Still think Ryan is hottt :0) Ha ha.
****
IndysGirl~~> I liked the quote ;)

The best part, you didn't have any typos with this latest non-answer approach.

z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z . . .

I see you could not stand being called out on your banter...

As I said, last one out douses the lights;
this drivel is nauseatingly predictable, repetitive,
better chatter in down-and-out bars,
and . . . . . z-z-z-z-z-z-z. . . .

.

True, true my good man. If they think have the health coverage is dandy. Wait until they become members of the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans’, and Veterans’ of Foreign Wars groups. Feel free to pay your dues and join me (I am a proud member of all three) and others at these meetings; that is where we are when not enjoying the medical care you think you have earned.

Yes, and they can look down their nose and freely label those as need be in their minds, and then get all blistered if categorized based on their own words.

Again wrong on both counts; as I said you don’t like to called on being wrong.

Yes my coddled 20 years. Rose colored glasses and grass being green on the other side of the street type of fellow you are…I expect no less of a statement.

My sadistic joy of denying it? How did I deny anyone the same coverage I have? If you care to walk in the shoes of those before me, with me, and after me you too can have the items you think I am holding you back from.

And the best part of your petty (yes I said petty) remarks of labels. Lest not we forget your very first post in this thread (where you brought my name into it) where you labeled me and others as “brain-ossified”, “blockheads”, and “raucous demagogues”; now you cry foul and say I am guilty of, what was it, oh yes. “Archaic…labeling”. So, are only you allowed to label people? That must be a rule from the new liberal hand book; I haven’t read that one yet.

As to Kennedy, yes he has fought for benefits, so have countless others, and not all with a liberal label. Also the only thing I really think Kennedy was “firstest” to was a beverage station.

Diz Griz:
I think you mean "Stradivarius," as of 17th-18th c Cremona.

DizGriz:
PS: Order and rhythm matter too.
For example, your "Verily, your vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose" might be better rendered with moving one word (and changing another to heighten the archaicism we are practicing here): "Thy vichyssoise of verbiage veers verily most verbose." It also puts sharper emphasis on the verbosity you wish to satirize.
And my own meter in the last post would have been improved by substituting "devoid of" clout for "lacking," an especially pointed note, coming at the finale as it did, where you want your finest and most fluid punch.

RAF:
So, I'm right on all counts. (retired, ex-military, government insured, and anti the same for others)
-
As for your 20 years and you can have it too - for most of us not so coddled, it is 30 to 40, if we HAVE a decent job, my man. (One might infer here that penny-pinching selfishness partners petty privelege.) And none of those with no health insurance, or with preconditions et cetera, has the joy of your little tag-on option you think all share.
-
I am not against your having coverage - most of my family, over three generations, has served, some killed some wounded, others permanently disabled; I AM against your sadistic joy in denying it to others.
-
And your archaic resort to label-libeling "liberal" is as hackneyed and inept as the hatred it attempts to curry. Actually I am conservative in many ways (via deep-rooted ethos in Christain concern for fellow man), and what you would label-libel liberal in many others (via disciplined study and worldwide experience), but that sort of distinction would require subtlety.
Much less the recognition that it is LIBERALS like Kennedy who have fought hardest and firstest for benefits for our veterans.

DizGriz:
-
"Crap detectors" is a term from philosopher/educators Postman and Weingarten. They stole it from Hemingway, whose actual term was "sh*t detectors" - wordly wise and battle-scarred, he brooked no cant.
-
But we can't print offensive things like that because we are too busy (ALONE AMONG DEVELOPED NATIONS) denying our own people health care while investing in massive bloody wars and the murderous BS that goes into justifying invasions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, Viet-Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Bosnia, Somalia, Iran, Libya, Cuba; and these are only some of the more recent, more OVERT ones).
-
Sorry you chaps didn't enjoy my last, instead choosing to be mob-righteously, indignantly chest-puffing. As for whoever is dissing Michael Moore, you're only cutting off our own collective nose (at our expense) to spite your cocky clueless face. Why on earth does it so enrage some to stop and take an honest, reflective look?
-
And Diz, throwing words together for the cutesy alliteration alone is not enough. It may please a few dweebs in the peanut gallery, but selectivity in the words' combinations counts: it's a matter of quality, discretion, and ear; not just cutesy quantity. But I don't disparage you for that - am glad we all (sic) seem to be having fun, and we all (sic) learn as we grow.
-
But I do disparage, again, those so gleefully and gullibly spoon-fed by high paid jackass BS-spouters to spout more copy-cat BS, and then glibly jump on the bully bandwagon over true public servants like Moore; I guess they need to help (gratis) those bought off with billions to curry the chestnut horse of the enfeebled fiscal leviathans: the pharmaceuticals, war profiteers, big oil, massive care-denying insurance companies, Wall St investment firms, usurious credit companies, the AMA, and manufacturing dinos throwing all our jobs to foreign countries.
-
But the room here is bare,
Just our own echoes there
making it sound alive.
-
So . . .
Will someone please shut off the lights
On our way out?
My arms are chock full of elitist
Phrases lacking clout.

