the country are smart enough to realize this is a socialized medicine plan. They have attacked their own constituency, citizens, doctors, interest groups, and insurance companies to keep all focus off the real nuts and bolts of this bill. We do not want rationing, long lines, a committee telling doctors what procedures to use, the expensive bureaucracy, access to our bank accounts, and the invasion into the personal relationship between patient/doctor. They have lied about the figures, been evasive when thought through and sincere questions are asked and closed off when things did not go as they wanted. And if this were so good, why does the Congress, the Executive and Judicial Branches want to be exempt? Because it is horrible. They do not want themselves or their loved ones on this but they think it is just fine for us. Hogwash!

                                                    Focus should be on the wasteful spending of the so called Stimulus bill. Obama promised accountability and of course there is none. There should be a Congressional hearing into the misuse of public funds on ACORN according to the report. Don't hold your breath.

                                                    • 5 votes
                                                    Reply#17 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:29 PM EDT
                                                    Darlene Bays

                                                    Wasteful spending is all this Administration knows about and it has been in both parties before I get bombarded again about Bush. There needs to be accountability on both sides. The Democrats know if they pass this legislation without a bi-partisan vote, then when it doesn't come to the expectations they have, they can save the Republicans were onboard too.

                                                    Can anyone think that maybe a plan fashioned after our welfare system - food stamps program- could be used as an model for citizens who are UNINSURED thus leaving our insured citizens who are happy with their insurance ALONE.

                                                    • 3 votes
                                                    Reply#18 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:45 PM EDT
                                                    Evil 1

                                                    Oh, oh!!

                                                    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/obama.poll/

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    Reply#19 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:57 PM EDT
                                                    Darlene Bays

                                                    That is on CNN...........interesting that a Main Stream Media - - would report something like that. I thought they were always in Mr. Obama's corner.

                                                    • 3 votes
                                                    #19.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:01 PM EDT
                                                    klm-547227

                                                    The right only complains about the liberal media when they make them look bad, the MSM is right enough to quote when they agree.

                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #19.2 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:31 PM EDT
                                                    Ferrari5k

                                                    CNN has noticed a shift in the winds of Public Opinion, and of course like all the rest of the MSM, FOX beat their butts in the Ratings again. They still need to attarct some audience to make a profit. Business is business.

                                                    • 3 votes
                                                    #19.3 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:50 PM EDT
                                                    Reply
                                                    Ferrari5k

                                                    Arianna Huffington said tonight on Commie Kieth's Show she is angry because she believes Obama shouldn't negotiate away any of the 89 New Agencies, or 160,000 new employees this Bill calls for! She also said - Now Get This! "The Right will object to any Bill that involves Govt and what good is Reform if "WE" aren't involved". When did we elect this Bimbo? Is she the Lefts answer to Palin? Gov HuffyHuff.

                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    Reply#20 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:47 PM EDT
                                                    Tim-507825

                                                    How come I never hear a Republican complain about the high insurance costs. I'm over 50 and my health premium thru work is considerably larger than my income tax. I guess Republicans don't mind expensive things as long as it isn't called a "tax".

                                                    I would gladly trade my lousy insurance policy for a huge tax increase. My god, you could raise my taxes by 75% and I'd still be saving a ton of money.

                                                    If you're over 50, I suggest you find out what your company pays for your insurance. You'll be shocked. Just imagine how much more you could make without that added burden. In addition, companies hate hiring people over 50 because their insurance costs too much.

                                                    Public option is a start. But we need single payer. I have good friends in both the UK and Canada that laugh at us. They wouldn't trade their health care for the crap we have here. Unfortunately, we have very naive people in America who will believe anything Fox news tells them. I think that lousy USA health care is causing mental problems.

                                                    • 3 votes
                                                    Reply#21 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:47 PM EDT
                                                    Ferrari5k

                                                    Most good insurance supplied by large employers, runs $12,000 - $15,000 per year for family coverage. Employees pay between 25% and 50% depending. I don't want to be taxed on mine as income and i don't want my employer to lose his deduction because it will no longer be offered.

