Healthcare - I'm on Public Option slow boil

POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Thursday, October 8, 2009 02:16
VIEWED: 8359
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:29 PM

So no public option to keep Big Insurance in check, and insurance coverage is going to be MANDATORY... you have to be kidding right?? Who benefits from this? Duh.

It gets better: "The committee defeated an amendment that would have allowed states to opt out of a new requirement for every individual to purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/top-finance-committee-me
m_b_250818.html

"As the debate over health care reform legislation has heated up over the spring and summer months, the Senate Finance Committee has found itself at the center of the debate. Leading this debate has been the duo of Max Baucus, committee chair, and Chuck Grassley, committee ranking member. According to campaign finance records filed with the FEC, the duo raised $219,000 from health and insurance political action committees (PACs) from April to June of this year."

To see how much MONEY/INFLUENCE the other folks making the decision about P-Option have received from the Health Care Industry:

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/projects/2009/healthcare_lobbyist_co
mplex/#republicans

So who do you believe? That they lack the spine or they're being paid off? Both?

Just in case you have the notion to call and "chat" with any of these folks by phone or email, here's a list of their contacts...

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?lang=&c
ommcode=sfinance_health&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:08 PM

Damn, I wish that the servers weren't so fuzzy today, I'd actually like to see your list of Republicans.

I made a phonecall to Orin Hatch's office on Monday about the mandatory + no public option = bad concept, but I doubt it did much good.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:37 PM

Here ya go:

Committee Membership
Majority Members (Democrats)
Member Name DC Phone DC FAX
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) [Chairman] 202-224-6472 202-224-7665
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 202-224-5521 202-224-2852
John Kerry (D-MA) 202-224-2742 202-224-8525
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843 202-228-1371
Ron Wyden (D-OR) 202-224-5244 202-228-2717
Charles E. (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 202-224-6542 202-228-3027
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 202-224-4822 202-228-0325
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) 202-224-3441 202-228-0514
Bill Nelson (D-FL) 202-224-5274 202-228-2183
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) 202-224-4744 202-228-2197
Tom Carper (D-DE) 202-224-2441 202-228-2190

Minority Members (Republicans)
Member Name DC Phone DC FAX
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) [Ranking Member] 202-224-5251 202-224-6331
Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) 202-224-5344 202-224-1946
John Ensign (R-NV) 202-224-6244 202-228-2193
Mike Enzi (R-WY) 202-224-3424 202-228-0359
John Cornyn (R-TX) 202-224-2934 202-228-2856
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 202-224-4521 202-224-2207
Jim Bunning (R-KY) 202-224-4343 202-228-1373
Mike Crapo (R-ID) 202-224-6142 202-228-1375

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:39 PM

Welcome to my world (I live in Mass).

The laughing Chrisisall

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
So no public option to keep Big Insurance in check, and insurance coverage is going to be MANDATORY... you have to be kidding right?? Who benefits from this? Duh.

It gets better: "The committee defeated an amendment that would have allowed states to opt out of a new requirement for every individual to purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine."

Yeah, public option is dead and a stake driven thru its heart. The folks who opposed reform the loudest have hijacked it, and while picking all of our pockets, have complained about it being a socialist power grab.
"Follow the money." Who benefits from the changes made? And who gets stuck in the loser chair? And whatever mess gets passed, it will be hung around Obama's neck as the Obamacare plan, come next several elections, even tho' it isn't anywhere close to what he proposed or wanted.
He'd be better off at this point, to either drop the whole thing or veto whatever Congress passes, and stick with the F@%&*#-up status quo.

Be

RUE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:57 PM

F*ck this sh!t.

BTW - the problem isn't Baucus. Yes, he's A problem, just not THE problem. The problem is Obama, who knew (as a fellow senator) what Baucus was all about, who put Baucus there precisely to do what he did.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
F*ck this sh!t.

BTW - the problem isn't Baucus. Yes, he's A problem, just not THE problem. The problem is Obama, who knew (as a fellow senator) what Baucus was all about, who put Baucus there precisely to do what he did.

Seems like presidential suicide - especially this early in his first term AND with Afghaninam - to so completely middle finger those that voted him in. You really think he's this deceiptful? I know he lies and schemes, but for Big Insurance? Is that his play, to help them?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:07 PM

He could reverse a whole lot of stuff.

Instead of mandatory insurance, force the insurance companies to not deny potential clients. And, make it law that they cannot deny claims. They have to keep their payout in the 99% range.

That would fix alot of what is wrong with healthcare.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:09 PM

Wow.

Just out of curiosity, if the crazy people can shout down speakers in townhalls and get massive coverage and - apparently - influence these decisions, can't people who want a public option do the same? Minus the crazy?

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:09 PM

Hello,

It has been almost a given, right from the start, that Obama would get exactly what he wanted out of this deal.

However, what Obama wanted is no longer clear to me, and it's starting to look shadowy and suspicious.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:14 PM

Actually meant the link about contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry, but the contacts numbers are also useful.

Obama has been disappointing. Wish it was otherwise, but Pakistan, then renewed Gitmo and wiretapping, and now this possibility of broken healthcare reform, the trumped up threats of election fraud in Iran and Afghanistan and more "oh no, the Middle East has WMDs!" ...Blah. It's pretty apparent to me that Obama is about as much our President as George W. Bush was. Goddamn puppet show.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:16 PM

just found this link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2230938/

to Timothy Noah's column over on Slate.
According to the poll numbers he quotes, Democrats, Republican voters, and Doctors are all in favor of a public option. According to him, the only people opposed are the insurance companies. I suspect that you'd have to add hospital-owning medical corporations. "cording to him, Max Baucus wants a public option, but won't bother to put it in because he knows he'd never get the votes to pass it.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It has been almost a given, right from the start, that Obama would get exactly what he wanted out of this deal.

However, what Obama wanted is no longer clear to me, and it's starting to look shadowy and suspicious.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

You said it. Despite all the statements and arguments that Obama wants a public option, I suspect this was the plan all along. Much as I'd like a public option, it's a dealbreaker in American, I don't think it was ever going to hold water and everyone knew it when health care reform was brought up as an election issue.

No matter who was elected to office, lobbyists were going to ensure that mandatory insurance was tacked onto the bill and fight to destroy anything with the potential threat of reducing profits. If McCain were in office, we'd be all bitching and moaning about him backpeddling on his promise to allow pharmaceutical imports from Canada, and a public option wouldn't have even been proposed.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually meant the link about contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry, but the contacts numbers are also useful.

Try this one Byte:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/09/committee-members-opposed-to-p
.html

"Key Senate Democrats Opposing Public Option Get More Cash from Insurers and Pharmaceutical Companies"

Favorite quote from that page after the numbers: "The Senate is a gigantic souk, an Arab marketplace where everything is up for sale. If you think the Senate is all about high-minded statesmanship, you are a fool. Senators are addicted to power. In order to get power, they need money. Senators are not just power junkies, they are whatever else junkies eventually become, thieves, liars, clowns."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

RUE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:30 PM

"You really think he's this deceitful?"

I believe this all comes down to him.

Obama is very good at telling you the truth but misleading you nonetheless with empty slogans, Rorschach ink blots into which you can read anything.

I've always known Obama was far more conservative than most people realized. Partly it was what he said (but then you have to evaluate whether he intends to do what he says). Partly it was the way he operated. He is an expert in working the system. He knows which contacts to make, what positions to hold, which people to bring on board, what to communicate behind the scenes, what to say in speeches. He is a game player not a game changer. He depends on things staying the same in order to function efficiently, and that makes him conservative.

Obama is pushable - but it will take a real fight.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:54 PM

I remember even before the election you saying how conservative you thought he was.

I never believed his rhetoric on the surface (that's just the stuff any "skilled" politician does in whatever flavor, style) - but underneath it I thought he was more of a populist president than a corporate one.

I'm not ready to bail just yet though.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

RUE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:05 PM

I don't believe he will stand up for the public option, despite the fact that a majority of democrats, republicans, AND doctors want it - and that the only people opposed are insurance companies. I believe he will shrug his shoulders and say - well, yeah, in a perfect world we'd have better, but this is what they came up with, and well, what are ya' gonna do ? Gotta go with the flow.

I ALSO believe he is skilled enough to have the terrists' arrests stories highlighted as the committee vote to ammend the USPatriot (with protections for OUR freedoms) comes up TOMORROW. Because we are to make the association, no matter how unconscious, that without the USPatriot Act keeping us safe, these dangerous terrists would never have been apprehended. Your government, keeping you safe from bad men.

"Dear ACLU Supporter,

If all goes according to schedule, tomorrow, Senator Feinstein and the other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will cast votes that could finally fix provisions of the Patriot Act that have undermined our fundamental freedoms for far too long.

It’s urgent that you call Senator Feinstein’s office right now and let her know that you support bold action on Patriot Act reform."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:18 PM

WE DON'T NEED 60 VOTES

Quote:
For years we've been told that you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill. And so all summer long, we waited through gun-toting town halls, death panel fictions and shouted insults to see if Sen. Baucus and his committee could get a few conservatives to support reform and help us reach that magic number. As of today, we know that effort has failed. But Howard Dean has a solution. A special procedure called reconciliation can be used to pass a bill through the Senate with 51 votes. And Dean's put in the work to make sure that we've got the support we need in the House, the Senate and at the White House to win.

There's no more reason to wait. Howard Dean has shown that real reform has the votes to pass. And with thousands more Americans losing their insurance or having care denied every day, we can't afford to wait much longer for Congress to act. Sign the petition and tell Congress: Get reform done! Pass a strong bill with a simple majority that lets us choose a public insurance plan.

- Matt Holland
Online Director
TrueMajority/USAction

www.opednews.com/articles/We-don-t-need-60-votes-by-True-Majority-0909
29-930.html

PUSH for all you're worth if you want to see this done. WRITE to Baucus, WRITE to your Senator if they're sitting on the fence, WRITE to Reid, WRITE to the WH, WRITE to Pelosi (she already said that she's going to insist on a public option in the House bill but she could use your support). Write to your local newspaper (letter to the editor). Paste on bumper-stickers. (I'll get you some- I fixed my email so PM me. I can get YES ON PUBLIC OPTION, or MEDICARE FOR ALL, or anything else you want.) If there's a demonstration, join it.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:43 PM

Man, even if we DON'T need 60 votes... Whatever happened to the 60 democrats who were going to insist on a public option?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1909439,00.html

Bah, politicians are a waste of money.

KWICKO

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:21 PM

No time to get into this right now, but I'm not on a slow boil. I'm seething. I'm ready to explode.

Hell, I'm just about goddam ready to start funding ANYONE - Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian - who will run against some of these "ConservaDem" useless assholes.

This was a fucking slam-dunk - there was no way this could fail. And they fucking blew it, all to try to suck the cock of the Republicans who were never going to even CONSIDER supporting a public option in the first place.

There are days I really think the 9/11 hijackers flew into the wrong buildings in the wrong city...

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:23 PM

"There are days I really think the 9/11 hijackers flew into the wrong buildings in the wrong city..."

