Republicans & Conservatives Archives

” my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ “

All Dmcrts should probably consider contributing to Palin’s election fund if she runs, since she could actually get BHO re-elected.

Robert,

“The answer lies, first, in her ability to attract attention from both sides. When Palin speaks, people listen.”

The fact that what came out of her mouth was a lie had nothing to do with it, and the fact that it was a lie wasn’t challenged immediately made it even worse.

The woman is nuts. The fact that people don’t instantly address any lie she puts on the table is pure insanity.

If this bumpkin is the face of what tickles the right’s fancy, this country is in deep doo doo.

Rocky

“Oh, and given what happened the past two weeks, liberals might want to try a different strategy because ad hominem attacks like calling her “stupid” clearly haven’t worked.”

Is it truly ad hominem if it’s actualy true?

Rocky

ohrealy, the way Obama is going (47% approval rating), I would say re-election is, at best, a tossup at this point.

Rocky, her comments weren’t challenged? Are you kidding? Google “Palin death panels,” and you’ll find hundreds of thousands of hits from numerous columnists, anchors, and commentators who took her comments head on and immediately (that same day and the day after). Moreover, Obama himself challenged her comments at the next platform he had available (a town hall).

Oh, she’s “nuts.” That’s pretty much all you hear from liberals. No one ever engages Palin on her ideas. That’s probably why she won this health care battle. Very few people analyzed what she said and tried to figure out whether she had a point. The more prominent commentators (like Olbermann, etc.) resorted to mud-slinging.

By the way, Rocky, an “ad hominem” argument is defined as one that attacks the messenger rather than the message. Thus, whether or not an argument is true has nothing to do with whether it’s an ad hominem argument.

Sorry, but the ‘death panels’ issues was raised long before Palin got her head into the game. The politicians were talking about the ‘death panels’ a full week before her facebook entry. Her attempt to coopt the issue is an example of how she lost…

So the score is Obama 0, Palin 0.

Yes, Robert, and E.T. is the real power behind all the world’s governments, too, through mind control! Get real. To ignore the enormous dynamics and power players wrangling over health care in order to foist up spin which asserts the real power behind the government’s twists and turns over health care is Sarah Palin, is beyond the pale-in.

No one ever engages Palin on her ideas.

When her “idea” is that consultations to advise patients on their choices and how they can make directives regarding end-of-life care through living wills and similar measures equals government death panels who will decide who gets care and who does not, there is very little to engage upon. Her assertion was simply, flatly false. You link to section 1233, but have you read it yourself? If you have, then you surely realize there is no way that a rational person could read it and honestly believe that it bears any relation to the “death panels” that Palin described. Beyond saying that her claim is wrong, and so incredibly wrong that it HAS to be either stupidity or a blatant lie, what more can one engage her on?

Palin vs Obama in 2012? It depends on the economy for the most part. If things are about the same as now, which I suspect they will be, especially for the working classes, I would put the odds at 50-50 despite the fact that she is obviously intellectually challenged.

If the country is worse off by then, Palin won’t get the Republican nomination. Jeb will.

Robert,

“No one ever engages Palin on her ideas.”

And the fact that Palin’s “ideas” are out and out lies never enters into the debate?

The one skill that she bragged about during the campaign was that she could field dress a moose, and frankly this isn’t a skill that would lend itself to public office (except maybe in Alaska).

I haven’t seen anything that I would consider wondrous about this woman. That she has been elevated to national prominence scares the hell out of me.
That she was chosen as a VP candidate is one of the major reason I didn’t vote for McCain.

Rocky

She and y’all should just be so proud!!!

ROFL

Woohoo! Score one for the GOP!

If we just lie enough with emotionally-charged language, then we can torpedo rational discussion trying to figure out the best for the country’s future!

Yee-haw!!!

Wow. Now that’s the recipe for effective governance.

“the way Obama is going (47% approval rating), I would say re-election is, at best, a tossup at this point.”

RMF, without an economic turn-around, BHO will need a split in the right wing, or a candidate like Palin. I would highly recommend her to the Rpblcns, just for the comic possibilities.

“If the country is worse off by then, Palin won’t get the Republican nomination. Jeb will. “Posted by: jlw

Jeb is trying to shop himself around, but even 41’s connections can’t erase enough of the naughty bits to get him the Rpblcn nomination. I’d rather make a fake birth certificate for Gavin Rossdale and vote for him.

So we should applaud her ability to key in on and take advantage of people’s fears? She did nothing but continue the path of all the other anti-reformists; pander to misinformation and appeal to the lowest common denominator by making people terrified of something they have absolutely nothing to fear. If the GOP kept the conversation about cost, maybe then they would have a legitimate gripe, but by making people afraid of their own shadows all they’ve done is become even more monstrous than anyone else can claim they are.

Palin isn’t an idiot, like Bush wasn’t an idiot. She certainly isn’t intelligent, but she’s smart enough to listen to their handlers in order to perpetuate lies and misinformation for her, and her party’s gain at the cost of the well being of millions of Americans.

Bravo!

Robert,

“By the way, Rocky, an “ad hominem” argument is defined as one that attacks the messenger rather than the message.”

I understand what ad hominem means. It was a rhetorical question.

Rocky

This is not something you should be proud of, Robert.

First, you were never, never, in the right factually. There was never a such thing as a Death Panel.

Second, you were never in the right morally, either in how you went about convincing people of this, or in what you opposed. What is the morality in not allowing people to be reimbursed every five years for going to a professional to plan out how their medical affairs are going to be carried out should they no longer be capable of speaking for themselves, for that time or for all time?

Third, and most shamefully, your people voted not once, but twice for this same idea, first when it was introduced as part of Medicare reform in 2003, and then as it was being laid out this year. All the Republicans on one panel voted for it. It wasn’t so politically radioactive, when it wasn’t in the interests of the Republicans to destroy it.

Unfortunately, the person you call the future of your party (God help us all, you especially, if that’s true), decided it was something evil, and had to destroy it.

The Republicans should weep for their gullibility, to the extent that ignorance allowed this, or their callousness, to the extent their cynicism did.

This is not a game. This is real life.

Palin’s kind of politics is a cancer on your party. Let it linger long enough, and it will be inoperable.

How about some comic relief while we’re on the subject of healthcare:
My Representative, Ted Poe, has decided to hold a healthcare town hall at a funeral home.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

I agree that Obama’s not scoring well right now, so I halfway agree with you. The other half, not so much. I’d put it at PALIN -38, OBAMA 0.

