PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Health Care Plan...in the tank?



Kerbouchard
10-12-2009, 05:46 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WASHINGTON – Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.

At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.

Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.

The drama threatened to overshadow Tuesday's scheduled vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.

The Baucus bill is still expected to win Finance Committee approval. The insurance industry is trying to influence what happens beyond the vote, when legislation goes to the floor of the House and Senate, and, if passed, to a conference committee that would reconcile differences in the bills.

It's at that final stage where many expect the real deal will be cut.

"We've got ourselves a real health care shooting war now," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned consultant. "The industry has come to the conclusion that the way things are going in Congress, we'll have a ... formula that will be disastrous for their business, so they can't stand on the sidelines any longer."

Questions about the technical soundness of the industry analysis by the PricewaterhouseCoopers firm was a big part of the discussion Monday. The release of the study late Sunday on the eve of the federal Columbus Day holiday had Democrats crying foul.

"The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Democrats have reason to worry. Insurance industry opposition helped sink President Bill Clinton's health care plan in the 1990s by fanning fears that people with coverage would wind up paying more.

Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is "a world-class firm" with "a stellar reputation," she said.

The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.

In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.

Finance Committee aides to Baucus said it's impossible to predict premiums down to the dollar because there are too many variables involved.

The technical issues behind the study are complex, and it will take time for neutral experts to deliver a final judgment. The issue boils down to questions of coverage and cost shifting.

The industry is arguing that the consequences of the bill will be shifted onto those who are already covered. Insurers are not alone. Representatives of the hospital industry have raised similar concerns, though in less stark terms.

The study finds fault with what Baucus sees as one of the crowning achievements of his bill. Even with a tight budget, it would cover an estimated 94 percent of eligible Americans, up from about 83 percent now. The study — and the insurance industry — say that's not enough, particularly since senators have weakened the stiff fines Baucus originally proposed for ignoring a requirement to get coverage.

"You really have to have a coverage level in the high 90s to make this work," Ignagni said.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers study also assumes that proposed taxes on high-cost insurance, new levies on insurers and other health industry firms, and Medicare cuts will be directly passed on to privately insured policyholders.

Critics of the study said it tilted those assumptions too far toward a worst case, ignoring the bill's potential to curb costs.

For example, the tax on high-cost health insurance that Baucus is proposing could lead employers and individuals to switch to lower-cost plans and avoid the levy. If that happens, there would be no additional costs to pass on to consumers.

The study "assumed the tax would have no behavioral effect, contrary to every other tax in the history of civilization," said economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation.

Critics also said the study doesn't take into account proposed insurance exchanges, a new marketplace that would be designed to foster competition and presumably drive premiums down.

There's equally strong debate about the effects of $400 billion in proposed cuts in Medicare payments to insurers, hospitals and other service providers. The study assumes those costs would be shifted to people with private insurance, but the bill's supporters say the reductions are aimed at reducing wasteful spending that drives up costs.
</div></div>

Kerbouchard
10-12-2009, 05:53 PM
Hopefully, now that the insurers are weighing in, people will finally get the picture.

If this bill goes through, Insurance companies WILL raise the costs for others. They have to. This isn't voodoo economics. If costs for the companies go up, so will the premiums.

Its all well and good to talk about the evil 'for-profit companies', but the fact of the matter is, they do operate for profit. If they operated to lose money we would call them the government.

If legislation passes to increase their cost of dealing business, they won't just tuck their tail between their legs and stop making money. They will increase costs and maintain their percentages.

pooltchr
10-12-2009, 06:42 PM
The "Bogus" bill is nothing more than financial slight of hand. There is a certain cost for every healthcare service that is provided. You can shift the costs around, which he did in order to come up with a number Obama wanted. But the cost doesn't go away. It's like when you squeeze a balloon. One end gets smaller but the other end gets bigger. And if you squeeze enough, it pops.

It is amazing to me how such "intellectuals" can't comprehend such basic concepts. But then, those are the same people who supported a presidential candidate who offered nothing more than "hope and change".

Idiots!!!