"Dear (govt insured) RAF (assuming you are such; and don't want to extend the same to others):" Wrong on both accounts”’ So What is it? You AREN’T retired, AREN’T Air Force, AREN’T govt insured, and DO support full coverage for all? Where am I wrong on both (sic, ie, four) counts? Or is it just another case of false labeling?"
-
You are wrong on both accounts...and it is eating you up being called on it. If I was fully government insured I wouldn't require additional insurance to cover what the goverment fails to cover. I do support the same coverage I have for others; jump in line, raise your hand, and after 20 years you can have it too.

As I said previous, wrong on both counts. But I did get your label correct; it starts with "L" and ends with "iberal".

DiGriz, you are funny, and I really mean it! My turn to plug the box with a liberal nickel.
*
Conceal and Carry
Conceal and Carry
Makes conservatives mean and scary
This I tell you brother, bend over because republicans are sending you another.
*
Gays and marriage
Gays and marriage
Its an institution republicans disparage
this I tell you brother, gay republicans are doing one another.
*
Try, try, try to segregate them, African americans overcame,
Try, try, try and gay americans will do the same.
*
Guns and ammo
Guns and ammo
Now there is an issue with republican whammo
Obama said to the right wing commotion
You can have one, you can have one
and you can have the other.

"Any question why rt wingers have to attack progressives as intellectual elites all the time? "
-
Just read your post...it is pretty clear.

To Dear RAF again:
‘"Dear (govt insured) RAF (assuming you are such; and don't want to extend the same to others):" Wrong on both accounts”’
-
So What is it? You AREN’T retired, AREN’T Air Force, AREN’T govt insured, and DO support full coverage for all? Where am I wrong on both (sic, ie, four) counts? Or is it just another case of false labeling?
-------------
‘"Michael Moore, not Rush Limbaugh, hails from our working class."
Typical liberal class envy spin.’
-
Boy, what the rt wing couldn’t do without their foggy, thought-excusing word “spin.” (BTW, Mr Moore's hometown Flint is the Janesville of 23 years ago.) Anyhow, my home-town loyalties aside, I guess here you mean I'm envious of Limbaugh’s origins. How low need one’s self-esteem and (allegedly Christian) values sink to covet the self-aggrandizing genealogical vomit that spewed that thing? And now that our rt wing whackos are loosed on a nice killing streak, the vengeance of self-knighted vigilante-vipers, fed by such voluminous vomit, wreaks its vicious venom into our social fabric again. And again. With disgusting repetition.
-
Again, Amen, Amen, I say to you! Who payeth this obloquiously bloviating oaf and his carcinogenic cacophony of media kin? And WHY? And what miserable depths of imbecility must their mind-blind mugwumps mire in? These demagogues fuel their minions’ clueless failure to differentiate between the polity truly working to serve the people and the scum feeding on monarchic mammon. Sadly, it is a failure that malignantly manifests the core cancer in the health of our democracy.
-
Sui generis, your trigger-happy tongue broad-brush babbling in grandiloquent belligerence hasn’t a clue. Any question why rt wingers have to attack progressives as intellectual elites all the time? It takes such a ploy to obviate one's own culpability in failing to make tougher demands on one’s own (assumed) reasoning power. Good crap detectors are a precious thing. Working together for life-quality takes tact and taste and time. Rt wingers stock up on guns instead? Remember, this article started on Palin, who blithely and autoritatively asserted that Barak Obama “pals around with terrorists!” This passes for thought among rt wingers.
-
And still, amidst all this huggermugger, no one has explained WHY THE US, alone among all the developed and most of the developing nations, cannot have affordable (much less free) universal health coverage? I guess it's just another way we're special.

We do not live under an authoritarian regime which is why we don't need government authority or permission to set up public programs. In America, you have the liberty to do as you want unless there is a law against it. This is how freedom and liberty actually work, and how we already have government health care.

Andre...silly man. You do know the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" can mean what ever anyone wants when it comes to new government programs. "This will make me happy". "This will make my life better". "This will give me liberty". All will cost money most don't want to spend---wait that goes against my happiness.

"Michael Moore, not Rush Limbaugh, hails from our working class."
-
Typical liberal class envy spin.

"or the loss of your valuable retirement time"
-
As soon as I reach that age you will be the first I call to inform...

"I'll bet they scared you away from "Columbine," "Farenheit," and "Roger and Me" as well."
-
You think you know the answers before you ask, typical liberal. I did watch his first two movies that is where my understanding of who he is and what he stands for comes from. Unlike you I don't listen to the drum of the crowd to drive my what I think.

"Some of us have jobs to do, rather than early-retirement military gigs. "
-
Are you artfully declaring, without facts, that others are not employed?