RF et al
Made my day. Clearly Palin should be the Republican standard bearer in 2012. With her deep intellectual grasp of history and profound grasp of issues and reality,her candidacy can only help BHO tackle the pressing problems facing the country without having to worry about any real challenge in the next election. What a great service she is doing for the nation. Lets just hope her doctors never do get her medication right.

These comments are amazing. Not a bit of substance to any of them. I think the only one I will respond to is Stephen’s because he makes a half-decent argument.

First, never such a thing as a death panel? Stephen, read the bill. Section 1233’s logical conclusion is a vehicle whereby costs for the elderly are cut somewhere along the line. The logical endpoint is a “death panel” of sorts. Sorry, though, “death panel” is a strong term.

Second, the morality issue is in incentivizing physicians to initiate these conversations with the elderly. That is a profit-inducing process, something I know most liberals would abhor. A conversation about end-of-life treatment or decisions belongs to the individual, and he or she should be free to initiate it whenever he or she chooses, not at the insistence of a government-paid doctor.

Third, compare the provisions the Republicans voted for and Section 1233. There are some key differences between the two.

Oh, the “Republicans should weep for their gullibility,” and “Palin … is a cancer” to our party? Lest your forget, the majority of the country is made up of conservatives: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

Moreover, Palin just WON the debate on health care, no matter whether you think she was right or wrong. She motivated enough Americans to oppose this socialist trojan horse of a bill, and she hijacked and redefined the debate. If you think she’s going to render the party “inoperable,” think again. She is way more relevant today than she was 9 months ago. Her results the past two weeks speak for themselves. All the liberals have are sour grapes.

So, who’s the greater fool?

The fool, or the fool that follows her?

Rocky

Robert,

“She motivated enough Americans to oppose this socialist trojan horse of a bill, and she hijacked and redefined the debate.”

But she “motivated” these folks by lying to them.
This whole opposition depends burying the truth in misinformation.

“The logical endpoint is a “death panel” of sorts. Sorry, though, “death panel” is a strong term.”

The term “death panel” is a lie.
How about an information panel?

If you people want to oppose this issue how about coming clean and and actually telling the truth without all the histrionics?

Give people information they actually can use without lying and scaring the pants off of them.

Rocky

“my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’”

Is she writing material for Tina Fey?

and then

“These comments are amazing. Not a bit of substance to any of them.”

Please reread your own writing and tell us what you wrote that was substantive.

A slight adjustment is required for Robert’s score keeping. Obama got 63.25 million votes, highest in the history of any presidential election. Palin only got one? Must have been her own vote. :-)

And Obama’s 63.25 million votes will last at least 4 years. Palin’s one vote lasted remarkably well, considering its been 9 months since the election. Palin is a one trick pony, all negative. Well, I take that back, she 2 trick pony. She is a very decisive quitter, as well.

Assuming that everything in this blog is true, and assuming that Palin is as astute as Robert thinks she is…would you want someone like that in a position of leadership? The Palin similarities with Reagan were touching…hmmm…

Marysdude, but the similarities with GW Bush are far more parallel.

First, never such a thing as a death panel? Stephen, read the bill. Section 1233’s logical conclusion is a vehicle whereby costs for the elderly are cut somewhere along the line. The logical endpoint is a “death panel” of sorts. Sorry, though, “death panel” is a strong term.

No. The logical conclusion of section 1233 is exactly what it calls for: meetings in which the elderly are informed about their options and how they can make their own directives for end-of-life care via living wills and similar mechanisms. No part of section 1233 suggests cutting costs for the elderly, the chronically ill, or anyone else. In fact, cutting costs or otherwise controlling them is distinctly not mentioned anywhere in the section. Nor does the section grant the state the power to make any decisions for the patient. In its entirety it deals with providing the patient information so that the patient may make an informed choice and communicate that choice to medical providers in a clear and legally binding way, up to and including designating their own health care proxies should they become unable to communicate for any reason. Either you have not read section 1233, have not understood what you did read, or you are simply lying about its content for political advantage.

It ain’t over until the stupid bitch from Alaska sings.

Perhaps this post was a bit premature.

However, this editorial expresses my personal view of the Healthcare debate. I hope we’re both wrong.

I am baffled at how anyone can defend this “death panel” garbage with a straight face. It is a lie as plainly as any lie that has ever been told. Anyone who utters the words “death panel” and this health care debate is a liar and if in a position of political power, which thankfully for all of us Sarah Palin is not nor will she ever be again, is a demagogue (Chuck Grassley for one). I wonder how big of a check Palin got from the insurance industry to say that crap? Probably a lot now that she bailed out on her elected duty to her state.

Why, Mr. Fojo, did Sarah Palin hold a medical directive day in Alaska promoting the same kind of thing that is being proposed now? Maybe because it makes sense? I know it’s a stretch for Palin to make sense on any issue.

Living wills or advanced directives are a good idea for all Americans. I don’t see how having a discussion with your doctor about this is in anyway, shape, or form a “death panel.” If you want heroic efforts to prolong your life for a week or a month or whatever it is you right. That is not challenged in the least in this bill. If you want to have a quality of life discussion with your doctor that should be your right too and your insurance should pay for it.

Robert M. Fojo-
There is no provision for setting up or funding actual death panels with the kind of power that would justify the name. There’s simply no authority for it to even exist!

Death Panel isn’t a strong term, it’s a loaded term, whose precise intent is to be taken literally and scare people. If you weren’t making an appeal to fear, you would call it something far more benign, and you wouldn’t be carting around disabled kids and old grannies saying “look who you are trying to kill!”

The law also does not require the patient to follow through on the doctor’s recommendation, nor to set up their living wills or anything else at all! I mean, I could understand the frustration if this was mandatory (as under Republican Johnny Isakson’s original version of the bill!), but you’re getting offended here at the doctor suggesting this to a patient.

There are no mandated choices in that counselling session. Everything is up to you!

But apparently, funding people making those decisions in a medicare re-imbursed fashion is evil and must be opposed at all costs. At least if its going into a Democratic Party bill, as oppose to the Republican Congress’s of 2003, or an earlier committee draft when this controversy wasn’t being manufactured.

Of course, Republicans started out with a measure that would require the counselling, and limit it only to those who were terminally ill. How nice of them.

Palin’s Death Panel comment is the height of irresponsibility, either for the ignorance or the cynicism it might demonstrate. It shows that there is little Republicans will not say in these times to suit their purposes, and it is a sad things. She was never part of any debate, never won the debate. She undermined the debate, by misinforming and misleading millions, either by being too stupid to look up the facts, too reckless to care, or too cynical to admit that she wasn’t telling the truth.

And she’s not alone.