Steve

wolfdancer
10-12-2009, 07:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a presidential candidate who offered nothing more than "hope and change".
</div></div>
All Presidents offer hope and change, in some form.... I've been listening to Campaign promises since 1948, and the only promise I've heard that differed was:
"More of the same, McCain"
I guess, according to your scholatly theory,that makes any and all that vote for the winning candidate....idiots.
I notice that you always place yourself above most others, intellectually. It must be grand to have such a high opinion about oneself....just as it must be a terrible burdon to have so much hate for one's fellow Americans, as Ed-grrr has. Equally insane is imagining that the "left" are all communists, as your fellow travellor, llotter does

pooltchr
10-12-2009, 07:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a presidential candidate who offered nothing more than "hope and change".
</div></div>
All Presidents offer hope and change, in some form.... I've been listening to Campaign promises since 1948, and the only promise I've heard that differed was:
"More of the same, McCain"
I guess, according to your scholatly theory,that makes any and all that vote for the winning candidate....idiots.
I notice that you always place yourself above most others, intellectually. It must be grand to have such a high opinion about oneself....just as it must be a terrible burdon to have so much hate for one's fellow Americans, as Ed-grrr has. Equally insane is imagining that the "left" are all communists, as your fellow travellor, llotter does </div></div>

Probably no different from being a self appointed intellectual who constantly tries to belittle others in order to inflate his own self image. You are so quick to point fingers at others, and can't even see those same qualities you claim to dislike in others, in nearly everything you post.

Steve

Kerbouchard
10-12-2009, 07:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a presidential candidate who offered nothing more than "hope and change".
</div></div>
All Presidents offer hope and change, in some form.... I've been listening to Campaign promises since 1948, and the only promise I've heard that differed was:
"More of the same, McCain"
I guess, according to your scholatly theory,that makes any and all that vote for the winning candidate....idiots.
I notice that you always place yourself above most others, intellectually. It must be grand to have such a high opinion about oneself....just as it must be a terrible burdon to have so much hate for one's fellow Americans, as Ed-grrr has. Equally insane is imagining that the "left" are all communists, as your fellow travellor, llotter does</div></div>

This thread is about Obama's healthcare plan and the effects of it, i.e. raising costs for the rest of us.

If you want to start a thread about why Steve is smarter than you, or about McCain's campaign, the new topic button is at the top left.

Qtec
10-12-2009, 08:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hopefully, now that the insurers are weighing in, people will finally get the picture.

</div></div>

LOL.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Planned well before this year, insurance company CEOs, like Potter’s former boss at CIGNA H. Edward Hadway, formed a group called the Strategic Communications Committee to develop effective messages and strategy for the industry. Organized through AHIP, the lobbying front for insurance companies, the committee would work with large public relations companies to devise a two-pronged, “duplicitous campaign.


" It’s really a duplicitous PR campaign. They will talk about, in broad terms, how supportive they are of health care reform, but they will be working behind the scenes to kill very, very crucial parts of reform legislation like the public option." </div></div> link (http://thinkprogress.org/stoppinghealthreform/)

Q

wolfdancer
10-12-2009, 09:28 PM
When you take over the board, then you can began giving me orders.
But if your little group ever does take over, I'll be long gone.
I wrote:

All Presidents offer hope and change, in some form.... I've been listening to Campaign promises since 1948, and the only promise I've heard that differed was:
"More of the same, McCain"
That was my on topic reply....the rest I added to support that.
You have problems with that....that's too ******* bad.
One of the reasons we have fought wars is to defend our rights to free speech.....look it up.

wolfdancer
10-12-2009, 11:57 PM
I'm a little concerned about the safety of myself, my family, even my friends. You seem to be both targeting me, and convincing your self that I am a socialist/communist and am siding with the enemy.
I don't need the worry that somebody is going to do something stupid, just because I disagree with the way this war is being conducted, or whatever else you may be working yourself up to believing.

Kerbouchard
10-13-2009, 06:00 AM
wolfdancer, you're flippin insane.

Moving on, as far as health care reform goes, if the insurance companies are telling you what they will do in response to legislation, and that their actions will involve raising premiums, why wouldn't you believe them?

Strictly from a business model standpoint, if more services are going to be rendered to people who cannot afford it, how would you expect doctors or insurers to do that? Too often, our government, be it right or left, wants to put out mandates with no idea how to implement them.

They wish to draft the end result into a bill with no idea how it can actually be accomplished. When pressed on this issue, they say the big companies will figure it out, or somehow the insurers will make it work. That's childish.

I strongly wish all Americans would read Atlas Shrugged and take an honest look at what is going on around them. The book is aptly named and, unfortunately, has become prophetic.

Atlas, the Greek god who carried the world on his shoulders...the harder he strained against the globe, the harder the world pressed down on him. I had always wondered, what happens when he gets tired of carrying his ungrateful burden? And how far off is the shrug?

eg8r
10-13-2009, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you take over the board, then you can began giving me orders.</div></div>LOL, lappy dog, shut up.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 11:37 AM
FYI, the Baucus Bill isn't president Obama's Health Care Plan, as he has stated that he wants a public option, and promised in the campaign, only that he would REFORM health care, which he is hoping to do.

