White House announces televised health meet
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle...
EPIC. FUCKING. FACEPALM.
EPIC. FUCKING. FACEPALM.
action replay nick: The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle...
EPIC. FUCKING. FACEPALM.
???
EPIC. FUCKING. FACEPALM.
???
action replay nick: The Feb. 25 meeting is an attempt to reach across the aisle...
EPIC. FUCKING. FACEPALM.
Seriously. Enough with this shit. The Republicans do not want bipartisanship, they want their way or the highway.
EPIC. FUCKING. FACEPALM.
Seriously. Enough with this shit. The Republicans do not want bipartisanship, they want their way or the highway.
On, of. Proper prepositions are of pussies.
oftenrong: I think he's referring to the Republicans' utter lack on interest in any compromise.
We can hope that Obama takes some time to list all the compromises made by Dems over the last year...each of which corresponds to Republicans going back on their promises to vote Yes should the compromise go into the bill.
But I'm not too hopeful.
We can hope that Obama takes some time to list all the compromises made by Dems over the last year...each of which corresponds to Republicans going back on their promises to vote Yes should the compromise go into the bill.
But I'm not too hopeful.
fatsean:
The gnashing of Republican teeth at the unfairness of pointing out their assholiness would be epic.
The gnashing of Republican teeth at the unfairness of pointing out their assholiness would be epic.
oftenrong: The gnashing of Republican teeth at the unfairness of pointing out their assholiness would be epic.
They'd accuse him of being a celebrity or something equally random.
They'd accuse him of being a celebrity or something equally random.
fatsean: They'd accuse him of being a celebrity or something equally random.
He eats spicy mustard, just like those faggots in ... *rolls dice*... Switzerland.
He eats spicy mustard, just like those faggots in ... *rolls dice*... Switzerland.
oftenrong: I think he's referring to the Republicans' utter lack on interest in any compromise.
So what?
It's still in his interest to try and appeal to the entirety of the American public. And even if he doesn't get any compromise, so what? He has the votes to pass anything without counting a single Republican, and he looks better for having attempted to reach a compromise.
So what?
It's still in his interest to try and appeal to the entirety of the American public. And even if he doesn't get any compromise, so what? He has the votes to pass anything without counting a single Republican, and he looks better for having attempted to reach a compromise.
sloth: he looks better for having attempted to reach a compromise.
And how has that attempting to reach a compromise worked out for his approval ratings so far?
And how has that attempting to reach a compromise worked out for his approval ratings so far?
sloth: So what?
It's still in his interest to try and appeal to the entirety of the American public. And even if he doesn't get any compromise, so what? He has the votes to pass anything without counting a single Republican, and he looks better for having attempted to reach a compromise.
The Democratic party has the votes, Obama is just a cheerleader given separation of duties here. Sadly the Senate Dems won't go full nuke on the filibuster. Perhaps they are hoping to play tit for tat should the Republicans take the majority in 2010.
It's still in his interest to try and appeal to the entirety of the American public. And even if he doesn't get any compromise, so what? He has the votes to pass anything without counting a single Republican, and he looks better for having attempted to reach a compromise.
The Democratic party has the votes, Obama is just a cheerleader given separation of duties here. Sadly the Senate Dems won't go full nuke on the filibuster. Perhaps they are hoping to play tit for tat should the Republicans take the majority in 2010.
quick1: And how has that attempting to reach a compromise worked out for his approval ratings so far?
He's a failure for failing to reach compromise and he's a failure for failing to force the legislative Democrats to vote in unison.
He's a failure for failing to reach compromise and he's a failure for failing to force the legislative Democrats to vote in unison.
sloth: So what?
It's still in his interest to try and appeal to the entirety of the American public. And even if he doesn't get any compromise, so what? He has the votes to pass anything without counting a single Republican, and he looks better for having attempted to reach a compromise.
So what? So what is the limit on how many times one has to be slapped before one runs out of cheeks to turn? I say 4 but I include butts.
It's still in his interest to try and appeal to the entirety of the American public. And even if he doesn't get any compromise, so what? He has the votes to pass anything without counting a single Republican, and he looks better for having attempted to reach a compromise.
So what? So what is the limit on how many times one has to be slapped before one runs out of cheeks to turn? I say 4 but I include butts.
fatsean: The Democratic party has the votes, Obama is just a cheerleader given separation of duties here. Sadly the Senate Dems won't go full nuke on the filibuster. Perhaps they are hoping to play tit for tat should the Republicans take the majority in 2010.