You’ve set yourself up to be portrayed as a party with its own interests at hearts, not America, and we can debunk practically everything you say, and with the strength of fact behind our claims.

This debate is not over, and you have not won it. You are celebrating your victory at halftime, and in case you haven’t noticed, that hasn’t worked out too well for your party lately. You were convinced last year that things would turn out for you. Instead, people turned out against you, and a majority of states, electoral college votes and the poplular vote came out against you.

And in case you haven’t noticed, any short term victories you might have are clouded by the fact that you don’t have any plans for how to handle the outrage at the healthcare system after everything is said and done. Five years down the road, we will be having a medicare crisis, and Democrats will be able to point to your people and say: we had healthcare reform, a plan to bring down prices. They didn’t want it. And like so many reforms they have opposed, this opposition has come back to bite America in the ass.

You have no alternatives. Who the hell cares if you win one debate on paper now, and years later, as with Wall Street, as with the deficit, as with the Iraq war, a temporary victory in a political debate becomes a defeat for American interests in general?

Don’t you think a pattern will begin to emerge? Buy into the Republican’s craziness, and you will get burned by the stupidity of their policies.

That simple.

So, put all this effort into winning a political fight, and we will see you crash and burn in all the ways that matter. You already have, your party’s leadership is just too self-involved to notice it’s dragging on rockbottom.

Even if there were provisions to save money on health care for the elderly - what’s wrong with that? Whatever happened to taking care of yourself. It’s sad that the Republican party is now the part of the ‘nanny state’.

Call it what it is Robert, You, Newt, and Sarah P are head cheerleaders for the nanny state.

Kill America and call it a VICTORY…wow! What gall…without healthcare reform, America is soon a third world country. And, Republicans call themselves patriots…sheeesh!

The Republican talking heads with their vicious delivery of lies has come within a fraction of an inch from causing armed rebellion in this country.

One pundit said that Glen Beck could have as many as 5 million armed fanatics answer the called for armed rebellion if he chose to do so.

Most of these lies were written by the healthcare insurance corps and delivered to the Republican talking heads to be disiminated over the airways and the internet.

People showing up at a Presidential speech armed with assult weapons? Brown shirts?

Is the message being sent by the corporations, Republicans and their willfully ignorant fanatics surrender to the corpocracy or die?

A member of the British Conservative Party came to America and denounced the British healthcare system. This caused such a row in England that the head of the British Conservative Party had to go before parliment and denounce the words of the member. The Conservative leader then went on to say the the British healthcare system was the best legislation ever passed on behalf of the people and that the conservatives would never try to do anything to harm it and in fact they wanted to put more money into it to make it better.

I believe that story could have been used by the liberals to counter the lies and misinformation being disiminated by the Republicans and their corporate masters. But then, the Democrats had taken national healthcare off the table before the debate even began.

I read today that around 60,000 members of AARP have canceled their membership in protest of AARP’s endorsement of the health care changes being proposed in congress. I don’t know what percentage of their membership this represents but it is a significant number.

I am a seasoned citizen of 68 and canceled my membership in AARP over 10 years ago when I discovered that their board did not represent my views.

I do like my Medicare coverage and cost but realize that my coverage is being subsidized by younger working Americans. Does anyone know how much my Medicare premium would be if it reflected the true cost of my care? In other words, if Medicare were to be revenue neutral, no profit and no loss, what would my premium be? Just guessing, I expect it would rise by 20 to 30 percent.

If I am correct, and we correlate Medicare with National Health Care, would would the true premium cost be?

Since I am a tobacco user I wonder how long I would qualify for care under a government mandated universal policy. When government decides that I am disqualified because I smoke will I just be left to die? Many folks have personal habits that might disqualify them for coverage at some time in the future. Risky habits such as smoking, gluttony, alcoholism, risky sex, use of illegal drugs, poor driving habits, etc. could all be used to deny coverage. Not true? Please help me overcome my fears that this could happen in the future should government ever be granted control over our health care. As you might suspect, I do not trust my federal government very much.

Royal Flush,
I’m not the expert but the main purpose of the reform is to cover everyone and in fact keep people from being dropped - not the opposite as you suggest. Also, you do realize that government already runs your health care right?

Royal Flush-

I read today that around 60,000 members of AARP have canceled their membership in protest of AARP’s endorsement of the health care changes being proposed in congress. I don’t know what percentage of their membership this represents but it is a significant number.

There is no provision in any plan that limits healthcare based on personal vices. In fact, if you go through that list of risky habits, you might find reasons why people don’t get or end up losing their healthcare under the private system.

These industries have thrown up a umbrella of flak about how government might deny care, how it might disadvantage the old, the sick, and the dying, but if you look at how they’re operating right now, they’ve got no room to claim superiority on those matters, even if they are right, which they’re not.

That’s the sad part here. We’re seeing people defend a terrible reality out of fear of terrible possibility falsely raised by those who are responsible for how bad things are right now.

It is amazing how one can grow up and be so ignorant of the real world. It isn’t difficult to understand what has happened that has caused healthcare to rise faster than any other service in America, and why Americans pay more for healthcare than anyone else.

When a politician comes along and speaks to this issue, the zombie masses aligned with their idols spew the same crap as Taliban or Al Qaeda, calling everything not aligned with their master’s ideals evil. They yell, spew nonsense, and attempt to intimidate. A few of the radicals have killed (anti-abortion radicals) and will kill again as they are stirred up.

The sad and cynical reality is these morons are aligned with the very people who are stealing from them, much as the radical Arabs align themselves with their repressors.

Critical thinking is a skill that most simply never learn. The importance of understanding the world we live in , and the rhetoric of “leaders” cannot be understated. Democracy is not the solution to stupidity, and whatever the form of government, an informed electorate is the only path to freedom.

It is probably true that American’s pay more for health care than any other country. There can be many reasons for that. We value life and willingly spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep our loved ones alive because we have that option. I believe we have the best prescription drugs available to us in the world and we gladly pay for those life saving and life enabling drugs.

I choose to have a colonoscopy earlier this year and I only had to wait about a week to have it done. Medicare and my MedSup paid for most of it along with all the under 65 workers in America. I also had cataracts removed and paid $5000 out of pocket to have multifocal lenses inserted. Medicare paid for the cataract removal and would have paid for monofocal lenses. Thank God I had the choice and money to go with multifocal lenses. I wonder if these options are available in countries that have some form of national health care.

I do read the London Times and they report that some folks either go without these procedures or wait a very long time to have it done. I wouldn’t like that here with my Medicare.