Welcome to my world.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:26 PM

Americans willing to fund healthcare reform: poll

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans would pay higher taxes to fund healthcare reforms that provide the best quality of care, but only a minority expects Washington to deliver it, according to a survey released on Wednesday.

The telephone survey of 3,003 U.S. adults conducted by Thomson Reuters found 63 percent willing to pay for healthcare reform, though most also said they are happy with their own doctors, insurance plans and out-of-pocket costs.

However, only 35 percent of those surveyed said President Barack Obama's reform agenda and the debate in Congress will lead to better health service, while 41 percent said they would expect it to lead to lower costs.

"There's skepticism that the government can deliver value," said Gary Pickens, chief research officer for Thomson Reuters' healthcare and science research business. Thomson Reuters is the parent company of global news agency Reuters.

"But underlying this is a fairly strong belief that people are entitled to the best healthcare," Pickens added. "This is a value statement: that people are entitled not just to good but to the best healthcare. And people are willing to pay for it."

www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58T0MY20090930

There is a crying need for change and a willingne$$ on the part of Americans to back it. If the Senate blows this chance the responsible Senators should be booted out next election. THEY need to know that if they don't step up to the plate, they will face the voting wrath of the American people.

WRITE WRITE WRITE.

For all the time we've spent bitching and moaning on this board, we could have EACH written 20 letter to every Senator in question, AND the WH!

Yes, I know, some of you have done this already... I know I have... but SOME of you have yet to get off the dime!

www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
RE: YES ON PUBLIC OPTION
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Please include your e-mail address

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:33 PM

How about... No on Mandatory. Yes on reform?

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:47 PM

I only write to Senators and Representatives in my state, the others won't care what a nobody from Utah has to say.

I have, however, contributed over $300 over the past six months to campaigns of people who are supporting the public option.

I'd contribute more, but I'm young and don't have job security.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:56 PM

Wulf -Whatever you think is best. Honestly. Because right now, it would be hard to imagine a worse scenario. This is as bad as the big friggin' financial sector giveaway!

Quote:
I only write to Senators and Representatives in my state

But as Chair of the Finance Committee (Baucus) and Senate Majority Leader (Reid) they SHOULD know what you're thinking.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:00 PM

I wish, but as soon as health care reform came up, I think the insurance companies were only going to accept something with mandatory health insurance requirements.

So both parties have to work around that and come up with bullshit reasons why it would lower health care costs. Newsflash: people would STILL BE GETTING HEALTHCARE, they'd just be paying insurance companies to pay for it, which is stupid. Plus the people who can't afford it now still won't be able to afford it when it's mandatory.

Personally, I think we all ought to just declare health insurance companies the ponzi schemes they are and refuse to buy insurance from them. Maybe people can set up little citizen group funds, just in case someone has an accident.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wulf -Whatever you think is best. Honestly. Because right now, it would be hard to imagine a worse scenario. This is as bad as the big friggin' financial sector giveaway!
Quote:
I only write to Senators and Representatives in my state
But as Chair of the Finance Committee (Baucus) and Senate Majority Leader (Reid) they SHOULD know what you're thinking.

I can't elect them, they have no incentive to listen to me. The best I can hope for is to try to influence people around them. Unlikely, but I like to try to exhaust every option.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
How about... No on Mandatory. Yes on reform?

"Reform" sounds like dealing with those rat b*stards - their arms are tired from raking in all our money. This might be the Tyranny you've been looking for.

For what good it'll do...called (bizzy) and wrote the W-House, politely but with some tone. Making my way through the list...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

RIVERLOVE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:56 PM

If Obama hadn't tried desperately to ram this down the throats of Americans by calling for an un-read bill to be passed within 2 weeks, it's likely the backlash against it would never have occurred. After the no-read 900 billion stimulus, then the un-read 400 billion omnibus, both chocked full of liberal pork dreams that have not created any jobs, Americans are a bit distrustful of Obama & Pelosi. Biden says they "saved" jobs. Thanks for that Joe!

Rassmussen Poll now shows 55% against Govt Healthcare with only 41% supporting, but the big poll number that has not changed is the 85% of people with coverage now are happy with it, and they don't want the govt fucking with it...period. If Dems go nuclear on this, it will be a suicide vote come 2010 & 2012. So go ahead and do it already...stop being such little whiny shits. You got the House & Senate & President & all filibustery proof to boot...whats yer fucking problem???

Besides all that, from what I'm reading you Libs are just as disgusted with the LIAR that Obama is too :

1) Said he'd close Gitmo -- has not
2) Said he'd withdraw from Iraq -- has not
3) Said he'd be "transparent" on new spending legislation -- has not been at all
4) If they won't even put the Baucus bill on the web ( because apparently it's too much trouble ), then why should anyone believe they could be trusted to manage our healthcare?
5) Said he'd end pork -- signed omnibus & stimulus w/ 9000 pork projects
6) Said he'd go after the crooks on Wall Street....so far Fannie Mae execs and all the rest are walking around scott free with their stolen billions....but he WILL go after CIA agents...nice!
7) DOMA -- unchanged
8) DADT -- unchanged
9) Patriot / eavesdropping -- unchanged
10) Afghanistan -- escalating with no plan
11) Un-employement steadily rising despite the dire threat months ago that if stimulus wasn't passed, the un-employment rate would go as high as 8%...now teetering on 10%...some areas 15%
12) Flies off to Denmark for Chicago Olympics.....Chicago Olympics??? What new events can we expect?: two-by-four beam skull bashing of honor students, Blago bribery money-bag tranferring, Rezko slumlord quid pro quo events for scholarships, Ayers seminars on bombing the Pentagon and police stations, white-man poisoning the water relay races, Wright chickens coming home to roost racist church pew endurance trials, and Daley crash courses in generational corruption. Wow...what a show!

Clinton got his butt kicked his first two years, and lost both houses of Congress. Then he became a moderate and was able to govern for 6 more years. And he was a good President and life was good. I still say that the attacks against him were vile and un-called for. Those attacks bred the partisan hatred that permeates our country today. Add to that the cries of RACISM if you disagree with Obama. So Rue, you're now a racist because you speak against Obama?... or does that label only apply to Republicans who disagree with him?

I only posted this because someone mentioned my name in another thread recently as a sock puppet. Maybe I am or maybe I'm not. I haven't posted in months, but apparently I'm still remembered. Go ahead and knock yourself out with all of the above. Maybe it'll make ya feel a tad better than you do now. Always good sport to respond to the other side's rants, right? Or not. Either way, it's all good. I am getting much enjoyment very occasionally reading all your posts and watching you all go fucking nuts over your Obama disappointments. Cheer up...he'll be gone from DC before you know it, and all his marxist, left-wing radical Pelosi crap will be cleaned up all nice and neat. Order will once again triumph over chaos and insanity...mark my words!

MANGOLO

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Just in case you have the notion to call and "chat" with any of these folks by phone or email, here's a list of their contacts...

Thanks for the link. I originally just sent a letter to my reps. Now they all get an eyeful.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:14 PM

Give it 31 days.

If naught else, STALL, just get me that 31 days, folks, ok ?

I cannot give details, but if you mean this, then yes, please - push hard in the other direction...

And trust that, umm...
Someone is coming along with a lever big enough to tip it over, just not right away.

31 days people, 31 days.

-F

WHODIED

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Cheer up...he'll be gone from DC before you know it, and all his marxist, left-wing radical Pelosi crap will be cleaned up all nice and neat. Order will once again triumph over chaos and insanity...mark my words!

This is a joke, right? In my attempt to outgrow my pointless sarcastic response-o-matic nature I'm asking first, because you can't change a teeter-totter by switching seats.

--WhoDied

_______________________

Yeah, we're mostly just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

WHODIED

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Give it 31 days.

If naught else, STALL, just get me that 31 days, folks, ok ?

I cannot give details, but if you mean this, then yes, please - push hard in the other direction...

And trust that, umm...
Someone is coming along with a lever big enough to tip it over, just not right away.

31 days people, 31 days.

-F

So, Halloween, then? Cool, I'll come as Zeno!

--WhoDied

_______________________

Yeah, we're mostly just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Cheer up...he'll be gone from DC before you know it, and all his marxist, left-wing radical Pelosi crap will be cleaned up all nice and neat. Order will once again triumph over chaos and insanity...mark my words!

Not really. After Obama will just be either another big-government Democrat or Neo-Con big government Republican. No difference. Whoever is in power, the other party will be flinging poop and dissent. Chaos and insanity, as you say, no matter who's elected.

I do not place my hopes in elections, but other occurrences.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:58 PM

Quote:
marxist, left-wing radical ... crap

If that were truly the case, we'd have single-payer health insurance yesterday, Wall Street tycoons would be flatter 'n pancakes, Gitmo would be closed, and the troops would be home. Alas... he's not a marxist by any stretch of the imgination. Not even yours!

KWICKO

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Yeah, public option is dead and a stake driven thru its heart. The folks who opposed reform the loudest have hijacked it, and while picking all of our pockets, have complained about it being a socialist power grab.
"Follow the money." Who benefits from the changes made? And who gets stuck in the loser chair? And whatever mess gets passed, it will be hung around Obama's neck as the Obamacare plan, come next several elections, even tho' it isn't anywhere close to what he proposed or wanted.
He'd be better off at this point, to either drop the whole thing or veto whatever Congress passes, and stick with the F@%&*#-up status quo.

Be

Yup. He needs to veto this pigfuck and tell 'em to start over.

The Dems just handed victory to the right with this piece of shit. If they pass it, it's going to piss off people on both sides, and they lose seats. If they don't pass it, they're weak and that's going to lose them seats.

And the real shits of it is, we never needed one single Republican vote to move ahead on this. We never needed one iota of input from the insurance industry. We never needed to wait, slow down, or have the town hall debacle. And even after all that bullshit and propaganda thrown at us to the tune of $1.5 million PER DAY being thrown at agitprop by the insurance lobbies, even after the town halls and all the "grassroots" astroturfing, polls show that 65% of Americans STILL want the public option. So Congress offers a big, wet blowjob to the insurance industry, and a strong fisting to the people. As usual.

We had strong majorities in both houses, and it did us zero-point-fuck as far as getting anything accomplished. At this point, I might as well vote for the fucking Republicants, because they're not any more useless than what we've got in there already.

Mark my words - 2010 will end the Democrats' majority in both houses. And 2012 may be the end of Obama - and at the rate he's going, it might not come soon enough. All because they tried to "play nice" with people who never had any intention of giving them a fucking thing in return.

So yeah, I'm a little pissed.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

KWICKO

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
He could reverse a whole lot of stuff.

Instead of mandatory insurance, force the insurance companies to not deny potential clients. And, make it law that they cannot deny claims. They have to keep their payout in the 99% range.

That would fix alot of what is wrong with healthcare.

Oh, that's in there. Allegedly, anyway. No denial for pre-existing conditions. But no cap on what they can charge you for coverage, either. Like I said, one big blowjob for the insurance industry, that's all this is.

Oh, and Wulfie? I just have to ask, because I know you're real big on personal responsibility and all that...

