RE: Health care passes

RE: Health care passes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 9:33:41 AM)
quote: Have you ever considered that some of us might want the programs we have on the books now (that we can't afford) to be fixed and made solvent before 150+ new offices and agencies are thrown on top of them? Maybe some of us still prefer to have as little government intrusion into our lives as possible. I'm all for dismantling the Department of Homeland Security Theater. quote: Simply put this bill treats the symptoms and does next to nothing for the underlying disease. This is an overstatement. You have to start somewhere, and this bill does start to address system abuses and insure people previously uninsured. A more cogent argument against is the the cost; the counter argument is the rapidly increasing cost of the status quo. quote: it is very likely not going to be able to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. The mandates, special deals for particular states and classes of people will surely bring about a SCOTUS rebuke, as the reconcilliation bill (which contains the fixes) has no chance of being legally passed in the Senate. Time will tell, but I'd be very surprised. The case just isn't that strong, and this isn't the unprecedented revolution opponents are painting it except by convenient definition. I know you're also on the "no one listened to the Republican plans" bandwagon, but there again, it's a contrived position. Republicans made clear from the beginning, explicitly, that they would oppose this before they even saw it, as they considered a defeat to be Obama's "Waterloo." It was always a political stance--the issue just happened to be health care. If the Dems had come up with some magically incredible bill, Republicans would have opposed it all the more, as they couldn't afford to let the Dems get the credit--like for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Civil Rights. Once people get over the silliness that prevented real bipartisan work on this (which I would have liked to have seen, but was never going to happen), when the grannies aren't marched off to dead squads, when the jails aren't full of kids who missed their insurance payment, we can start to enjoy the advantages and work on the disadvantages---like the prescription drug fix Medicare got....flawed, but a step. The main thing that separates the camps is this--the belief that anything government does is bad (come on, by definition an extreme and thus irrational view), vs. the demonstrable belief that continuing to do nothing will see health care become more and more unaffordable by both individuals and businesses, while it covers less and less for fewer and fewer people, including those who thought they were covered when the tragedy hit. These things have to stop--this bill is a step toward that.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 10:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda It would have been bipartisan if there were any republicans with a shred of honor or integrity. As for the democrats, many - maybe even most - of those who voted against it did so because it wasn't liberal enough, not because they're opposed to the basic principles. They just felt it didn't go far enough, not that it went too far. I can live with that. So, the dems who voted no, did so because they opposed it's basic principles and it wasn't liberal enough. Are you sure that's what I said? quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi The repubs who voted no, did so because they lack honor and integrity. Are you sure that's what I said? quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Yea, that makes sense, and I am supposed to think you're a fair judge of things? If you're misreading what I said, it's unlikely you can make an objective assessment of whether or not I'm judging things fairly.

DemandingLeader -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 10:30:53 AM)
I suspect the mandated insurance part will run into constitutional trouble. Unlike mandatory auto insurance, if a person dislikes the principle, they can buy a bike or bus pass or hitch a ride with someone else. There is an alternative to avoiding mandatory auto insurance. There is no alternative here. The liberal site FireDogLake has a nice summary about whats wrong with the bill http://firedoglake.com/ As for all the people lamenting about the quality difference between our medicine and medicine elsewhere in socialised countries, just because we have top-notch medicine available to us doesn't mean we can automatically afford it. The people in medicine today have become way too money-centric, and that's not how medicine used to be when we had country physicians making house calls. Your grandmother wasn't born in a hospital that was listed on some stock exchange, but your kids probably were. If reform happens to drive the money-centric practitioners out of the business, then that's good news for the system as a whole. But 4500 lobbyists guaranteed that this legislation will not accomplish that.