Regardless of what plan is proposed for national health care the only way the cost can be contained is by reducing services and eliminating fraud and unnecessary procedures. Can’t we have legislation now that cures the fraud and unnecessary procedures, allows for the other savings measures being considered and wait to see if there really is a savings before we enact the legislation that changes what is working now for those who are insured?

Robert Fojo-
You got your numbers wrong. It’s actually Obama 56, Palin 33.

Ccontrary to the GOP Pundit’s line, Half of Republicans and sixty-one percent of Americans think she blew it by resigning early.

Royal Flush said: “I read today that around 60,000 members of AARP have canceled their membership in protest of AARP’s endorsement of the health care changes being proposed in congress. I don’t know what percentage of their membership this represents but it is a significant number.”

That’s about the same number that refused to renew membership in AARP as a result of their endorsement of that Republican DoNut Hole Rx Drug plan, destined to add a trillion or so to the national debt for its ban on competitive bidding.

It’s a wash. AARP is having and identity crisis. They don’t know whether they are supposed to be a lobbyist, a senior citizen information center and watchdog, a marketing and advertising firm, or a health insurance plan broker.

I left AARP a couple years ago. And they won’t get me back until they resolve their identity crisis by electing to put nation first, and senior citizens second on their priority list. Their idea of selling our children’s future for wasteful and unsustainable senior citizen programs today, just won’t appeal to me. I am about to be 60 y.o. I live and work now for my daughter’s future, not my own. There are many other senior citizens who feel the same way.

AARP didn’t do their homework before advocating on the Rx Drug bill. Now, they are making the same mistake on their endorsement of A health bill to be put before the Congress that doesn’t even exist yet. AARP is not well managed. Too many cooks with too many recipes for the one pot of soup to be created, I suspect.

ANY special interest group that would destroy our nation’s future and viability in exchange for a short term advantage today for their constituents, is not worth supporting, and worthy of condemnation in my opinion. And yet such short sighted special interests are spreading like viruses in America and throughout the halls of our government.

When will it end? When the nation fails, I suppose, as has happened to all the great civilizations of history who took their greatness for granted and lost sight of their weaknesses and vulnerabilities from within. Great civilizations die from within, as most history scholars, well know. But, its the external force that moves in on the last gasp that takes credit for its demise. Only to recycle the tale of rise and fall.

America had the potential to halt that cycle of history. Then, it adopted the Democratic and Republican Party system. Oh, well. We are all destined to be stardust again, anyway.

But, wouldn’t it have been grand to have been history’s notable exception, and not have succumbed to the blindness and myopia of greatness which, inevitably gives rise to factionalization and internal conflict which eats at a civilization’s foundation like hidden termites and carpenter ants, until a catastrophic collapse becomes inevitable?

The original objective of the United States was to form a more perfect union, not an infinite number of competitive factions, all eating away at the integrity of the structure. That’s the difference between the learned and sage founders who overcame their differences for a common cause, and the current lot of infinitely ignorant and unwise in both government and the electorate, constituting the blind and dumb leading the blind and dumber.

In the late 1960’s and 1970’s, America’s leaders turned their backs on the very generalized and broad liberal education expansion that followed WWII, which was also the hallmark of our Founding Fathers. Our leaders feared such generalized liberal arts education, and the whole Question Authority movement afoot in the 1960’s was breeding revolutionaries like our Founding Fathers were.

Quietly, and without fanfare, our leaders in the 1970’s and 1980’s replaced began replacing broad general liberal arts education with a laser focus on vocational specialization as the primary rationale for education. And today, our Congress is full of the students who became the products of such specialized, factionalized, and disparate vocation oriented educational backgrounds.

We are no longer a nation led by revolutionary visionaries. We are now just a collection of special interests, all intent on taking each other out, like obstacles in our special interest path. And the structure of that more perfect union, crumbles quietly, but continuously beneath our feet.

You’re a gloomy fellow Mr. Remer and not without reason. I am still an optimist in my old age as I have seen reversals that were never expected. I still have faith in our people and it will take more than government folly to bring us all down.

I look around the world and see more freedom and democracy than ever in the world’s history. I see hard working folks every day who still try to be decent and honest. We’ve endured revolution and civil war and great world wars and are still standing. Have faith and work for changes you believe in.

Royal Flush said: “I see hard working folks every day who still try to be decent and honest. We’ve endured revolution and civil war and great world wars and are still standing.”

Spoken like a true Roman, Babylonian, or Brit of those once great empires. They all touted their past successes and victories just before the Fall. It is only logical. If they recognized the Fall coming, they surely would have acted to avert it.

Trying to be decent and honest while voting for the corrupt and dishonest incumbents leading this nation off the cliff, is commendable. But, not very educated or wise.

And not so gloomy as you might think from my words above. As founder of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, I work tirelessly with the hope that my fellow citizens will see the that there is an appropriate response to our Titanic course and heading.

But, I also assist my daughter learning Spanish and Japanese as an insurance policy on her future.

Mandarin and Hindi, David. :)

I stopped trying to write quatrains predicting the future a long time ago. :)

gergle, one does not have to be a Nostradamus to acknowledge facts readily available. Health care costs will bankrupt our government and 10’s of millions of Americans, not already bankrupted by health care costs, if comprehensive health care system reforms are not enacted which drive the future costs down, at least to current levels.

Second fact, the votes do not exist in the Congress to pass any such comprehensive health care reform, and no such comprehensive health care reform is even in draft stage, as far as I know, only half measures with significant deficit additions to the national debt.

These two facts combined, and assuming these facts don’t change, which is a pretty safe bet at the moment, result in an unsustainable economic and financial future for America.

It amazes me how many Americans are operating under the assumption that there is a way to reform this situation which can be accomplished with less resources than we are already spending on the current inflating system. Yet, that is the underlying premise and assumption of EVERY American who opposes health care reform by the government, regardless of whether that government be controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

Republican proposals would be cheaper, but, don’t address the inflation and cost growth problem adequately, and they maintain extraordinary profits for a very small number of Americans at the cost of disposable income for the rest of Americans.

I really think Americans must consider the alternatives before rejecting government shaped reforms of any kind. But, they won’t for the most part. They are responding to the fear of the unknown, and therefore are rejecting change, out of hand, in sufficient numbers as to paralyze the nation in addressing the bankrupting health care inflation coming.

I have seen estimates range from two extremes, 2 years if the recession W’s, (dips again for a protracted period) to 2019, as the window in which Medicare/Medicaid begin running deficits. Since any plan implemented would have transition costs, and would require phase in segments and adjustments if it were successful in driving down long term costs, we have one decade to get this done before paying with enormous national debt growth.