What is it you don't like about the mandatory insurance part of the bill? I mean, you're all for taking responsibility for yourself, but you're against a law requiring you to take responsibility for your healthcare?

I find that a bit curious. Just sayin'.

My feeling is, for the tax money we're paying into the system, we damned well SHOULD get health care out of it. Hell, Iraq and Afghanistan have nationalized healthcare - and WE are the ones paying for it. If we're "spreading freedom", maybe we could spread a little our way, eh?

MANGOLO

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So yeah, I'm a little pissed.

I'm a lot pissed, but not the least bit surprised. Obama is a neophyte and although charming, not a heavy weight. I'm not a fan of any of the Presidents that have been elected in my lifetime, but most had some real experience.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I sent out letters this week asking them to end the wars immediately, provide Universal Healthcare, and end the short term speculating on Wall Street (a surprisingly easy fix- raise the short term capital gains tax and add another tax that is focused on day trading). This short term profit taking over long term prosperity is what is killing not only our economy, but our planet as well.

KWICKO

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:29 PM

Quote:

I only posted this because someone mentioned my name in another thread recently as a sock puppet. Maybe I am or maybe I'm not.

You are.

Quote:
I haven't posted in months, but apparently I'm still remembered.

As a drunken, death-loving "c-word", if memory serves. Not my words, mind you, but you did your level best to live down to them.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:57 PM

"What is it you don't like about the mandatory insurance part of the bill? I mean, you're all for taking responsibility for yourself, but you're against a law requiring you to take responsibility for your healthcare?"

Hello, Kwicko,

You're not really being fair on your analysis there, are you?

This is akin to someone saying "I think I should be responsible for my own transportation."

And your reply being,

"Then I'm sure you'll appreciate a law requiring you to buy an automobile."

It's six of one, thirty-two of the other.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:58 PM

I'm on the fence myself. Right now I'm going in for my third review this year to keep my health insurance. It's unnerving.

I think some of the backlash is staged by special interest groups that would shut up if included...

Quote:

1) Said he'd close Gitmo -- has not
2) Said he'd withdraw from Iraq -- has not
3) Said he'd be "transparent" on new spending legislation -- has not been at all
4) If they won't even put the Baucus bill on the web ( because apparently it's too much trouble ), then why should anyone believe they could be trusted to manage our healthcare?
5) Said he'd end pork -- signed omnibus & stimulus w/ 9000 pork projects
6) Said he'd go after the crooks on Wall Street....so far Fannie Mae execs and all the rest are walking around scott free with their stolen billions....but he WILL go after CIA agents...nice!
7) DOMA -- unchanged
8) DADT -- unchanged
9) Patriot / eavesdropping -- unchanged
10) Afghanistan -- escalating with no plan
11) Un-employement steadily rising despite the dire threat months ago that if stimulus wasn't passed, the un-employment rate would go as high as 8%...now teetering on 10%...some areas 15%
12) Flies off to Denmark for Chicago Olympics.....Chicago Olympics??? What new events can we expect?: two-by-four beam skull bashing of honor students, Blago bribery money-bag tranferring, Rezko slumlord quid pro quo events for scholarships, Ayers seminars on bombing the Pentagon and police stations, white-man poisoning the water relay races, Wright chickens coming home to roost racist church pew endurance trials, and Daley crash courses in generational corruption. Wow...what a show!

That's a pretty good list, but you forgot the dog. He promised to get a pound puppie, but didn't do it. Nothing against Bo, the dog, but there was a solution here: Sure, accept a dog from a dying kennedy, but we could examine a two dog solution here.

A couple others:
Close secret prisons in eastern europe.... not
End the absurd mark to market rules that caused this financial disaster... not

He has done two things which he *didn't* promise, but I approve of:

1. Net neutrality proposal
2. Stop logging the national forests.

I'm feeling just sick about Afghanistan at the moment because I just read the 2009 death toll. The real dif seems to be that in Afgh, we really have no green zone to fall back on, we're getting slaughtered. You know when they are *admitting* to 1400 casualties that it's a lot worse, because people with critical injuries are flown out and die elsewhere, and aren't counted, and MIAs aren't counted, along with "unrecognizable bodies."

About the Chicago Olympics I have two things to say:

1. Against Brazil? Isn't it about time the olympics were in Latin America? Have they ever been? They've been in the US a lot of times.

2. The midway. He wants to use the midway. Sorry, I spend too much time in Obama's hometown. What a nightmare. The midway is this giant park in the middle of Chicago, and Obama would level it for a two week joyride, and leave what? I mean, seriously. There are some things that make Chicago a nice city, the crime rate not being one of them, but still, if it's going to be liveable, it has to have some green.

I have a close friend who is actually the guy in charge of keeping Chicago green, and as a strong Obama supporter, he's now leading the fight against the Chicago Olympics idea.

RIVERLOVE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I only posted this because someone mentioned my name in another thread recently as a sock puppet. Maybe I am or maybe I'm not.

You are.

Quote:
I haven't posted in months, but apparently I'm still remembered.

As a drunken, death-loving "c-word", if memory serves. Not my words, mind you, but you did your level best to live down to them.

Vile personal attacking slugs like you are the reason that keeps people out of this area of FFF. Everything I said is true and you gorram know it. I'm real sorry it pains you so much that you cannot even deal with any of it. And you don't have to say c word. Just say cunt, or douchenozzle, or whatever euphemism suits you in your lame and pathetic effort to get a rise out of me. I know you better than you even know yourself. The body of your work here testifies to the vile, disgusting, America-hating cretin that you are.

RUE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:01 AM

Useful stuff from SignyM, reposted:

For all the time we've spent bitching and moaning on this board, we could have EACH written 20 letter to every Senator in question, AND the WH!

Yes, I know, some of you have done this already... I know I have... but SOME of you have yet to get off the dime!

www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
RE: YES ON PUBLIC OPTION
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Please include your e-mail address

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:53 AM

Hello,

The idea of someone creating alternative identities to post on a board seems schitzophrenic to me.

The idea of circling a board like a vulture, waiting for a change in the prevailing wind so you can swoop down and devour the carcasses of your enemies... That's disturbed behavior of a higher order.

This purported 'sock puppet' person gives me the willies. His/her behavior and delivery are alarming.

I was telling Wulf the other day... HOW you say something is at least as important as WHAT you are saying.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

Vile personal attacking slugs like you are the reason that keeps people out of this area of FFF.

Apparently not.

Quote:

Everything I said is true and you gorram know it. I'm real sorry it pains you so much that you cannot even deal with any of it.

Ummmm... Pay attention much? I pretty much said as much above. What "pains" me is that Obama is turning out to be just as big a piece of shit as both Bushes and Reagan were - making things WORSE for the average American while at the same time radically increasing the national debt. But deal with it I shall. My bet is, I'll have a job long after Obama is out of his.

Quote:

And you don't have to say c word. Just say cunt, or douchenozzle, or whatever euphemism suits you in your lame and pathetic effort to get a rise out of me.

Now that wouldn't be very gentlemanly, would it?

Besides, "c-word" seems to have worked just fine. It DID get a rise out of you, whatever protestations to the contrary you may vainly try to toss out.

Quote:
I know you better than you even know yourself.

Doubtful. You don't even know YOURSELF better than you know yourself. :) You can't post one single thing without contradicting yourself.

Quote:

The body of your work here testifies to the vile, disgusting, America-hating cretin that you are. And that analysis applies to all your sick, demented and self-rightous asshole buddies in this daily cesspool that you wallow in so well.

Yeah, maybe I should've posted this in Talk Story instead.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Vile personal attacking slugs like you are the reason that keeps people out of this area of FFF. Everything I said is true and you gorram know it. I'm real sorry it pains you so much that you cannot even deal with any of it. And you don't have to say c word. Just say cunt, or douchenozzle, or whatever euphemism suits you in your lame and pathetic effort to get a rise out of me. I know you better than you even know yourself. The body of your work here testifies to the vile, disgusting, America-hating cretin that you are. And that analysis applies to all your sick, demented and self-rightous asshole buddies in this daily cesspool that you wallow in so well.

Muzzle T'off!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:44 AM

Ack. Okay, Mike, Bad Dog!

River,

I don't know if you've noticed this about Mike, but it may be sick, but he baits people to personal battles. It may be trollish behavior, but there's really only one thing to do: Ignore it.

I've found I don't even have to ignore Mike, but ignore the bait. That's just a fishhook waiting for someone to byte. Just don't go there.

Mike,

I'm serious. Do you know how much restraint it takes for me not to post the comments of the not yet mentioned user who posted what you were just commenting?

Yeah, I'll say it on an open forum, because the guilty part is not currently anyone engaged in this exchange but knows full well who they are and anyone could easily destroy said users credibility on any argument with a couple of really underhanded necroposts. And as I am in frequent political disagreement with said user, sometimes the temptation to do so have been high.

Here's why I don't do it, and it's not because I'm above it. We're all on a level here, and to be on a level, we have to be fair. I'm not proctecting anyone, just trying to be fair to everyone. No one deserves the firing squad.

Don't I recall "Every post should be weighed on its own merits?" Wasn't that a recent decision that we all agreed to.

How about this one: "Kwicko: Let's let bygones be bygones."
Yes, that would be you on the topic of not doing what you just did. I have to give this a WTF man?

Yes, I get your game with the whole bait and hook thing, but there's a line not to cross, and more than anything, that's the line you set for yourself.

Oh, and I like the line about posting it in the middle Niki's squirrel pics. Yeah, I know what you're thinking "but that would be inappropriate" maybe the reality is "but that would hurt Mike." You know what? Yes, it would be inappropriate there and it would be in appropriate here. I think we call that way the fuck out of line.

Sorry dude, just calling it as I sees it.

Also: Ever think that maybe people have sockpuppets because of things like this? I like to get to know people. I don't care for the sockpuppet thing because it gets in the way. But if someone has to change usernames just to avoid personal attacks, that's just a sad commentary on the group.

River,

Hope you stick around, to be honest, there are a lot of posts I don't read, cause I already know what they're going to say. The same sort of "fall in line behind the president" we heard from the other side last time, and some tired academia arguments from the "we already decided what was right along time ago" (no offense guys, but some of this stuff gets old.)

Things like that list of failed obama promises, that's not something I see a lot of, but it's what makes scanning through worth it. (to be honest, I was surprised you were even reading) Myself, I've been known to take 6 mos vacations and engage in what I sometimes think of as "actually getting stuff done" (like currently, being ripped off on a house I bought. Seems the guy wants my money, but not to sell the house)

Anyway, sure, a lot of mud flings here, but some interesting truths get revealed as well. IMHO, It's worth filtering through the muck to find it. If someone attacks you personally, they're being a dick, ignore it and move on.

MANGOLO

Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Useful stuff from SignyM, reposted:

For all the time we've spent bitching and moaning on this board, we could have EACH written 20 letter to every Senator in question, AND the WH!

Yes, I know, some of you have done this already... I know I have... but SOME of you have yet to get off the dime!

www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
RE: YES ON PUBLIC OPTION
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Please include your e-mail address

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Done

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:03 AM

Quote:
Yeah, I'll say it on an open forum, because the guilty part is not currently anyone engaged in this exchange but knows full well who they are and anyone could easily destroy said users credibility on any argument with a couple of really underhanded necroposts.

