111th Congress the most productive in decades

[CAC1001]

Dumping health-care costs on hospitals and doctors is unfair and inefficient, and reliance on a state-administered Medicaid safety net is not much better. This country needs universal health-care access so that medical conditions can be identified and treated before they become emergencies or chronic (expensive-to-treat) conditions. Call it Socialism if you want, but universal access to health care works well in the rest of the developed world, and the sky won't fall if we implement it here.

The GOP stood against the healthcare bill because they did (and still do not) believe it would create any affordable healthcare.

As for universal care in the rest of the world, the British, French, and German systems are all in debt:

The British National Health Service is deeply in debt (has been for awhile):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/364354.stm (this from eleven years ago)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...patients-die-cuts-debt-ridden-NHS-trusts.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/nhsp-a19.shtml

The French national healthcare system also is in debt:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-france/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm

The German healthcare system as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461573950211460.html

Also, healthcare systems have three basic aspects people desire, only two of which are really attainable:

1) Cost controls
2) Freedom of choice
3) Universal coverage

You can have cost controls and freedom of choice, but you'll have to give up universal coverage. Or you can have cost controls and universal coverage, but you'll have to give up freedom of choice (the HMOs tried this and people screamed). Or you can have universal coverage and freedom of choice, but you end up with exploding costs.

Obamacare promises the Moon: Cost controls, universal coverage, and freedom of choice.

 

[CAC1001]

Country_____Total expenditure on health as % of GDP, 2006
Canada______10.0
China________4.6
Cuba_________7.7
France______11.0
Germany_____10.6
Italy________9.0
Japan________8.1
Russia_______5.3
UK___________8.2
US__________15.3
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tsI9mtBAHd84DHdNQhO17Pg#gid=0"

I believe I posted something to this effect awhile ago. We spend nearly as much on keeping ourselves alive as we do running the country. I know that this is what B. Clinton has been running around the nation for the last few years chattering about, so I'm sure all the Republicans think there has to be something not wrong with the current system. (If old Buggerin' Bill wants it, it must be wrong.)

But looking at the rest of the numbers from the above spreadsheet, can I get a bi-partisan "yay" that we are just too fat?

Country__%ofGDPsohc__Obese Males(%)___Obese Females(%)
Japan___________8.1__________2.9__________3.3
China___________4.6__________2.4__________3.4
Italy___________9.0__________7.4__________8.9
Cuba____________7.7__________8.0_________11.8
France_________11.0_________16.1_________17.6
Russia__________5.3_________11.8_________20.1
Germany________10.6_________20.5_________21.1
UK______________8.2_________22.3_________23.0
Canada_________10.0_________22.9_________23.2
US_____________15.3_________31.1_________33.2

Perhaps we should start taxing food?

How is this "proof" though? Look at what we spend on our current single-payer programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Or what happened with the Massachusettes program.

 

[OmCheeto]

The GOP stood against the healthcare bill because they did (and still do not) believe it would create any affordable healthcare.

As for universal care in the rest of the world, the British, French, and German systems are all in debt:

The British National Health Service is deeply in debt (has been for awhile):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/364354.stm (this from eleven years ago)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...patients-die-cuts-debt-ridden-NHS-trusts.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/nhsp-a19.shtml

The French national healthcare system also is in debt:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-france/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm

The German healthcare system as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461573950211460.html

Also, healthcare systems have three basic aspects people desire, only two of which are really attainable:

1) Cost controls
2) Freedom of choice
3) Universal coverage

You can have cost controls and freedom of choice, but you'll have to give up universal coverage. Or you can have cost controls and universal coverage, but you'll have to give up freedom of choice (the HMOs tried this and people screamed). Or you can have universal coverage and freedom of choice, but you end up with exploding costs.

Obamacare promises the Moon: Cost controls, universal coverage, and freedom of choice.

Pardon me if I don't read all 7 of your articles. The headline of the first one was enough:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461573950211460.html
in the Opinion section
The Stressed German Model
It took the Germans 125 years to figure out that their health-care system doesn't work.

Stupid Germans... NOT!

Imagine driving around in a car for 125 years, and then someone tells you it was a lemon. What a load of crap.