"Dear (govt insured) RAF (assuming you are such; and don't want to extend the same to others):"
-
Wrong on both accounts

Dear (govt insured) RAF (assuming you are such; and don't want to extend the same to others):
-
Sorry to delay response to your DiGraz-applauding platitudes . . . I mean thoughtful tracts. Some of us have jobs to do, rather than early-retirement military gigs.
-
You decry name calling, and yet use it to self-censor yourself from "Sicko," one of the most provocative flicks to date on your topic. It is amazing how well the rt wing can get you dupes to stop up your ears, poke out your eyes, sing their mantras, and ignore your (our) own needs and solutions. I'll bet they scared you away from "Columbine," "Farenheit," and "Roger and Me" as well.
-
Michael Moore, not Rush Limbaugh, hails from our working class. What is an assumedly couragaeous veteran like yourself afraid of, their threat to your ossified posts, your inability to focus long enough to ingite real coginition, or the loss of your valuable retirement time, time so essential to entertain cheerleaders like Wynken, Blynken, and Nod? They
-
"Sailed off in a wooden shoe---
Sailed on a river of crystal light,
Into a sea of dew"
With happy delusions thick in their mind
And heartless too-rah-loo,
Leaving fifty million behind
To try to muddle through.

I can't wait to see the legislation that comes out of this. Many on the Democratic side are all ready saying they will oppose the current Obama plan. Of course, all that means is you need to buy their vote. Much like TARP, or the stimulus bill, the initial cost of the bill will be just a starting point. After all the pork, political favors, vote buying, ext takes place, one can only imagine the over all cost of this. Better start calling the Chinese minister of finance, or have Bernanke start warning up the printing presses. We're going to need a few trillion more $$$'s that we don't have, and never will.

Prices are not secret, just ask. It`s not just bankruptcy, they don`t want to lose their insurance in the event of any catastrophe. The only way your idea will work ,(which will never happen) is if all insurance is done away with, then millions more will be without. Do you see that happening? There is already enough being spent to cover everybody if the administrative costs are cut 20%.

"Your solution, get rid of lobbyists influence, and post prices, does nothing for those uninsured, underinsured, with pre-existing conditions or in danger of losing insurance."
-
What was the last expensive thing you bought you did not look at the price offered by more than one provider for? Why should health care be any different? If you were in charge of your health care instead of some HMO or the government you would not waste money you would spend it wisely.

"The reason they want a government program is they still have insurance if they lose a job..."
-
How will this stop the bankruptcy from happening? No job, no way to pay bills.

"The "free-market" approach to health care has led to the skyrocketing price increases, much higher than inflation every year."
-
How? It has never been tried. Those with insurance never ask and don't care what it costs...how can they participate as a consumer if they never price shop? There is no free-market to any of it!

When interviewed they mentioned medical problems, not floods or locusts or hailstorms. That is what is scaring people. The reason they want a government program is they still have insurance if they lose a job, or some other catastrophe strikes. Your solution, get rid of lobbyists influence, and post prices, does nothing for those uninsured, underinsured, with pre-existing conditions or in danger of losing insurance. The "free-market" approach to health care has led to the skyrocketing price increases, much higher than inflation every year.

"but they are worried that one major medical dilemma will cost them everything,"
-
So could one major vehicle accident, job loss, flood, tornado, hurricane, aircraft crash, wild animal attack...and the list goes on. There is nothing in a government funded heath care initiative that will stop any fear of these or the reality that many people will STILL BE in the situation you state. Not because of health insurance but due to loss of income when they are laid up due to an illness; that is reality, people live beyond their means too often.

"Do you have any solutions besides the status quo that is obviously only getting worse?"
-
I have stated my thoughts that need to be changed in my previous posts in this thread.

If you were Health Care Czar would you leave things the way they are or change some? People that have insurance now are satisfied with it on a personal level, but they are worried that one major medical dilemma will cost them everything, that is why 69% say the system must be reformed so that their insurance, in some form, is with them always even if they change jobs, lose a job, or have an insurance company dump them. Do you have any solutions besides the status quo that is obviously only getting worse?

"The government gets a different rate because that is all they will pay..."
-
That is a large part of the problem, different rates depending who you are for the same coverage; where is the protection for the normal person in that? If the government pays less (because they can) then the other customers will pay more; and you complain insurance costs always go up.

Any program, if approved, will be grossly over budget within the first 6-9 months. The bean counters that setup the bill will assign a budget amount to it; guessing how many people will sign up. Then when it starts it those that pay higher rates than what this program offers will suddenly drop their coverage for this one.

Read what happened to the State of Hawaii program; it lasted less then 12 months "trying to do good".

The government gets a different rate because that is all they will pay, and a lot of Doctors and hospitals are refusing to take Medicare/Medicaid anymore. If you want to know what a Doctor or hospital charges for services all you have to do is ask. They are not trying to create a national health system, the votes are not there. The only thing that looks like it might get through is an option to buy insurance similar to what Congress has, but the cost will not be cheap. I don`t see anything new about giving "free" health care to anyone that doesn`t qualify for it already. The problem is waste, fraud and abuse in the industry. There is enough spent($2.5 trillion) in a year to cover everybody if the system was cleaned up. Why does private insurance cost 25-30% to administer when Medicare does it for 5% or less? Yes, the lobbyists exert too much control, that is why I have argued for public financing of elections. Money to Democrats, Republicans, and any other party that can show they are viable in an election. You could give as much or as little as you want to any fund, but giving directly to one candidate(lobbying/buying) would be prohibited. Let`s start electing the person with the best message, not the one with the most money. Set limits on Governor/House/Senate/Presidential elections, even local ones. The amounts of money spent now are ridiculous.