thompsonx -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 10:31:57 AM)
Yes. For all the claims that most Americans want this, I find it strange that our representatives can only manage barely more than 50%. For all the claims that most Americans are against this, I find it strange that our representatives passed this legislation with a majority.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 10:50:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: countrychick The United States of America is the only first world developed country without a universal health care system for its people and yet people don't want this? I'm just totally confused as to why people think it is not appropriate for a country to provide any and all citizens with the right to health care. Sure I hear about increased taxes and the costs to the system, but aren't the lives of human beings worth more than a few percentage points of one's income? And if the rest of the developed world can do it, without bankrupting itself, why can't the USA? Just curious... Too many Americans are greedy, heartless, self-centered idiots who think that poverty or bad luck are character flaws that deserve to be punished by god. Very nice. As one of the "greedy, heartless, self-centered idiots" that opposed this legislation for a whole slew of reasons, none of which relate to your obvious hyperbole. Then perhaps you're not one of the people to whom I was referring.... quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I wonder if you have even considered that there would be better ways of getting the coverage, portability, and choice that we as Americans deserve? Yes. But I have yet to hear of one. If you know of a viable alternative that nobody else has mentioned in the last year, I'm all ears. Please be forewarned that anything involving tort reform or selling insurance across state lines will be torn to shreds as soon as I'm finished laughing. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Have you ever considered that some of us might want the programs we have on the books now (that we can't afford) to be fixed and made solvent before 150+ new offices and agencies are thrown on top of them? How many tens - how many hundreds of thousands of people - need to die from lack of proper health care while we dick around trying to solve those problems? Have you got a number in mind for how many people you're willing to let die while you wait for this perfect world to emerge? quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Maybe some of us still prefer to have as little government intrusion into our lives as possible. None of those things have anything to do with not having compassion for our fellow citizen or those that truly need a helping hand. I would argue that they have a hell of a lot to do with not having compassion for other people in your community. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Simply put this bill treats the symptoms and does next to nothing for the underlying disease. That, I agree with. Its greatest value is as a starting point. What it does is get us moving in the right direction, away from the current model that is clearly completely, irreparably dysfunctional. There is no perfect solution to the health care crisis, but the best available basic model is single-payer, universal care, as practiced by almost every other country on the planet. The only rational direction for us to go is toward that model, and we needed this deeply flawed bill to start moving in that direction. This bill is by no means the best we can do, but it's the best we can do right now. So here's where we start, and we go forward from here. Let's use World War II as an analogy. The invasion of Normandy did not end World War II, but we could not have won the war if we hadn't invaded Normandy. We needed to invade France in order to put ourselves in a position to take Berlin. This bill is our Normandy. It's ugly, it's messy, it's bloody, it's chaotic, and it's controversial and risky as hell. But if we don't bite the bullet and put ourselves through it we'll never put ourselves in a position to get where we need to go in order to win the war. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Too, because of the way this bill was scrapped together, bent, and filled up, it is very likely not going to be able to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. Then you have nothing to worry about. But don't hold your breath, because very few people outside the right wing fringe groups seriously believe there's any merit to that argument. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius The mandates, special deals for particular states and classes of people will surely bring about a SCOTUS rebuke, as the reconcilliation bill (which contains the fixes) has no chance of being legally passed in the Senate. Why not?

Musicmystery -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 11:31:32 AM)
quote: There is an alternative to avoiding mandatory auto insurance. There is no alternative here. Not everyone will need auto insurance. Everyone will need health insurance. People with auto insurance wouldn't buy it if they had a choice. Yet the average driver has a collision every five years. People get sick and become injured. Goes with being mere mortals. And it costs money when it happens.