 

[OmCheeto]

The Socialists and Marxists have found they can best implement their playbook via the Democratic Party.

And I see we've returned to the theory that Democrats are really just pawns of the Marxists again...

 

[OmCheeto]

How is this "proof" though? Look at what we spend on our current single-payer programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Or what happened with the Massachusettes program.

Proof? Maybe I've lost my train of thought. Or perhaps the request was a bit vague. hmm...

universal access to health care works well in the rest of the developed world, and the sky won't fall if we implement it here.

Proof?

Turbo's statement that it "works well" elsewhere, and fact that we spend so much more than anyone else for the same thing, strikes me as proof enough, that something needed to be done.

I see from your "Broken 125 year old German health system" link that Germans spend "14.9% of gross pay" for their healthcare coverage.

I also see on my final earnings statement from work this year that 21.7% of my gross pay went to a private HMO.

hmmm... 14.9% or 21.7%? which would I rather pay? Oh no! I think I'm turning Libertarian! I support a system that may one day reduce the money sucked out of my wallet!

And as far as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform" act of 2006, I'd say that anything implemented in the last 4 years is probably in financial trouble.

 

[Al68]

LOL. I like how left-wingers refer to the goal of their agenda (the country run by government) as if it were fait accompli, even now that their progress in that regard has been (hopefully) halted, and (more hopefully) soon to be jammed in reverse.

I just hope Republicans have the wisdom to know that Democrats will spew their hateful propaganda against them regardless of what they do or don't do, so there is no political reason whatsoever to fund any of the Democratic Party's agenda. They should take advantage of the fact that after one is called "every name in the book" politically, there are no more names in the book, and therefore nothing left to fear.

What are Democrats going to do, come up with something worse than "they want to throw old/poor/working people out on the street and make them starve to death?" Good luck with that.

Oh! And a happy xmas to you too, Mr. Scrooge.

LOL, yes, I forgot that one. But "Mr. Scrooge" isn't any worse than the examples I gave, it's pretty much the same idea.

 

[OmCheeto]

I see from your "Broken 125 year old German health system" link that Germans spend "14.9% of gross pay" for their healthcare coverage.

I also see on my final earnings statement from work this year that 21.7% of my gross pay went to a private HMO.

hmmm... 14.9% or 21.7%? which would I rather pay? Oh no! I think I'm turning Libertarian! I support a system that may one day reduce the money sucked out of my wallet!

Oops. Forgot to include the % of my state tax that goes to H&HS, and of course Medicaid.

25.3% is going to health care.

And I've only been to the doctor 4 times in the last 25 years. (1 bottle of antibiotics for strep throat, 1 misdiagnosis for pertussis, 1 physical, and one; "if it hurts when you do that, then don't do that")

Does anyone know if the legislation passed addresses such things?

Let's see what the Feds have to say about it:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/introduction/index.html"

New reforms under the Affordable Care Act begin to bring to an end some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry. These reforms will give Americans new rights and benefits, including helping more children get health coverage, ending lifetime and most annual limits on care, and giving patients access to recommended preventive services without cost-sharing.

These reforms will apply to all new health plans, and to many existing health plans as they are renewed. Many other new benefits of the law have already taken effect, including rebate checks for seniors in the Medicare donut hole and tax credits for small businesses. And more rights, protections and benefits for Americans are on the way now through 2014.

without cost-sharing? Does that mean if we'd done this when http://health.change.org/blog/view/..._the_closest_to_universal_health_care_part_2" wanted to do it, I'd have gotten a quarter million dollar rebate?

 

[bobc2]

And I see we've returned to the theory that Democrats are really just pawns of the Marxists again...

Hey, I'm just relating my experience with the SDS and other Socialists/Marxists/... et.al. groups on campus in the early '70s. We came to the parting of the waves the day they took over the 1st floor of the administration building, ransacked records, emptied file cabinets on the floor and into waste baskets, set them on fire, stood on desks and urinated all over the place, etc. I had nothing to do with them after that, and it makes my blood curdle to watch them operate within the Obama administration.