“The only answer I can come up with, other than the illimitable power of the opposition by the very lobbyist groups you seem to decry, is that it means "Socialism,”
-
You are too blinded by what you think I said to fully understand it.

The lobbyists control the politicians. Politicians make the rules that we have to live and play by. It is the lobbyists who provide the purse strings for politicians to remain in power. One needs the other to function.

It is the lobbyists that have prevented proper price controls for a person wanting to purchase healthcare on their own. Why does the government get a different rate than you for the same service rendered by your doctor? Why do the insurance companies get their own rate—different from you and the government? These are things that need to change in order to bring price control to the consumer. These are also the things lobbyists will not let happen. Right now business and union lobbyists have paid their way to the table to get the cost of medical care off their backs on to yours and mine; government universal health care. This action will further push price controls for the normal person who wishes to purchase it on their own to higher levels than it currently is.

You agree on posting fees yet still claim we need "proper universal coverage"...these are mutually exclusive. Why post fees if you have universal coverage?

Michael Moore's title, sicko is redundant with who he is and his views. If you really think his answer is the panacea you have no hope.

RAF:
-
I guess the guy who tells "the guy who has all the answers" that he has all the answers, has one answer more. So what's that make him? "The guy with all the answers plus a marble"?
-
Actually I agree with you about the public (pre) posting of fees. Couldn't agree more, plus public clarity of why certain charges weren't covered by insurance - or, god forbid, proper notification in advance. (If you have a job which has insurance.) But of course the very status quo of insurance companies colludes with the status quo of health and pharmaceutical systems to prevent this. And some of the demise of our great corporations derives from the fact that they, not our government, have had to bear the increasing pounds of flesh for worker health coverage.
-
If I didn't know it is hopeless,I would suggest Michael Moore's "Sicko" to you. And perhaps an analysis or two of what he actually went through by way of threats, delays, and obstructions to produce it.
-
But the question remains: Why can't we, ALONE among the developed and many of the developing countries, have proper universal coverage? Too poor? Too unstable to prevent some kind of apocalyptic horror?
-
The only answer I can come up with, other than the illimitable power of the opposition by the very lobbyist groups you seem to decry, is that it means "Socialism," as the rt wing babblers like to call it, which is some kind of unpardonable affront to the dignity of somebody's god. Mammon's I suppose.
-
Oh, and silly me, I almost forgot the big one: 't will surely spell the end of freedom and democracy. And the American way.

Yes this is the fun we can look forward to...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05d...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...

mabusejuvenalis, the biggest reason we are in the “healthcare” mess (you already know because you have all the answers—must have slipped your mind to tell us little people) is because the consumer does not pay…no consumer driven price challenges.

If the government really wanted to fix the healthcare mess and didn’t care about the lobbyists they would force doctors/medical facilities/hospitals to post their fees before service was given. They would see to it that a person off the street paid the same price for care that Medicare is willing to pay for the same service. Since those in power are more worried about staying in power than doing their duty as elected officials logical changes to the problem will not happen. They will continue to stick it to the taxpayers by creating more entitlements that will never end while doing the bidding of the lobbyists who padded their campaigns.

AFRet:
-
Juss the facks, ma'am, juss the facks.
-
Get out and see the world from something other than a USAF base. Our health care mess is incomprehensible to civilized nations, rich or poor.
-
Ah, yes, I forgot: military don't have to worry much about that.

"Happiness to a liberal is defined as being so angry that they have a perpetual screwy-and-constipated look on their face even when sleeping."

Hehe. That is downright funny, DiGriz. Some of that "screwy-and-constipated look is real, it's caused by eating too much granola and quiche.

mabusejuvenalis how unique that you choose to lambast those with opposing views to your way of thinking as “blockheads”, “demagogues, and the best one “fear-mongering negativism”. Then you spout off with comments of right-wing this and that yet can’t quite grasp another network out there that is the equivalent of “fixed-Fox” for the other view point. Yes it is extremely clear that you are of course a middle of the road moderate with no bias either way and are only out for America and its entire people.

It would be foolhardy to even try to debate an astutely eloquent worldly fellow like yourself. Please do grace us with more wonderful and upbeat criticism so we can all attain your level of graciousness. I eagerly await your next posting with utmost anticipation.

The only reason talk radio is dominated by "right wingers" is because they draw huge ratings. Pretty much every "left winger" who has attempted talk radio has bombed in the matter of weeks. Air America was started to put out a counter to the dominant right wing talk radio message. They went bankrupt in no time; as the ratings were atrocious.
.
The huge amount s of $$$ that many of these "right wingers" make is no more then many on the far left are making. George Soros it worth billions, and has funded move-on.org, and many of the machines to fund the agenda of the left. Both extreme sides are loaded with billions of $$$'s, and both sides believe their cause is righteous.