DomKen -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 11:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DemandingLeader I suspect the mandated insurance part will run into constitutional trouble. Unlike mandatory auto insurance, if a person dislikes the principle, they can buy a bike or bus pass or hitch a ride with someone else. There is an alternative to avoiding mandatory auto insurance. There is no alternative here. Actually there is an alternative. You simply pay a higher amount in income taxes.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 12:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Once people get over the silliness that prevented real bipartisan work Yeah, that's bound to happen now considering the 'grass roots' absolutism on display... quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda It would have been bipartisan if there were any republicans with a shred of honor or integrity. A statement requiring a position which fundamentally believes there are none. I appreciate and can deal with pragmatic honesty. What's occurring now is agenda based honesty; a rationalized and hypocritical version of 'truth'. It starts with how this Bill was ultimately passed. 2700 Pages of new laws, with not one person admitting to reading it. Led by the spokesperson for an ignorant vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was proud to champion the position; "vote for it now - read it later!" Pragmatically no Bill with similar impact to the public or the economy was handled similarly - no bill ever passed under these circumstances with zero minority party involvement; it requires a rationalized approach to 'truth' to say this new law didn't take a unique path. From there - further rationalized and agenda based truths follow in lock step. The impact on businesses, the middle class (having it's own moving target definition), cost, access, quality; all projected from poster images of the 'worst case' provided by both sides. We've been implementing 'exception based' legislation since the 60's. One kid breaks his neck on monkey bars as school - ALL monkey bars gone. One person can't have an open casket, and helmets are required to ride a motorcycle. As if people stopped doing stupid human tricks, hurting and killing themselves. This Bill addresses 30 Million exceptions, a big number but representing about 10% of the population. That leaves 90% to be determined as 'winners' and 'losers'. The winners are easy to see; public employee unions, the aforementioned 31 Million uninsured, health care providers, the very rich, PAC's and those on their payrolls. The losers are the unemployed seeking work, investors in the manufacturing sector, private employers, tight budgeted individuals who will lost the ability to choose not buying health insurance currently available to them. The most amusing is seeing the "can't we all just get along?" whining from the side that won! Lets not call the President names, lets not support any threat, lets give the Administration the support needed for the sake of the USA's global image; really? I think that's one rationalized agenda based truth that is NOT going to be represented. This Bill was passed by divisiveness. It won't generate cooperation on any level; philosophical, political, or economic. You've added another group who thinks that through this Bill "got mine". They did "get it" and in the process further removed themselves from the group who believes, right or wrong, that they "got it" at the expense of those who "earned it". Another entitlement more distance between the expectation of government responsible for your life and personal responsibility, accountability, and consequence. On simpler terms, the takers won. The expectation that the 'givers' will join them in rejoicing and sing 'kum-by-ya' - is an "irrational view". I appreciate that I speak as an antique. I come from a generation that couldn't wait to leave childhood behind. I abhorred having to ask for a handout from my parents from the day I qualified for a 'work permit'. Where once it would be an embarrassment to be on, or require government assistance, we now live in a society that advertises for more entitlement 'customers', who then complain when their 'benefits', such as unemployment, "lapse" after 99 weeks. There is now honor in being a child for as long as you can and I can't relate. I listened to the college kids who applauded when the President announced that though this bill they could still be a child at the age of 26; and realized that my personal ideals of personal accountability and consequence of action were irrelevant to a generation who starts their monthly budget with an eye toward which and how much they get in entitlements. Congratulations! Enjoy the celebration! Sorry but I don't want to join you - I don't like children's parties.

