National Health Care Debate

[GregoryJoseph]

What is it about freedom that terrifies you so much, Mojo?

[TheMojoPin]

What is it about freedom that terrifies you so much, Mojo?

You think all of these things being run and owned by private corporations would be "freedom?"

Of course you don't.

[GregoryJoseph]

You think all of these things being run and owned by private corporations would be "freedom?"

Of course you don't.

You're right, but unlike you I view the federal government the same way I do private corporations.

I'm extremely leery of giving them more power and control over the lives of average citizens, whereas you seem to have no problem doing so.

[zentraed]

That is a horrible stat to quote to make your point. What are the denials for?
If someone files a claim for plastic surgery is it denied? Yes.
So, have you eliminated all frivolous claims from the denial rate? Do you know why the claims where denied?

Also, a "claim" is submitted by health-care providers. The insured do not submit claims to the insurance company.

A definition from How Stuff Works - "A health insurance claim is a bill for health care services that your health care provider turns in to the insurance company for payment."

So those denied claims are legitimate medical treatments that have been performed but that your insurance company has used largely administrative reasons to deny payment to your doctor for. Check out the denial codes (also in the PDF) to find out why. Aetna's number one reason code is number 97 (see top of page 15): Payment adjusted because the benefit for this service is included in the payment/allowance for another service/procedure that has already been adjudicated

[TheMojoPin]

You're right, but unlike you I view the federal government the same way I do private corporations.

I'm extremely leery of giving them more power and control over the lives of average citizens, whereas you seem to have no problem doing so.

So if you're leery of the government AND private corporations having all of this "control," what the hell are you suggesting?

[Serpico1103]

Also, a "claim" is submitted by health-care providers. The insured do not submit claims to the insurance company.

A definition from How Stuff Works - "A health insurance claim is a bill for health care services that your health care provider turns in to the insurance company for payment."

So those denied claims are legitimate medical treatments that have been performed but that your insurance company has used largely administrative reasons to deny payment to your doctor for. Check out the denial codes (also in the PDF) to find out why. Aetna's number one reason code is number 97 (see top of page 15): Payment adjusted because the benefit for this service is included in the payment/allowance for another service/procedure that has already been adjudicated

Still making my point. If I tell my doctor that Aetna dropped me, that I have no coverage, he is not going to submit a claim. Therefore, Aetna is not "denying" a claim.

[Serpico1103]

You think all of these things being run and owned by private corporations would be "freedom?"

Of course you don't.

I guess we will see how private corporations will do. Since some prisons are now being run by private corporations. Our military is being replaced by private contractors.
Oh, it will be such a great new world. A free market corrects itself, so without pesky government interference, without the concern for burdensome lawsuits, corporations will be able to run optimally; solving all our problems.

[GregoryJoseph]

So if you're leery of the government AND private corporations having all of this "control," what the hell are you suggesting?

Limits on the power of BOTH entities.

[TheMojoPin]

Limits on the power of BOTH entities.

Wait, wait, wait...that's what the health care reform is ideally proposing: a government option that ideally keeps the private companies in check but doesn't control the entire industry. It's the middle ground that doesn't let one dominate. Theoretically you should be for the reform proposed now and in the 90's as opposed to letting the insurance companies run unchecked.

[zentraed]

Still making my point. If I tell my doctor that Aetna dropped me, that I have no coverage, he is not going to submit a claim. Therefore, Aetna is not "denying" a claim.

If you've been dropped from Aetna, then your "denial" is not included in that statistic, which means that Aetna actually denies MORE than 6.8% of requests for payments. That "denial rate" is an Adjustment to the reimbursement rate from what's been negotiated/billed by your provider down to $0.

Put another way, "You've performed a legitimate medical service for our customer. We're just not going to pay you for it."

[Serpico1103]

If you've been dropped from Aetna, then your "denial" is not included in that statistic, which means that Aetna actually denies MORE than 6.8% of requests for payments. That "denial rate" is an Adjustment to the reimbursement rate from what's been negotiated/billed by your provider down to $0.

Put another way, "You've performed a legitimate medical service for our customer. We're just not going to pay you for it."

That is how I understood it.

[zentraed]

That is a horrible stat to quote to make your point. What are the denials for?
If someone files a claim for plastic surgery is it denied? Yes.
So, have you eliminated all frivolous claims from the denial rate? Do you know why the claims where denied?

This is one example of you getting the concept of a denied claim wrong. If your plan does not cover plastic surgery then it is not counted in this study. They only consider the following:

"Payer allows the physician's billed charge, but payment is $0"

[zentraed]

I dont' think that a denial rate means that one system works as well or as bad as another. You need a lot more information than that.

But it is evidence that a government run plan wouldn't necessarily approve more claims than private insurance, which is what a lot of pro-health plan people claim under the argument that for-profit company denies more so they can make more money.

We're dealing with different animals here though. The private insurers deny claims because they want profits. The government denies claims because they are underfunded entitlement programs. What will motivate denials under the not-for-profit Public Option? I know Blue Cross/Blue Shield used to be non-profit, but I don't know what their coverage was like. I think that would make the best comparison.

[Serpico1103]

This is one example of you getting the concept of a denied claim wrong. If your plan does not cover plastic surgery then it is not counted in this study. They only consider the following:

"Payer allows the physician's billed charge, but payment is $0"

Ok. But the fact that private insurers can still deny complete coverage to people will skew the denial rate in their favor.

[conman823]

How so? I was just busting his balls, but those are all examples of things we expect the government to "run" for us. It's ridiculous to act like wanting a government health care option is some kind of tipping point that suddenly means we expect the government to run or do everything for us.

First off, because I ship with UPS sir.

Second, all those government "run" examples are grossly under funded and riddled with money issues.

Government Health care option isn't the tipping point but it continues to be steps toward, what appears to be, a Socialist Agenda for the country. An agenda that Librals think is some utopian state where the government takes care of everybody and what we just prance around all day painting and singing?

Government is Government, how can you trust these people so much just based on what Party they belong too.

[TheMojoPin]

First off, because I ship with UPS sir.

Second, all those government "run" examples are grossly under funded and riddled with money issues.

Government Health care option isn't the tipping point but it continues to be steps toward, what appears to be, a Socialist Agenda for the country. An agenda that Librals think is some utopian state where the government takes care of everybody and what we just prance around all day painting and singing?