There's no way the Republicans can sustain a filibuster on this issue for any length of time, and they know as well as anyone that if they try it will cost them a lost of seats this November.
The scary filibuster argument is BS.
There's no way the Republicans can sustain a filibuster on this issue for any length of time, and they know as well as anyone that if they try it will cost them a lost of seats this November.
The scary filibuster argument is BS.
sloth: There's no way the Republicans can sustain a filibuster on this issue for any length of time, and they know as well as anyone that if they try it will cost them a lost of seats this November.
The scary filibuster argument is BS.
What makes you think that? Their tactics of obstruction and painting Democrat reform as socialism sure seem to be working. Polls show that many people think reform = socialism at this point.
The scary filibuster argument is BS.
What makes you think that? Their tactics of obstruction and painting Democrat reform as socialism sure seem to be working. Polls show that many people think reform = socialism at this point.
fatsean: What makes you think that? Their tactics of obstruction and painting Democrat reform as socialism sure seem to be working. Polls show that many people think reform = socialism at this point.
And many other idiots think that the current bill is reform.
It's battle of the useful idiots!
But, seriously, to address your question, because, the example of 1994 guides us here. What happened when the Reps flexed their strength and forced a shutdown over an issue? Clinton got fresh wind beneath his wings and got reelected.
And many other idiots think that the current bill is reform.
It's battle of the useful idiots!
But, seriously, to address your question, because, the example of 1994 guides us here. What happened when the Reps flexed their strength and forced a shutdown over an issue? Clinton got fresh wind beneath his wings and got reelected.
if Republicans or anyone else has a plan for protecting Americans from insurance company abuses, lowering costs, reducing prescription drug prices for seniors, making coverage more secure, and offering affordable options to those without coverage, he’s anxious to see it and debate the merits of it
Actually their plan is to keep all that stuff in place and sabotage any attempt to fix any of it.
Actually their plan is to keep all that stuff in place and sabotage any attempt to fix any of it.
snooge: if Republicans or anyone else has a plan for protecting Americans from insurance company abuses, lowering costs, reducing prescription drug prices for seniors, making coverage more secure, and offering affordable options to those without coverage, he’s anxious to see it and debate the merits of it
Actually their plan is to keep all that stuff in place and sabotage any attempt to fix any of it.
Repeating over and over makes it true.
Actually their plan is to keep all that stuff in place and sabotage any attempt to fix any of it.
Repeating over and over makes it true.
sloth: And many other idiots think that the current bill is reform.
It's battle of the useful idiots!
But, seriously, to address your question, because, the example of 1994 guides us here. What happened when the Reps flexed their strength and forced a shutdown over an issue? Clinton got fresh wind beneath his wings and got reelected.
Maybe you are right, but it seems a stretch to draw that conclusion. The Dems wouldn't even take a stand on the spending bill much less let the government shut down. Not to mention that the filibuster hasn't even been used yet on health care reform and at least Lieberman has gone on record saying he'd use it.
It's battle of the useful idiots!
But, seriously, to address your question, because, the example of 1994 guides us here. What happened when the Reps flexed their strength and forced a shutdown over an issue? Clinton got fresh wind beneath his wings and got reelected.
Maybe you are right, but it seems a stretch to draw that conclusion. The Dems wouldn't even take a stand on the spending bill much less let the government shut down. Not to mention that the filibuster hasn't even been used yet on health care reform and at least Lieberman has gone on record saying he'd use it.
oftenrong: What's the Republican plan?
Tort reform, allow insurance purchasing across state lines, no life-time caps, no pre-existing conditions..
that's off the top of my head. I'm sure a little searching would find you more..
Tort reform, allow insurance purchasing across state lines, no life-time caps, no pre-existing conditions..
that's off the top of my head. I'm sure a little searching would find you more..
snooge: if Republicans or anyone else has a plan for protecting Americans from insurance company abuses, lowering costs, reducing prescription drug prices for seniors, making coverage more secure, and offering affordable options to those without coverage, he’s anxious to see it and debate the merits of it
Actually their plan is to keep all that stuff in place and sabotage any attempt to fix any of it.