 

[turbo]

Hey, I'm just relating my experience with the SDS and other Socialists/Marxists/... et.al. groups on campus in the early '70s. We came to the parting of the waves the day they took over the 1st floor of the administration building, ransacked records, emptied file cabinets on the floor and into waste baskets, set them on fire, stood on desks and urinated all over the place, etc. I had nothing to do with them after that, and it makes my blood curdle to watch them operate within the Obama administration.

OK, do you have any proof that SDS operatives from the 60's and 70's are working for Obama, or are you just trying to stir up trouble? It's time to back up your claims or go away.

 

[CAC1001]

Imagine driving around in a car for 125 years, and then someone tells you it was a lemon. What a load of crap.

UM...I never said any of those systems (British, French, or German) "don't work," I said that they are all in debt. Also I would not compare the current German system with the one implemented 125 years-ago. Bismarck simply was the first to create a state healthcare system for everyone.

The current German system is a complex combination of public and private. As for the British and French systems, they are having to undergo reforms with regards to spending, rationing, etc...as costs increase. I am sure one could find more info online, but in the book The Undercover Economist, the author explains some of the problems the British NHS is experiencing. Some of the French system's problems are explained in one of the articles.

Proof? Maybe I've lost my train of thought. Or perhaps the request was a bit vague. hmm...

MechEngineer asked for proof regarding turbo-1's statement that "universal healthcare works well in the rest of the developed world and the sky won't fall if we implement it here."

You responded with a post showing the percentages of GDP each country devotes to healthcare spending and the percentages of the populations that are obese.

My response is how exactly is any of that "proof" that universal healthcare "works well" in the rest of the world and that it would not be a disaster if implemented here?

I then pointed out that of the two single-payer systems we have, Medicare and Medicaid, both have exploding out-of-control costs right now, and are going to have to go through some severe reform or else face very painful cuts soon.

I also pointed out the Massachusettes experiment with universal healthcare, which IS a legitimate issue, because the program's costs blew completely out-of-control and Massachussettes now has the highest health premiums in the nation: http://www.boston.com/news/health/a...health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

Now there are some working examples lately it seems, such as the VA system I believe, which is single-payer but has made some modifications, such as decentralizing the bureaucracy and also I don't think doctors can be sued for frivolous lawsuits (Ivan Seeking posted an article on this awhile back) and also the Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Program which thus far is managing to pay for itself (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/bush-drug-plan-beats-cost-mark/).

So to just say, "If we implement universal healthcare here, everything will be fine..." is not necessarilly accurate. It doesn't mean it is incorrect either, but I mean if done incorrectly, it could very much be disastrous financially.

Turbo's statement that it "works well" elsewhere, and fact that we spend so much more than anyone else for the same thing, strikes me as proof enough, that something needed to be done.

Sure "something" needed to be done, doesn't mean we need to copy other systems from around the world though.

I see from your "Broken 125 year old German health system" link that Germans spend "14.9% of gross pay" for their healthcare coverage.

...with higher taxes. They have a VAT tax and they are mandated to purchase health insurance, which is a form of a tax.

I also see on my final earnings statement from work this year that 21.7% of my gross pay went to a private HMO.

hmmm... 14.9% or 21.7%? which would I rather pay? Oh no! I think I'm turning Libertarian! I support a system that may one day reduce the money sucked out of my wallet!

Yes, that may, but it also could explode in costs. In the European nations they may pay less in terms of percentage of income, but they also have higher taxes on the middle income and poor, something that the Democrats don't want to do in America.

EDIT: To be fair, I should say it is something neither party wants to do really, at least not with the current tax system; some mandate reforming the tax code with lower rates, but much fewer exemptions so as to include more people.

In America right now, about 40% pay nothing in Federal income taxes (because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a Republican innovation, the Child Tax Credit (which was doubled under Bush from $500 to $1000 per child), and an across-the-board reduction of marginal income tax rates (prior to Bush the bottom rates were 15% and 20%, now they are 10% and 15%).

In Europe, they have VAT taxes, which hit everybody, and in countries like Germany, people are mandated to purchase health insurance, which is a form of tax as well. They also can have higher income tax rates.