Government is Government, how can you trust these people so much just based on what Party they belong too.

Party? I don't give a fuck if it's Democrats or Republicans or Neptunians pushing for a public option.

I do now and always have thought the variations lazy "government is BAD, man! I don't trust those fat cats"-mentality are pointless and ridiculous. For a country of our size and scope our government works, and it works very well and has worked very well. It's the easy way out to slam it as being this terrible, incompetent thing, but it's not, regardless of which party is in control. Despite my criticisms I have faith in our government, I ultimately trust our government and I wouldn't want to be living under a different one. I don't want it running everything, but I want to step in to help regulate and keep the private sector in check when necessary for the good of the majority of us.

"Liberals" don't have a Socialist agenda like you seem to think. They don't want the government to "run" everything or "take care" of everything. What they tend to want is for us to use the luxury of our government and its infrastructure and our station in life to attempt to help those in need when it is necessary. There's a huge difference between that and expecting your asinine generalization.

Any national program or industry, private or public, is going to have "money issues." That's unavoidable. There isn't some perfect system out there for a country this size, hence why we long ago realized we needed to compromise and create an amalgamation of different political and economic systems. We had "socialist" practices before the term was even invented. The trick is to mix and match where necessary to find the options that are best for a majority of Americans. Adding a public health care option is hardly the "huge step towards Socialism" you want it to be.

[conman823]

Of course my generalization was asinine, it was written on a message board for christ sake. Still its rooted in truth though. A huge step toward socialism would be more like.......


Oh, right...we don't have the world's best healthcare. Some of them there socialist countries is better than us when it comes to fixin' folks.

If the government guarenteed things like universal healthcare and funded education through college, I'd have no problem paying between 30 and 40%...
I know it'll never happen, but I'd pay it.

I'm talking in terms of a system where the bulk of, if not all, taxes would be paid directly to the federal government.

And yeah, I know it would mean a lot of businesses that exist now wouldn't in such a system.
I place the overall good of the populace over the success of any and all businesses.
If less businesses meant better living for the populace as a whole, I'm all for it.
..it would just mean that some business opportunities wouldn't be able to exist because the owners can't meet the living requirements of its employees. Does that mean a business has to make sure their employees are living like kings?
if a business cannot provide a salary for an employee who works there fulltime that is not livable based on the current economic necessities (not luxuries) of that area, I'm sorry, that business should not exist.
Taking care of the employees should be first, owners' personal luxury gain second. If that need can't be met, sorry pal, SOOL.
The studies for this would be federally funded and the living wages would still be based out of federal reserves since that's where the taxes would be going...I know this basically tramples all over the idea of states' rights

Yes, I know you totally disagree with this. Such is life. Your side has already won.

[EliSnow]

I think you misunderstand me. Maybe my fault. Aetna can drop high risk people. Than those people will not submit a claim to Aetna because they are no longer covered. So, there is no denial of claim.

Regardless, one stat is meaningless, and I would be in over my head analyzing all the stats.

No they can't drop high risk people. That would violate their policies and a bunch of laws.

[EliSnow]

We're dealing with different animals here though. The private insurers deny claims because they want profits. The government denies claims because they are underfunded entitlement programs. What will motivate denials under the not-for-profit Public Option? I know Blue Cross/Blue Shield used to be non-profit, but I don't know what their coverage was like. I think that would make the best comparison.

Regardless of the reason for a denial, both types of entities have reasons to deny claims. The government will always been "underfunded" with regard to health. Meanwhile, medical costs are rising which has plagued both medicare and the commerical insurance insdustry. Ultimately, the point of the stat is that the government option would still have comparable denials because of the "underfunded" point.

Blue Cross Blue Shield is still a non-profit in some states. I don't think you will see that their experience is that much different from the other states. Again, they have a limited pool of money, and have enacted measures to protect it. Many of the practices used by the for-profit companies, such as pre-existing exclusion are used by the non-profits. Where the non-profit angle would possibly impact the consumer theoretically would be in premiums, because they would not need to add a profit margin to it.

[west milly Tom]

There are better ways to expand insurance coverage. Consider Idaho’s program for high-risk patients. Lawmakers there have allowed private carriers to cede the financial risk for certain high-risk individuals to a reinsurance pool. All private insurers in the state pay into this pool, which then covers high-risk beneficiaries’ more expensive medical costs.

A public option in health care may seem like a clever way to expand insurance coverage and lower costs. But America’s existing public options prove that another government-run health plan will only raise the cost of private insurance and crowd out private alternatives, until the public option is the only one around.

Janet Trautwein is executive vice president and CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters.


http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/anothervoice/story/676955.html

[Serpico1103]

No they can't drop high risk people. That would violate their policies and a bunch of laws.

They don't have to cover pre-existing conditions. Which I imagine are very expensive, since unlike most health issues they usually require routine care over a long period of time. Also, I think many employer plans end or are modified when you qualify for medicare. So, older people are shifted into medicare. Again, another expensive group that private insurers are able to avoid covering.

But, I am probably wrong, and have now grown tired of arguing one stat.
My opinion, which unbelievably I saw Bill Frist agreed with me about (the only thing I think we could agree on), is that our health care crisis is largely a result of our obesity and eating habits. We eat shitty food and LOTS of. Even the meat and vegetables we eat are not the same foods that our parents and grandparents ate.

[Dude!]

But, I am probably wrong, and have now grown tired of arguing one stat.My opinion, which unbelievably I saw Bill Frist agreed with me about (the only thing I think we could agree on), is that our health care crisis is largely a result of our obesity and eating habits. We eat shitty food and LOTS of. Even the meat and vegetables we eat are not the same foods that our parents and grandparents ate.

and yet life expectancy goes up up up
i guess you'd be healthier in 1890
eating lots of fresh organic food
and dying at age 43

Life expectancy at birth for White males:

1850 38.3
1890 42.5
1929–1931 59.12
1949–1951 66.31
1969–1971 67.94
1990 72.7
2000 74.8
2004 75.7

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

the financial aspect of the health care 'crisis'
is caused mainly by the enormous costs
of keeping 80+ year old people
alive for the last year of their lives

[underdog]

and yet life expectancy goes up up up
i guess you'd be healthier in 1890
eating lots of fresh organic food
and dying at age 43

That's incredibly misleading. It's not food alone that decides how long a person lives.