It sure seems that way when their ideas for reform are the same old shit from nearly 20 years ago coupled with extra vagueness.
* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
Tort reform? Bitch, please.
Allowing people to group together to buy insurance sounds good, but you're not going to see the low prices one would get from a corporate insurance plan because the corporation pays about half the premium for you already. No estimates on the cost savings either.
Nothing about pre-existing conditions here either.
Actually their plan is to keep all that stuff in place and sabotage any attempt to fix any of it.
It sure seems that way when their ideas for reform are the same old shit from nearly 20 years ago coupled with extra vagueness.
* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
Tort reform? Bitch, please.
Allowing people to group together to buy insurance sounds good, but you're not going to see the low prices one would get from a corporate insurance plan because the corporation pays about half the premium for you already. No estimates on the cost savings either.
Nothing about pre-existing conditions here either.
fatsean: It sure seems that way when their ideas for reform are the same old shit from nearly 20 years ago coupled with extra vagueness.
* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
Tort reform? Bitch, please.
Allowing people to group together to buy insurance sounds good, but you're not going to see the low prices one would get from a corporate insurance plan because the corporation pays about half the premium for you already. No estimates on the cost savings either.
Nothing about pre-existing conditions here either.
You're right. It's not an all-encompassing gov't run plan, so it's crap. Has it been scored by the CBO yet?
* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
Tort reform? Bitch, please.
Allowing people to group together to buy insurance sounds good, but you're not going to see the low prices one would get from a corporate insurance plan because the corporation pays about half the premium for you already. No estimates on the cost savings either.
Nothing about pre-existing conditions here either.
You're right. It's not an all-encompassing gov't run plan, so it's crap. Has it been scored by the CBO yet?
fatsean: Allowing people to group together to buy insurance sounds good, but you're not going to see the low prices one would get from a corporate insurance plan because the corporation pays about half the premium for you already.
I think your logic train jumped the tracks somewhere on this, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint where.
I think your logic train jumped the tracks somewhere on this, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint where.
lunablue: You're right. It's not an all-encompassing gov't run plan, so it's crap. Has it been scored by the CBO yet?
It's just the same old crap. Deregulation will magically produce efficiencies that will offset the last two decades of climbing health care and insurance costs. And tort reform, let's not forget that.
It's just the same old crap. Deregulation will magically produce efficiencies that will offset the last two decades of climbing health care and insurance costs. And tort reform, let's not forget that.
lunablue: Tort reform, allow insurance purchasing across state lines, no life-time caps, no pre-existing conditions..
that's off the top of my head. I'm sure a little searching would find you more..
Um, wouldn't allowing people to buy across state lines simply allow the companies to close up shop in all but the few states with extremely industry friendly laws?
And tort reform is such a small dent as to be meaningless.
that's off the top of my head. I'm sure a little searching would find you more..
Um, wouldn't allowing people to buy across state lines simply allow the companies to close up shop in all but the few states with extremely industry friendly laws?
And tort reform is such a small dent as to be meaningless.
fatsean: Nothing about pre-existing conditions here either.
Actually, it's in the bill I linked.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.
Don't get me wrong, the Rep plan is BS - but it does exist, and the Dem plan is pretty BS too.
Actually, it's in the bill I linked.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.
Don't get me wrong, the Rep plan is BS - but it does exist, and the Dem plan is pretty BS too.
quick1: Um, wouldn't allowing people to buy across state lines simply allow the companies to close up shop in all but the few states with extremely industry friendly laws?
And tort reform is such a small dent as to be meaningless.
Choice and competition. Is there any with a gov't run plan with mandates?
If tort reform is so meaningless then there's nothing to lose doing it.
And tort reform is such a small dent as to be meaningless.
Choice and competition. Is there any with a gov't run plan with mandates?
If tort reform is so meaningless then there's nothing to lose doing it.
lunablue: Choice and competition. Is there any with a gov't run plan with mandates?
If tort reform is so meaningless then there's nothing to lose doing it.
Obama has already said he's open to tort reform a couple of times. The last time I saw was just a week or two ago, when he was addressing the GOP.
If tort reform is so meaningless then there's nothing to lose doing it.
Obama has already said he's open to tort reform a couple of times. The last time I saw was just a week or two ago, when he was addressing the GOP.
lunablue: You're right. It's not an all-encompassing gov't run plan, so it's crap. Has it been scored by the CBO yet?