The insurance industry, has stabbed him in the back, after promising to work with him for that reform.

Now that Americans can see their intention is to continue to bilk them, by raising their costs, there will be more outrage, and more desire for the public option, and IMO, it has been good for the cause of a public option, as most Americans are struggling to pay for healht care, now, and costs will double again, as they have since 2001, with no public option to push for competition.

I personally, think they shot themselves in the foot, and do not want to see the Baucus Bill pass, since he is nothing but a pawn for the HC industry.

I hope Democratics will go for reconciliation, and as I understand it, more calls are coming in for that remedy, daily.

I expect the insurance industries statements, will encourage even more of that sort of outcry, that Democratics use reconciliationand push it through, WITH a public option.

G.

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a presidential candidate who offered nothing more than "hope and change".
</div></div>
All Presidents offer hope and change, in some form.... I've been listening to Campaign promises since 1948, and the only promise I've heard that differed was:
"More of the same, McCain"
I guess, according to your scholatly theory,that makes any and all that vote for the winning candidate....idiots.
I notice that you always place yourself above most others, intellectually. It must be grand to have such a high opinion about oneself....just as it must be a terrible burdon to have so much hate for one's fellow Americans, as Ed-grrr has. Equally insane is imagining that the "left" are all communists, as your fellow travellor, llotter does</div></div>

This thread is about Obama's healthcare plan and the effects of it, i.e. raising costs for the rest of us.

If you want to start a thread about why Steve is smarter than you, or about McCain's campaign, the new topic button is at the top left. </div></div>



<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It isn't Obama's health care plan. He has stated that he would like to see a public option, since he was in office. During the campaign, he stated only that he wanted to reform health care, which he is trying to do, and which Republicans are blocking, in the interest of the corporate CEO's and their pocketbooks, eventhough their amendments to the bill have been added, 167 of them! The STILL voted NO!</span>

Kerbouchard
10-13-2009, 11:51 AM
Of course they voted no, and of course this is Obama's plan. They will use reconciliation. They don't have the votes not to.

Make no mistake about it. They will push through what you and the rest of the liberal left have wanted, but it is going to cost them in the 2010 election.

I just wish it wasn't so damed hard to repeal horrible legislation once it is passed. It will be the dem's baby, and we are gonna be stuck with it.

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course they voted no, and of course this is Obama's plan. They will use reconciliation. They don't have the votes not to.

Make no mistake about it. They will push through what you and the rest of the liberal left have wanted, but it is going to cost them in the 2010 election.

I just wish it wasn't so damed hard to repeal horrible legislation once it is passed. It will be the dem's baby, and we are gonna be stuck with it. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">
LOL, and I suppose you think that invading Iraq was the correct policy? I suppose you don't think that Bush's policies doubled the deficits, emboldened our enemies, dropped the ball on getting bin Laden and al Qaeda, threw us into a recession, near depressin? Took the country in the right direction?

Pahleeeze.</span>

Kerbouchard
10-13-2009, 12:26 PM
Yes, I absolutely believe that invading Iraq was the correct policy. I went over in 2003 and 2005. I was, however, pissed when I found out the reasons he used were not valid.

I would have much preferred him to be honest, but then again, if Clinton hadn't been too busy getting head in the white house, it might have been taken care of sooner.

Saddam Hussein was an evil man. His sons were just as evil. We went to war with Iraq in the 90's...They surrendered unconditionally and we drafted a treaty. Iraq violated that treaty over and over again during the Clinton years and he did nothing about it. Do you not agree that if a nation continues to violate a treaty with the United States that it is enough of a reason for the United States to use military force?

There was ample reason to go to war with Iraq. Personally, I disagreed with the strategy, but then again, I wasn't privy to the inside information. Personally, I was on the USS Nimitz running the nuclear reactors, and honestly, didn't care much about the politics involved. They sent us to do a job. We did it. If I had been in command, we would not have put any boots on the ground. We would have had the Navy do circles in the Persian Gulf launching FA-18's and our jets wouldn't have left two bricks on top of each other. When the Iraqis got tired of getting bombed, they would have overthrown their government and we would have negotiated with the new leaders, but I wasn't in charge.

In any case, Iraq was not a war of 'choice'. It was a war of necessity, put off for way too long because Clinton and NATO didn't follow up after the first Gulf War.

As far as the recession, I firmly believe that was caused because too many whiny little kids who should be adults wanted and bought things they couldn't afford. Yes, it was a recession, but I think it could be more aptly termed a correction. It happens when people are irresponsible. There should be consequences for making stupid choices. I think we agree on pretty much all of the causes for the recession. Our disagreement comes out of the solution. I believe the people who made the bad choices, or bad loans, or bad investments should lose money for those bad choices. The liberal seems to think they should get bailed out. Yes, I know Bush started the bail outs, and I strongly disagreed with that move, but then again, it was a Democratic congress, and I am not even sure he could have stopped it.