[Dude!]

That's incredibly misleading. It's not food alone that decides how long a person lives.

um, it was sarcastic bro
it was a response to serpico's
lame point that food was the cause
of our ills

[EliSnow]

They don't have to cover pre-existing conditions. Which I imagine are very expensive, since unlike most health issues they usually require routine care over a long period of time. Also, I think many employer plans end or are modified when you qualify for medicare. So, older people are shifted into medicare. Again, another expensive group that private insurers are able to avoid covering.

Refusing to cover treatments related to a pre-existing condition is not dropping someone from coverage. The person still has coverage but just not to that condition. Dropping high risk people from coverage suggests that you're covering that person until they are diagnosed with a long term illness or have a family history of cancer, etc, and then when you discover it, you tell the person they don't have any health insurance anymore. If you have coverage, and are diagnosed with cancer while you are covered, you can't be denied treatment on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

Also, that provision exists for both for-profit and non-profit insurance companies, and is not prohibited by an states, though they are often regulated. New York for instance limits pre-existing conditions to those conditions diagnosed/treated 6 months prior to coverage during a time when a person has no coverage.

The purpose behind the limitation is to incentivize healthy people to get health insurance before finding out they are ill. Without the provision, a healthy person could say I'm not paying insurance until I get sick and then the company has to pay for the treatments. Insurance only works if you have a pool of healthy and sick people paying premiums.

While the current health care plan proposes to stop this provision, I believe they can do so because they have to require everyone to get health insurance in some fashion. If they don't, they pay a fine.

[underdog]

um, it was sarcastic bro
it was a response to serpico's
lame point that food was the cause
of our ills

Sorry bra.

[EliSnow]

ThMy opinion, which unbelievably I saw Bill Frist agreed with me about (the only thing I think we could agree on), is that our health care crisis is largely a result of our obesity and eating habits. We eat shitty food and LOTS of. Even the meat and vegetables we eat are not the same foods that our parents and grandparents ate.

He's wrong. It is a factor, but it's not the only one and it's not the cause of the crisis.

[HBox]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"]Refusing to cover treatments related to a pre-existing condition is not dropping someone from coverage. The person still has coverage but just not to that condition. Dropping high risk people from coverage suggests that you're covering that person until they are diagnosed with a long term illness or have a family history of cancer, etc, and then when you discover it, you tell the person they don't have any health insurance anymore. If you have coverage, and are diagnosed with cancer while you are covered, you can't be denied treatment on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

Oh yes you can. Read up on rescission. Stuff like cancelling coverage after a woman submitted claims for lupus because she did not disclose a pre-existing condition, occasional back pain. Or a woman who submitted a claim for emergency gall-bladder surgery which her insurer refused to pay because they cancelled coverage because her husband did not disclose high blood pressure. Or a woman who lost her coverage because of a deviated septum. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702455_2.html)

[Dude!]

Oh yes you can. Read up on rescission. Stuff like cancelling coverage after a woman submitted claims for lupus because she did not disclose a pre-existing condition, occasional back pain. Or a woman who submitted a claim for emergency gall-bladder surgery which her insurer refused to pay because they cancelled coverage because her husband did not disclose high blood pressure. Or a woman who lost her coverage because of a deviated septum. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702455_2.html)

if they had eaten better
they wouldn't have those problems

it's their own fault

[foodcourtdruide]

I think bm made a great point that people are still denied coverage by the government. However, I'd be really interested in detail regarding how/why claims were rejected.

[TheMojoPin]

Of course my generalization was asinine, it was written on a message board for christ sake. Still its rooted in truth though. A huge step toward socialism would be more like.......

Yeah? So? Was that supposed to be some kind of "gotcha" moment? I don't want a completely socialist society just like I don't want a rampantly capitalist society. I want the middle ground. Fuck yeah, I wish we did live in a perfect world where something basic and necessary that would make us a stronger and better nation like healthcare and higher education could be provided for all by the government and wasn't treated like a fucking commodity, but like I said, that's not going to happen. It's not realistic. It's simply not feasable. That doesn't mean, however, I want the government running EVERYTHING.

[Serpico1103]

and yet life expectancy goes up up up
i guess you'd be healthier in 1890
eating lots of fresh organic food
and dying at age 43

Life expectancy at birth for White males:

1850 38.3
1890 42.5
1929–1931 59.12
1949–1951 66.31
1969–1971 67.94
1990 72.7
2000 74.8
2004 75.7

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

the financial aspect of the health care 'crisis'
is caused mainly by the enormous costs
of keeping 80+ year old people
alive for the last year of their lives
Yes, we have conqured many illnesses. However, now we make ourselves victims to bad eating habits.

If you don't think we are killing ourselves with sugars and poor quality foods than there is no discussion to be had.
I agree that keeping the elderly alive is a huge cost. But, how do we solve that?
My solution to our quickest growing problems, diabetes and heart conditions in young people, is eating healthy. It is cheap, if not free, and effective.

[Serpico1103]

He's wrong. It is a factor, but it's not the only one and it's not the cause of the crisis.

You like starting posts with " (enter name here) is wrong."

Whether or not it is a large or small factor, it is a factor that needs to be addressed. We are eating less and less nutritious food every day. We are becoming more and more sedentary.
Health insurance companies should give incentives for people to live healthy and maintain a healthy lifestlye.

Car insurance companies penalize bad drivers. Health insurance companies should reward people trying to be healthy.

[west milly Tom]

Senate bill raises costs of prescriptions through a new tax and will drastically raise premiums. Nice.

[west milly Tom]

Oh right text of bill being kept secret. Lol

[west milly Tom]

Source is price waterhouse cooper report. Average premium to increase 3000$.

[IMSlacker]

Oh right text of bill being kept secret. Lol

And, yet the America's Health Insurance Plans group was still able to determine...

Senate bill raises costs of prescriptions through a new tax and will drastically raise premiums. Nice.

Amazing.

[west milly Tom]

And, yet the America's Health Insurance Plans group was still able to determine...



Amazing.

That they are.

[TheMojoPin]

A-milly-milly-milly-tom.

A-milly-milly-milly-tom.

[west milly Tom]

A-milly-milly-milly-tom.