I don't know if we can have a healthcare system that provides universal coverage, freedom of choice, cost controls, and does all of these with 40% exempted from federal taxes.

And as far as the Massachusetts health care reform act of 2006, I'd say that anything implemented in the last 4 years is probably in financial trouble.

The Massachussettes program was meant to provide universal coverage though without exploding in costs. Some say, "Well, it's on the state level..." yeah, but the states are like policy laboratories. They are micro-versions of America.

Also Medicare and Medicaid are both single-payer systems. One of President Obama's original claims I remember was he wanted to create a form of "Medicare for all..." well okay, but the current Medicare is unsustainable at the moment. Expanding it to everyone would be rather difficult.

 

[CAC1001]

without cost-sharing? Does that mean if we'd done this when http://health.change.org/blog/view/..._the_closest_to_universal_health_care_part_2" wanted to do it, I'd have gotten a quarter million dollar rebate?

Nixon was not any conservative except with regards to foreign policy. Otherwise, he was very much a flaming Leftist (gun control, universal healthcare, price controls, the EPA, etc...).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So to just say, "If we implement universal healthcare here, everything will be fine..." is not necessarilly accurate. It doesn't mean it is incorrect either, but I mean if done incorrectly, it could very much be disastrous financially.

Just fyi, while I generally support the reforms made so far, I completely agree.

To me this looks like a multi-tier issue that requires progress on both the political and economic fronts. Obama took the first step and got what he could. He got the ball rolling. There is much to be done regarding additional reforms and cost containment.

Your example of Mass. Health care seems a little unfair given that, IIRC, they effectively have universal coverage. To compare this to States where many people either have no insurance, or they are underinsured, or they are rejected when they need the insurance, or coverage is denied to children for prexisting conditions, and so on, is comparing apples to oranges. It is no secret that it will cost more to fully insure everyone. That's why reform was such a challenge. That is also why everyone must be in the system - either insured or charged $2500 per year - in order to make ANY option work.

To me, the most important lesson is that the free market has failed. It does not meet the minimum standard that everyone have access to health care [without eventually overwhelming the economy, as will happen based on the pre-reform trajectory].

 

[CAC1001]

Just fyi, while I generally support the reforms made so far, I completely agree.

To me this looks like a multi-tier issue that requires progress on both the political and economic fronts. Obama took the first step and got what he could. He got the ball rolling. There is much to be done regarding additional reforms and cost containment.

Your example of Mass. Health care seems a little unfair given that, IIRC, they effectively have universal coverage. To compare this to States where many people either have no insurance, or they are underinsured, or they are rejected when they need the insurance, or coverage is denied to children for prexisting conditions, and so on, is comparing apples to oranges. It is no secret that it will cost more to fully insure everyone. That's why reform was such a challenge. That is also why everyone must be in the system - either insured or charged $2500 per year - in order to make ANY option work.

Everyone having coverage is good, but potential exploding costs are a major concern because of the deficit and debt. We can have a high level of debt if we run very low deficits or a balanced budget, and we can have larger chronic deficits with a low level of national debt, but right now we have the problem of a massive deficit and a high level of debt, which is completely unsustainable.

A large deficit means the debt increases by large amounts every year, and the larger the debt grows, the greater a chunk of the federal budget must go to servicing it. It also means any upward tick in the interest rate could mean a massive amount more going to service the debt.

Also Mass. has considered implementing rationing with their healthcare system: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/1445 which would mean even if everyone is covered, not everyone necessarilly will get care.

To me, the most important lesson is that the free market has failed. It does not meet the minimum standard that everyone have access to health care [without eventually overwhelming the economy, as will happen based on the pre-reform trajectory].

I wouldn't claim the free-market has failed, but the current system needs changing. One part of the industry is not free-market, for example people cannot purchase health insurance across state lines. The opponents point out that health insurance is regulated on the state level, so they claim if this was done, health insurance companies would all cluster into the state that mandates they cover the least amount of things. I don't know how true that is, but regardless of what the solution would be, the health insurance sector right now in that sense is not at all a free-market.