I find it absolutely unfathomable how some folks can continually come up with so many excuses about why the US, alone in the family of developed (and most developing) nations, should not have full health care for its people. Instead, decrying the most obvious of health statistics (eg, US military spending larger than next 15 nations combined, but most health stats show us in 15th-20th place), they frolic on with their silly words about "socialism" as a "threat to freedom." Does this mean that those countries (essentially all socialist by copy-cat right-wing bobble-heads' definitions) with the highest happiness indices in the world (ie, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Canada, etc) have no freedom? The only freedom they are protecting is for gross-profiteers to make countless billions more. True freedom is security from harm and fear (and fear-mongerer domination on their behalf) and having and using good crap-detectors.

The right wing dominates talk radio by percentages of a thousand to one, yet screech unendingly over "liberal" media. Do the Dems have a network of their own like fixed-Fox (O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, et all, and run by Reagan's Roger Ailes)? Anyone familiar with international news knows the absurdity of right wingers calling CNN liberal, even communist.

Freedom entails vision, crawling out of me-number-one isolationism, and seeing things for what they really are. Although nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other nation, currently 17% of GDP. And ALL those countries provide health coverage to ALL their citizens. A study only this month shows that 68% of US bankruptcies ARE health-cost related. Excessive health care profiteering constitutes huge amounts of those costs, and yet the narrowly focused fear-mongering of mouthpieces yammering for greedy wealth (Limbaugh is paid as much in one week as Obama in 2 1/2 yrs - Why, and by whom?) are revered and mindlessly repeated by our brain-ossified co-discussants like "Ret AF," "Andre," and poet laureate "DiGriz." Truth be told, any appeal to reason or data fulls on deaf ears among such sure-fire blockheads, and those of us truly interested in the life quality of our nation have somehow got to get past them and their raucous demagogues, all with their blind-faith sloganeering and fear-mongering negativism. We owe it to our people, ALL our people.

"No medical bills means you can pay other bills.
"
-
ummm even a govt program will mean you will still share in medical bills...again the strawman continues.

No medical bills means you can pay other bills.

Pharm...as you and others fail to realize. This will not be corrected with a government plan either. Missing work means no money...no money means you can't pay bills!

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. The U.S. health care financing system is broken, and not only for the poor and uninsured. Middle class families frequently collapse under the strain of a health care system that treats physical wounds, but often inflicts fiscal ones."...... American Journal Of Medicine, Vol.XX, No.X..... If the health insurance in this country was working this wouldn`t happen, IMO.

Actually whythink that is not exactly what Andre said. He said bills were passed with no Republican support, not ALL bills. The only one I know of is the Budget . I believe Bush trashed the Constitution in the ways I mentioned.

pharm and Andre,
Andre stated that NO LEGISLATION SIGNED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA had REPUBLICAN SUPPORT>
.
I STATE THAT IS A LIE.
.
Comprehension Problem?
.

hint: budget...... But I believe the guy was talking about the Bush administrations trashing of the Constitution in relation to warrant less wiretapping and over reaching of executive powers and not any kind of legislation.

andre, just name the bills passed by Congress with no republican support and that will shut him up.

My apologies to Frank Sintra. The following little ditty sung to the tune of "Love and Marriage"
*
Newt and Sarah, Newt and Sarah
Go together like stink and whiney
This I'd tell you Republican mothers
Guarantee this Country will vote its druthers
*
Newt and Sarah, Newt and Sarah
Its another Republican politcal miscarriage
Just look at the evidentiary and send straight to the penitentiary.

"RAF--You are either unable, or unwilling to accept the outcome, as dictated by the facts."
-
The issue is the distortion of these facts to push an agenda using scare tactics (distorted facts) to further load our government and tax payers with entitlements that will never go away.

Fifty million un-insured for medical.
Do we want to pay for the illegal people in the United States?
Do we want to pay for the millions of people who can afford medical insurance but don't have it because they have better uses for their money?
Do we really need to give the millionair's free medical? Most of them allready pay for their medical treatment out of their own funds.
Get Congress to provide us with the REAL FIGURES, broken down in catagories first and then lets make adjustments based on that. Just a while back there were only 45 million un-insured, now 50 million, with in 3 months that figure will suddenly become 55 or 60 million. Remember, nothing is free, someone has to pay for it.

andre_linoge
Jun 12, 2009 at 1:45 p.m.
"...you state that Bush/Cheney did it. How did they do it? Was it done by executive orders, or was it done by the signing of bills passed by both parties of congress? Unlike this administration where bills were passed entirely by democrats and then signed by democrat."
Andre

Andre,
So you claim that it is fact that NO REPUBLICAN has voted for any piece of legislation signed into law by President Obama?
.
Easy to make that claim (a LIE) while hiding behind a keyboard.

RAF--You are either unable, or unwilling to accept the outcome, as dictated by the facts. So be it. You and andre can live in your world and be happy. God bless.

"A strawman argument is an untrue one, in this case it is true that the illness/injury leads directly to bankruptcy."
-
Partially true. A bankruptcy is done because a person can not pay off their debts. If you are not working, you have no income. If an illness, in this case "medical catastrophe", weather your insurance covers 100% of the bills or not you will not make any money by being off work. That is the strawman in this claim. To simply state the current state of health care as the reason is false. Is it any wonder than that the 2nd leading cause to bankruptcy is loss of employment?