A-milly-milly-milly-tom.
Swing batta batta

[KatPw]

Source is price waterhouse cooper report. Average premium to increase 3000$.

This report?
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_pwc2.html

I'd like to know how much they are going to raise the rates without reform.

[HBox]

This earth shattering development today that insurance companies think reform is a bad idea has rocked my world. This is so shocking that not only am I reconsidering the entire idea of health reform I am questioning everything. Is up really up? Is the sky truly blue? Is BLUE really blue? Perhaps if I think therefore I am NOT.

[Serpico1103]

um, it was sarcastic bro
it was a response to serpico's
lame point that food was the cause
of our ills

More support for my "lame" point. Fat kills! Keep eating.

According to the CDC, poor diet and lack of physical activity are closing in on tobacco as leading causes of death in the U.S. Or as Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson put it in a recent news conference announcing a "Healthy Lifestyles" initiative, "We're just too darned fat."

[badmonkey]

More support for my "lame" point. Fat kills! Keep eating.

According to the CDC, poor diet and lack of physical activity are closing in on tobacco as leading causes of death in the U.S. Or as Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson put it in a recent news conference announcing a "Healthy Lifestyles" initiative, "We're just too darned fat."

Their data on the decline in the percentage of smokers (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm) might help explain why other things are "closing in on tobacco as leading causes of death."

[Crispy123]

Their data on the decline in the percentage of smokers (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm) might help explain why other things are "closing in on tobacco as leading causes of death."

Thats good news, dont you think?

[badmonkey]

Thats good news, dont you think?

Was there some implication that I thought it was bad news?

[Serpico1103]

Their data on the decline in the percentage of smokers (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/index.htm) might help explain why other things are "closing in on tobacco as leading causes of death."

So, we agree that if people ate right and stopped smoking our health care costs would be lowered. Lowering our health care costs might help avoid this crisis. The system is still not perfect, but perhaps with intelligent choices as individuals we can avoid more central control over our lives.

[Crispy123]

Was there some implication that I thought it was bad news?

easy now. I was just asking for your opinion.

I don't know if taxing people into stopping unhealthy behavior is the right way to go about it. I wouldnt mind seeing more people roll their own smokes than buying the corporate shit filled with extra chemicals. And being part native american I dont see tobacco as entirely evil just being addicted to anything is bad. But kids not smoking I would think we can all agree is a good thing.

Its one of the big things I disagree with Ronnie B about. Smokers shouldnt be allowed to do it anywhere and everywhere, the beach isnt a giant ashtray, and if the people who did smoke didnt act that way then they might have more support from non smokers.

Nothing worse than driving down the highway at night when there is a fire warning in this state and watching cocksuckers throw lit butts out the window.

[badmonkey]

So, we agree that if people ate right and stopped smoking our health care costs would be lowered. Lowering our health care costs might help avoid this crisis. The system is still not perfect, but perhaps with intelligent choices as individuals we can avoid more central control over our lives.

I have zero issues with rewarding intelligent choices. I do have serious issues with the government reducing choices by outlawing things that are not bad for you when ingested in moderation. I'm an adult and I'll decide what's best for me and the govt can kiss my ass.

[Dude!]

I have zero issues with rewarding intelligent choices. I do have serious issues with the government reducing choices by outlawing things that are not bad for you when ingested in moderation. I'm an adult and I'll decide what's best for me and the govt can kiss my ass.

moderation is great, except for sex
one aids-cock up your ass
is all it takes
to rack up a million bucks in care

to lower health costs
sexual behavior needs to be regulated

[Serpico1103]

I have zero issues with rewarding intelligent choices. I do have serious issues with the government reducing choices by outlawing things that are not bad for you when ingested in moderation. I'm an adult and I'll decide what's best for me and the govt can kiss my ass.

I think we have had this discussion before. But, your decisions do not only affect you. You can't drink and drive, not because you might get hurt, but because you endanger others.
Your smoking "rights" are limited because smokers are a burden on society. As are people who make other unhealthy choices.
You need to be a productive member of society or you are a burden. So, the government has to encourage good behavior, and when necessary punish bad behavior.

I think healthy food should be subsidized so families can make smart choices and feed their families properly instead of with cheap, unnutritious food. That type of diet leads to health problems that I, as part of society, have to pay for.
I don't care if a person wants to smoke and eat themselves into a cancerous obese mess. But, the problem comes when that mess creates costs for society.

[badmonkey]

I think we have had this discussion before. But, your decisions do not only affect you. You can't drink and drive, not because you might get hurt, but because you endanger others.
Your smoking "rights" are limited because smokers are a burden on society. As are people who make other unhealthy choices.
You need to be a productive member of society or you are a burden. So, the government has to encourage good behavior, and when necessary punish bad behavior.

I think healthy food should be subsidized so families can make smart choices and feed their families properly instead of with cheap, unnutritious food. That type of diet leads to health problems that I, as part of society, have to pay for.
I don't care if a person wants to smoke and eat themselves into a cancerous obese mess. But, the problem comes when that mess creates costs for society.

The problem with poor people isn't just the cost of nutritious food. One of the biggest problems is a lack of grocery stores in their neighborhoods. Get a grocery store in their neighborhood instead of a McDonald's and they will have better choices. Cash for clunkers could have made a huge difference in the lives of children who's parents have no transportation and no grocery store within reasonable walking distance.

[underdog]

The problem with poor people isn't just the cost of nutritious food. One of the biggest problems is a lack of grocery stores in their neighborhoods. Get a grocery store in their neighborhood instead of a McDonald's and they will have better choices.

Not always. I used to work in a pretty shitty neighborhood with three grocery stores within very close distance, and I'd constantly see mothers bringing their children to BK or McDonalds at all hours of the day. I never understood it, especially since cooking your own food is cheaper than having your kids eat shitty fast food all the time.

[Serpico1103]

The problem with poor people isn't just the cost of nutritious food. One of the biggest problems is a lack of grocery stores in their neighborhoods. Get a grocery store in their neighborhood instead of a McDonald's and they will have better choices. Cash for clunkers could have made a huge difference in the lives of children who's parents have no transportation and no grocery store within reasonable walking distance.

O'Reilly would be proud of you didn't spin a debate about healthy food choices into a knock on the cash for clunkers program.