                                                    Remember, employers began offereing Paid Insurance as a Benefit to attarct good talent beginning in 1945 when The Govt FROZE salaries. Employers had to do something to compete. I love a good, giving Corporate entity, they make America great.

                                                      #21.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:14 PM EDT
                                                      Reply
                                                      Darlene Bays

                                                      I wish that journalism would be what it should be......report the news........report the fact.....and not take sides. Report both sides and let the citizens/viewers decide.

                                                      • 4 votes
                                                      Reply#22 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:49 PM EDT
                                                      Ferrari5k

                                                      Those days died after Watergate, someone again realized the power of the Press, both for Propaganda purposes and for "Hiding" important occurances they don't want us to know. Anyone that believes the Gov't doesn't exert pressure NOT to report important events is living in Fantasy Land.

                                                        #22.1 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:15 AM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        Barry The Engineer

                                                        Why can't we use common sense and attack the problem (there are real problems) with a government framework that maximizes free market potential. Government has never and will never out perform commercial solutions. Here is my proposed solution. Attention government "representatives" - please replace your thousands of pages of overly complex legislation with the following:

                                                        The Solution
                                                        Although I’ve personally lived in another country that has a very successful socialized medical system, in my view our solution is not a U.S. government run healthcare system. I say this based of my first-hand experience with living with the “efficiencies” of various U.S. government bureaucracies. This is not to say that government has no role in the solution. Surely, the current solution of roll-the-dice survival-of-the-fittest-and-luckiest is clearly not working and destined to get worse. What we need is a blend of American capitalistic entrepreneurship and ingenuity with carefully crafted government policies, laws and infrastructure to optimize the system and ensure basic coverage for all, high quality care, low cost delivery and corporate U.S competitiveness. My proposed solution involves all of the following measures:

                                                        Replace the “Employer Provides Healthcare System” with a Mandatory Consumer selected “Standardized Basic Plan”. This system would work as follows:

                                                        1. The government provides a means tested scaled tax break up to a certain income level.
                                                        2. Citizens with income below a certain level can select coverage and the government will pay the bill directly.
                                                        3. Every year consumers are given the option to switch plans during a universally defined selection period.
                                                        4. A “Standardized Basic Plan” is standardized by law with the exact same coverage and deductibles. This allows consumers to do apples-to-apples comparisons (more on that later).
                                                        5. Insurance companies wishing to participate must offer the exact same benefits (no more or less) as defined by the standardized basic plan. A single price per insurer is provided for coverage for a year under the plan. This means young, old, healthy sick all pay the same from that insurer. Preexisting conditions do not matter. Participating insurers do not have the option to reject you or charge you a different price then they charge everyone else. Coverage is country wide (all fifty states). Insurers may restrict what doctors and facilities are covered when you are local (within a certain mileage) of those facilities. Insurers may also restrict coverage to residents of certain states but still need to provide coverage country wide to those covered. These attributes allow insurance companies to compete on price and quality and provides insurance to all.
                                                        6. Consumers can buy additional coverage beyond the standardized basic plan as supplemental packages at their own discretion – these packages can cover anything and are not regulated in any manner by the government.
                                                        7. If a citizen arrives at a healthcare provider and does not have insurance, because they failed to select a provider during the selection period, the healthcare provider does the following:
                                                          i. Accesses a new government health management computer system (I'll call it the hnet.gov system for this article) through web page access on the internet which the healthcare provider can use to automatically and instantaneously assigns the citizen a Standardized Basic Plan provider. Note in this case the citizen has forfeited his right to select a provider for the current period. The government system round-robins citizens against a registered provider list to insure a fair distribution among the providers among the population of people who fail to sign up for care.
                                                          ii. The hnet system sends a notification to an IRS computer system so that the IRS can make appropriate collections/adjustments to the citizen’s tax basis. The government assumes responsibility for paying for the plan and is responsible for collecting the fees, if required, from the citizen.
                                                          iii. The healthcare provider provides the required care and is reimbursed by the citizen’s selected insurance provider.
                                                          iv. Citizens with income above a certain level are charged a penalty when this occurs to defer the extra logistics cost incurred by the government in this circumstance. The government is responsible for collecting the fine not the healthcare provider.
                                                        8. This system would not only replace employer health benefits it would also replace Medicare and Veteran health benefits. One system for all reduces complexity. Premiums for veterans and the elderly would be covered by the government.
                                                        9. Under this system the insurance and health providers are commercial entities not government entities.