This is what ya call tempting fate - or tempting me, which is WORSE.

You DO know that I'm nastier, more underhanded, and better at sticking those fish-hooks out than he is, right ?

Quote:
No one deserves the firing squad.

"Deserve's got nothin to do with it!"

I've my own reasons for gunning down the mental health and credibility of some folk, and it'd be a damn good idea sometimes not to accidently (if accident it is) bait ME when you're calling down Mikey.

Quote:
Don't I recall "Every post should be weighed on its own merits?" Wasn't that a recent decision that we all agreed to.

Umm ?
*raises hand*
Scuse me, did you see ME *agree* to jack diddly shit ?
Don't go makin assumptions like that, you know better.

Quote:
But if someone has to change usernames just to avoid personal attacks, that's just a sad commentary on the group.

When their conduct EARNS those attacks, and people defend the indefensible, thus enabling and encouraging that kinda conduct...

I call it collaboration, and view it accordingly.

I've been, for me, nice so far - but watching your apologism of such crap WHILE calling folk out for more or less calling them ON it - no, that doesn't fly with me, especially after they've gone right to spewing the same venomous bile that got em flamed in the first place in this very thread.

And you sit there like a milquetoast little quisling apologist for it ?

Hows this for a thought, you wanna stand there, don't whine when you get run the hell over, righty-O ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:45 AM

Frem,

No, it wasn't about you, unless Mike is your sock puppet. It was about stuff agreed to a long time ago, a trust based on serious issues. It has nothing to do with you, but you did just seriously tick me off, so my reponse to this will not be posted on a public forum.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:14 AM

Hey, you're the one who sailed your little boat between the Scylla of Snarky and the Charybdis of Vengeful, shoulda looked where you were going.

Quote:
you did just seriously tick me off

That being partly my intention, thank you for the positive feedback.

Word of caution, however.

Remember that I do not consider these venomous little bile-bots to be human, especially once they've sold their soul to an agenda which will use and dispose of em with no more regard than a kleenex - and particularly when any attempt at reason and negotiation is met with them slamming their eyes shut, plugging their ears, and screaming their control mantra at you, liberally* mixed with hatred and abuse.

As well you know my forte is pyschological exploitation, so if you're thinking of asking my forebearance by trying to humanise them to me, I would sincerely advise against it - all you will be doing is just selling them further down the river to someone who openly, admittedly, and unrepentantly means their destruction by any means he can contrive it.

*Heh heh heh, look cletus, he said liberal, yuk yuk
YANK YANK DING, can you head me now, Pavlov ?

Seriously, what part of Evil Bastard keeps escaping you ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:35 AM

Frem,

You know that Voight-Kampff test of yours… did you ever take that test yourself?

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:43 AM

Hello,

When did this thread become about how cool someone was?

About psychological manipulation of fellow forumites?

About old evidence held in reserve that proves X to be Y, but held back for Z good of mankind?

About who is more evil, more conniving, more manipulative, more douchey?

Why does a health care thread degenerate into a thread where various Dark Lords of the Sith compare the size of their light sabers?

It may be that some people here command vast armies of converts like 'The Shadow' and his support network. It might be that some people here are psychological commandos. It may be that some people here have vaults filled with the dirty little posts that everyone hopes that everyone else has forgotten.

None of it has any positive impact on the size of your phallus. I promise. I also promise that some of you folks may be able to clobber political rivals with your big swinging johnson, but waving it at fellow forumites results in nothing but shrinkage.

There are people on here who worry me and anger me, but the bad guys are mentioned at the top of the thread. Having duels with the people in the middle is a waste.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:23 PM

Anthony,

You answer your own question. Buried threads should stay buried. If they didn't, then some people not right now posting in this thread would come off not very well. This would escalate a war.

Threadjacks are not uncommon, this one is unfortunate. IMHO, Mike was out of line. Frem, in a very predictable leap to Mike's defense, for some reason, decided to take a strong self destructive stance:
First, state the uselessness of manipulative people, then establish his own creds as a manipulative person.

Logically impeccable. Of course you're right, this "bad boy" thing that some posters get off on is self defacing: Establishing yourself as evil while claiming to be a child rights advocate in possession of a number of other people's children is not a brilliant move.

Oh, and to the self proclaimed "evil." Nonsense. I've met evil. Not jut child abuser, psychopaths and serial killers. You want evil? Try sitting down and having a political argument with a Nazi SS, no I don't mean neonazis, I've met them too, those guys are evil wannabes, It's actually hilarious to here self proclaimed "Nazis" back off of the sorts of positions that Wulf might post. But here's what's not funny, talking to the real Nazi SS and having them tell you what they did and why it was right. Listen to the details of someone explaining to you the necessity of killing the children of the jews and the russians "protecting" europe from being overrun with them, while mixing in anecdotes of their abuse of young boys they've killed. Yes. I've met evil and you're not it. You're the diet coke of evil.

I agree with Tony. All of this "evil" thing is just a bad boy teenage "just like spike" testosterone contest. Put it back in your pants. You ain't winning any accolades for beating up on people.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:08 PM

Everyone - breath in.... breath out... Good!

Some more numbers...

White House Phone Numbers:

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

I just called the comment line and it wasn't busy, but I did have to hold. "Your call is important to the President..."

I waited less than 3 minutes and talked (rambled) to a live person who assured me that all comments are tallied and the president sees the numbers at the end of the day... I choose to believe that.

Call NOW or write

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
RE: YES ON PUBLIC OPTION
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:15 PM

"It's actually hilarious to here self proclaimed "Nazis" back off of the sorts of positions that Wulf might post."

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?

Now, according to you, Im some "super-nazi"?

Wow. Just. Wow.

I guess anyone who is non-PC (i.e. HONEST) is a nazi now?

FUCK OFF.

(Ok, this little snippet has pissed me off.)

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"It's actually hilarious to here self proclaimed "Nazis" back off of the sorts of positions that Wulf might post."

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?

Now, according to you, Im some "super-nazi"?

Wow. Just. Wow.

I guess anyone who is non-PC (i.e. HONEST) is a nazi now?

FUCK OFF.

(Ok, this little snippet has pissed me off.)

How about you lads start another thread to discuss this stuff?

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

================

Two more links that can help - the second one has a list of web contact forms - very useful, quick and much easier than calling or writing and I *think* your input will be counted in somewhat the same way as other methods.

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

BYTEMITE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:35 PM

I would second a different thread, or even e-mails or something, because this kinda looks a bit like this argument is spiraling out of control, starting to draw people in who weren't involved on accident, you know?

Though, I do want to say, I've never met any of the famous River's, but clearly there's history here. Still, whether or not you disagree with a person's political party or the person themselves, is it really okay, assuming the claims of sock puppetry are true, to chase a person off with the same harsh language that chased them off before? Yes, they may have said worse things to you, but YOU are still HERE, and they are not.

Personally, I think that if someone feels someone else to be wrong, the point of internet discussion is to try, if not to convince the other person, than at least to understand them. We gain nothing from turning away from people, or, you know, calling them sub-human. Though I understand, Frem, sometimes you've had no other choice but to use people to further your agenda, here is not your immediate world.

>_> <_<

Hmm, stalling on healthcare. If a public option can be delivered in 31 days, and we need to defeat Baucus' farce of a bill, how do we want to do that? Let's discuss that some. Letters are good, but are they a stall tactic?

Perhaps what we need to do is show Senators involved in votes that people both 1) want a public option, and 2) show that the "Obama plan" that they don't trust is really Baucus' plan. I think we can find polls a plenty to show this, some of them reasonably neutral. This will stall admirably, and further the cause.

KWICKO

Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"What is it you don't like about the mandatory insurance part of the bill? I mean, you're all for taking responsibility for yourself, but you're against a law requiring you to take responsibility for your healthcare?"

Hello, Kwicko,

You're not really being fair on your analysis there, are you?

This is akin to someone saying "I think I should be responsible for my own transportation."

And your reply being,

"Then I'm sure you'll appreciate a law requiring you to buy an automobile."

It's six of one, thirty-two of the other.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Well, Anthony, to be fair to the realities of the current argument, you'd have to say "I think I should be responsible for my own transportation, and I think they should do away with all forms of public transportation." After all, these ARE the same people who went to the tea-bag rallies to demand "No Socialism" - and then complained that the DC Metro subway and bus lines weren't up to the task of meeting the demands of the crowd.

So do all that - do away with all the mass transit, THEN be responsible for your own transporation. And don't take a cab and try to stiff me with picking up the fare!

In other words, DON'T get insurance. But when you get sick or injured, don't you dare go to the emergency room! Stay home and just die quietly like you're supposed to, and stay out of the way of the healthy people.

That's the "health care" that tea-baggers want.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

KWICKO

Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ack. Okay, Mike, Bad Dog!

River,

I don't know if you've noticed this about Mike, but it may be sick, but he baits people to personal battles. It may be trollish behavior, but there's really only one thing to do: Ignore it.

Silly me, trying to "bait" someone into a personal attack, especially after being told things like...

Quote:
If Dems go nuclear on this, it will be a suicide vote come 2010 & 2012. So go ahead and do it already...stop being such little whiny shits. You got the House & Senate & President & all filibustery proof to boot...whats yer fucking problem???

I am getting much enjoyment very occasionally reading all your posts and watching you all go fucking nuts over your Obama disappointments. Cheer up...he'll be gone from DC before you know it, and all his marxist, left-wing radical Pelosi crap will be cleaned up all nice and neat.

...yup, being a liberal Democrat, that seems pretty squarely aimed directly at me, although RL's such a twat that he/she/it can't even do it outright, but instead latches onto that old chickenshit passive-aggressive "all liberals" bullshit - and then try to walk that shit back when he/she/it (can we just call it "sheeit" for short?) gets called on it.

So yeah, I *will* take it personally, because it's so very clearly INTENDED that way. Odd that you're so blindered by your own partisan views that you don't ever notice that, DT. I know you're supposedly above all that, but you really aren't, if you want to take a good, long, objective look at yourself. You want to hold liberals to a much higher standard, even while you disagree with most of their views.

As for RL, I've made it abundantly clear to "sheeit" that I can hold a grudge for a long, long time, and that I've got a long memory as well. Shall I necropost some of the lovely things Sheeit had to say to me in the past?

Quote:

I'm serious. Do you know how much restraint it takes for me not to post the comments of the not yet mentioned user who posted what you were just commenting?

You'll also recall that said user also posted what she posted as a "post-in-kind" response to something equally vile and disgusting that was posted by RL, then.

Quote:

Here's why I don't do it, and it's not because I'm above it. We're all on a level here, and to be on a level, we have to be fair. I'm not proctecting anyone, just trying to be fair to everyone. No one deserves the firing squad.

As for your "honor" and "fair" stuff... After the way liberals have been treated in this country, and after trying to turn the other cheek far too many times already, I have to just say...

Fuck 'honor'. Fuck 'fair'. Fuck 'nice'. I'm done with that shit, because you want me to play nice with people who'd rather see my "islamist-sympathizing ass" dead.