RetiredAirForce, I understand what you are saying about getting sick, bills, maybe losing your job, etc. But the point is over half of bankruptcies occur AFTER the medical bills start. Some people are surely overextended, but there was also a stat in that study that the ones they interviewed were 16% less likely to be than most Americans. In 1996, the American Bankruptcy Institute published a study where 57% of those going under cited medical bills as a major cause of their bankruptcy. I know it is all related, but medical bills are a large cause of 50% of bankruptcies.

To make a statement that having no insurance is better than any National Insurance is not sound judgement. It defies logic.

Take a real educated look at how people with out health insurance still fair better then if they had National Healthcare.

If you have been following the discussions in Congress, there is not going to be a new health plan run by the government. It is going to be reform and maybe a requirement that all have health insurance. There is some talk about having a plan like the Congress has and letting people buy into it, but with the coverage they have the cost($15-20,000) would be prohibitive for most Americans.

The study specifically cites the medical costs as being the main reason for the bankruptcy. The ones with insurance accumulated more medical costs than those without. 38% of those that had insurance lost it as a result of the illness or injury. A strawman argument is an untrue one, in this case it is true that the illness/injury leads directly to bankruptcy. This is not the only study ever done on the subject, and certainly not the only one to reach this conclusion.

"The majority of those people even have insurance before the bankruptcy. Hardly the definition of a strawman argument."
-
You fail to realize the health care costs in many of those are not the reason for the bankruptcies [they have insurance]. The loss of income from missed employment while sick combined with consumer debt is the most logical cause...not something a new health plan by the government will fix. Yes, it is a strawman.

Unlike this administration where bills were passed entirely by democrats and then signed by democrat.
.
Liar

According to a 2006 Harvard medical study,half of all personal bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills, ill health. The majority of those people even have insurance before the bankruptcy. Hardly the definition of a strawman argument.

Business and patient are mutual exclusive? If this was true how have we survived as a nation from inception until now? Yes an extreme absurd statement, used to dissuade yours.

The bankruptcy argument is a strawman. Thousands of families encounter medical catastrophes (cancer, accidents, diseases) and don't encounter bankruptcies.

Other than your disavowel of the bankruptcy comment--which certainly is NOT strawman, I agree that the other suggestions are warranted as well. BUT, that still doesn't remove the 'business' part of medical care. Businesses, legally, are in 'business' to make profits for their shareholders. Their failure to try and accomplish that is the basis of liablity. In short, you can't have those competing ideals: What's in the best interest of the patient, vs. what is in the best interest of 'the business'; they ARE mutually exclusive.

“First of all, the info that I keep hearing is that most of us are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy.”
-
This is the strawman used by those pushing for reform. Every American is one “blank” (insert any name here) catastrophe away from bankruptcy. Using these scare tactics to push an agenda and then blame others for using scare tactics is silly. To give someone credit, as you state “give O credit”, for doing something many don’t want is not going to happen. Why not impose truth in advertizing by doctors and hospitals? Why are doctors and hospitals not required to provide you the cost of services before you need them? If insurance companies and the government (Medicare) are not required to pay full value for the service as billed why is it billed at the higher amount?

These are issues that would resonate with voters and tax payers; without costing more money in another entitlement program. These are also issues politicians in general refuse to dig into. It is much easier for politicians to take the easy road (costing tax payers) than take the hard road and fight lobbyists and special interest groups that donate to their campaigns to keep them in power. One of the major reasons medical care costs are so high is there is no consumer driven price demand; because most have insurance they don’t care what it costs.

andre--If you want to get into a discussion about freedom and the constitution, I'm game, but it will start with how the Bush/Cheney team excoriating it--something you may not want to acknowledge. But, to make the leap that because we might have some social programs we will lose all are freedoms...well, we've done that quite well already, even before the 'social' programs...

LOL. Someone obviously didn't like my quote from Grumy Old Men. I thought it was funny.

I appreciate the debate....

Well pro I would consider a different clinic. What did you not want to travel 30 miles to Madison to see a doctor. Even when I did not have insurance all I had to do was call make a appointment for a general doctor to point me in which medical field deals with my problems, and either he called for a appointment or I did. When you go to the store you normally shop at for a product, and they are out of that product at that certain store do you wait for that store to restock that product? Or do you go to the store across the street to purchase that product. I go across the street myself.

Think--I respectfully disagree with your assessment. First of all, the info that I keep hearing is that most of us are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy. Second, I don't know about you, but I am blessed enough to be fully insured. BUT, I can't tell you the last time I was able to see MY doctor for a run-of-the-mill illness, without waiting a month. I had to wait SIX months to have a suspicious lesion looked at by a 'skin' doctor/specialist. So, the idea that I would be put on a waiting list--which I simply don't believe would happen--but, if it did, then that's not much different than what we experience now. Much less that it is Obama's fault. Since Nixon came up with 'managed care', politicians have been talking about fixing it; they have done nothing but talk about it. At least give O credit for trying to actually do something. What about this: A choice of either the private insurance you have now, say with an employer, or being able to opt in to Medicare--or, better yet, the health insurance program our federal elected reps get? Remember, now, I said CHOICE.