CBO said it would
1) cost $61B (compared to more than $1T for the Dem plan)
2) Lower some private premiums in the 5-10% range
3) Leave us with 52 million uninsured in 2019 (compared to 18 million for the Dem plan)
CBO said it would
1) cost $61B (compared to more than $1T for the Dem plan)
2) Lower some private premiums in the 5-10% range
3) Leave us with 52 million uninsured in 2019 (compared to 18 million for the Dem plan)
sloth: I think your logic train jumped the tracks somewhere on this, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint where.
Perhaps at over-selling junction #2, it's a rough spot on the line. The small business say they can't afford to pay into the plan like the big corps do, that's why they don't offer health care in the first place. If a small business employs 5 people, what kind of savings can be expected from a pool of 5? Why not just buy into the other existing, already too expensive, private plans that have even larger pools?
Perhaps at over-selling junction #2, it's a rough spot on the line. The small business say they can't afford to pay into the plan like the big corps do, that's why they don't offer health care in the first place. If a small business employs 5 people, what kind of savings can be expected from a pool of 5? Why not just buy into the other existing, already too expensive, private plans that have even larger pools?
sloth: CBO said it would
1) cost $61B (compared to more than $1T for the Dem plan)
2) Lower some private premiums in the 5-10% range
3) Leave us with 52 million uninsured in 2019 (compared to 18 million for the Dem plan)
How can there be any uninsured under teh Dem plan with mandatory coverage?
1) cost $61B (compared to more than $1T for the Dem plan)
2) Lower some private premiums in the 5-10% range
3) Leave us with 52 million uninsured in 2019 (compared to 18 million for the Dem plan)
How can there be any uninsured under teh Dem plan with mandatory coverage?
sloth:
link
I'm pleasantly surprised there isn't a section on providing free ponies as therapy for Real Americans who suffer from the pain and itching of having to pay taxes but there is the predictable no abortion blather.
Republicans have earned distrust. I'll not be fooled by their platitudes even in PDF form.
link
I'm pleasantly surprised there isn't a section on providing free ponies as therapy for Real Americans who suffer from the pain and itching of having to pay taxes but there is the predictable no abortion blather.
Republicans have earned distrust. I'll not be fooled by their platitudes even in PDF form.
sloth: Actually, it's in the bill I linked.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.
Don't get me wrong, the Rep plan is BS - but it does exist, and the Dem plan is pretty BS too.
Universal Access Programs sounds an awful lot like a Public Option in concept. Maybe they have something there.
The Dem's bill as it exist is BS, but still better than what we've got right now IMO.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.
Don't get me wrong, the Rep plan is BS - but it does exist, and the Dem plan is pretty BS too.
Universal Access Programs sounds an awful lot like a Public Option in concept. Maybe they have something there.
The Dem's bill as it exist is BS, but still better than what we've got right now IMO.
lunablue:
If tort reform is so meaningless then there's nothing to lose doing it.
Just don't be a malpractice victim.
If tort reform is so meaningless then there's nothing to lose doing it.
Just don't be a malpractice victim.
oftenrong: Just don't be a malpractice victim.
Yes, you're right. Tort reform means letting doctors get away with murder. Hyperbole.
Yes, you're right. Tort reform means letting doctors get away with murder. Hyperbole.
lunablue: How can there be any uninsured under teh Dem plan with mandatory coverage?
Some people will choose to take the penalty rather than buy coverage.
Some people will choose to take the penalty rather than buy coverage.
lunablue: Yes, you're right. Tort reform means letting doctors get away with murder. Hyperbole.
No it doesn't, but it does allow an arbitrary ceiling on payouts that are the only way for a regular citizen to hurt organisations and individuals who only feel pain in their balance sheets.
No it doesn't, but it does allow an arbitrary ceiling on payouts that are the only way for a regular citizen to hurt organisations and individuals who only feel pain in their balance sheets.
fatsean: No it doesn't, but it does allow an arbitrary ceiling on payouts that are the only way for a regular citizen to hurt organisations and individuals who only feel pain in their balance sheets.
And hurts ambulance chasers paydays, don't for get that.
Also, malpractice insurance is high too. Maybe that industry needs to be taken over.
With a gov't controlled health plan the only liable player would be the person giving the care, not the group deciding what care is approved.
And hurts ambulance chasers paydays, don't for get that.