Thadius -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 12:22:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: countrychick The United States of America is the only first world developed country without a universal health care system for its people and yet people don't want this? I'm just totally confused as to why people think it is not appropriate for a country to provide any and all citizens with the right to health care. Sure I hear about increased taxes and the costs to the system, but aren't the lives of human beings worth more than a few percentage points of one's income? And if the rest of the developed world can do it, without bankrupting itself, why can't the USA? Just curious... Too many Americans are greedy, heartless, self-centered idiots who think that poverty or bad luck are character flaws that deserve to be punished by god. Very nice. As one of the "greedy, heartless, self-centered idiots" that opposed this legislation for a whole slew of reasons, none of which relate to your obvious hyperbole. Then perhaps you're not one of the people to whom I was referring.... quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I wonder if you have even considered that there would be better ways of getting the coverage, portability, and choice that we as Americans deserve? Yes. But I have yet to hear of one. If you know of a viable alternative that nobody else has mentioned in the last year, I'm all ears. Please be forewarned that anything involving tort reform or selling insurance across state lines will be torn to shreds as soon as I'm finished laughing. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Have you ever considered that some of us might want the programs we have on the books now (that we can't afford) to be fixed and made solvent before 150+ new offices and agencies are thrown on top of them? How many tens - how many hundreds of thousands of people - need to die from lack of proper health care while we dick around trying to solve those problems? Have you got a number in mind for how many people you're willing to let die while you wait for this perfect world to emerge? quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Maybe some of us still prefer to have as little government intrusion into our lives as possible. None of those things have anything to do with not having compassion for our fellow citizen or those that truly need a helping hand. I would argue that they have a hell of a lot to do with not having compassion for other people in your community. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Simply put this bill treats the symptoms and does next to nothing for the underlying disease. That, I agree with. Its greatest value is as a starting point. What it does is get us moving in the right direction, away from the current model that is clearly completely, irreparably dysfunctional. There is no perfect solution to the health care crisis, but the best available basic model is single-payer, universal care, as practiced by almost every other country on the planet. The only rational direction for us to go is toward that model, and we needed this deeply flawed bill to start moving in that direction. This bill is by no means the best we can do, but it's the best we can do right now. So here's where we start, and we go forward from here. Let's use World War II as an analogy. The invasion of Normandy did not end World War II, but we could not have won the war if we hadn't invaded Normandy. We needed to invade France in order to put ourselves in a position to take Berlin. This bill is our Normandy. It's ugly, it's messy, it's bloody, it's chaotic, and it's controversial and risky as hell. But if we don't bite the bullet and put ourselves through it we'll never put ourselves in a position to get where we need to go in order to win the war. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Too, because of the way this bill was scrapped together, bent, and filled up, it is very likely not going to be able to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. Then you have nothing to worry about. But don't hold your breath, because very few people outside the right wing fringe groups seriously believe there's any merit to that argument. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius The mandates, special deals for particular states and classes of people will surely bring about a SCOTUS rebuke, as the reconcilliation bill (which contains the fixes) has no chance of being legally passed in the Senate. Why not? To answer your last question first, it is not a valid bill to be considered under reconcilliation for a number of reasons but the biggest disqualifier is that it contains language that makes changes to some Social Security funds. To the constitutionality remarks... I am glad you think it is only right wingers that think it won't pass muster, even if that is true, I remember reading some words around here about the SCOTUS being a puppet of the right wing anyways. Still so confident? Ah, then let's go a bit deeper into the matter. Considering that the reconcilliation bill at best is going to get the revenue portions passed the Senate, that leaves the underlying Senate bill, which still contains the mandates on individuals. Why do you think there was never a mandate for all citizens to buy war bonds, or any other nationally important commodity? I am curious at to when the commerce clause gave the power to congress to regulate non participation of individuals, or to force the purchase of a privately sold and heavily regulated commodity? Beyond this, we step into the special deals for particular classes of people (unions and government employees), special treatment of citizens of particular states for reasons other than natural disaster or Native American relations. Then add in the unfunded mandates imposed on the states. Of course it is only the fringe that believes this bill won't pass muster. As of this writing I know of 19 states that simply waiting for the President to sign the underlying bill into law. Since you and others have already decided that Universal Health Care is the way to go, what plans do you have for the displaced workers of all of these evil greedy corporations? Nevermind, I forgot that they can collect unemployment while they retrain and head back to school with the included addons. I didn't realize I needed the government to help me show compassion for my fellow citizens. Heck, that will make things much easier, I can just write a check to Uncle Sam and let him volunteer some time, food, clothes, an ear and a shoulder to those that need it around these parts. That will definitely free up some time to sit back and relax. Thank you for the insight. The sooner you realize that folks like me are not the enemy, the sooner we can get this country moving in the right direction. With listing the things we can agree upon, so much more can and will get accomplished while we work on the details of those things we don't agree on. So much for the post-partisan, post-racial, new age of hope. The audacity.

KITTYLECTRO -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 12:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: countrychick Wow I can't even fathom someone going to jail for not paying a bill for health care. Jail? http://bit.ly/dxRfRZ From the link: "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division."

Musicmystery -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 12:41:33 PM)
quote: Since you and others have already decided that Universal Health Care is the way to go, what plans do you have for the displaced workers of all of these evil greedy corporations? This is overstatement, Thadius. For what it's worth, this is why I'd prefer a single-payer plan instead of tweaking a system originally designed by the insurance industry to provide premium employee incentives. But it is what it is, and in this climate, all we're going to be able to accomplish--ironically, despite that changing would take this albatross OFF employers' backs. Not doing anything is too great a risk. Already, the cost of these plans has caused companies to drop coverage while their costs continue to climb. With nothing, we're headed for unaffordable insurance for most in time. I do think this will have to be revisited--do we force employers to do this, do we allow a public option and let employers choose what's best to attract the best employees? Do we admit that insurance benefits are payment in kind and thus taxable? The anti-government/pro-business people (by which I mean those people holding that dual position, not that those two positions must be wedded) are going to have to choose which they prefer---stopping government reforms even when it means punishing businesses, or protecting businesses by letting government take the reins in health insurance.

popeye1250 -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 12:52:26 PM)
"Democrats to Americans; SCREW YOU!"

Thadius -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 12:54:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda It would have been bipartisan if there were any republicans with a shred of honor or integrity. As for the democrats, many - maybe even most - of those who voted against it did so because it wasn't liberal enough, not because they're opposed to the basic principles. They just felt it didn't go far enough, not that it went too far. I can live with that. So, the dems who voted no, did so because they opposed it's basic principles and it wasn't liberal enough. Are you sure that's what I said? Nah, you said many of the Dems voted no because it wasn't liberal enough. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi The repubs who voted no, did so because they lack honor and integrity. Are you sure that's what I said? Nah, you said they would have voted yes if they had a shred of honor or integrity, implying that all of them had none of either. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Yea, that makes sense, and I am supposed to think you're a fair judge of things? If you're misreading what I said, it's unlikely you can make an objective assessment of whether or not I'm judging things fairly. If I am misreading what you said please clarify, so that I can make an objective assessment of whether you are being fair in your judgements. The conclussion reached by thishereboi seems to a fair assessment of your statements. That the Dems that opposed the bill did so for policy reasons, and the Repubs that opposed it did so because of a lack of honor and or integrity.

Musicmystery -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 12:56:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 "Democrats to Americans; SCREW YOU!" To half of Americans, according to the recent polls.

popeye1250 -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 1:10:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 "Democrats to Americans; SCREW YOU!" To half of Americans, according to the recent polls. Music, why do I get the feeling that my govt. did something "to" me and not "for" me? I'm listening to the radio and people are pissed! They keep playing that clip from Obama; "This is what change looks like!" Obama is going to see what change looks like on November 2 nd and he's not going to like it. P.S. and I think it's "safe" to say that the Democrats no longer, "have the Unions!" I have one brother who's in the Firefighter's Union and another who's in the Teamster's Union, boy are they going to be pissed!

Thadius -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 1:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Since you and others have already decided that Universal Health Care is the way to go, what plans do you have for the displaced workers of all of these evil greedy corporations? This is overstatement, Thadius. For what it's worth, this is why I'd prefer a single-payer plan instead of tweaking a system originally designed by the insurance industry to provide premium employee incentives. But it is what it is, and in this climate, all we're going to be able to accomplish--ironically, despite that changing would take this albatross OFF employers' backs. Not doing anything is too great a risk. Already, the cost of these plans has caused companies to drop coverage while their costs continue to climb. With nothing, we're headed for unaffordable insurance for most in time. I do think this will have to be revisited--do we force employers to do this, do we allow a public option and let employers choose what's best to attract the best employees? Do we admit that insurance benefits are payment in kind and thus taxable? The anti-government/pro-business people (by which I mean those people holding that dual position, not that those two positions must be wedded) are going to have to choose which they prefer---stopping government reforms even when it means punishing businesses, or protecting businesses by letting government take the reins in health insurance. Tim, I agree that statement is an overstatement, but it also shines light on the stated goal, to put the insurance companies out of business. I am not sure how many folks these companies employ but I would guess it is a bunch. It also takes those companies and the salaries they pay out of the tax paying business. I simply wanted to point out some of the other consequences of killing the beast. I agree with you and have for some time about something needing to be done. I am just flabergasted at the monstrosity that was created and the process in which it occurred (with blame to go around on both sides). Fuck, what was the purpose of forcing a vote late Christmas Eve? The answer is the scary part, those in power knew that if folks returned to their home districts even more support would have been lost. The same can be said for post-poning the "spring recess" to force the vote last night. Let's at least be honest about the fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were not interested in any kind of compromise or anything that did not move us closer to single payer. I know I have asked it over and over again, but here it is one last time. If the benefits of this bill are so important and the bill pays for itself and even generates a net profit, why not have it kick everything in immediately? Live well my brother, Thadius

Musicmystery -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 1:19:43 PM)
popeye, I don't know what will happen in the election. But people are evenly divided. Before this, they were evenly divided. I don't see such a sea change. Tea Partiers will rally. They were mostly Republican before. Seems more of the same to me. But who knows. No, the Dems are hardly saints. But in this climate, Obama could propose allowing people to breath the air and he'd be fiercely opposed. Among other things, a large entertainment network now depends on having something about which to be outraged. Until listeners grow up and think for themselves, pro con or along the continuum, that's not gonna change. I do firmly see that health care status quo is unsustainable. Something has to be done, and if this is the only option, then it's where we'll start. But Americans have short memories. Remember how up in arms everyone was when gasoline almost tripled and then settled down to just over double, and just a few years ago? The screaming is over and people simply pay the new "good" price, completely forgetting that it's double what they were paying, just accepting it. People like that have no real stances. They just react to the latest outrage. Election after next, they'll need a new outrage to get them to the polls, and the puppet masters will give them one.

Musicmystery -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 1:23:39 PM)
quote: If the benefits of this bill are so important and the bill pays for itself and even generates a net profit, why not have it kick everything in immediately? I wouldn't oppose this. In fact, it would open options for me--right now, my income sources are tied to health care, an important consideration when weighing opportunities.

Silence8 -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 1:50:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Tim, I agree that statement is an overstatement, but it also shines light on the stated goal, to put the insurance companies out of business. I am not sure how many folks these companies employ but I would guess it is a bunch. It also takes those companies and the salaries they pay out of the tax paying business. I simply wanted to point out some of the other consequences of killing the beast. Honestly... you're concerned about health insurers losing their jobs?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! That's rich! Maybe we should direct our attention to those few Americans left who produce goods and services of actual positive social value. This consideration would obviously exclude most insurance providers, people working on Wall Street, predatory real estate vultures, anyone associated with those 'Pay Day' places that crop up in the poorest neighborhoods, a large chunk of all lawyers, etc. etc. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Let's at least be honest about the fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were not interested in any kind of compromise or anything that did not move us closer to single payer. What could this statement possibly mean?!?!?!?!?!?!

Thadius -> RE: Health care passes (3/22/2010 2:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Tim, I agree that statement is an overstatement, but it also shines light on the stated goal, to put the insurance companies out of business. I am not sure how many folks these companies employ but I would guess it is a bunch. It also takes those companies and the salaries they pay out of the tax paying business. I simply wanted to point out some of the other consequences of killing the beast. Honestly... you're concerned about health insurers losing their jobs?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! That's rich! Maybe we should direct our attention to those few Americans left who produce goods and services of actual positive social value. This consideration would obviously exclude most insurance providers, people working on Wall Street, predatory real estate vultures, anyone associated with those 'Pay Day' places that crop up in the poorest neighborhoods, a large chunk of all lawyers, etc. etc. Your not? How about all of the other jobs related to the industry? The tax revenues collected from the companies and their employees? No? I saw a figure awhile back that listed full time employees of health insurance companies at around 440k, this didn't include all of the folks working out in the field or the offices that handle sales as contractors. Hell, let's just shoot em, they worked for the evil greedy big insurance companies, and deserve to die a pig's death. (Too strong?) quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Let's at least be honest about the fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were not interested in any kind of compromise or anything that did not move us closer to single payer. What could this statement possibly mean?!?!?!?!?!?! I think that statement is quite clear. If a consensus was desired one would and could have been reached. All 3 of the named in that statement have personally said that single payer is the ultimate goal, and that this was just the first step or laying of the foundation to build upon.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875