If Democrats don’t pass health care reform, 8 years minimum will pass before Republicans could garner majority control in Congress to effect their plan. And it would take at least 2 years for them to get it implemented after their majority election.

Therefore, if health care reform does not pass this year, this window of opportunity to pass reform while Medicare/Medicaid are still operating in the black, will be lost forever. After that, playing catch-up on deficits and debt will become a living nightmare for government, tax payers, and every person in America who still has to pay premiums to insurance profiteers for their limited and rationed health maintenance.

No, it doesn’t take quatrains to see what’s coming. Only an objective acceptance of current facts and reality carried forward.

gergle, no to Mandarin, since my daughter believes in democratic government and social order under constitutional law. No to Hindi because she doesn’t want to live in the cross-hairs of Pakistani nuclear weapons. That leaves Spanish and Japanese as her preferences. Though I personally believe Japanese is a waste of time, as Japan is too overcrowded as it is, and foreigners as residents are not readily accepted.

I believe it’s a waste of time trying to flee the scene of the crime. A nation with an economy our size, there’s nowhere to hide from our collapse, not even China or Japan. They get rich selling things to us.

I believe we have no other sensible choice but reform.

But the degree and severity of the neglect has made it such that the solution is no longer simple austerity; our system has decayed to the point where what we failed to maintain or develop in our infrastructure is actually coming back to haunt us, whether that’s financial, energy, transportation, healthcare, or the internet.

It’s not enough to spend less on government, or pay more for it. We have to learn what the Republicans, in their tenure as idealists on the subject never truly learned to do: efficiently govern.

I think we can do it. All that stands in our way is a lack of imagination and commitment. The difficult part is actually admitting that the problem is not merely a beancounter’s problem.

Robert,
Although Palin would make a great candidate for the Reoublicans to put up against President Obama in 2012, I don’t believe it would be a fair political fight and may lead to a third party taking center stage. For I could hear the slogan “Dumb and Dumber” to explain the Democratic and Republican positions on the issues.

Yet, given that the republicans still want to believe that we live in the 20th Century by playing ignorant on the issues than Palin could get a leg up on Obama. At least with the conservatives who believe that their political leaders won’t and hasn’t pulled the plug on Grandma.

In fact, if I was advicing the Democrats I would use the speech of the Far Right of the Republican Party over the last 15 years to show the American Public the kind of healthcare system they will have if they listen to people like Palin and Rush.

Henry, if half the electorate has had enough of Obama, and the GOP runs Palin, we might just make history again with America’s first Independent president. Now wouldn’t that be something to behold.

Stephen D. said: “A nation with an economy our size, there’s nowhere to hide from our collapse, not even China or Japan.”

Well, your comment would be wrong Stephen. As a Spanish speaking nurse in Brazil, she would do quite well. Countries with natural resources will fair better than debtor nations with limited or depleting natural resources. It might even get back to bartering depending on what happens to currencies, but, a nurse will be in short supply in every nation on earth for next 75 years, and even more so if the global economy falters badly.

The decline of the global economy will not be a human species exinction event. Though certainly, 100’s of millions will die of privation above and beyond those who already do.

David,

“As a Spanish speaking nurse in Brazil, she would do quite well.”

Except they speak Portuguese in Brazil.

Rocky

Since he hasn’t responded yet to the various comments saying that nothing in section 1233 says anything about death panels or cost savings, I doubt we’ll see an answer to this, but I figure I’ll try anyway…

Robert, if you really believe that section 1233 logically leads to a “death panel” as a “vehicle whereby costs for the elderly are cut somewhere along the line”, please show us the specific words in section 1233 that would establish any such panel.

I’m fairly confident that you will not be able to do so, as the only panel mentioned in the entire section is one which is mandated with ensuring that life-sustaining orders (such as living wills) are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the state, that distributes or makes available such orders to physicians and other health professionals that are authorized to sign them, and that provides training for health care professionals regarding the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment.

Far from being a “death-panel”, this is an attempt to standardize such orders, orders created by the patient regarding their wishes for end-of-life care, and ensure that they are acknowledged in every health care setting, whether those orders are “Do Not Resuscitate” or “Keep Me Alive At All Costs, even if I’m Brain-Dead”.

I don’t come to this panel armed with statistics, but rather, just a little knowledge of economics.

Medical care is a service and a product that has a cost and is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If there is a cost, someone has to pay it. If government pays for more folks health care, and also wants to control costs, it must limit supply.

Some folks admire the health care plans in Europe and Canada and admonish the higher cost of care here in the U.S. And yet, we welcome all the high-tech medical procedures and great new pharmaceutical drugs that are available to us to cure disease and manage disabilities. Will we give up these new advances to control cost? I don’t think so. Who among us would buy a car without A/C, power windows and doors and all the nice equipment available today that wasn’t available some 20 or 30 years ago?

Who among us would buy a home without central air, two or three bathrooms and all the time saving appliances we now enjoy?

As car and home prices have risen to reflect all the new and wonderful advances, so has health care. For me, I like the modern world of medicine and don’t wish to return to the care of the 50’s and 60’s to lower cost.

I read in the London Times, I think, that the U.S. has four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units per capita than Britain or Canada and twice as many CT scanners than Canada and four times as many as Britain per capita. That should tell us something about cost as it relates to value and treatment.

Royal Flush-
High Tech doesn’t mean better. They did an experiment with some sort of concrete injection into the spines of folks who had broken backs. They found if they did the anaesthesia and then pumped in the smell of setting concrete, people’s back pain subsided just as fast as otherwise.

Low tech, non-invasive physical therapy might be better for a patient than high-tech back surgery. Unfortunately, the specialists make their money off the surgeries, and so do the hospitals, in many cases. So people get sent to have their backs operated on.

This is one Reasons Democrats put an emphasis on preventative care and that council to research the efficacy of medical procedures.

Thank you Mr. Daugherty for your posting. What you say about hurting backs may very well be true. However, if I can’t trust my doctor or specialist to do the right thing, why would I trust a politician or government employee to give me a better prognosis and treatment recommendation?

Certainly you are not suggesting we throw away all our modern medical advances or pharmaceuticals to lower cost…are you?

My father died of colon and liver cancer and early detection simply was not available to him. I had a colonoscopy performed a few months ago and much to my relief no polyps were found. For certain, the cost of this procedure was paid mostly by Medicare and my MedSup and by younger working American’s.

At age 68 and with a family history of colon cancer it was good advice from my personal physician to have this procedure done. However, that doesn’t mean that everyone should have this done regardless of age or family history. Who should be advising me, my personal physician or some bureaucrat?