You want to argue that Sheeit didn't call ME out directly in its post? Okay, fine - you'll notice that *I* didn't actually call Sheeit a "c-word" in my post, either; I simply noted that it had been done, and that Sheeit had tried to live up to the word. You tend to forget, I'm *very* careful with my words.

Quote:

Oh, and I like the line about posting it in the middle Niki's squirrel pics. Yeah, I know what you're thinking "but that would be inappropriate" maybe the reality is "but that would hurt Mike." You know what? Yes, it would be inappropriate there and it would be in appropriate here. I think we call that way the fuck out of line.

Now you've lost me. I literally have no idea to what you're referring.

Quote:

Sorry dude, just calling it as I sees it.

As am I.

Quote:

Also: Ever think that maybe people have sockpuppets because of things like this? I like to get to know people. I don't care for the sockpuppet thing because it gets in the way. But if someone has to change usernames just to avoid personal attacks, that's just a sad commentary on the group.

Not if their whole reason for creating the sockpuppet was to come back in and attack the gro

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:41 PM

Hello Kwicko,

Again, I think you're being a bit unfair in your analysis. I doubt anyone's position is, "Die outta my way."

Mandatory insurance coverage has all the disadvantages of tax funded public insurance and none of the benefits.

You're required to get it, so it's a lot like a tax on everyone.

But you're getting it from someone whose interest is profit motive, absent from the moderating force of supply/demand issues. In a free market, there is no demand for crap insurance. But in a mandatory environment, a market for useless insurance springs into being.

You see this a lot with "Mandatory Minimum" Auto insurance, where the company is in a race to provide you with as few services as possible. They are essentially charging you for an 'insured' certificate, and never mind that your actual services provided are only slightly more than useless.

Many people, confronted with getting insurance that will do little to improve their level of protection, would rightfully prefer to do without. However, under a mandatory system, you have to pay for largely useless craptastic coverage because it's against the law to say no, and it may be the only coverage you can afford.

It is for this reason that the combination of Mandatory Insurance, and the absence of a Public Option, is the worst of all possible worlds.

There are a lot of people who would be better off with NO insurance, rather than mandatory CRAP insurance that merely drains their wallet.

Mandatory Insurance is just another exciting way to fuck the poor. The wealthier individuals will still be able to get higher quality insurance coverage. The only people impacted will be the people you most desperately want to help, and it will be a negative impact. You'll be reaming their anus sans lubrication.

IF insurance ever becomes mandatory in this country, there MUST be a public option. Otherwise you're throwing the sheep to the wolves.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 2, 2009 12:51 AM

Miss Bytemite:
Since you are the only one who's brought a salient point, you are the only one who will get a response.

How exactly would you feel, if every time you tried to have a discussion, some poster came in spewing an agenda, which - if not met with fawning adoration, would immediately result in a voluminous flood of profanity, hostility and verbal abuse of everyone not "on board" with it.

Again, and again, and again - till discussion became almost impossible.
Till the board itself slowly emptied, as folk got tired of trying to swim the verbal sewers just to have a discussion ?

Because that is what those folks did, and it is what they DO.

How many more times do you have to let them kick you in the teeth before you slap them away, Byte ?
How LONG must one tolerate it, a year ? two ?
(Cause it DID go for a very frikkin long time!)

Eventually even the most patient folk get sick of it, and when finally, FINALLY enough folk stood up and shoved back, they threw their little hissy and ran under a rock somewhere to seethe.

And here they come again, with the same song and dance, the same intent to wreck any discussion that isn't stroking them or their agenda - and someone I thought knew better standin there holding the door, makin excuses as they come storming in ?
*shakes head*
And so, being unable to physically slap some sense into them, I start mentally screwing with them in an obvious way somewhere between cruel and playful, kinda like a cat with a mouse, just to keep em wondering - what else would you have me do, respond in kind and allow the wreckage of a useful thread when it devolves into the total flamewar the bile-bots WANT anything not on board with their agenda to be ?

I will say this much, pleading mental instability to someone openly planning to mess with your head is idiotic, innit ?

Now, to the business at hand: that whole 30 days thing.

Reason is that some stuff is coming to a head regarding the whole mess, which must be properly confirmed and fact checked before being brought forth, or else it's just another one of the fringe elements wacky stories, you see ?

But I have a good eye for this kind of stuff, and given proper confirmation, the arms folk are going to have to twist to get it shoved into the public arena, and the inevitable chaos and distortion once the media as a whole descends on that information, you're lookin at a 21 day cycle, plus whatever it takes to promogulate to the public at large - ain't MY information and I never did say it was, but if one was paying attention or digging deep enough, and some of you have indeed been digging in the right places, they'd also have some idea of what this is about.

If this stuff can be verified and confirmed, and I see no reason it can't cause it's met ever acid test so far, you'll have one hell of a lever with which to shatter the credibility of those blocking the public option, okay ?

Far as the "Mandatory" argument goes, Anthony has completely nailed my position on it, and in much nicer words.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need some stitches, have to watch them lower another old friend in the ground tomorrow, on top of another death I won't even talk about, and really not in the mood to play petty word games with folk who wanna defend other peoples intentional malice right now, cause I also got work to do, right ?

And no, I'm not really interested in sympathy, just pointing out you'd be askin it from someone who's awful damned short on the stuff right now.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Kwicko,

Again, I think you're being a bit unfair in your analysis.

Quite possible; I'm actually pointing out some extremes of the "no socialism!" position.

Quote:

I doubt anyone's position is, "Die outta my way."

Well, I doubt their STATED position is such, but in essence, that IS the position. You have people who have stated that they (a) DO NOT want mandatory insurance coverage for all, (b) DO NOT want a public option or single-payer system that would cover us all, (c) DO NOT want ANY coverage for those here illegally, and (d) DO NOT want ANY kinds of "socialism".

Mix those things together, and you absolutely are telling at least some people to please die quietly, and preferably out of my way. Nobody wants to come out and say it, but that's the long and short of it.

Quote:
Mandatory insurance coverage has all the disadvantages of tax funded public insurance and none of the benefits.

You're required to get it, so it's a lot like a tax on everyone.

But you're getting it from someone whose interest is profit motive, absent from the moderating force of supply/demand issues. In a free market, there is no demand for crap insurance. But in a mandatory environment, a market for useless insurance springs into being.

You see this a lot with "Mandatory Minimum" Auto insurance, where the company is in a race to provide you with as few services as possible. They are essentially charging you for an 'insured' certificate, and never mind that your actual services provided are only slightly more than useless.

Many people, confronted with getting insurance that will do little to improve their level of protection, would rightfully prefer to do without. However, under a mandatory system, you have to pay for largely useless craptastic coverage because it's against the law to say no, and it may be the only coverage you can afford.

It is for this reason that the combination of Mandatory Insurance, and the absence of a Public Option, is the worst of all possible worlds.

There are a lot of people who would be better off with NO insurance, rather than mandatory CRAP insurance that merely drains their wallet.

Mandatory Insurance is just another exciting way to fuck the poor. The wealthier individuals will still be able to get higher quality insurance coverage. The only people impacted will be the people you most desperately want to help, and it will be a negative impact. You'll be reaming their anus sans lubrication.

IF insurance ever becomes mandatory in this country, there MUST be a public option. Otherwise you're throwing the sheep to the wolves.

--Anthony

I find myself basically in agreement with everything else you posted on this one.

For the record, I think the mandatory insurance idea is ludicrous.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:31 AM

Mike,

Nothing personal. It was a reference to your word, given twice, here.

Re: Necroposting a) you don't have to, I've read those posts, and b) I'm avoiding doing that because there are a couple of users here who I commend for not partaking in this bloodfeud at the moment, who if one were to necropost would come off as more vile than any of us, and that's not fair to them. Everyone has lapses of reason, and if they've moved on, then that's a credit to them, there's no reason to destroy them. I'm talking about your own friends and allies here.

I have a partisan political position? I thought I loudly denounced the GOP some time ago, and am *more* supportive of Obama than you are. Yes, I have issues with his policies on fiscal policy and the war, and am a little worried about his continuation of infringement on the bill of rights from the last administration.

This isn't exactly a partisan point of view.

In fact, I think it's point for point in accordance with you're own point of view.

That said, a record of campaign promises broken is fair: The dems had a lock solid congress, and some republican allies, they could have passed anything they wanted, including their whole 100 days package. It's probably fair to assume that anything they didn't do that was on the campaign platform they didn't do because the party (collectively, obamas and clintons and any other power group within the DNC) didn't want to do it.

The squirrel pics was a reference to your "talk story comment."

I honestly disagree on one point: I think River6213 became riverlove to avoid this sort of attack. She was fairly inoffensive for some time, and it took people a lone time to pick it up. I personally picked it up on an IP trace, but Pizmo beat me to it in his post.

I personally thought it would have been an interesting discussion. I didn't have any use for a bloodfeud.

Frem,

You don't find anyone else to blame in these flame wars of which you speak? I was there. This all went along perfectly fine until "more than one" person get into it, and I could name a handful, both left and right, who did this without cessation.

Anyone remember when a certain user would attack anything and everything I posted regardless of what it was? And would flood the thread with vicera? I don't recall any assistance at the time, and I recall a lot of threads that didn't go this way, including this one, with a number of other people. Sorry, I just don't agree with the conclusion, and I'm working from the same dataset.

I'm refraining, you might notice, from necroposting anything that would damage any current present member. I have no vested interest in chaos and violence here, or in attacking anyone, it serves no purpose other than to hurt others. It would be incredibly easy to make my point by doing so, but it would be unfair to people here, and unkind.

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

Nothing personal. It was a reference to your word, given twice, here.

Oh, I know it's not personal between you and I. As for my word, I'm skeptical. I tend to not give my word easily; I *do* remember saying I'd *try* to refrain a bit. What can I say? There are a few posters who bring out the absolute worst in me.

I'll note for the record that I've been called some vile things by this very same "person", and I have absolutely no interest in forgetting nor forgiving. There are some people I will not just shake hands with and call it all good, most especially when they've never been even close to willing to do anything of the sort.

Quote:

Re: Necroposting a) you don't have to, I've read those posts, and b) I'm avoiding doing that because there are a couple of users here who I commend for not partaking in this bloodfeud at the moment, who if one were to necropost would come off as more vile than any of us, and that's not fair to them. Everyone has lapses of reason, and if they've moved on, then that's a credit to them, there's no reason to destroy them. I'm talking about your own friends and allies here.

Oh, I know exactly who you're talking about. Thing is, I think you have the wrong impression not only of the person, but of the posts involved. As I said, it was a "post-in-kind" response; I recognized it as such because I tend to do the same, only to probably a more extreme degree, as you saw above. I responded to RL in the same fashion - actually, I was quite a bit more civil - as she/it has consistently responded to me. I'll not make the mistake ever again of trying to be civil with this "person". I just won't. At some point, you don't just shake Dahmer's hand and call it all a misunderstanding, while he picks his teeth with your child's finger and wipes his chin with your mom's knickers.