                                                        Tort Reform – Legal system changes include the following:

                                                        1. Fixed amount on malpractice per condition established by law. Juries and judges decide on guilt or innocence not on awards. These limits must be low to keep costs down. Should max out on say $2M for death.
                                                        2. Enforced penalties and disclosure for proven malpractice including a three strikes and loss of license rule. AMA does not get to decide.
                                                        3. All malpractice and settlements are recorded in the www.hnet.gov system and available for query from anyone over the internet.
                                                        4. Anyone that brings an unsuccessful malpractice case is automatically required to pay all legal costs and loss of wages during the court proceedings to the accused. This measure will drastically reduce frivolous cases. It works in other countries.
                                                        5. Penalties for fraudulent claims are made severe with a minimal of ten years imprisonment with no chance of parole and loss of license to practice in the healthcare industry.

                                                        Universal Claim Form – All claims are routed through the www.hnet.gov system to the citizen’s selected insurance provider and all payments to the healthcare provider from the insurance company are routed back through the system. This yields the following benefits:

                                                        1. The hnet system has a single standardized form for all claims. The form is completed over the internet using a standard web browser. This drastically reduces the back office requirements of healthcare providers.
                                                        2. The system tracks how quick insurers pay healthcare providers and sniffs for suspicious fraudulent activity and alerts appropriate authorities if suspicious activities are detected.
                                                        3. Insurers that fail to provide timely payment are warned, then fined, then excluded from participating in the future.

                                                        Standardized Metrics Are Collected and Available to Consumers – All healthcare providers are required to enter results of every surgical procedure into the hnet database. This is required prior to the system allowing payment to flow from insurer to provider. The government conducts routine audits of the gathered statistics to ensure no one is cooking the books. Penalties for fraudulent statistics reporting are made severe including removal of the provider as a qualified provider for standardized care. Patients are encouraged to enter satisfaction ratings on each procedure, insurer, doctor and health facilities. This is similar to what occurs on ebay with a seller’s satisfaction rating. All of these metrics are made available to consumers using the internet and standard web browsers.

                                                        Increase Supply of Doctors and Lower Medical School Costs – The government needs to encourage an increase in the number of medical degrees offered at U.S. Universities. It also needs to help decrease the cost of medical school. If the AMA has any authority in this area that authority needs to be removed or drastically curtailed by law. Schools need to be offered incentives such as favorable ratings to receive government research grants and projects based on their ability to graduate a large number of medical students at a reasonable cost per degree.

                                                        Some More Details - In this proposal Veterans and the elderly get a credit towards the average cost of all providers in their geographic area. If they select an insurance provider that charges less than the average plan in their area they get the plan for free and get a tax credit for half the savings (the other half of the savings stays in the government funds for its use). Low-income are on a similar plan that is scaled out based on AGI. People who fail to register each year for a benefit lose the opportunity to select a provider for that year. When they show up to a health care provider they are randomly assigned an insurance provider in their area. They also lose the opportunity for any tax credit. Note that no out-of-pocket insurance cost is charged to Veterans, elderly or the very poor unless they select a plan that is more expensive than the average insurance provider in their area. In that case they need to pay the difference between the average plan and the selected plan.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        Reply#23 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:03 PM EDT
                                                        Minan59

                                                        Fixed amount on malpractice per condition established by law. Juries and judges decide on guilt or innocence not on awards. These limits must be low to keep costs down. Should max out on say $2M for death.