 

[turbo]

I wouldn't claim the free-market has failed, but the current system needs changing. One part of the industry is not free-market, for example people cannot purchase health insurance across state lines. The opponents point out that health insurance is regulated on the state level, so they claim if this was done, health insurance companies would all cluster into the state that mandates they cover the least amount of things. I don't know how true that is, but regardless of what the solution would be, the health insurance sector right now in that sense is not at all a free-market.

The free market has been out-flanked by the insurance companies, in this case. In an ideal world, insurance would be a way to spread risk, so everybody pays a little, and gets protection from catastrophic losses. Unfortunately, that's not what we have now. Get an expensive illness? Get dropped by your insurance company on a technicality (you didn't remember that you had mono once in college, for instance) with no recourse. When you're fighting an aggressive cancer, you probably don't have the energy or financial resources to stand up for your rights, so you have to default on payments or go through bankruptcy and lose everything in an attempt to survive. Our current health-insurance system sucks. The insurance-company apologists who claim that we have the "best" health-care in the world have no idea what this country could accomplish with rational reforms and universal coverage.

 

[Proton Soup]

The free market has been out-flanked by the insurance companies, in this case. In an ideal world, insurance would be a way to spread risk, so everybody pays a little, and gets protection from catastrophic losses. Unfortunately, that's not what we have now. Get an expensive illness? Get dropped by your insurance company on a technicality (you didn't remember that you had mono once in college, for instance) with no recourse. When you're fighting an aggressive cancer, you probably don't have the energy or financial resources to stand up for your rights, so you have to default on payments or go through bankruptcy and lose everything in an attempt to survive. Our current health-insurance system sucks. The insurance-company apologists who claim that we have the "best" health-care in the world have no idea what this country could accomplish with rational reforms and universal coverage.

yeah, i came across an interesting lecture from this guy named Chris Hedges who thinks Obama is a sellout to them as well. in addition to failing at pretty much everything else liberals supposedly stand for. actually, it starts off with the birth pangs of the death of the liberal establishment and birth of the war economy at WWI, but if you're impatient, maybe you'd want to skip to about halfway. never heard of him, and not sure i'd ever be quite this liberal, but it's a very interesting perspective to me. in any case, staying relatively on-topic with the 111th's productivity, this guy says it's a complete failure from a liberal POV. 45m:23s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s

 

[Al68]

The Socialists and Marxists have found they can best implement their playbook via the Democratic Party.

And I see we've returned to the theory that Democrats are really just pawns of the Marxists again...

Nope, no such theory was advanced by bobc2. He never said "pawns of." He was referring to the obvious ideology of the members of the Democratic Party themselves.

And there's no "theory" involved, only the semantic issue of the meaning of the word "Marxist." Bobc2 was clearly using the word generically to describe people with left-wing economic ideology. The word's capitalization reflects the word's origin, not an implied specific official political group.

 

[Al68]

The free market has been out-flanked by the insurance companies, in this case.

No, it was "out-flanked" by government. Insurance companies lack the power to control whether the market is free or not. No insurance company can force me to buy insurance from them, or prevent me from buying insurance from someone else.

The fact that the medical insurance market is not a free market is the result of government action. Government, not insurance companies, has used force to prevent a free market.

 

[WhoWee]

The free market has been out-flanked by the insurance companies, in this case. In an ideal world, insurance would be a way to spread risk, so everybody pays a little, and gets protection from catastrophic losses. Unfortunately, that's not what we have now. Get an expensive illness? Get dropped by your insurance company on a technicality (you didn't remember that you had mono once in college, for instance) with no recourse. When you're fighting an aggressive cancer, you probably don't have the energy or financial resources to stand up for your rights, so you have to default on payments or go through bankruptcy and lose everything in an attempt to survive. Our current health-insurance system sucks. The insurance-company apologists who claim that we have the "best" health-care in the world have no idea what this country could accomplish with rational reforms and universal coverage.

Turbo - to use YOUR words...It's time to back up your claims or go away.

Please explain how the insurance companies - working under extreme Government regulation have out-flanked the free market.

In the context of your response, please remember that all 50 states have a department of insurance - with different rules to follow. Please also remember that all 50 states have a department to investigate carriers (and agents) and to protect consumers.