Quote:

I have a partisan political position? I thought I loudly denounced the GOP some time ago, and am *more* supportive of Obama than you are. Yes, I have issues with his policies on fiscal policy and the war, and am a little worried about his continuation of infringement on the bill of rights from the last administration.

This isn't exactly a partisan point of view.

Partisan is no doubt the wrong word. And for someone who chooses words with care, that bugs me that I can't seem to put my mind to a better word for it. What you seem to have is a bit of temporary blindness for abuses from the conservative direction which are aimed at those of us of a more liberal (read "socialist") bent. As an analogy, you might sit quietly by while ten posts bashing "hippies" go sailing past, but when one of those self-proclaimed hippies retorts in the same kind of blunt language, you have a tendency to call them on it. Maybe I see it more often now, because I saw it before and now can't "un-see" it.

So it's not quite "partisan" per se, but it's a bias, and one I think you're completely unaware of, or even sure that you DON'T have. But I see it. And I no doubt have my own biases, most likely headed the other direction.

Quote:

In fact, I think it's point for point in accordance with you're own point of view.

You're not. I actually AM quite a partisan. Unfortunately for me and my party, I'm also a realist and a pragmatist, which means at some point I've got to either choose between pointing out what's wrong with the party, or trying to cheerlead that there's nothing wrong at all.

Quote:

That said, a record of campaign promises broken is fair: The dems had a lock solid congress, and some republican allies, they could have passed anything they wanted, including their whole 100 days package. It's probably fair to assume that anything they didn't do that was on the campaign platform they didn't do because the party (collectively, obamas and clintons and any other power group within the DNC) didn't want to do it.

A record of broken promises IS fair. You'll note that I took no offense nor made any comment about that part of th

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:04 AM

Mike

Quote:
Oh, I know it's not personal between you and I. As for my word, I'm skeptical. I tend to not give my word easily; I *do* remember saying I'd *try* to refrain a bit. What can I say? There are a few posters who bring out the absolute worst in me.

Yeah, I get that. I was disappointed.

Quote:
I'll note for the record...

Yes, we're all familiar with the record, in excruciating detail. A lot of blood was spilt. You did say later that you would let bygones be bygones and that led me to take positions I would not otherwise have taken. I put me in a spot. But more than that, obviously I prefer a forum where people have some pretty solid armor. I've been called vile things by almost everyone on this forus, yet I continue to do my best to be civil.

If I am rough on someone, it's not their persona, but their iterative posts. I said that I got sick of Wulf posting the same damn thing 200 times. I did the same to whozit and a number of others. It's not the content of the post itself, it's just a waste of time. I don't hold anything against Wulf, and I blame everyone equally for being baited into a race war or 2a battle on his posts, I'd just like to see something new.

Quote:
forgetting nor forgiving.

Forgetting is ill advised, forgiving is a power that makes us able to move on. If all humanity were to bear grudges against all the slights against them, well, the list of people I'd have to kill would be pretty damn long.

Remember, I'm a taoist, you gotta expect this "let the water flow to the sea" kind of attitude from me. I have been attacked with no less fury, remember.

Re: Necroposting a) you don't have to, I've read those posts, and b) I'm avoiding doing that because there are a couple of users here who I commend for not partaking in this bloodfeud at the moment, who if one were to necropost would come off as more vile than any of us, and that's not fair to them. Everyone has lapses of reason, and if they've moved on, then that's a credit to them, there's no reason to destroy them. I'm talking about your own friends and allies here.

Quote:
Oh, I know exactly who you're talking about. Thing is, I think you have the wrong impression not only of the person, but of the posts involved.

Oh, it's not one flame war, it's a long history of it. And there's one person in mind and I'm very sure you know who, but there are a couple others close behind. The fact that they have moved on is a credit to them, and I have no interest in harming them, it would be uncalled for.

"post-in-kind" is what we call a flame war. I will not engage in them just because my opponent does. I've been their, and moved on.

Quote:
...only to probably a more extreme degree, as you saw above. I responded...

Oh, 'twere only the world that simple. alas.
The picture is far more complicated than it seems.

Quote:
At some point, you don't just shake Dahmer's hand and call it all a misunderstanding, while he picks his teeth with your child's finger and wipes his chin with your mom's knickers.

I just wanted to savor this image as the most inappropriate thing posted

Sorry, I thought if anything be savored for posterity... No offense... The danger of internet forums...

Quote:
Partisan is no doubt the wrong word. And for someone who chooses words with care, that bugs me that I can't seem to put my mind to a better word for it. What you seem to have is a bit of temporary blindness for abuses from the conservative direction which are aimed at those of us of a more liberal (read "socialist") bent.

Ah, this is how *you* see it, from a liberal perspective. What you are missing is the absolute tonnage of vicera that comes from the left here and is targeted at a large swath of the right that far surpasses even Auraptor at times. I suspect you miss it for two reasons:

1. You're not really reading liberal attacks on conservative posters, positions and populations
2. You fail to see what is offensive about them.

To weight the total, I'd say, sure, there

RIVERDANCER

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:40 AM

Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

Maybe it's been healthy for the boyz to vent?

@Anthony

Thank you for making my cloudy skies even darker

Your post brought to light how a completely suck situation can be even worse - it bears repeating, in part:

"Mandatory insurance coverage has all the disadvantages of tax funded public insurance and none of the benefits.

... you're getting it from someone whose interest is profit motive, absent from the moderating force of supply/demand issues. In a free market, there is no demand for crap insurance. But in a mandatory environment, a market for useless insurance springs into being.

It is for this reason that the combination of Mandatory Insurance, and the absence of a Public Option, is the worst of all possible worlds.

Mandatory Insurance is just another exciting way to fuck the poor. The wealthier individuals will still be able to get higher quality insurance coverage. The only people impacted will be the people you most desperately want to help, and it will be a negative impact.

IF insurance ever becomes mandatory in this country, there MUST be a public option. Otherwise you're throwing the sheep to the wolves."

A.

"Let's see... we have these people that are poor and have no insurance... how do we take advantage of them?"

Fuuuuu...a bad thing and now even worse, and yet better for Big Insurance. It just kills me - how many people are there at the end of this gravy train making the rest of us flop around??

It's not a very "sexy" topic - and the insurance companies are counting on that - but if there was one political event to get JUSTIFIABLY PISSED about it's this one. Wulf? Ding ding ding... any bells ringing for you? Anyone else?

Just to make it easier for everyone that has a notion, Senators, alphabetical by state, links to simple contact forms. Doesn't have to be fancy, just say what you want. Yes, it does mean something:

Begich, Mark - (D - AK)
http://begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailSenator

Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)
http://murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactMe.EMai
lLisa

Sessions, Jeff - (R - AL)
http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServ
ices.ContactMe

Shelby, Richard C. - (R - AL)
http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorShe
lby.EmailSenatorShelby

Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR)
http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Pryor, Mark L. - (D - AR)
http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/

Kyl, Jon - (R - AZ)
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

McCain, John - (R - AZ)
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFo
rm

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.Emai
lMe

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO)
http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Udall, Mark - (D - CO)
http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Dodd, Christopher J. - (D - CT)
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130

Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT)
http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/

Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)
http://carper.senate.gov/contact/

Kaufman, Edward E. - (D - DE)
http://kaufman.senate.gov/services/contact/

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)
http://chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Isakson, Johnny - (R - GA)
http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Akaka, Daniel K. - (D - HI)
http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Inouye, Daniel K. - (D - HI)
http://inouye.senate.gov/Contact/Email-Form.cfm

Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA)
http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Harkin, Tom - (D - IA)
http://harkin.senate.gov/c/index.cfm

Crapo, Mike - (R - ID)
http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Risch, James E. -

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

The healthcare situation, or the flamewar situation? Or both?

Probably both.

Yeah. I bet it's both.

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 12:15 PM

Thanks for the awesome list, Piz. It's going to come in handy.

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thanks for the awesome list, Piz. It's going to come in handy.

Np, I had the time... I feel like I've seen every one of our senators now as they tend to put a smiling picture of themselves on their contact page, 'cept for the guy who had a picture of himself on the phone... "hello? what? is anyone there? Speak up! I can't hear your email!"

2 senators decide they wanted you to send them email directly as opposed to through a secure form (allowing spammers to riddle them with spam of course - these guys are in the dark ages, whatever):

Franken, Al - (D - MN) Class II
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
E-mail: info@franken.senate.gov

LeMieux, George S. - (R - FL) Class III
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041
E-mail: info@lemieux.senate.gov

Of course they want to *harvest* your personal info - the price of citizenry - but ya know, it's up to you what you send them. Personally, at the very least, if you have the time and the knowledge I would create a separate email address:

senators@yourdomainname.com or something@freemail-account - that way you can watch the use of it and ditch it if you need to.

Take 5 seconds - click, paste and send.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NIKI2

Friday, October 2, 2009 4:48 PM

Too much to respond to, so I'll just state my case.

I refuse to believe this is what Obama wanted all along. I think he made the same mistake--in the opposite direction--as Clintons did. Clinton (Hillary) WROTE the bill last time, without letting Congress have their say, and it died. This time Obama let Congress have ALL the say, and it's worse than dying, it's killing us.

I read where someone said something about not having a President, and what's happening is confirming my fears--sadly--that he's too naive and will bend too far, not that he purposefully intended for there to be no public option...and worse.

The money trail is what I see; that our representatives (I use the term advisedly...if that were possible) and bought and paid for. As I heard recently, it ends up with the insurance companies getting tons of new customers--with subsidies from the government to make up what they can't pay (and even that, only to a degree!). They got it by giving up a few things, like previous conditions, etc. So yes, there are a few good things in there, but so far outweighed by JUST the mandatory coverage that I think there will be a helluva backlash if it passes.

Personally, I don't think it will. Call me naive, too, but I can't see them TRULY getting away with this robbery, so only time will tell. Haven't given up on SOME kind of public option, but we'll see.

The "Die Quickly" thing was fantastic, we enjoyed the hell out of it. The screaming from the Republicans is disgusting, but predictable...given all the "death panels" and other bullshit they've been shoving down everyone's throats, the complaints about "Die Quickly" are so absurd as to not be worth thinking about.

I know it was over the top, but it was good to see at least ONE Democrat grow enough of a pair to call it like it is, and refuse to knuckle under. If the Dems had pursued this as aggressively as the Republicans fought it, we might have had a chance.

IF the Republicans hadn't been such a bought-and-paid-for Party of No, we'd have had a chance, too. But it seems our two-party system (as much as it is) has gone down the tubes, at least as far as the Repubs go. There is absolutely nothing Obama or the Dems do that they don't go after, whether right or wrong, that they don't pull all the stops out to defeat, and have no compunction about lying through their teeth to achieve it.

But it IS the Blue Dogs I blame, wholeheartedly, and once again see the Dems "snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory". If only the Conservadems hadn't been so bought, I know it would have worked. Majorities in both parties...except for five...what a laugh!!!

At the moment, I can't believe it will pass this way. I can't believe they will actually get away with the mandatory thing, but we'll have to just wait and see. If it does go through, I think there's gonna be hell to pay, big time. Those poor idiots who went along with the tea party and town hall crap will find out what they TRULY wrought--the government REALLY being in control of our health care, and the insurance companies, Big Pharma and their lobbiests pulling off the single biggest coup in the decades of fighting for healthcare.