Royal Flush,

“Who should be advising me, my personal physician or some bureaucrat?”

Is this a trick question?

For the greater number of us the “insurance bureaucrat” makes the decision on what treatment is covered by our insurance, not our physician.

From your earlier comment;

“I think, that the U.S. has four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units per capita than Britain or Canada and twice as many CT scanners than Canada and four times as many as Britain per capita.”

These are merely tools to help with diagnosis not the be all-end all of health coverage.

Rocky

Royalflush,

Who’s saying anything about trusting a politician or government employee to give me a better prognosis and treatment recommendation?

An argument like that tells me you don’t want health care reform at any cost, and you’re willing to use any lie that will stop reform. That’s like saying I’m against gun rights because I don’t want the NRA telling me what ammunition I can use.

As for as MRI scanners, If we have 4 times as many machines than Canada or Briton, than why does it cost 7 times as much money to have a scan done here than in those other countries? I can tell you why. We have by far the most profitable system in the world!

Does it cost 7 times as much in the U.S. for an MRI? I don’t know. What I do know is that fewer machines means a longer waiting time to get the screening. Some diseases can be successfully treated if diagnosed and treated quickly. If one can extrapolate 4 machine to 1 machine per capita it would be logical to reason that the waiting time would be 4 times greater. If I am having a scan to determine the presence, size and lethality of a tumor I want it done as quickly as possible.

I find it interesting that neither Mike or Rocky addressed my supply and demand relationship to cost and availability.

When demand exceeds supply what happens? Either supply must increase or cost must increase. Is there a third option?

How will we increase supply to manage another 40 0r 50 million patients while holding cost the same or reducing it as some believe. The only rational answer is to reduce supply and that means limiting health care. Who will make the decision as to who gets care and how much care? Will it be your personal physician or some politically appointed board or bureaucrat?

For me, I don’t want government in my doctor’s office or hospital deciding my care based upon their cost or need analysis.

I think it would be a good idea to try out one or other health care plan in just one or two states. Give it a few years and then see if it works. If it is a flawed plan it won’t affect the entire nation. We can undo an experimental plan in one or two states but there will be no going back once it is installed nationwide. We demand that pharmaceutical companies do extensive testing on new drugs before introducing them to the general public. Should we not be as cautious with our health care in general?

Royal Flush,

I’m sorry supply and demand don’t have a lot to do with it. The whole system is manipulated. The only part of free market that has any thing to do with it is the way they charge what ever the market will bare. That means a 7% to 10% increase every year.

And for rationing of care you said
“For me, I don’t want government in my doctor’s office or hospital deciding my care based upon their cost or need analysis.”

Right now you have a pencil pusher from the insurance conglomerate deciding what is good for their bottom line. (increase premiums and block procedures)
Wendell Potter tells how the insurance industry is taking us for a ride. http://video.pbs.org/video/1201678913/program/1113570149

Somehow this has to change or it will destroy our country.

Royal Flush,

“The only rational answer is to reduce supply and that means limiting health care. Who will make the decision as to who gets care and how much care? Will it be your personal physician or some politically appointed board or bureaucrat?”

What isn’t addressed in your comments is that those decisions are already being made by an insurance bureaucrat, not by doctors, and those decisions are being made on a basis of whether it will be profitable for the insurance company.
Americans already face rationed care, and that rationing is being done for profit, not what’s in the best interest of the patient.

There are plenty of links and examples all over this site on various threads about this issue showing that people are being denied care by “insurance bureaucrats”, and even worse are being dropped by their insurance companies because they are not profitable.

“If I am having a scan to determine the presence, size and lethality of a tumor I want it done as quickly as possible.”

“”How will we increase supply to manage another 40 0r 50 million patients while holding cost the same or reducing it as some believe.”

I don’t mean to be rude here, but shall we tell those 40-50 million folks that don’t have any health care at all they will just have to wait because those on medicaid and medicare want their diagnosis as quickly as possible?

Rocky

Rocky, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I don’t believe there are 40 to 50 million uninsured who can’t afford coverage and are legal citizens.

Using your language, what do we tell those folks who can’t afford their own home? An automobile? A comfortable retirement? A college education for their children? A vacation?

If they can afford these things and yet don’t have them should I pony up the money? If they have food, clothing and shelter but not in the same amount or quality as I do should I pony up the money?

I have worked all my life and am still working every day at age 68. I am not rich but can afford a nice home, car, education for my children, good food, clothing, and a nice vacation. I give about $5,000 per year to various charities and my church.

Are you telling me that I must cut back so the young adult who qualifies for but refuses his employer health insurance should be covered, in part with my dollars? I already pay in my taxes for emergency care for those in this country illegally. I already pay in my taxes, and by smoking as many cigarettes as I can, for children’s health care (CHIPS). I have paid Medicare taxes since the day it was instituted. I pay thru my taxes for those on Medicaid. And now, it would seem that you believe I am not paying enough. Well, we just don’t agree.

Royal,

“I already pay in my taxes for emergency care for those in this country illegally”

Do you understand that an emergency room visit is the most expensive form of health care there is, and while I am not inclined to advocate for it, that it would very likely be cheaper to pay for these folks to see a doctor at the doctor’s office rather than in an emergency room?

Look, we all pay taxes in this country in one form or another, some more, some less, even the illegals.
I am self employed, I haven’t had an actual vacation in 6 years, and at 57 next month I am quite sure I work just as hard as you do. I have a fairly nice car, a house with a “swamp cooler”, and I try to live within my means.
The way things are right now I cannot afford health insurance, and I have to pay cash for myself and my wife to visit to the doctors office.
I am not asking to be subsidized, but it would certainly help me and those like me if health care were just a bit cheaper.

Rocky

Thank you Rocky. Many folks are not aware that when it comes to health insurance there is little competition among insurance companies in the various states thanks to federal rules and regulations. Regardless of which party or politician may be responsible, this must and should change. In some states, one insurer will control as much as 80 percent of the market.

Federal law allows states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. One of the candidates for president last year called for ending this competition stifling legislation.

The President has called for increased competition among health insurers and believes the federal government should provide that competition. That is where the President, you and I disagree. I believe in health insurance change. Let’s change the rules and force insurance companies to compete.

I don’t want another U.S. Postal Service but rather, another FedEX or UPS. With competition forced upon our insurers we can have policies with “no exclusions”, no recisions, and lower premiums for everyone.

My belief is that increased competition among the private sector will produce better results than increased competition with my own government.