                                                        Two million for wrongful death is way too low. A person’s like is worth much much more. I don’t want to see limits imposed on successful malpractice suits entitilements.

                                                          #23.1 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:30 AM EDT
                                                          Ferrari5k

                                                          You have to impose limits. 50 million is ridiculous and that's the number 1 reason Heath care cost are through the roof. All Doctors pay $500,000 each for Mal-Practice insurance. Do the Math, how many people do you have to see at $200 each to break even? 2500 Patients at that high cost! You're not punishing the doctor, you're punishing US and the Insurance company!

                                                          Tort Reform is the most important thing you can do to lowert cost. We need limits. Doctors don't kill people on purpose!

                                                          Medicare is the 2nd reason Health Care cost are so high. Any Doctor will tell you all Paying Patients subsidize Medicare Patients simply because Medicare won't pay enough. That's why half of our Private Doctors don't accept Medicare.

                                                          Medicare is a obvious failure, a very expensive failure.

                                                            #23.2 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:24 AM EDT
                                                            Minan59

                                                            The number one reason health care costs are so high is the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Physicians ordering unnecessary tests doesn't help either.

                                                              #23.3 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:35 AM EDT
                                                              Reply
                                                              herecomedajudge

                                                              Barackuda Obama's fishy Healthcare takeover is failing, on the breathalyzer, weak pulse, low on oxygen. We'll be pronouncing it dead any day now, a victim of its own killer healthcare policies.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              Reply#24 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:38 PM EDT
                                                              Mike-584822

                                                              Hope you never have to face the problem of having no health insurance when you have a catastrophic sickness. You will more than likely have to file bankruptcy.

                                                              • 2 votes
                                                              #24.1 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
                                                              herecomedajudge

                                                              Me too, but that's what bankruptcy, and family, and friends are for. I'll take my chances with that over dealing with an uncaring authoritarian totalitarian state telling what I can and cannot do, which doctor I can see, and when it is my time to die.

                                                              We send soldiers out to die for our freedom but turn around and hand our individual freedoms over to dopey politicians for the illusion of security. It makes no sense. Some people just don't realize the value of the freedoms they have in this country.

                                                                #24.2 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:12 PM EDT
                                                                Reply
                                                                Perrdj

                                                                What Republicans fail to mention is that approxiametly 65% percent of our debt was accumulated under 3 Presidents, Reagan and the 2 Bush's. What do they have to show for it? Incredible defense spending. Obama is proposing spending the money on improving our own country, not on Iraq reconstruction or Star Wars missle defense pipe dreams. Perhaps it's time we invest in our own country rather than in others.

                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                Reply#25 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:09 PM EDT
                                                                herecomedajudge

                                                                Obama is trying to but power and prestige from the people with their own money. Obama is a Marxist pig. His biggest contribution to bettering our country would be a resignation.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #25.1 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:59 PM EDT
                                                                Beldapriest

                                                                Spending only becomes a problem when they spend on the people. As long as big pharma has a stangle hold on Medicare, they will launch a PR war to keep it. Obama needs to quit playing footsie with these oligarchs and do what he and the other Dems were elected to do. Put them in their place. We are out here plugging for a public option, and suddenly he no longer has our back.

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                #25.2 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:50 AM EDT
                                                                herecomedajudge

                                                                Obama is still on America's back, humping away.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #25.3 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:53 AM EDT
                                                                Ferrari5k

                                                                The DEbt was accumulated becasue we can't afford Medicare and Social Security. Democratic Presidents expanded those programs out past the sustainabilty level to get more people, especially minorities to vote for their Party. Over a Trillion goes right to these entitlements and we took in less than 2 Trillion. A President has to pay bills.