 

[OmCheeto]

UM...I never said any of those systems (British, French, or German) "don't work,"

Good. If they work, then I don't see the problem.

I wonder what congress will do next session.

 

[turbo]

Turbo - to use YOUR words...It's time to back up your claims or go away.

Have you not heard of recission? If not, you are perhaps the least informed person on this forum. Do you not know that Anthem/Wellpoint has been in a running battle with CA regulators for dumping patients with serious illnesses? Let's not pretend this is not happening, OK?

And this is the ultimate end-run around the free-market system. Promise insurance coverage until it comes time to pay up, then drop the patients on any technicality.

 

[WhoWee]

Have you not heard of recission? If not, you are perhaps the least informed person on this forum. Do you not know that Anthem/Wellpoint has been in a running battle with CA regulators for dumping patients with serious illnesses? Let's not pretend this is not happening, OK?

And this is the ultimate end-run around the free-market system. Promise insurance coverage until it comes time to pay up, then drop the patients on any technicality.

When it comes to the health insurance debate turbo - I am probably the most informed person on the PF.

You have not supported your post - you have only changed the focus to a single situation.

If you want to discuss specific California insurance issues, I suggest you spend about 5 to 6 hours studying their codes - then we can proceed - in a new thread.
http://insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0500-legal-info/0100-insurance-code/

 

[Mech_Engineer]

More to the topic of this thread- yes, congress passed the most legislation in a while. Problem is, was it good legislation? The healthcare legislation was thousands of pages- is it really necessary to have so much?

 

[WhoWee]

More to the topic of this thread- yes, congress passed the most legislation in a while. Problem is, was it good legislation? The healthcare legislation was thousands of pages- is it really necessary to have so much?

The legislation could be much shorter - at 2,000 pages we still find headlines like these:

"Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
"

"WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning
"

 

[WhoWee]

link for previous post
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html

 

[WhoWee]

for turbo (regarding Anthem/Wellpoint):

http://interactive.web.insurance.ca...ent&doFunction=getCompanyPerformance&eid=7008

 

[CAC1001]

Good. If they work, then I don't see the problem.

I wonder what congress will do next session.

They "work," sure, but they have their own share of problems as well.

 

[Al68]

Have you not heard of recission? If not, you are perhaps the least informed person on this forum. Do you not know that Anthem/Wellpoint has been in a running battle with CA regulators for dumping patients with serious illnesses? Let's not pretend this is not happening, OK?

LOL. Translation: you will not support your claims, and any and all arguments based on them are therefore invalid.

And this is the ultimate end-run around the free-market system. Promise insurance coverage until it comes time to pay up, then drop the patients on any technicality.

If you're referring to fraud, you're engaging in an obvious strawman argument, since no one is advocating fraud, or opposing enforcing anti-fraud laws.

If you're referring to an insurance company not covering something that both parties agreed was not included in the contract, then your claim is self-evidently false, since no promised coverage is denied.

Wild unsupported claims, non-sequitors, and classically fallacious logic may convince the <80 IQ crowd, but the rest of can see right through it.

 

[Char. Limit]

LOL.

Do you have to begin every single post you make with LOL? I'm starting to wonder if you're dying from laughter, you never seem to stop. If you're trying to make the other guy sound ludicrous, it doesn't help when you do it with EVERY post.

 

[Al68]

Do you have to begin every single post you make with LOL? I'm starting to wonder if you're dying from laughter, you never seem to stop. If you're trying to make the other guy sound ludicrous, it doesn't help when you do it with EVERY post.

What if every post I reply to is ludricrous?

Seriously, point well taken, thank you. I'm not quite dying from laughter yet.

 

[OmCheeto]

They "work," sure, but they have their own share of problems as well.

Solvable problems are what make science geeks like myself not shoot ourselves in frustration dealing with stupidity.

A lifelong series of homework problems that we obsessively try and solve to keep our minds from being sucked into the mind numbing continuous media vortex of is Anna Nicole Smith still dead?

---------------------------------
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens

 

[Al68]

Solvable problems are what make science geeks like myself not shoot ourselves in frustration dealing with stupidity.