That's what we get for having the media make policy. If he would have vetoed it(not saying that he wanted to, but if he would have), the media would have crucified him for hating the poor. As it was, he supported the bail out and the media crucified him for supporting the rich.

Either way, there never should have been a bail out, under Bush or Obama. People need to be allowed to fail. Without that option, there is nothing stopping people from being stupid. If you remove the consequences, why would you expect people to learn from their mistakes?

Texas was not hit nearly as hard as the rest of the country by this recession...you know why? Because we went through this in the 80's during the oil bust. People had bought houses they couldn't afford. Invested all their money in single stocks, and they lost big. The banks lost, the investors lost, and the employees lost...and you know something...we learned from our mistakes and did not repeat them with the rest of the country.

Kerbouchard
10-13-2009, 12:34 PM
And now wolf can berate me for going off topic...oh, well.

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 01:48 PM
You should get an award for re-writing history.

It is a fact that every foreign affairs expert, and all five former Secretaries of State, Republican AND Democratic, has stated that the Iraq invasion was the worst foreing policy decision in history.


Including our own 16 Intelligence and National Security agencies, who's National Intelligence Estimate stated that the invasion emboldened our enemies, and made us less safe.

Not that I think you are interested in the facts.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 01:49 PM
Oh, and the bi-partisan Bill Passed, with a bi-partisan vote, just as I predicted long ago.

Now, we will have a great shot at single payer, which is actually what this country needs.

Kerbouchard
10-13-2009, 02:00 PM
Single payer is what our country needs? You make me want to vommit. It you want single payer, move to flippin England. We won't miss you.

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 02:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WASHINGTON – Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.

At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.

Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.

The drama threatened to overshadow Tuesday's scheduled vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.

The Baucus bill is still expected to win Finance Committee approval. The insurance industry is trying to influence what happens beyond the vote, when legislation goes to the floor of the House and Senate, and, if passed, to a conference committee that would reconcile differences in the bills.

It's at that final stage where many expect the real deal will be cut.

"We've got ourselves a real health care shooting war now," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned consultant. "The industry has come to the conclusion that the way things are going in Congress, we'll have a ... formula that will be disastrous for their business, so they can't stand on the sidelines any longer."

Questions about the technical soundness of the industry analysis by the PricewaterhouseCoopers firm was a big part of the discussion Monday. The release of the study late Sunday on the eve of the federal Columbus Day holiday had Democrats crying foul.

"The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Democrats have reason to worry. Insurance industry opposition helped sink President Bill Clinton's health care plan in the 1990s by fanning fears that people with coverage would wind up paying more.

Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is "a world-class firm" with "a stellar reputation," she said.

The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.

In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.

Finance Committee aides to Baucus said it's impossible to predict premiums down to the dollar because there are too many variables involved.

The technical issues behind the study are complex, and it will take time for neutral experts to deliver a final judgment. The issue boils down to questions of coverage and cost shifting.

The industry is arguing that the consequences of the bill will be shifted onto those who are already covered. Insurers are not alone. Representatives of the hospital industry have raised similar concerns, though in less stark terms.

The study finds fault with what Baucus sees as one of the crowning achievements of his bill. Even with a tight budget, it would cover an estimated 94 percent of eligible Americans, up from about 83 percent now. The study — and the insurance industry — say that's not enough, particularly since senators have weakened the stiff fines Baucus originally proposed for ignoring a requirement to get coverage.

"You really have to have a coverage level in the high 90s to make this work," Ignagni said.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers study also assumes that proposed taxes on high-cost insurance, new levies on insurers and other health industry firms, and Medicare cuts will be directly passed on to privately insured policyholders.

Critics of the study said it tilted those assumptions too far toward a worst case, ignoring the bill's potential to curb costs.

For example, the tax on high-cost health insurance that Baucus is proposing could lead employers and individuals to switch to lower-cost plans and avoid the levy. If that happens, there would be no additional costs to pass on to consumers.

The study "assumed the tax would have no behavioral effect, contrary to every other tax in the history of civilization," said economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation.

Critics also said the study doesn't take into account proposed insurance exchanges, a new marketplace that would be designed to foster competition and presumably drive premiums down.