I am an insurance broker and write long-term care insurance, life insurance and fixed annuities. I don’t handle medical insurance by choice. Among the eight insurance companies that I am appointed with there is great competition. My clients have the benefit of competition among all the companies I represent and scores of others which I don’t represent. This is healthy competition and it works to the benefit of the insured. There have been few, if any, rate increases over many years for my existing policyholders and I have had only one insured ever cancel a policy. I also own the products I sell and believe in their worth and value. Competition is a good thing for everyone and we need more of it in health insurance.

Rocky, I want you and your wife to have health insurance with premiums you can afford. Before I became eligible for Medicare I had to pay for my own private insurance and it was much more expensive than my premium for Medicare. You and millions of other working American’s are subsidizing my care thru Medicare payroll deductions and I thank you. And yet, you and I both know that Medicare is deep in unfunded liability. Unless changes take place, Medicare will cease to be functional as the money runs out. We will both be losers. I don’t want to see that happen with our entire health care establishment and I have no reason to believe it won’t if we use Medicare as a model for change. It isn’t working with Medicare and it won’t work with any plan I have seen floating around congress.

We really have to get this right Rocky…for all our sakes. If we all try to work at getting it right, I believe we can despite our political differences. Let’s think in terms of what will work now, and for the long haul rather than which party or politician will get the credit.

The reason why Palin is stupid. On Friday, August 7, Palin claimed, on her Facebook page, that “[t]he America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

In this quote she is saying that one should not be judged by what they produce. That sounds like the most left wing statement I have ever heard, and that is the system we mostly have today except for those liberal policies like medicare and medicaid. Am I the only person that noticed this? Of course here in lies the secret that republicans, not conservatives, have. Republicans are die hard secret liberals. Yikes!!!!

Robert M. Fojo, if you took the time to read even what the OP said and quoted. It gives the senior the right to this service. At no point does it say the government forces the senior to do this. It says the doctor must do it if the senior wants it, and the government must cover it. Thats just another problem with some repubs, in their districts they believe so much in failing government that they help themselves in failing in school too. Anyways, I’ll go back to my conservative ways now and keep quiet.

Also is it really that difficult to understand the daily show and the colbert report? Nevermind I won’t go there. I just hate it when people ruin some of my favorite shows and just get it all wrong.

Royal Flush , to awnser your own question with your own awnser. When demand increases what must go up, supply or cost? In this case, niether, why? Because a lack of competition under inflated supply. No different then OPEC. Is there an oil shortage? NO. Why does oil prices go up? Because oil companies like to say that they are running out. Now they may or may not be running out in some places, but they themselves admit that they don’t get all the oil out of the wells. Anyways, the same thing is happening here. See the problem is, many people do not realize that healthcare and health insurance are really completly unrelated. You can have the best healthcare without health insurance it just costs more out of pocket. Maybe not rational with how we are today, but I would bet that if we outlawed health insurance companies, prices would come crashing down. Sadly many people would die also because of it. Anyways, hopefully I can read and catch up more on what people have to say.

Well Kudos…thanks for the information. I wasn’t aware that American health care was a commodity, like oil, traded on the world markets. Now I understand.

Are automobiles and auto insurance unrelated as well. We could eliminate auto insurance and pay the bill ourselves for the repair or the law suit resulting from our being at fault. So, using your logic we could expect car repairs and jury awards to come tumbling down. Perhaps, but I don’t believe it. The “Law” of supply and demand is not a theory…that’s why it is called a “law”.

Can just one person explain to me how we are going to increase the supply of doctors, nurses, care givers and hospitals to handle an additional 40 or 50 million customers? Are there unemployed health care professionals looking for jobs? Are there empty hospitals waiting to be filled?

Royal Flush,

“Can just one person explain to me how we are going to increase the supply of doctors, nurses, care givers and hospitals to handle an additional 40 or 50 million customers?”

What a strange notion this is. It is as if you expect these folks to descend on hospitals all at once. These people already exist and have been receiving health care. Some more than others.

IMHO, health care shouldn’t be treated as a commodity to be bartered for.
Health insurance OTOH is a crap shoot, just as auto insurance, or any insurance for that matter.
Unfortunately auto insurance is a required gamble, and what a lovely boon it has been for the insurance companies.

Rocky

kudos, Palin is NOT stupid. She is not broadly educated; she is not very sophisticated or worldly in her knowledge base, but, she is not stupid. She did not rise to governor of Alaska and onto the national stage as a VP choice by being stupid.

She has a talent for perceiving people’s fears and worries, values and motives, and using those astutely to garner their fellowship and following of her as their leader. FDR had this talent, as did JFK and Richard Nixon.

You make a grave error in dismissing Sarah Palin as stupid. She will surprise the hell out of your erroneous assessment of her, mark my words. She may never reach high federal office, but, she will continue to grow as a leader and become successful one way or another. These are two other talents of hers, tenacity and perseverance toward her own ambitions.

Actually, Rocky, Royal Flush makes a valid point. America already is experiencing a shortage of around 100,000 nurses, if I recall the data correctly. ER visits due to lack of insurance occur far less frequently than visits to the doctor’s office on an insured health maintenance basis.

America is going to have to make a huge investment in medical personnel, whether or not, the uninsured become insured. Since we have to make this investment anyway, might as well provide universal health insurance as well, which at the very least, would reduce the potential civil unrest potential which is growing over this broken health care system, year after year.

David,

America has had a nurse shortage for decades.

My brother taught nursing at the university level, and was appalled at the lack of interest that most of his students showed in the actual learning process to become nurses.
In this “riches centric” society we live in most folks seem less interested in the job they do than they are in the money they make.

The service to mankind attitude has taken a back seat to what can mankind do for me.

Rocky

Are there unemployed health care professionals looking for jobs? Are there empty hospitals waiting to be filled?

Yes, there are. I have a friend, a trained phlebotomist, who is presently unable to find employment in the health care field… no employers are looking for anyone with less than two years experience in the field. She’s presently volunteering at the Whitman Walker clinic in DC to gain the experience she needs to be hired somewhere as a phlebotomist, but she’s fairly lucky to have that option. Most people don’t have enough savings to do something like that. They’re forced to take any job that they can find, even if it’s outside their field, in order to pay their bills and keep food on their table. In this respect, some of the “shortage” is likely artificial. It’s not that there aren’t trained health care workers out there, it’s that they aren’t being given an opportunity to gain the experience they need to advance in the health care field.

Thanks Jarandhel…that’s 1 health care professional looking for work. Actually, someone trained to draw blood would in my mind be more of a technician than a professional…but, that’s just me.

My oldest son completed a two year course at a Texas community college in respiratory therapy. A full month before graduation he began receiving employment offers from hospitals both in and out of Texas.