If a grocery store is more profitable there will be one. How do you make it more profitable? By giving incentives, the same way towns give other businesses incentives, e.g. Wal-Mart.

But, I don't think a lack of availability is the problem. The problem is that a "cheap" meal is not cheap. We subsidize unhealthy food, lets subsidize healthy food. Lets make people of the world envy our healthy in-shape citizens, instead of just our freedoms.

[badmonkey]

O'Reilly would be proud of you didn't spin a debate about healthy food choices into a knock on the cash for clunkers program.

If a grocery store is more profitable there will be one. How do you make it more profitable? By giving incentives, the same way towns give other businesses incentives, e.g. Wal-Mart.

But, I don't think a lack of availability is the problem. The problem is that a "cheap" meal is not cheap. We subsidize unhealthy food, lets subsidize healthy food. Lets make people of the world envy our healthy in-shape citizens, instead of just our freedoms.

There is a neighborhood in DC that just recently got a grocery store after years of trying to bring one in. There was no grocery store for years. If there isn't a grocery store, then how is it profitable? You should do some research on the lack of grocery stores in poor neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, like the one where I lived in Baltimore, have grocery stores but they're barely better than convenience stores. Here's a couple recent stories that you might find enlightening.

Inner-city L.A. hungers for good grocery stores (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1010/p02s05-usgn.html)
Ban on fast-food eateries is no fat cure, study says (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fastfood6-2009oct06,0,665687.story?track=rss)
Zoning For Health? The Year-Old Ban On New Fast-Food Restaurants In South LA - (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.28.6.w1088/DC1)

What knock on cash for clunkers? They bought cars for $4500 bucks. They destroyed those cars. The cars could have been put to better use. You keep saying subsidize. You don't want to pay for other people's bad choices but you don't mind paying for their good ones? You do realize that the money for government subsidies come from your pocket right? Why do you think Barack Obama wants to open a farmer's market in a city that already has a farmer's market? Because it's in a different area of the city from the other one and would give poor people in DC access to fresh produce once/week. He could have accomplished the same thing with a car lottery using the working vehicles that he just spent almost $3 billion on and instead destroyed completely. That's not a knock on cash for clunkers. That's me pointing out a missed opportunity. To quote Barack Obama... "if we're going to spend the money anyway."

[A.J.]

Your smoking "rights" are limited because smokers are a burden on society.

Those extra sin taxes on cigarettes that smokers pay are a burden to society?

[Serpico1103]

There is a neighborhood in DC that just recently got a grocery store after years of trying to bring one in. There was no grocery store for years. If there isn't a grocery store, then how is it profitable? You should do some research on the lack of grocery stores in poor neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, like the one where I lived in Baltimore, have grocery stores but they're barely better than convenience stores. Here's a couple recent stories that you might find enlightening.


I guess you missed my point. There is not a store because it is not profitable. So, if the government subsidized real food the way it subsidizes shitty food a grocery store will be more profitable.
So, making the opportunity more appealing will draw in people to open grocery stores.
But, I think a vast majority have access to a grocery store, yet choose to eat the shitty food any way.

Those extra sin taxes on cigarettes that smokers pay are a burden to society?

Those sin taxes are there to try to compensate for the burden that smokers are to society.
It is a way of making smokers paying the actual cost of smoking. With some extra money taken from them to discourage a disfavored behavior. The government gives financial incentives to encourage good behavior and financial disincentives to discourage bad behavior. Smoking is bad behavior, after all, only cool tough guys smoke. Wait, I mean people with no will power who are selfish and want to die early.

[A.J.]

Smoking is bad behavior, after all, only cool tough guys smoke. Wait, I mean people with no will power who are selfish and want to die early.

Thank you!

[A.J.]

This should get people to stop smoking. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_anti_smoking_ads_warn_teens)

[Crispy123]

This should get people to stop smoking. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_anti_smoking_ads_warn_teens)

thats awesome.


Dont be a faggot, dont smoke.

[Kublakhan61]

The problem with poor people isn't just the cost of nutritious food. One of the biggest problems is a lack of grocery stores in their neighborhoods. Get a grocery store in their neighborhood instead of a McDonald's and they will have better choices. Cash for clunkers could have made a huge difference in the lives of children who's parents have no transportation and no grocery store within reasonable walking distance.

I live in a poor neighborhood. We have a grocery store. The bus can get you to 3 more. We have several 'fresh' fruit and vegetable stands in walking distance - people still go to the fast food joints, which we also have though much farther away then then the grocery store. The problem, in my opinion is less of an issue of access and more an issue of education.

All people, regardless of socio-economic standing, could use a proper education in diet and nutrition. As a nation we over eat, and we over eat shitty foods.

[Jujubees2]

I live in a poor neighborhood. We have a grocery store. The bus can get you to 3 more. We have several 'fresh' fruit and vegetable stands in walking distance - people still go to the fast food joints, which we also have though much farther away then then the grocery store. The problem, in my opinion is less of an issue of access and more an issue of education.

All people, regardless of socio-economic standing, could use a proper education in diet and nutrition. As a nation we over eat, and we over eat shitty foods.

And as a society, we've become very lazy. It's much easier to order a Big Mac than to cook a nutritious meal at home.

[west milly Tom]

I think we have had this discussion before. But, your decisions do not only affect you. You can't drink and drive, not because you might get hurt, but because you endanger others.
Your smoking "rights" are limited because smokers are a burden on society. As are people who make other unhealthy choices.
You need to be a productive member of society or you are a burden. So, the government has to encourage good behavior, and when necessary punish bad behavior.

I think healthy food should be subsidized so families can make smart choices and feed their families properly instead of with cheap, unnutritious food. That type of diet leads to health problems that I, as part of society, have to pay for.
I don't care if a person wants to smoke and eat themselves into a cancerous obese mess. But, the problem comes when that mess creates costs for society.



This is totally ridiculous. Subsidizing healthy food and punishing people for making decisions you disagree with regarding smoking? Why don't you ask for government appointed shoppers and a government security guard to keep people away from their junk food cabinet. How much intervention do you want? Try personal responsibility it works.

[IMSlacker]

Looks like Olympia Snowe is going to vote "yes" on the Finance Committee's bill today (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28235.html). That would be a pretty big win for Baucus.