Socialism...better get rid of Medicade and Medicare then. It's funny how some think everything Obama does is socialism, but take away their medicare and watch them cry foul.

Lies about health care pitfalls. No one has ever lost their home because of medical bills. Yes they send collections departments after you, call you once every 7 days between the hours of 9am to 8pm. They can take you to court if they feel you have a source of income which could be used to repay bills instead people living it up.
Now I am not saying some people have not been given good advice, and paid a medical bills instead of the house payments, and lost their home.
If you have never dealt with large medical bills, ongoing care, and bill collectors you need to be educated on what really happens before you take that for a reason to have National Health care.
People with no insurance know they are not turned away, or put on a list with the way health care is as of now.But with National Health care there will be a waiting list, people will be turned away.
If you do not see this as a line that will be drawn between the haves, and the have nots. Think again!There while be a panel to decided on every medical proceeding that will happen to a person on that plan. Right the program works as you sign a piece of paper agreeing to pay for your medical bills yourself after the medical care is provided.

Opinion--And your reason?

Obama is a one termer. I will vote for anyone to get him out the whitehouse

Andre--I like it! Here's my big question: So what if it IS socialism? We currently have nearly 50,000,000 people uninsured ('with better benefits than a national health care system' according to Think4--I'd LOVE to know how s/he came to THAT conclusion!), more than 20,000,000 in forclosure, approaching 10% unemployment--Seems pretty clear to me that you can't have UNREGULATED capitalism--look what the banks/insurance companies did with that. Look what 'for-profit' medicine has done. So, then you have govt. do it. Medicare/S.S. work fine--except when the government raids the kitty as both parties have done. I think the biggest difference on the issue is between 'Socialism' that is FORCED upon a population, vs. specific social programs, voted on democratically, and for a specific purpose. I have no problems with the latter.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
.
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
.
OK, the bank bailout and ownership of GM is a socialist move but both are INTENDED to be short-term "bailouts" with the long-term goal of the money being paid back.
.
I don't believe the GM ownership is controlling production or distribution BECAUSE I heard and interview with a GM exect on the HANNITY radio show and Hanitty tried to get the guy to say that but he wouldn't. Hannity invited the guy on for the sole purpose of making Obama look bad but the guy was pretty sure that GM would still run GM with the government simply providing some oversight/structure.
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
.
I still own private property so this definition doesn't apply.
.
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
.
Again, certain programs and some current moves might fall under this but they are SHORT-TERM plans. I don't see anything that says long-term, the government want to run GM, the banks, etc...
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
.
We certainly have the unequal distribution of goods and pay.
.
I believe there are socialist programs. Public education is suppose to be, Medicaid. I believe Nationalized Health Care is a must. We can't continue to spend money and watch people suffer because of a lack of insurance. The US should be better than that.
.
Bottom line, as long as Newt and S. Palin are the spokepeople for the Republican party the democrats should be just fine.
.
Think of this, if Health Care and Public Education were entitlements and EQUAL (public education is still very unequal) the amount of programs/excuses that could be eliminated. We could hold more people accountable because everyone received the same EQUAL education and nobody would go bankrupt because they got sick.
.
All families could afford the same medical services... I would no longer deal with families that don't take the medication they need because they can't afford it. It would only be a personal decision. Then, I could hold them accountable for that.
.
The benefits for Nationalized Health Care are endless, IMO.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

RetiredAirForce, you call it wasting, not everybody does. To just let things go and do nothing could be as bad according to many economists. I`m sure the administration would have been castigated for a do nothing approach also.

It is socialism at it's best :) I agree andre.

Pharm I read the article. The title and the context of the story are vastly different. A perplexing part I read; ---"About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas."---

That means that 10% of the mess was done in less than 6 months and does not include the % carry over the story stated Obama left in place from Bush administration [tax cuts and war spending].

If we, as a nation, can increase the mess 10% in less than 6 months we can reduce it by the same amount by not wasting the money to begin with.

Thankfully there are many people who don't want another socialized program put on the backs of tax payers. The reason the current administration wants to rush this item through this year is the hope of party line votes making the difference.

I read through these post more they are so far out there.

No torture anymore? Hmmm

Socialism not happening? As a independent viewer yes it is.

National Health care? You have to be kidding? Even people without insurance know they have better benefits, and care with no plan than a national health plan.

Pharm--great info; thanks. Andre--I doubt you truly understand what 'socialism' is. If you did, you would know that it is currently used as a scare tactic by the right-wingers. We currently have a number of 'socialized' programs, and have had them for decades. And, I'd be happy to add one more, if that means we can finally have a medical insurance program that actually focuses on treating people, rather than profits. Currently, over 750 Billion dollars are taken off the top to pay for the 'for-profit' system we have now. That's $750B NOT going to helping people. And that's just for starters.

I am really tired of the media promoting name calling of belittling a person because of their ideas, and beliefs. Why do they not get back to reporting news.

What is there not enough news to write about?