Also, malpractice insurance is high too. Maybe that industry needs to be taken over.
With a gov't controlled health plan the only liable player would be the person giving the care, not the group deciding what care is approved.
sloth: Some people will choose to take the penalty rather than buy coverage.
Yup. Until they need it.
Yup. Until they need it.
lunablue: And hurts ambulance chasers paydays, don't for get that.
Also, malpractice insurance is high too. Maybe that industry needs to be taken over.
With a gov't controlled health plan the only liable player would be the person giving the care, not the group deciding what care is approved.
The ambulance chasers wouldn't exist if not for the deep pockets and malpractice of our health care system.
Also, malpractice insurance is high too. Maybe that industry needs to be taken over.
With a gov't controlled health plan the only liable player would be the person giving the care, not the group deciding what care is approved.
The ambulance chasers wouldn't exist if not for the deep pockets and malpractice of our health care system.
lunablue: Yup. Until they need it.
Hopefully the penalties will cover their bill. If not, work camps.
Hopefully the penalties will cover their bill. If not, work camps.
someone who may or may not be bNlican
2010-02-08 10:05:54.0
login to vote
score 0
NOTE TO THE ARROGANT IDIOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO LOVES LISTENING TO HIMSELF:
IF THE GOP WANTED YOUR STINKING HEALTHCARE BILL THEY WOULD HAVE SIGNED ONTO IT A LONG TIME AGO.
YOU AREN'T A DICTATOR, YOU AREN'T OUR BOSS, YOU WORK FOR US AND WHEN WE SAY NO WE MEAN NO.
NOW GO SIT IN FRONT OF YOUR MIRROR AND KISS YOURSELF.
IF THE GOP WANTED YOUR STINKING HEALTHCARE BILL THEY WOULD HAVE SIGNED ONTO IT A LONG TIME AGO.
YOU AREN'T A DICTATOR, YOU AREN'T OUR BOSS, YOU WORK FOR US AND WHEN WE SAY NO WE MEAN NO.
NOW GO SIT IN FRONT OF YOUR MIRROR AND KISS YOURSELF.
Nothing wrong with tort reform except that it's a red herring. They only account for 2% of health care costs. This is like when the same people were blaming union pensions for the cost of cars. All labor costs account for about 10% of the car's retail price. Pretend to fix a problem and it's fixed.
I have a question:
How can you reconcile a federal Tort Reform law setting damage caps with the arguement of STATE'S RIGHTS!
Shouldn't it be up to the individual states to decide what the max payout of a lawsuit can be?
How can you reconcile a federal Tort Reform law setting damage caps with the arguement of STATE'S RIGHTS!
Shouldn't it be up to the individual states to decide what the max payout of a lawsuit can be?
felgraf: I have a question:
How can you reconcile a federal Tort Reform law setting damage caps with the arguement of STATE'S RIGHTS!
Shouldn't it be up to the individual states to decide what the max payout of a lawsuit can be?
LOL, are you asking Republicans to be consistent?
How can you reconcile a federal Tort Reform law setting damage caps with the arguement of STATE'S RIGHTS!
Shouldn't it be up to the individual states to decide what the max payout of a lawsuit can be?
LOL, are you asking Republicans to be consistent?
someone who may or may not be bNlican: NOTE TO THE ARROGANT IDIOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO LOVES LISTENING TO HIMSELF:
IF THE GOP WANTED YOUR STINKING HEALTHCARE BILL THEY WOULD HAVE SIGNED ONTO IT A LONG TIME AGO.
YOU AREN'T A DICTATOR, YOU AREN'T OUR BOSS, YOU WORK FOR US AND WHEN WE SAY NO WE MEAN NO.
NOW GO SIT IN FRONT OF YOUR MIRROR AND KISS YOURSELF.
LOUD NOISES LOUD NOISES!
IF THE GOP WANTED YOUR STINKING HEALTHCARE BILL THEY WOULD HAVE SIGNED ONTO IT A LONG TIME AGO.
YOU AREN'T A DICTATOR, YOU AREN'T OUR BOSS, YOU WORK FOR US AND WHEN WE SAY NO WE MEAN NO.
NOW GO SIT IN FRONT OF YOUR MIRROR AND KISS YOURSELF.
LOUD NOISES LOUD NOISES!
If you logged in, you could post here.