Someone said they were tired of our bitching and moaning about Obama's failures: tough shit. I'm going to right on bitching and moaning--it's a public forum and it's my right...but I'm going to go on holding out hope. My gawd, to blame Obama for the original bailouts is such a laugh, given it was technically the Bush Administration that brought it about, Obama being essentially powerless at the time. Yeah, the subsequent bailouts haven't worked--yet--and may not, but I truly believe Obama was/is TRYING to help the country, not the Marxist some like to think of him.

Now it's nine months; I'm still willing to give him time. And for all the list of what he HASN'T done, he HAS accomplished some thing to turn us around from Bush's "dictatorship"...I think he'll do more, but he's up against some serious competition and t

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 2, 2009 5:53 PM

Writing letters to the editors of your local newspapers will have more effect than writing your representatives, in general. But what the hell, do both.

"The you must buy health insurance" plan seems tailor made to force everyone into the economic system, the last chance to opt out being removed. Also, obviously, the first time that corporate financial industry will be able to universally tax the entire citizenry directly.

No wonder the state keeps putting my healthcare up for review: they want everyone off of the state rolls so they can hand us over to the feds. Erk.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:39 PM

Meh, I went one better, stopped at the office of my rep on the way back from the funeral, pushed him for five minutes, got it, and gave him Anthony's evaluation in capsule lecture and my opinion on it.

He seems on-board with the concept and is very much against the idea of handing his people over to the insurance companies since both he and I also had doctors appointments today and were both a bit bitter about the quality of care involved.

He also had a few things he'd like to discuss later, as he's maybe a wee bit concerned about my folks rabidity towards the folks roadblocking anything resembling a public option - but when we have that chat imma just give him the "barfight rules" speech again, I think.

There's a REASON I told folk to keep puttin the boot in till that party was functionally destroyed, and now you're lookin right down the barrel of it folks - how bout we not make the mistake again, eh ?

We've extended the hand, they bit it, so it's time for the beatdown.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

WULFENSTAR

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:42 PM

Again.... why don't we just have government regulation of health insurance?

SIGNYM

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:01 PM

It depends on the regulations you have in mind. But unless you control the factors that lead to exhorbitant costs and "aministrative fee" rip-offs (monopolization, state-by-state fragmentary regulation, lack of baragining ability on behalf of individual purchasers, lack of transparency through the use of shell corporations) costs will continue to be backbreaking, and go even higher.

You should realize, Wulf, that the health insurances are only doing what EVERY successful coporation wants - AND IS LEGALLY ALLOWED- to do. If you (1) infringe on health insurance "corporate rights" by requiring responsibilities other than the commonly accepted "fiduciary duty" to its stockholders, or (2) limit by law the amount of profit a company may retain then (3) ALL corporations will view it as a threat to their existance, and the entire US Chamber of Commerce will fight tooth-and-nail to defeat you.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:10 PM

One way to drive down private insurance costs is to let it be sold across state lines like auto insurance. The system now creates a few or one insurance co. that all have to use in their state...almost a monopoly. Competition will lower costs, and competitive levels of service will force companies to improve if they want to survive. Also, individuals should be able to "design" a policy to suit their needs. Not everyone needs or wants coverage for everything. Could start with catastrophic coverage, and then choose any add'l options you want. None of this will cost taxpayers one cent. Also, caps on malpractice damages, and Federal "guidelines" for medical services wouldn't hurt either.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:19 PM

To make it easy, these are the Finance Committee Senators who voted against the public option

Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR)
http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)
http://carper.senate.gov/contact/

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
http://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

SIGNYM

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:24 PM

Quote:
Also, caps on malpractice damages

This isn't gonna help. In CA, where we have caps on malpractice AND mandated arbitration, the cost of health insurance is still very very high. It's almost impossible to win a malpractice suit. It takes more than a f*ckup by a doctor. I know, we tried that route for our dd's birth injury.

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
One way to drive down private insurance costs is to let it be sold across state lines like auto insurance. The system now creates a few or one insurance co. that all have to use in their state...almost a monopoly. Competition will lower costs, and competitive levels of service will force companies to improve if they want to survive. Also, individuals should be able to "design" a policy to suit their needs. Not everyone needs or wants coverage for everything. Could start with catastrophic coverage, and then choose any add'l options you want. None of this will cost taxpayers one cent. Also, caps on malpractice damages, and Federal "guidelines" for medical services wouldn't hurt either.

There's something about a "for profit" monopoly that mucks it up. The perfect competiton IS the gov because they won't be tempted - as another for profit insurance company would be - to bait-n-switch, or deny claims, or *oops* lose paper work try submitting again, or any of the other ways to shave every penny and squeeze every service.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:38 PM

McAllen (Texas) has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

***************************************************************

Nope, it's not malpractice.

(Originally published online in Salon, but now available only through secondary sources.)

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
One way to drive down private insurance costs is to let it be sold across state lines like auto insurance. The system now creates a few or one insurance co. that all have to use in their state...almost a monopoly. Competition will lower costs, and competitive levels of service will force companies to improve if they want to survive. Also, individuals should be able to "design" a policy to suit their needs. Not everyone needs or wants coverage for everything. Could start with catastrophic coverage, and then choose any add'l options you want. None of this will cost taxpayers one cent. Also, caps on malpractice damages, and Federal "guidelines" for medical services wouldn't hurt either.

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
There's something about a "for profit" monopoly that mucks it up. The perfect competiton IS the gov because they won't be tempted - as another for profit insurance company would be - to bait-n-switch, or deny claims, or *oops* lose paper work try submitting again, or any of the other ways to shave every penny and squeeze every service.

You've described how things are now...just one or a few companies in each state running amok. Breaking down the state barriers will allow hundreds of companies to compete for business. They will have to improve service, or they will be out of business. Sorry, but I do not believe that a 1000+ page pile of mumbly-gook that only attorneys can understand drafted by Congress is the answer to anything. The Federal Govt. is already too big and it shouldn't get any bigger. If the Govt gets directly involved in this, private insurers will never be able to compete, and these companies will fold, millions in the industry will lose their jobs, and we that are covered now will be left to the mercy of the Fed Govt. I don't trust the Govt.'s ability to do anything right, especially when it comes to the health of my family. I do not mind if they want to raise my taxes a bit so that the genuinely poor can get Fed tax credits to fund some basic health coverage. I think that's fair & reasonable.

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:13 PM

"If the Govt gets directly involved in this, private insurers will never be able to compete ..."

It sounds like an argument against the reasonableness of maintaining private insurance.

"... we that are covered now will be left to the mercy of the Fed Govt."

And those who are not covered ? What about them ? Do you see private insurance doing anything for them ?

"I don't trust the Govt.'s ability to do anything right ..."

Except, apparently, compete with private insurance.

It's already been discussed - the government cannot be both SO incompetent that they can't provide care; and at the same time, so effective they outcompete private business. You need to pick your fear.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If the Govt gets directly involved in this, private insurers will never be able to compete ..."

It sounds like an argument against the reasonableness of maintaining private insurance.

"... we that are covered now will be left to the mercy of the Fed Govt."

And those who are not covered ? What about them ? Do you see private insurance doing anything for them ?

"I don't trust the Govt.'s ability to do anything right ..."

Except, apparently, compete with private insurance.

It's already been discussed - the government cannot be both SO incompetent that they can't provide care; and at the same time, so effective they outcompete private business. You need to pick your fear.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

The Fed Govt. can out-compete anything private because of its' scope, buying power, and non-profit operating model. If you READ my post, instead of just looking for holes to poke, you'd see where I said I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me? I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America. It does not have to be that way. Neither side in Congress wants to compromise, but I'm willing as I said to do my part. Just keep the f'ing Govt out of my life...ok.

Funny how all the anti-Govt folks here are silent all of a sudden. I guess it's only hip & cool to be an anarchist or libertarian when there's a Republican Adminstration in power.

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:57 PM

Can I make a suggestion to those of your who are keen to lobby your representatives? I work for a Member of Parliament (the Canadian equivalent to a Congressperson) and I open mail all day long. If you want your message to have any impact, follow these simple steps:

1. Proofread. Use proper grammar, spelling, etc. I know this shouldn't matter, but it does.

2. Identify yourself as a constituent, and include your address to prove it.

3. Don't rant or, well, sound crazy. I deal with crazies all day long, and I've learned to tune them out (one must in order to get anything done).

4. Be respectful. It's fine to disagree, and to say that your support of them is contingent on how they vote, but don't name call or accuse. Our office has a strict no-profanity policy. The minute someone writes or speaks a profanity they are immediately hung up on/deleted/recycled (depending on the medium!).

5. The Chairs and Members of commmittees do care what you think. And remember, just because you can't vote for them doesn't mean you can't give them money - don't be afraid to play that card. In US politics, money is everything.

6. Be brief. Whoever gets your message reads mail all day long. Make your point and be quick about it. No need to go through the 15 things your disagree with.

7. Support those reps who you agree with - positive words really help, and they get far more negative than positive mail. My boss always says that her constitunets keep her going, because she knows they're behind her even when the fight is long and hard.

I hope y'all find this useful.

ETA: I had to correct my grammar. Oh, the irony!

*
People before profits

SIGNYM

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:03 PM

Quote:
I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me?

To... what? Put the insurance companies on an IV of tax money? I'm not sure I get your proposal.

Quote:
I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America.

Actually you are (too?) because your first sentence was extremely categorical.

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:11 PM

Jong

What you ACTUALLY posted was:

"I do not mind if they want to raise my taxes a bit so that the genuinely poor can get Fed tax credits to fund some basic health coverage."

First of all, poor people are too poor for tax credits to do them any good. Second of all, you want to make these people have to crawl to the same private system (in your mind, with federal money) that dumped them in the first place. Basically, you want (partially) federally funded private insurance. No ?

The reasons why you say you want this ? Because 1) the federal goverment is SO capable it can overwhelm the 'efficiencies' of a private system, and at the same time it so 2) so inept it won't be able to do the job.

You still have a contradiction in your argument.

"What else do you want from me?"

A logical argument.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again.... why don't we just have government regulation of health insurance?

Supposedly, we do. But congresswhores keep selling that "regulation" back to the insurance companies, or rolling it back so that they can make their money off the back end.

Did you know that almost all of the Senate ALREADY voted for a public option when it comes to insurance? It was PROPERTY insurance, and the vote came in reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and the fact that Trent Lott's home in Mississippi was heavily damaged, and his insurance company tried to do the old "it wasn't the wind, it was the water" and "it wasn't the water, it was the wind" switcheroo - so he lobbied to get the laws changed to allow government flood insurance to be bought - with subsidies - even retroactively, so he could get paid.

This "public option" on flood insurance is subsidized by the government, and so far has put over a billion dollars of TAXPAYER money into the coffers of the insurance industry.