A lifelong series of homework problems that we obsessively try and solve to keep our minds from being sucked into the mind numbing continuous media vortex of is Anna Nicole Smith still dead?

Times two. I have to agree with all of that.

---------------------------------
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens

Justiz vielleicht? Haben die Goetter nicht schaffen Dummheit?

 

[bobc2]

Nope, no such theory was advanced by bobc2. He never said "pawns of." He was referring to the obvious ideology of the members of the Democratic Party themselves.

And there's no "theory" involved, only the semantic issue of the meaning of the word "Marxist." Bobc2 was clearly using the word generically to describe people with left-wing economic ideology. The word's capitalization reflects the word's origin, not an implied specific official political group.

Thanks, Al68, that's what I intended to convey.

I can cite references in support of my comments, providing names, etc., (about the Socialist/Marxist participation and outside influence on the Obama administration) than should be reasonably posted here (some of Obama's folks have been members of Socialist Organizations and some have not formally registered as Socialists but embrace the agenda).

Obama is a tough guy to analyze -- if he privately embraces Socialism, he would understand the importance of not showing that in public. He certainly attended New Party meetings (Socialists) prior to his election to the Illinoise Senate and teamed up with another Socialist Senator, but he never joined any of the Socialist organizations. By the way, one of the founders of the New Party was the former SDS national secretary, Carl Davidson. Davidson had also been a key player in the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Another New party founder, Joel Rogers (Univ of Wisconsin prof), was also a founder of the Apollo Alliance--the organization involved in drafting the Obama 2009 Stimulus Bill and Cap and Trade. His wife worked in the same law firm that Obama had worked in.

Sorry this is not a good time for me to be posting. I'll get back when I can.

 

[turbo]

Thanks, Al68, that's what I intended to convey.

I can cite references in support of my comments, providing names, etc., (about the Socialist/Marxist participation and outside influence on the Obama administration) than should be reasonably posted here (some of Obama's folks have been members of Socialist Organizations and some have not formally registered as Socialists but embrace the agenda).

Obama is a tough guy to analyze -- if he privately embraces Socialism, he would understand the importance of not showing that in public. He certainly attended New Party meetings (Socialists) prior to his election to the Illinoise Senate and teamed up with another Socialist Senator, but he never joined any of the Socialist organizations. By the way, one of the founders of the New Party was the former SDS national secretary, Carl Davidson. Davidson had also been a key player in the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Another New party founder, Joel Rogers (Univ of Wisconsin prof), was also a founder of the Apollo Alliance--the organization involved in drafting the Obama 2009 Stimulus Bill and Cap and Trade. His wife worked in the same law firm that Obama had worked in.

Sorry this is not a good time for me to be posting. I'll get back when I can.

Do you have any support for your claims that members of his administration are Socialist, Marxist, or former SDS members? Please supply verifiable, mainstream quotes. This right-wing mud-slinging is getting out of control! It is tolerated here, much to the detriment of the forum's reputation.

 

[OmCheeto]

Times two. I have to agree with all of that.

Then why do you speak like this?

I think he meant that he hated that government was only going to partially confiscate private estates (above a specified value) at a 35% rate instead of some higher percentage that he favors.

Of course Dems normally describe it using Commiespeak, referring to the unconfiscated amount (or part of it) as if it were a gift from government, as if inherited private property (or a large percentage of it) rightfully belongs to government.

Gee, I wonder if any such advocates of private property confiscation will object to the word "Commiespeak?"

Shall I just report you quick and get an expedited decision?

LOL. Sure. But I did edit my post to capitalize "Commiespeak" and provide a link to the Communist Party USA, since Communist can refer to the official party, not just their ideology. Unless someone objects to using "Commie" as a shortened form of "Communist."

I see no questions, and I see no answers. I only see labels and baseless insinuations.

I have to ask, what part of my post are you agreeing with? The frustration of dealing with stupidity?

 

[CAC1001]

Solvable problems are what make science geeks like myself not shoot ourselves in frustration dealing with stupidity.

I sure hope the healthcare problems are solvable.