“Is this bill all that I want? Far from it. Is it all that it could be? No,” Snowe said. “But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”

[Furtherman]

Smart lady.

[badmonkey]

I live in a poor neighborhood. We have a grocery store. The bus can get you to 3 more. We have several 'fresh' fruit and vegetable stands in walking distance - people still go to the fast food joints, which we also have though much farther away then then the grocery store. The problem, in my opinion is less of an issue of access and more an issue of education.

All people, regardless of socio-economic standing, could use a proper education in diet and nutrition. As a nation we over eat, and we over eat shitty foods.

Okay, so YOUR neighborhood has a grocery store and the bus can get you to 3 more. When you go to the grocery store, how many trips does it take for you to unload the car by yourself? How much groceries do you think you can you carry by yourself on a crowded bus? What about people in neighborhoods that don't have grocery stores or decent/affordable transportation to/from one? What about the ones like my old neighborhood grocery store that was crammed into a room about the size of a large convenience store?


No easy access to fresh groceries in many parts of Seattle (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/361235_foodvoid01.html)
Portland's low-income neighborhoods are city's 'food deserts' (http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2008/11/living_in_a_food_desert.html)and reader response (http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2008/11/grocery_store_access_story_dra.html)
Do the Poor Pay More for Food? An Analysis of Grocery Store Availability and Food Price Disparities. (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KJPTpDCpHy4szG4b22V2X fb1GTLp1P3KzqCLWhMYSbVf13ynD74n!1330489117!-1854981251?docId=5001894946)
Access Excellence @ the National Health Museum has lots of related stories linked here. (http://www.accessexcellence.org/HHQ/qow/qow09/qow090223.php)
Grocery stores scarce for many DC residents (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1598)
Here's a study by the DC Office of Planning (http://planning.dc.gov/planning/frames.asp?doc=/planning/lib/planning/developmentreview/apa2008presentationfinal.pdf)


Nah... you're probably right. They should get off their lazy asses and walk a couple miles if they want healthy food. They could use the exercise anyway from all the unhealthy choices they make because they're lazy. Don't taxi's take food stamps?

[west milly Tom]

cbo: 91% of people will pay highr premiums in the state of Texas, the mandates for people not buying insurance until they get sick will drive up costs for everyone, Pelosi is going to force junior members of the democrat party out of office by forcing the committee as far left as possible. No single payer, no public option, things will cost more for everyone. So here's the question: Who wins here?

[Furtherman]

cbo?

[TheMojoPin]

Cock Blotting Office.

[west milly Tom]

cbo?

yea 91% of all tx residents will pay higher premiums.

[KatPw]

cbo: 91% of people will pay highr premiums in the state of Texas, the mandates for people not buying insurance until they get sick will drive up costs for everyone, Pelosi is going to force junior members of the democrat party out of office by forcing the committee as far left as possible. No single payer, no public option, things will cost more for everyone. So here's the question: Who wins here?

Insurance companies. You know, Liz Fowler's buddies. Her ex-employer (Wellpoint) will be quite pleased. They are Baucus' buddies also.
Oh, and the lobbyists will be thrilled. 6 lobbyists for every member. But we are a government for the people, right? right?

[Furtherman]

I can't speak to that until I see a source... and if your cbo is the Congressional Budget Office, well, that's a large website and a search on Texas brings up no results as to what you've posted. It could be there... any idea of the publications name?

[TheMojoPin]

Lobbyists are people, too, you monster.

[KatPw]

Lobbyists are people, too, you monster.

So are serial killers and pederasts. That doesn't excuse their behavior.

[IMSlacker]

The 91% quote comes from John Cornyn (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-cornyn_13edi.State.Edition1.263d692.html), not the CBO:

According to one survey, 91 percent of Texans who buy insurance in the individual market will see their premiums go up because Washington will force them to buy more expensive policies.

[west milly Tom]

Insurance companies. You know, Liz Fowler's buddies. Her ex-employer (Wellpoint) will be quite pleased. They are Baucus' buddies also.
Oh, and the lobbyists will be thrilled. 6 lobbyists for every member. But we are a government for the people, right? right?

right, so the people are the ones who lose.

[west milly Tom]

The 91% quote comes from John Cornyn (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-cornyn_13edi.State.Edition1.263d692.html), not the CBO:

thanks budday, I should say the news report I just watched qouted that as a cbo stat.

[Furtherman]

The 91% quote comes from John Cornyn (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-cornyn_13edi.State.Edition1.263d692.html), not the CBO:

Just as I thought.

"according to one survey"

That is some rock-solid information, right there.

[KatPw]

So, I'm listening to Randi Rhodes and she just said that PriceWaterhouseCooper stated yesterday (after their report came out) that they didn't read the whole fucking bill. If I was the Insurance association that paid for the report I would be pretty pissed right now. They were paid to read the bill and analyze, not skim. So take that report from yesterday with an even bigger grain of salt than before.

[west milly Tom]

Just as I thought.

"according to one survey"

That is some rock-solid information, right there.

right every source that doesn't support your agenda is bogus. so typical.

[Misteriosa]

So, I'm listening to Randi Rhodes and she just said that PriceWaterhouseCooper stated yesterday (after their report came out) that they didn't read the whole fucking bill. If I was the Insurance association that paid for the report I would be pretty pissed right now. They were paid to read the bill and analyze, not skim. So take that report from yesterday with an even bigger grain of salt than before.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/salt_flats_bonneville_utah_usa.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Y'know, as ineffectual as the Democrats are, it really does pale in comparison to the balls on Republicans to say that they oppose Democratic reform because they want to offer their own version of health care reform, yet that didn't crop at all in the 8 years they controlled, well, everything, plus they started that whole period off with the biggest budget surplus in history. If they had no motivation to offer up any kind of reform then, why the fuck should we believe they'd do it now?

[TheMojoPin]

right every source that doesn't support your agenda is bogus. so typical.

YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE A SOURCE.

[IMSlacker]

So, I'm listening to Randi Rhodes and she just said that PriceWaterhouseCooper stated yesterday (after their report came out) that they didn't read the whole fucking bill. If I was the Insurance association that paid for the report I would be pretty pissed right now. They were paid to read the bill and analyze, not skim. So take that report from yesterday with an even bigger grain of salt than before.

I don't think the whole text of the bill was made available, just the general parameters that we've all seen in the news.

[IMSlacker]

right every source that doesn't support your agenda is bogus. so typical.

Cornyn didn't supply a source. He just said "one survey".

Also, he's pro-rape.

[KatPw]

I don't think the whole text of the bill was made available, just the general parameters that we've all seen in the news.

That is like writing your paper using only the cliff notes.

[west milly Tom]

So, I'm listening to Randi Rhodes and she just said that PriceWaterhouseCooper stated yesterday (after their report came out) that they didn't read the whole fucking bill. If I was the Insurance association that paid for the report I would be pretty pissed right now. They were paid to read the bill and analyze, not skim. So take that report from yesterday with an even bigger grain of salt than before.

I do believe it to be slanted as well. I think what slants it though are the statistics that make Obamacare look silly. The Insaurance companies were trying to work with the administration until they told big insurance to eat a dick. Now you'll see the stats that you haven't before. This is the first wave, not the last. Citizens don't win here on either side of belief. This bill stinks and its only going to get worse. I can't wait to see what non-healthcare stuff gets attached to it.

[IMSlacker]

That is like writing your paper using only the cliff notes.

Right, but if that's all that was made available, what else are they supposed to use?

[west milly Tom]

I don't think the whole text of the bill was made available, just the general parameters that we've all seen in the news.

you are correct sir. the txt of the bill is not being released. yay secret government!

fits in well with Obama's promiose of transparency.

[west milly Tom]

http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/salt_flats_bonneville_utah_usa.jpg

meh

[Furtherman]

right every source that doesn't support your agenda is bogus. so typical.

The only thing that is typical here is this response that you keep giving.

I've never mentioned an agenda here, and all that people have been doing is pointing out the errors in your discussion. Whenever someone points out the mistake, you claim some kind of "all my sources is bogus" defense.

We're still waiting for that legit counter argument. Maybe even some questions that you never answered.

In the meantime, we're learning off each other. We get it, you already made up your mind that the Health Care reform is bad, but if you keep dropping "bogus" statements, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

[KatPw]

Right, but if that's all that was made available, what else are they supposed to use?

It just pisses me off. You can't formulate an accurate analysis without the whole piece.

[IMSlacker]

you are correct sir. the txt of the bill is not being released. yay secret government!

fits in well with Obama's promiose of transparency.

Well, to be fair, it's not like this thing is about to be signed into law. There will be plenty of time to read the full text before it is. Also, I don't think Obama has any control on what the Senate Finance Committee makes public about pending legislation.

[badmonkey]

So, I'm listening to Randi Rhodes and she just said that PriceWaterhouseCooper stated yesterday (after their report came out) that they didn't read the whole fucking bill. If I was the Insurance association that paid for the report I would be pretty pissed right now. They were paid to read the bill and analyze, not skim. So take that report from yesterday with an even bigger grain of salt than before.

Wait what? PriceWaterhouseCooper should read the "whole fucking bill" but not the people we elected to represent us shouldn't? Guess we can take anything that the democratic leadership in congress says about it with a pretty big grain of salt too then.

[west milly Tom]

The only thing that is typical here is this response that you keep giving.

I've never mentioned an agenda here, and all that people have been doing is pointing out the errors in your discussion. Whenever someone points out the mistake, you claim some kind of "all my sources is bogus" defense.

We're still waiting for that legit counter argument. Maybe even some questions that you never answered.

In the meantime, we're learning off each other. We get it, you already made up your mind that the Health Care reform is bad, but if you keep dropping "bogus" statements, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

stop. just stop. waiting for a legit counter argument? I couldn't be more clear. It's your will to not see another side to an argument that calls my side bogus. You are the most closed minded guy here. Keep "learning" though.

[KatPw]

Wait what? PriceWaterhouseCooper should read the "whole fucking bill" but not the people we elected to represent us shouldn't? Guess we can take anything that the democratic leadership in congress says about it with a pretty big grain of salt too then.

When have I ever said that our elected officials should not read the fucking bill?

[west milly Tom]

Well, to be fair, it's not like this thing is about to be signed into law. There will be plenty of time to read the full text before it is. Also, I don't think Obama has any control on what the Senate Finance Committee makes public about pending legislation.

thanks for being fair.

[TheMojoPin]

stop. just stop. waiting for a legit counter argument? I couldn't be more clear. It's your will to not see another side to an argument that calls my side bogus. You are the most closed minded guy here. Keep "learning" though.

YOU'RE MAKING SPECIFIC CLAIMS WHILE NOT PROVIDING ANY SOURCES. YOU MAKE OUTLANDISH STATEMENTS YOU CAN NEVER BACK UP AND THEN VANISH WHEN CALLED OUT ON THEM. LOOK AT HOW YOU'RE MAKING ME YELL.

[west milly Tom]

YOU'RE MAKING SPECIFIC CLAIMS WHILE NOT PROVIDING ANY SOURCES. YOU MAKE OUTLANDISH STATEMENTS YOU CAN NEVER BACK UP AND THEN VANISH WHEN CALLED OUT ON THEM. LOOK AT HOW YOU'RE MAKING ME YELL.

you're mentally instable.

[west milly Tom]

Wait what? PriceWaterhouseCooper should read the "whole fucking bill" but not the people we elected to represent us shouldn't? Guess we can take anything that the democratic leadership in congress says about it with a pretty big grain of salt too then.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/geography/geography_images/salt_flats_bonneville_utah_usa.jpg

[Furtherman]

stop. just stop. waiting for a legit counter argument? I couldn't be more clear. It's your will to not see another side to an argument that calls my side bogus. You are the most closed minded guy here. Keep "learning" though.

Actually, you could be 100% more clear. You drop some unsourced quotes and stats but when people ask you where you got them, you claim we're calling you "bogus". All you have to do is defend yourself. Ask anyone. We've only been asking for a contribution.

Now we're all expecting you to disappear for a couple days and repeat the process.

[west milly Tom]

Actually, you could be 100% more clear. You drop some unsourced quotes and stats but when people ask you where you got them, you claim we're calling you "bogus". All you have to do is defend yourself. Ask anyone. We've only been asking for a contribution.

again, any counter argument sourced or not is called invalid by you.

[underdog]

thanks budday, I should say the news report I just watched qouted that as a cbo stat.