I will give them a idea to write about. Why not investigate how to improve Janesville. Get some community buzz going about improving the outlook for people.

When I follow the media I look to uplifting stories of how people are helping each other, or the guy who struggles to support his family working two jobs, and is to proud to take a handout.

When the media does this I name calling or belittle of people they are setting a poor example for our youth as well. It is like tell them since some disagrees with you it is time bring out the name calling. That is where trouble starts history will show.

An article in todays New York Times by David Leonhardt, entitled; "For U.S., A Sea Of Perilous Red Ink, Years In The Making." It analyzes where the deficits have come from over the last 8-9 years, who and what is responsible, and where they are going. The present administration has some responsibility, but not to the extent people want to believe. The business cycle, mainly recessions are 37% to blame for projected surpluses from the Clinton years to become the deficits, and ongoing deficits in future years. Bush policies, tax cuts and other legislation, are 33% to blame. The Obama administrations extension of some Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and the TARP program account for 20% of the blame. According to the article, 7% is from the stimulus bill, and 3% from Obamas agenda on health care/energy/education. Both parties , in the article, share the blame for our fiscal problems. It makes no sense to continually blame an administration that has been in office a few months for all the economic troubles we are going through. The Republican alternative budget had deficits going out 60-70 years, much farther than the CBO scored Obama budget.

Its financial policy's ramifications will be torturing our great grandchildren.

Won't be as fun as listening to all the right-wing nuts whine since the last election. At least this Administration doesn't TORTURE PEOPLE!

I guess I better start scrubbing now eh?

Shopierehuh~~~> Ryan is HOT oh yeah ;)

Certainly.

I would assume I will have a handful of poo then, right IndysGirl??

I'm with you Professor. I, too, could never support Ryan. I do think that he may be what the GOP needs right now, though. I agree that we will hear more about him in the future.

I respect Ryan for his intellect, and even his willingness to follow his OWN lead--sometimes--rather than just marching in lock-step with the rest of his party. Having said that, I could never support him; I just have way differing ideas about how the country should be run; I disagree with almost all of his positions. But I think we will hear more about him in the future.

Whoops. I meant "conservative."

I agree that a return to conservatice fiscal values would do wonders for the future of the GOP. I see that in some of their more prominent voices already, though. Palin is fiscally conservative, yet has about the same chances at a serious bid for the white house as I do. A less controversial figure in the GOP who is fiscally responsible is what is needed: Ryan, perhaps?
+
I think it's too early to even attempt to predict what voters will do in the next election...our electorate has a very short memory and are easily swayed by the media.

The Republicans continue to flounder without leadership, they need to stop pandering to the right wing christians and refocus on being fiscal conservatives rather than moral conservatives.
.
They seem to want to do that but after the spend crazy Bush adminsitration the tea parties have a hypocritical ring to them.

It still amazes me that anyone could give a hoot about what Newt thinks, especially on 'family' matters. This is the guy who served one of his wives with divorce papers, while she was in a hospital, dying of cancer. Nice touch, Newt. Then, while he is publicly outraged about the moral decay of Bill Clinton, he is--at the same time--maintaining yet another affair with a secretary in his office. Think of it: Newt, Sarah, Dick, and Rush topping the party. How much better off could we be??

Come on, Mr. Fair and Right Winged, O'Reilly is printed often. There are plenty of conservative columns in the gazette.
.
Doesn't the gazette also carry Krauthammer and Broder. Not exactly left wing.

Sarah is hot. Oh Yeah!

Gingrich, presumably the "brainy" one, was on a fifth rate college faculty for a few yrs; Palin took five college stops to "snare" a degree. With talent like this and blusteroos like Limbaugh and Cheney the future of the Democratic party is in dependable opposition hands.

Interesting article based on 10 years of numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31199889/

DiGriz, the Gazette is anti-christ. There's their first problem.

Where were all the right-wing nuts when Bush stated us down the path of deficit spending. Oh, and what about his 2004 campaign promise to cut the deficit in half? The Rush Limbags of the GOP elect to forget about that.

It's difficult to say what the elections of 2010 and 2012 will bring, but one can suspect a major over haul of incumbents. With so much distaste for Republicans still out there, it brings the very real possibility of a 3rd party into the equation. The economic collapse will sweep out many in power; as debt cascades, GPD continues to shrink, and un-employment booms. Add in the real possibility of interest rates going up and inflation taking hold, you have nothing but a dismal picture that will see incumbents go to the chopping blocks in the next set of national elections. Also adding to the fire will be the out cry of increasing gas prices again (remember the public outrage that had last year when gas got to $4.00 a gallon?). Something that will be impossible to stop as the dollar weakens from the out of control deficit spending. There is zero positives I can possibly see in the coming 2-3 years economically. It will be interesting to see just how bad the blood bath is come election time.
.
All across Europe the incumbent ruling parties are being voted out, or given a vote of no confidence, the past week of elections. Our economic situation lags behind what is happening in Britain and many European countries. A situation that was brilliantly summarized by Daniel Hannan in a address to Prime minister Gordon Brown a few months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tB...

Looks more like three peas in a pod; author and first two posters.

NIT and WIT

BO and ZO!