So, since these fucknuts are already determined to give MY money to themselves and to the insurance lobby, I don't think it's asking too fucking much that I get some goddamned health coverage out of it.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:31 PM

Quote:

Funny how all the anti-Govt folks here are silent all of a sudden. I guess it's only hip & cool to be an anarchist or libertarian when there's a Republican Adminstration in power.

Nope, that can't be it, because I don't remember any of the right-wingers saying a single thing against the government back then. In fact, I distinctly remember them calling out anyone who dared to do so as being "un-American". Where was all the "government can't do ANYTHING right" and "I don't want the f'ing government in my life" talk when the Patriot Act was passed (talk about a thousand pages of gobbledygook that was never read before being rushed through!) or when we simply HAD TO invade Iraq because of the "imminent threat" they posed to "our freedoms"? Were you one of the ones saying that we needed big government spying on us to keep us safe? Apparently they DO think government can do SOME things right, as long as those things involve bombing other countries and rolling back our constitutional rights...

It's funny how all the pro-government folks from back then are so gung-ho ANTI-government when there's a Democratic administration in power.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me?
To... what? Put the insurance companies on an IV of tax money? I'm not sure I get your proposal.
Quote:
I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America.
Actually you are (too?) because your first sentence was extremely categorical.

It's kind of ironic, because it seems like the people who are most vocal in "not wanting to see a federal nanny state" are almost universally the very same people who said we all had to "rally behind our President" after 9/11, and that to do anything other than support our federal government was tantamount to treason. Odd that they don't seem to feel that way about something that kills more than 15 times as many people every year as were killed on that day, and that kills more than 10 times as many people as we've lost soldiers in Iraq.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:49 PM

Signy : You ignore the plan that many favor to allow insurance co's across state lines. That will lower their costs to us, and create an environment of having to deliver the services that you have paid for.

Rue : You ignore the reality that ...yes in the short term the Fed Govt. can lower costs due to their pooling power, but in the long term you can expect the costs to the Govt to increase ten-fold....as it has in states with universal coverage like Mass & Tenn.. By the time the Fed system collapses, the private sector will be extinct.

Kwikkko : What are you rambling about? I'm talking anarchists & libertarians, never mentioned anything else. All of a sudden they LIKE big Govt? Sure. As far as the Patriot Act, it never hurt or affected me in any way. Sorry if you were made to stress about your nefarious dealings in life over it. You still harbor much hatred towards the past...time to move on dude.

That's all folks. Tired & goin to bed.

PIZMOBEACH

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Can I make a suggestion to those of your who are keen to lobby your representatives? I work for a Member of Parliament (the Canadian equivalent to a Congressperson) and I open mail all day long. If you want your message to have any impact, follow these simple steps:

1. Proofread. Use proper grammar, spelling, etc. I know this shouldn't matter, but it does.

2. Identify yourself as a constituent, and include your address to prove it.

3. Don't rant or, well, sound crazy. I deal with crazies all day long, and I've learned to tune them out (one must in order to get anything done).

4. Be respectful. It's fine to disagree, and to say that your support of them is contingent on how they vote, but don't name call or accuse. Our office has a strict no-profanity policy. The minute someone writes or speaks a profanity they are immediately hung up on/deleted/recycled (depending on the medium!).

5. The Chairs and Members of commmittees do care what you think. And remember, just because you can't vote for them doesn't mean you can't give them money - don't be afraid to play that card. In US politics, money is everything.

6. Be brief. Whoever gets your message reads mail all day long. Make your point and be quick about it. No need to go through the 15 things your disagree with.

7. Support those reps who you agree with - positive words really help, and they get far more negative than positive mail. My boss always says that her constitunets keep her going, because she knows they're behind her even when the fight is long and hard.

I hope y'all find this useful.

ETA: I had to correct my grammar. Oh, the irony!

People before profits

Those are all great - thx for the outline. Unbelievably, it turns out that they're people too (!) and want to be spoken to just like the rest of us do.

Having a good deal of my current job in *customer service*

I have a fair grasp of those items, especially the yelling bit.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

BYTEMITE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

The Fed Govt. can out-compete anything private because of its' scope, buying power, and non-profit operating model. If you READ my post, instead of just looking for holes to poke, you'd see where I said I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me? I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America. It does not have to be that way. Neither side in Congress wants to compromise, but I'm willing as I said to do my part. Just keep the f'ing Govt out of my life...ok.

Funny how all the anti-Govt folks here are silent all of a sudden. I guess it's only hip & cool to be an anarchist or libertarian when there's a Republican Adminstration in power.

I've been doing other things today. Rest assured that I'd like to see the mandatory health insurance bullshit crushed under foot, and I'm pissed that Obama capitulated to those interests. Not that ANYONE in office would have had any choice in the matter, if they wanted to work on health care reform.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:42 AM

Frem,

Well done. We used to have a rep you could do that with. Now we have a corporate tool

Vixen,

My congressman and both senators are hopelessly corrupt. I haven't checked out their voting on this, but Hillary was the one who started the "You must buy health insurance" plan, and it's her, chuck schumer, and blue dog arcuri, who is pretty corrupt.

Any suggestions?

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:03 AM

Quote:

Kwikkko : What are you rambling about? I'm talking anarchists & libertarians, never mentioned anything else.

Sorry, must've misunderstood you. So I take it you're neither an anarchist nor a libertarian. I know several of the ones around here have been QUITE pissed about all this stuff - but of course they were also the ones who were pissed about the same kind of big government crap before, too.

Quote:

All of a sudden they LIKE big Govt? Sure.

Nope, from what I've seen, they don't.

Quote:

As far as the Patriot Act, it never hurt or affected me in any way.

Well, until the FBI sees some of those pictures on your hard drive...

So you DO like big government, then, right?

Quote:

Sorry if you were made to stress about your nefarious dealings in life over it.

Cute. I have no "nefarious dealings". And if I did, I'd make damned sure not to mention them anywhere in the open.

Quote:

You still harbor much hatred towards the past...time to move on dude.

Says the person who spells my screenname with three consecutive "k"s. I'm guessing you're one of the twits at the town hall meetings who carries the Obama-with-the-Hitler-mustache sign to show everyone how much you've "moved on" and gotten away from your old hatreds.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

RUE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:07 AM

Jong

"Rue : You ignore the reality that ... in the long term you can expect the costs to the Govt to increase ten-fold....as it has in states with universal coverage like Mass & Tenn.."

Massachusetts has the worst of both worlds, oddly enough JUST LIKE the plan that seems to be coming down the road - mandatory coverage, and no government insurance. Yes, it's mandatory PRIVATE insurance. And yes, it sucks.

As for Tennessee "CoverTN relies on voluntary partnerships between the state, individuals and employers where each commit to pay one-third of the monthly premium of the low-cost product." That 'low-cost' product ? PRIVATE insurance !

Neither of these is either government run insurance, or government-run health care.

If I were to take a lesson from this, it would be that when you try to involve PRIVATE health insurance companies, you guarantee disaster.

TWO out of TWO PLANS AGREE !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:20 AM

Quote:
Signy : You ignore the plan that many favor to allow insurance co's across state lines. That will lower their costs to us, and create an environment of having to deliver the services that you have paid for.

Is that it? The "big plan"? JS, it would take a HELLUVA a lot more than that to fix the health insurances! YOu would have to (1) require them not the exclude people for pre-exisintg conditions (2) require them to offer a series of UNIFORM coverages so that people can compare apples-to-apples (3) create "cooperatives" for individuals to acquire some of the same purchasing/ negotiating power as a larger group. AND STILL, you would have the same issues as people not being able to afford coverage. Within 10-15 years, the national market would be dominated by just a few big players, just like telecom industry re-consolidated after deregulation- all without reducing costs to the consumer.

Quote:
Rue : You ignore the reality that ...yes in the short term the Fed Govt. can lower costs due to their pooling power, but in the long term you can expect the costs to the Govt to increase ten-fold....as it has in states with universal coverage like Mass & Tenn.. By the time the Fed system collapses, the private sector will be extinct.

JS, you ignore the reality that even countries WITH SINGLE PAYER systems STILL have private insurers.

More to the point: Your fear of a "nanny state" only seems to apply to the gubmint taking care of actual- yanno- people. You don't seem to ANY problem at all with the gubmint taking care of health insurances! Once again, this seems to be a case of capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich.

Quote:
You still harbor much hatred towards the past...time to move on dude.

THIS in a post dripping with vitriol and ad-hominem? Uh... excuse me while I have a good guffaw!

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:38 AM

Meanwhile, here in the land of private insurance, we spend roughly 16% of our GDP on healthcare, to insure that not everybody's insured, to insure that many of the insured can't afford to go to the doctor or to get sick, to insure that our outcomes for those who DO get sick rank among the bottom of industrialized nations, others of which spend on average less than 10% of their GPD on healthcare, and usually with far better outcomes.

We DON'T live longer than those other nations. We DON'T have better healthcare outcomes. We AREN'T healthier, or even happier, if that can be measured. Believe it or not, people actually ARE leaving this country in droves to get medical treatment abroad. There's even a term that's been coined for it: Medical Tourism.

Insurance companies in this country have seen their profits rise by 428% since 2000, while real median income has actually dropped 4.1% in that time, and while FEWER people are being insured, and those who are, are seeing their premiums go up an average of 17%-21% PER YEAR.

If you think malpractice caps are the answer, you've obviously been asking the wrong questions. If malpractice suits were that out of control, the insurance industry wouldn't be taking these enormous profits. They are taking huge profits - even while the rest of the economy crashes to the ground - so there's your answer. You've been sold a bill of goods. Again.

You know why malpractice caps are ridiculous? One case: The guy who was supposed to have a leg amputated below the knee, but the doc was in a hurry and didn't read the chart, the nurse read it wrong, and the team didn't bother to look at the other leg - so they took the wrong one. Then had to take the other. So a guy steeling himself to try to adapt to life with one leg now gets to try to figure out how to live with none. But hey - here's a hundred grand for all your future needs, right?

The argument for malpractice caps and tort reform seem to be predicated on the idea that a jury isn't capable of figuring out what's a fair dollar value for pain and suffering, and what's a fair dollar value for negligence versus and honest mistake. And the second you cap those amounts, you'll hear the accountants at every major corporation cranking up their adding machines to see what the break-even point is on fixing the next Ford Pinto versus the out-of-pocket expenses of paying the (now much lower) damages to the families of the dead. The people who champion malpractice caps and tort reforms think that nothing bad will ever happen to them - and they better damned well be right. They also lack anything even approaching human empathy.

So yeah, I think maybe the government CAN compete with those appallingly bad numbers and even worse business practices.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

RIVERDANCER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

The healthcare situation, or the flamewar situation? Or both?

Probably both.

Yeah. I bet it's both.

Yeah, it's kind of both. Mostly the so-called "plan" that is nothing like what was pitched, planned, or expected. Partly the flaming. I kinda stopped reading the discussion part-way through; I can only stand so much shouting.

Mostly, though, I hate the insurance companies, now more than ever. And the government? Yeah, disappointment and distrust on the rise once again.

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:

Mostly, though, I hate the insurance companies, now more than ever. And the government? Yeah, disappointment and distrust on the rise once again.

Right there with ya.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE