quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Why is the gop forced to pander to the most extreme elements to win their nomination? Must really suck.

We`re arguing about fast trade.......

They are stooping to the lowest....



 Jeb Bush Brags About Interfering In Schiavo Case At Conservative Conference

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this really should go without saying, but since you constantly wear these hyper-partisan blinders i'll say it anyway:

is it possible that republicans do actually care about healthcare, but do so in a way that doesn't compromise their principles? you know, the ones that (ideally) advocate a free market, smaller government, fiscal soundness and individual freedom & choice as opposed to another step towards a nanny totalitarian state??

that you consistently ascribe base motivations and intentions to the people you disagree with should actually trouble you if you have a thoughtful and equitable conscience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this really should go without saying, but since you constantly wear these hyper-partisan blinders i'll say it anyway:

is it possible that republicans do actually care about healthcare, but do so in a way that doesn't compromise their principles? you know, the ones that (ideally) advocate a free market, smaller government, fiscal soundness and individual freedom & choice as opposed to another step towards a nanny totalitarian state??

that you consistently ascribe base motivations and intentions to the people you disagree with should actually trouble you if you have a thoughtful and equitable conscience.

It is possible. The problem is their principles are: "Enrich our donors! In this case the insurance, and drug company lobbies.

Free market? Smaller government? Fiscal Soundness? Ever hear of Medicare Part D???

Medicare Part D is a Republican scheme to bypass Medicare's ability to use Free Market principles to negotiate a fair price for drugs, and instead direct taxpayer money to pay FULL drug company prices. (Adding 2 layers of bureaucracy in the process)

Republican principles at work

quote:

Opponents of the legislation warned that seniors would demand that Congress revisit the issue once they realized what the bill does and does not do. High on the list of things not covered in the bill is a mechanism to stem rising prescription drug costs. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who supported the bill, said the lapse was a "major weakness in this bill."

"The theory is that private sector competition will drive down the cost of drugs," Feinstein said last month upon the bill's passage. "That may happen, or it may not happen. We need to watch that, and we will. I feel confident that the leadership will make changes if the cost containment is not kept."

quote:

Medicare Part D is one of the few government-created programs that has consistently cost less than the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) original estimates. Every fall, seniors get to choose from a variety of plans for their drug coverage. Pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBM), and pharmacies know this and they compete vigorously for seniors’ business. A PBM is a third party administrator of prescription drug plans (Well-known PBMs are Catamaran, CVSCaremark, Express Scripts, Humana Pharmacy Solutions and USScript). PBMs negotiate drug prices, establish formularies, process, and pay prescription drug claims in private insurance, as well as Medicare. This robust competition among private sector entities is the major reason that Medicare Part D costs less than originally anticipated; rather than employing heavy-handed government edicts or price controls, market forces keep prices low and satisfaction high. So, why would the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suddenly move to “fix something that ain’t broke”?

quote:

Not only has Medicare Part D cost less, it receives a high satisfaction rating from beneficiaries. According to a September 2013 survey conducted by KRC Research, 92 percent of seniors are satisfied, with 58 percent being very satisfied with their drug plan.

But practically since its inception, big-government proponents have attempted to interfere with Medicare Part D’s success. The free market is anathema to many government bureaucrats and their allies in Congress, who cling to the notion that all evidence to the contrary, government will perform better than the private sector and that government officials know better than consumers what constitutes a good deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this really should go without saying, but since you constantly wear these hyper-partisan blinders i'll say it anyway:

is it possible that republicans do actually care about healthcare, but do so in a way that doesn't compromise their principles? you know, the ones that (ideally) advocate a free market, smaller government, fiscal soundness and individual freedom & choice as opposed to another step towards a nanny totalitarian state??

that you consistently ascribe base motivations and intentions to the people you disagree with should actually trouble you if you have a thoughtful and equitable conscience.

It is possible. The problem is their principles are: "Enrich our donors! In this case the insurance, and drug company lobbies.

Free market? Smaller government? Fiscal Soundness? Ever hear of Medicare Part D???

Medicare Part D is a Republican scheme to bypass Medicare's ability to use Free Market principles to negotiate a fair price for drugs, and instead direct taxpayer money to pay FULL drug company prices. (Adding 2 layers of bureaucracy in the process)

Republican principles at work

Not arguing your point MJ, but I'll have to look it up. Wasn't that a bipartisan bill?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Honestly, I saw government interference on behalf of the parents as an attack on the sanctity of marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this really should go without saying, but since you constantly wear these hyper-partisan blinders i'll say it anyway:

is it possible that republicans do actually care about healthcare, but do so in a way that doesn't compromise their principles? you know, the ones that (ideally) advocate a free market, smaller government, fiscal soundness and individual freedom & choice as opposed to another step towards a nanny totalitarian state??

that you consistently ascribe base motivations and intentions to the people you disagree with should actually trouble you if you have a thoughtful and equitable conscience.

It is possible. The problem is their principles are: "Enrich our donors! In this case the insurance, and drug company lobbies.

Free market? Smaller government? Fiscal Soundness? Ever hear of Medicare Part D???

Medicare Part D is a Republican scheme to bypass Medicare's ability to use Free Market principles to negotiate a fair price for drugs, and instead direct taxpayer money to pay FULL drug company prices. (Adding 2 layers of bureaucracy in the process)

Republican principles at work

Not arguing your point MJ, but I'll have to look it up. Wasn't that a bipartisan bill?

LOL... Like the Iraq war was bipartisan???

7 Dem House Members voted for it. 209 Rep House Members voted for it (Medicare Part D. Not the Iraq war)
11 Dem Senators voted for it 42 Rep Senators voted for it.

It was authored by Drug company lobbyists.

Here is the corrupt and ugly story of how they got it through the Senate.

http://www.businessinsider.com/flashback-november-22-2003-how-republicans-squeaked-out-a-thriller-on-medicare-part-d-2010-3


Bottom line, Republicans LOVE big government liberalism when they can use it to enrich their donors (and their lobbyists).

This was a prime example. Another one, was their increasing the sub-prime loan quota of CRA to 50%. The banks were loving it!

There are plenty more examples if you need them

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this really should go without saying, but since you constantly wear these hyper-partisan blinders i'll say it anyway:

is it possible that republicans do actually care about healthcare, but do so in a way that doesn't compromise their principles? you know, the ones that (ideally) advocate a free market, smaller government, fiscal soundness and individual freedom & choice as opposed to another step towards a nanny totalitarian state??

that you consistently ascribe base motivations and intentions to the people you disagree with should actually trouble you if you have a thoughtful and equitable conscience.

It is possible. The problem is their principles are: "Enrich our donors! In this case the insurance, and drug company lobbies.

Free market? Smaller government? Fiscal Soundness? Ever hear of Medicare Part D???

Medicare Part D is a Republican scheme to bypass Medicare's ability to use Free Market principles to negotiate a fair price for drugs, and instead direct taxpayer money to pay FULL drug company prices. (Adding 2 layers of bureaucracy in the process)

Republican principles at work

Not arguing your point MJ, but I'll have to look it up. Wasn't that a bipartisan bill?

LOL... Like the Iraq war was bipartisan???

7 Dem House Members voted for it. 209 Rep House Members voted for it (Medicare Part D. Not the Iraq war)
11 Dem Senators voted for it 42 Rep Senators voted for it.

It was authored by Drug company lobbyists.

Here is the corrupt and ugly story of how they got it through the Senate.

http://www.businessinsider.com/flashback-november-22-2003-how-republicans-squeaked-out-a-thriller-on-medicare-part-d-2010-3


Bottom line, Republicans LOVE big government liberalism when they can use it to enrich their donors (and their lobbyists).

This was a prime example. Another one, was their increasing the sub-prime loan quota of CRA to 50%. The banks were loving it!

There are plenty more examples if you need them

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/elec04.medicare/

quote:

Opponents of the legislation warned that seniors would demand that Congress revisit the issue once they realized what the bill does and does not do. High on the list of things not covered in the bill is a mechanism to stem rising prescription drug costs. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who supported the bill, said the lapse was a "major weakness in this bill."