There's equally strong debate about the effects of $400 billion in proposed cuts in Medicare payments to insurers, hospitals and other service providers. The study assumes those costs would be shifted to people with private insurance, but the bill's supporters say the reductions are aimed at reducing wasteful spending that drives up costs.
</div></div>

</div></div>
<span style="color: #000066">
This is such a farce. Price Waterhouse already admitted that the savings had not been calculated, anyway.</span>

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 02:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Single payer is what our country needs? You make me want to vommit. It you want single payer, move to flippin England. We won't miss you. </div></div>

If you don't want it you are the oe that will have to make the move, because we are going to have either single payer, or the public option, regardless of what you would like.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
10-13-2009, 03:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, the Baucus Bill isn't president Obama's Health Care Plan, as he has stated that he wants a public option, </div></div>Which "he" are you referring to here? You have been on more than one thread now stating Obama did not state he wanted a public option.

eg8r

eg8r
10-13-2009, 03:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, and I suppose you think that invading Iraq was the correct policy? </div></div>Weren't you guys discussing healthcare?

eg8r

eg8r
10-13-2009, 03:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gaylio</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, we will have a great shot at single payer, which is actually what this country needs.
</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Single payer is what our country needs? You make me want to vommit. It you want single payer, move to flippin England. We won't miss you. </div></div>You have to understand that gayle went though some major medical issues this year and her insurance is costing her a lot. Her quote above is a good indication that she would prefer the rich and middle class foot her bill.

eg8r

eg8r
10-13-2009, 03:58 PM
You must be mighty proud hoping to off your medical expenses onto the middle class.

eg8r

wolfdancer
10-13-2009, 08:12 PM
Ker'rrr....now believes he is setting "the rules of engagement" re: the threads, and running the board here.
I think though, he'll soon get his wish,....there's only so much of this RW manifesto, bigoted, bs, hogwash, etc that a free thinking American can tolerate.
I might as well turn on Fox news, at least I'll get it from the horses mouth, and not from the other end.

Gayle in MD
10-13-2009, 10:16 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
10-14-2009, 01:00 AM
effuu

Kerbouchard
10-15-2009, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, I absolutely believe that invading Iraq was the correct policy. I went over in 2003 and 2005. I was, however, pissed when I found out the reasons he used were not valid.

I would have much preferred him to be honest, but then again, if Clinton hadn't been too busy getting head in the white house, it might have been taken care of sooner.

Saddam Hussein was an evil man. His sons were just as evil. We went to war with Iraq in the 90's...They surrendered unconditionally and we drafted a treaty. Iraq violated that treaty over and over again during the Clinton years and he did nothing about it. Do you not agree that if a nation continues to violate a treaty with the United States that it is enough of a reason for the United States to use military force?

There was ample reason to go to war with Iraq. Personally, I disagreed with the strategy, but then again, I wasn't privy to the inside information. Personally, I was on the USS Nimitz running the nuclear reactors, and honestly, didn't care much about the politics involved. They sent us to do a job. We did it. If I had been in command, we would not have put any boots on the ground. We would have had the Navy do circles in the Persian Gulf launching FA-18's and our jets wouldn't have left two bricks on top of each other. When the Iraqis got tired of getting bombed, they would have overthrown their government and we would have negotiated with the new leaders, but I wasn't in charge.

In any case, Iraq was not a war of 'choice'. It was a war of necessity, put off for way too long because Clinton and NATO didn't follow up after the first Gulf War.

As far as the recession, I firmly believe that was caused because too many whiny little kids who should be adults wanted and bought things they couldn't afford. Yes, it was a recession, but I think it could be more aptly termed a correction. It happens when people are irresponsible. There should be consequences for making stupid choices. I think we agree on pretty much all of the causes for the recession. Our disagreement comes out of the solution. I believe the people who made the bad choices, or bad loans, or bad investments should lose money for those bad choices. The liberal seems to think they should get bailed out. Yes, I know Bush started the bail outs, and I strongly disagreed with that move, but then again, it was a Democratic congress, and I am not even sure he could have stopped it.

That's what we get for having the media make policy. If he would have vetoed it(not saying that he wanted to, but if he would have), the media would have crucified him for hating the poor. As it was, he supported the bail out and the media crucified him for supporting the rich.

Either way, there never should have been a bail out, under Bush or Obama. People need to be allowed to fail. Without that option, there is nothing stopping people from being stupid. If you remove the consequences, why would you expect people to learn from their mistakes?

Texas was not hit nearly as hard as the rest of the country by this recession...you know why? Because we went through this in the 80's during the oil bust. People had bought houses they couldn't afford. Invested all their money in single stocks, and they lost big. The banks lost, the investors lost, and the employees lost...and you know something...we learned from our mistakes and did not repeat them with the rest of the country.</div></div>

As said in a different thread...the lefties continue to ignore any post with substance.