                                                                Ob,ma gets the "Break The Bank" award for wasted funds totally 20 Trillion!

                                                                These trillions in Social Programs are killing us!

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #25.4 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:29 AM EDT
                                                                Minan59

                                                                The DEbt was accumulated becasue we can't afford Medicare and Social Security.

                                                                The Debt was accumulated because we foolishly spend 580 billion a year on military expenditures, almost 10x more than any other country.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #25.5 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:37 AM EDT
                                                                herecomedajudge

                                                                The Debt was accumulated because we foolishly spend 580 billion a year on military expenditures, almost 10x more than any other country.

                                                                Because those other counties we defend, those countries who have repeatedly been defeated in war, don't learn their lessons and put their defense budgets into wasted social programs. And our motherly USA graciously picks up their slack, trying to buy their friendship and love, another social program the USA funds, the defense of those other highly advanced but terribly vulnerable duty shirking countries.

                                                                  #25.6 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:50 AM EDT
                                                                  gamerk2

                                                                  Are you defending the B1-B (which has NO purpose whatsoever), F-22 (now canned), V1-F Osperay (continues to crash), more Aircraft carriers (as opposed to body armor), etc?

                                                                  Theres tons of waste, but contractors figured out to spread operations across many states (you saw this during the F-22 debacle; the vote to can it fell along states who did/didn't manufacture parts).

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  #25.7 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
                                                                  herecomedajudge

                                                                  Waste is a different issue from necessity. There is government waste in every one of its programs. Am I defending particular military projests and weapons platforms? No. That is not for me to decide. But I am for research, progress and modernization. Defense should be the largest budget item the federal government has, end of story. That is the federal government's job #1. Unfortunately, we have some of the dumbest Americans making some of the most important decisions with their votes.

                                                                  What's more important, body armor or weapons that keep the enemy at a distance and disadvantaged? Depends on the conflict. The body armor is important, the unmanned weapons are important, land, sea, and air weapons platforms are important, nuclear weapons are important, psychological warfare is important. If we can effectively fight without putting troops directly in harm's way, body armor would be unnecessary.

                                                                    #25.8 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:34 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Larry-304061

                                                                    Help me understand. For the whole course of this debate, people in government, and individuals have been saying that the issue is to lower private plan cost, lower heath care costs, and to stop discrimination against pre-existing conditions.

                                                                    Now suddenly, if we aren't giving away health insurance and increase cost for each of us, this is not a viable plan? Even if we accomplish the goals that all of you said we were trying to accomplish in the first place? It appears that all of you, the Dem congressmen included have just been caught in a lie.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    Reply#26 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:33 PM EDT
                                                                    Psimon

                                                                    Judge

                                                                    Please tell us the definition of Marxist.  The more you use words like that without knowing what they mean removes power from the word.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    Reply#27 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:39 PM EDT
                                                                    topgun-1006407

                                                                    EITHER we get a PUBLIC OPTION or we EXPAND MEDICARE. Anything else is just a waste of time and is not true reform!

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    Reply#28 - Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:51 PM EDT
                                                                    Larry-304061

                                                                    "Public Option" isn't reform. Reform, by definition, is changing the form of something existing. People unable to pay for healthcare, those that make too much to qualify for Medicaid, don't have anything to reform. You are speaking of entitlement, and that is something the American public is against.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #28.1 - Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:36 AM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                    Leave a Comment:
                                                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                    FUN STUFF:
                                                                    • Leaderboard |
                                                                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                    • Top of the Vine |
                                                                    • Newsvine Live |
                                                                    • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                    • The Greenhouse
                                                                    COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                    • Code of Honor |
                                                                    • Company Info |
                                                                    • Contact Us |
                                                                    • Jobs |
                                                                    • User Agreement |
                                                                    • Privacy Policy |
                                                                    • About our ads
                                                                    LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com