"The theory is that private sector competition will drive down the cost of drugs," Feinstein said last month upon the bill's passage. "That may happen, or it may not happen. We need to watch that, and we will. I feel confident that the leadership will make changes if the cost containment is not kept."

quote:

Medicare Part D is one of the few government-created programs that has consistently cost less than the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) original estimates. Every fall, seniors get to choose from a variety of plans for their drug coverage. Pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBM), and pharmacies know this and they compete vigorously for seniors’ business. A PBM is a third party administrator of prescription drug plans (Well-known PBMs are Catamaran, CVSCaremark, Express Scripts, Humana Pharmacy Solutions and USScript). PBMs negotiate drug prices, establish formularies, process, and pay prescription drug claims in private insurance, as well as Medicare. This robust competition among private sector entities is the major reason that Medicare Part D costs less than originally anticipated; rather than employing heavy-handed government edicts or price controls, market forces keep prices low and satisfaction high. So, why would the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suddenly move to “fix something that ain’t broke”?

http://cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/showdown-medicare-part-d-corral

quote:

Not only has Medicare Part D cost less, it receives a high satisfaction rating from beneficiaries. According to a September 2013 survey conducted by KRC Research, 92 percent of seniors are satisfied, with 58 percent being very satisfied with their drug plan.

But practically since its inception, big-government proponents have attempted to interfere with Medicare Part D’s success. The free market is anathema to many government bureaucrats and their allies in Congress, who cling to the notion that all evidence to the contrary, government will perform better than the private sector and that government officials know better than consumers what constitutes a good deal.

Nope, sorry. Most "D's" voted no.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00204

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/elec04.medicare/

quote:

Opponents of the legislation warned that seniors would demand that Congress revisit the issue once they realized what the bill does and does not do. High on the list of things not covered in the bill is a mechanism to stem rising prescription drug costs. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who supported the bill, said the lapse was a "major weakness in this bill."

"The theory is that private sector competition will drive down the cost of drugs," Feinstein said last month upon the bill's passage. "That may happen, or it may not happen. We need to watch that, and we will. I feel confident that the leadership will make changes if the cost containment is not kept."

quote:

Medicare Part D is one of the few government-created programs that has consistently cost less than the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) original estimates. Every fall, seniors get to choose from a variety of plans for their drug coverage. Pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBM), and pharmacies know this and they compete vigorously for seniors’ business. A PBM is a third party administrator of prescription drug plans (Well-known PBMs are Catamaran, CVSCaremark, Express Scripts, Humana Pharmacy Solutions and USScript). PBMs negotiate drug prices, establish formularies, process, and pay prescription drug claims in private insurance, as well as Medicare. This robust competition among private sector entities is the major reason that Medicare Part D costs less than originally anticipated; rather than employing heavy-handed government edicts or price controls, market forces keep prices low and satisfaction high. So, why would the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suddenly move to “fix something that ain’t broke”?

http://cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/showdown-medicare-part-d-corral

quote:

Not only has Medicare Part D cost less, it receives a high satisfaction rating from beneficiaries. According to a September 2013 survey conducted by KRC Research, 92 percent of seniors are satisfied, with 58 percent being very satisfied with their drug plan.

But practically since its inception, big-government proponents have attempted to interfere with Medicare Part D’s success. The free market is anathema to many government bureaucrats and their allies in Congress, who cling to the notion that all evidence to the contrary, government will perform better than the private sector and that government officials know better than consumers what constitutes a good deal.

Nope, sorry. Most "D's" voted no.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00204

Hunter, what is the point of your post? That Medicare Part D was a great idea?

And yes. Most D's voted no. Good for them! What are you trying to say with all of these quotes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LipstickLeuger

I see crap like this at work. Something happens, and the family can't let go so they keep them alive with a feeding tube, a cath, and other various other sundries. The person never regains conciousness or never even does anything but stare at a wall. Even with a feeding tube, they slowly waste away. Us Therapists can't work miracles. The person suffers from atrophy of muscles tissues, shrinking tendons, contractures, infection after infection, systemic organ failure and the probability of more tubes and interventions, and no matter how good the care is, some pressure sores or bed sores if they are not turned every two hours or placed on a special mattress, and even then she would be at high risk for skin breakdown. Is this life?

Jeb Bush was a cruel, cruel man, as were her parents, for doing this to this girl. Yeah, I am passing judgement, because there is not anything like holding a gravely ill or dying persons hand and have them beg you to not make them 'like that Terry women'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

He interfered, but he didn't do any damn good.

All life is precious and sacred. Knowing when a loved one is already gone is a tougher decision than I ever hope to make. Because of this case, I have a living will so that no one I love will be forced to make the decision for me. And I hope that our government never tries to interfere in similar situations.

Of course, gay marriage wasn't legal at the time, so my partner would not have been included in any decision anyway, leaving it up to my mother.