He choose Parkland Hospital in Dallas as that is where he believed he was most needed and would get the most experience the quickest as it is a county hospital open to all.

I believe Mr. Remer is correct when he pointed out the existing shortage of nurses in the U.S. In my area of Texas I read employment adds in the newspaper nearly every week by hospitals seeking nurses. I also see billboards advertising job openings in the health care field.

My understanding is that hospitals are already being financially squeezed by Medicare in the form of lower reimbursement rates for services they cover. If I am wrong, please let me know. I have read that some of the congressional health care plans floating around base some of their savings on further squeezing of Medicare reimbursement to hospitals.

If this is true, isn’t it logical to believe that hospitals will have less money to spend on personnel? Nurses and many other critical hospital personnel are not usually making huge wages now and how will hospitals continue to attract these necessary personnel without money to pay them reasonable and competitive wages?

Jarandhel said “In this respect, some of the “shortage” is likely artificial. It’s not that there aren’t trained health care workers out there, it’s that they aren’t being given an opportunity to gain the experience they need to advance in the health care field.”
I don’t know about how this is in health care, but in the computer world. This is very true, and what many people complain about when it comes to visas and American workers.

Royal Flush, Health care currently is not a commodity, which I argue it should be. I’m sorry you do no know what an Oligopoly is though so let me explain. An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers.

From wikipedia, “Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) to raise prices and restrict production in much the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. A primary example of such a cartel is OPEC which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.”

“In an oligopoly, firms operate under imperfect competition. Following from the fierce price competitiveness created by this sticky-upward demand curve, firms utilize non-price competition in order to accrue greater revenue and market share.”

If you need more information go to Wikipedia or some other site to learn more about it.

Royal flush said, “Are there unemployed health care professionals looking for jobs? Are there empty hospitals waiting to be filled?”

Yes and yes. I know plenty of doctors personally that only work 20 hours a week, same with nurses. Why do they not work more? Marginally Utility, why work more when you don’t get that much more out of it? Yes there are doctors and nurses that are over worked and hospitals with no free beds, although none around me, but that is not the case everywhere.

How are we going to take care of those 50 million? According to Republicans it is only 8 million, which is one of the reasons why they said health reform isn’t really needed.

Royal Flush, I believe in supply and demand, just like you were saying. When you eliminate a market, there is no supply nor demand for that market. Wow, it works. The supply and demand you are referring too is health care, not health insurance. Isn’t that amazing? There was supply and demand for health care before insurance companies. If you look at other countries that do not have health insurance companies prices are low and services are descent. Like I said before, they really have nothing to do with each other, unless if you want to go around saying every little tiny thing relates to something else but I assume we are not having that conversation. Think about how more and more Americans are going outside the US to get care. Why because it is cheaper, and the quality is similar. The only time people get the so called greatest health care in America is when you spend that great amount of money which most people nor insurances companies pay for.

Royal Flush said, ” If this is true, isn’t it logical to believe that hospitals will have less money to spend on personnel? Nurses and many other critical hospital personnel are not usually making huge wages now and how will hospitals continue to attract these necessary personnel without money to pay them reasonable and competitive wages?”

Somebody answer this, but is it required that a doctor accept medicare or medicaid? From my understanding they didn’t have to.

Here is my belief, if the government enforces saying that someone must do something they must support it with money. Example, everyone must have a minimum car insurance = government provides that minimum car insurance policy. This works in a few Providences in Canada and they are covered very well, and their premiums are low. True they can’t sue for everything that somebody else with worth though. Oh well.

David R. The definition I used for stupid was “stupidity denotes an incapability or unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information.” Now I know she is not stupid in the normal terms that the general public uses the term for, but I did notice how nobody argued about what she said was being liberal. Am I wrong? That is why I brought it up which saddens me that nobody replied yet to that. Anyways, if she isn’t stupid in the term that I used it, then she is political scum for knowing and then lying about issues. She can be both, but she can’t be neither. From what I have heard form her, and read from her she seems like a nice person, so I tend to move her away from scum and more to foolish.

David R said “She did not rise to governor of Alaska and onto the national stage as a VP choice by being stupid.”
I would hope not otherwise the people who put her there would then be stupid. But just the same, that doesn’t mean she isn’t stupid, again using the definition that I provided. One can be stupid and be king at the same time. It doesn’t mean that the king isn’t stupid. But this is all opinion and can never truly be based on facts.

>How are we going to take care of those 50 million? According to Republicans it is only 8 million, which is one of the reasons why they said health reform isn’t really needed.
Posted by: kodossupreme at August 23, 2009 12:58 AM

That sounds so…uh…REPUBLICAN. Hell, there’s only eight million of ‘em, let’em eat cake…

But, the actual number is closer to fifty million and climbing. Republicans and others count only the numbers they want to count, ie, because folk in tent cities (those recently rendered homeless) are not counted because they are not expected to have insurance. Most part time employees are not counted because they are too young to purchase insurance, but that leaves out all the adult citizens who have had to take part time work because of being laid off or let go from employment. There are several other categories that fall through the cracks, just like employment figures that quit counting those who have reached the end of unemployment benefits, but are not yet employed…numbers lie…and, so do Republicans…about everything imaginable…and some things Unimaginable.

kodossupreme, thank you for explaining what an oligarchy is for those who didn’t know. And, that was my point in asking congress to eliminate the regulations that allow states to restrict insurance companies doing business in their state. We need more competition among our insurance companies, not less as is the case now.

You also wrote; “I know plenty of doctors personally that only work 20 hours a week, same with nurses. Why do they not work more? Marginally Utility, why work more when you don’t get that much more out of it?”

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying these professionals are working less because to work more means the additional earnings are taken away by income taxes? Or do you mean, they will have less time on the golf course?

You also wrote; “Health care currently is not a commodity, which I argue it should be.”

Here I really got lost. As one who traded in commodities some years ago I don’t know how that would work with health care. I understand traders buying and selling corn futures for example, based upon their expectation of prices at some set future point. Are you advocating speculation on health care costs? If so, why would that be a good thing when it hasn’t worked so well for other commodities, especially oil and world currencies.

Dude
The real count is between 10 and 20 million citizens, and note I said citizens. Leaving out the 12 million illegals and the whatever millions of younger people or olders who do not want insurance you come to the figure of 10 to 20 million. Now wouldn’t it be a far cry cheaper to overhaul the existing health care options provided by the government than to try to insure the whole population?

Illegals have NEVER been part of anyones plan EVER…that’s just another gross exaggeration perpetrated by the right.