I thought you didn't watch Fox news?

[west milly Tom]

I thought you didn't watch Fox news?

these colors don't run!

[TheMojoPin]

again, any counter argument sourced or not is called invalid by you.

You don't provide sourced counter arguments.

[underdog]

You are the most closed minded guy here.

I'm always confused by the definition of irony. Would that statement be considered irony?

[badmonkey]

It just pisses me off. You can't formulate an accurate analysis without the whole piece.

Agreed. I would like to hear more of this from the democratic party rather than the whole "don't worry... about a thing... cuz every little thing...gonna be alright" three little birds crap they, Obama, and their followers keep spewing without ever having "the whole piece" in front of them to "formulate an accurate analysis".

When have I ever said that our elected officials should not read the fucking bill?

I didn't mean to imply that you specifically said that unless you are the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, who also is being paid to read the bill and analyze, not just skim, or vote based on what he hopes it will do while remaining willfully or intentionally clueless on the subject entirely. That is the position of the democratic leadership that you support. They have also rejected an amendment that requires them to put it up on the internet for 72 hours for you to read for yourself before they vote on it. So not only do they not want to read the bill, they don't want you to read it either.

[underdog]

You don't provide sourced counter arguments.

Stop this liberal circle jerk.

[Furtherman]

again, any counter argument sourced or not is called invalid by you.

No, only most of yours, and it's not because they're yours, it's because they're not sourced at all, or they're much like the one you just posted, which was not only a wrong source, but it was a stat based on "one survey".

You're only making yourself look uninformed. If you just want to rant your opinion, that's fine, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

[west milly Tom]

You don't provide sourced counter arguments.

I make them up. Actually I run a stat making up "think tank" called WMT FOR KILLIN' FOLKS. You can subscribe to my papers for 20$ a month.

[foodcourtdruide]

I think what's happening on the messageboard is a microcosm of America. Everyone gets mad at wmt's uncouth use of sourcing, overshadowing the legitimate argument bm is trying to have.

[Furtherman]

I'm always confused by the definition of irony. Would that statement be considered irony?

The mother-load of irony.

[underdog]

I think what's happening on the messageboard is a microcosm of America. Everyone gets mad at wmt's uncouth use of sourcing, overshadowing the legitimate argument bm is trying to have.

OBAMA IS HITLER.

[foodcourtdruide]

OBAMA IS HITLER.

YOU LIE!!!!!

[west milly Tom]

I think what's happening on the messageboard is a microcosm of America. Everyone gets mad at wmt's uncouth use of sourcing, overshadowing the legitimate argument bm is trying to have.

this post is a microcosm of your face.

[foodcourtdruide]

this post is a microcosm of your face.

Lol, it's true.

[hammersavage]

this post is a microcosm of your face.

alright, enough with the malarkey. no more personal attacks like this

[foodcourtdruide]

alright, enough with the malarkey. no more personal attacks like this

In all fairness, it did make me laugh.

[hammersavage]

In all fairness, it did make me laugh.

just like your face

[IMSlacker]

alright, enough with the malarkey. no more personal attacks like this

No one is scared of you.

[foodcourtdruide]

just like your face

Ok, take it easy.

[west milly Tom]

No one is scared of you.

except for fainting goats

[hammersavage]

No one is scared of you.

not according to your mod quote. BOOM!

[IMSlacker]

not according to your mod quote. BOOM!

LIES!!!

[foodcourtdruide]

I wasn't sure where else to post this, but it's just so goddamn funny. The Daily Show has the best writing on television:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/daily-show-destroys-cnn-f_n_318295.html

[west milly Tom]

not according to your mod quote. BOOM!

you're modness in this situation has made me laugfh:clap:

[Serpico1103]

This is totally ridiculous. Subsidizing healthy food and punishing people for making decisions you disagree with regarding smoking? Why don't you ask for government appointed shoppers and a government security guard to keep people away from their junk food cabinet. How much intervention do you want? Try personal responsibility it works.

So, would it be "taking personal responsibility" if I slapped the cigarette or hamburger out of the mouth of someone being insured by the same health insurance company as me?

We subsidize capital investments to encourage investment. We subsidize home purchases to encourage home purchases. We subsidize families to encourage people having kids.
So, how is my idea of subsidizing health food to encourage healthy diets so out of line.

You live in a dream world, or should I say dream island. Every one of your choices affect other people. Whether it is people in your family, at your job (smokers and bad eaters are out sick more and less productive), or just society in general by not reaching your potential. So, please stop caring that simplistic rallying crying of "personal responsibility" around.

[west milly Tom]

So, would it be "taking personal responsibility" if I slapped the cigarette or hamburger out of the mouth of someone being insured by the same health insurance company as me?

We subsidize capital investments to encourage investment. We subsidize home purchases to encourage home purchases. We subsidize families to encourage people having kids.
So, how is my idea of subsidizing health food to encourage healthy diets so out of line.

You live in a dream world, or should I say dream island. Every one of your choices affect other people. Whether it is people in your family, at your job (smokers and bad eaters are out sick more and less productive), or just society in general by not reaching your potential. So, please stop caring that simplistic rallying crying of "personal responsibility" around.

so to clarify, the government should stop people from overeating and smoking?

[foodcourtdruide]

so to clarify, the government should stop people from overeating and smoking?

Is that incredibly different than the government preventing people from driving uninsured, or forcing them to wear a seatbelt, or a helmet? I don't think I agree with Serpico, but it's not an impossible thought.

[Serpico1103]

so to clarify, the government should stop people from overeating and smoking?

To clarify, the government should encourage people to make healthy choices.

Oh wait it already does. By having seat belt laws, zoning laws, speed limits, gun laws, EVERY CRIMINAL LAW, FDA regulations, EPA regulations etc, and etc, and etc.
SO, please stop with your "I don't want the government in my life" sad childish attitude. THE GOVERNMENT IS IN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!! Find an island like Lita Ford did and move there. Otherwise, accept government interference in your life.

FUCK! You are so sadly binary. It is not a question of whether the government should make choices for us or not. It is a question of which choices and how to incentivize or disincentivize those choices.

[GregoryJoseph]

To clarify, the government should encourage people to make healthy choices.

Oh wait it already does. By having seat belt laws, zoning laws, speed limits, gun laws, EVERY CRIMINAL LAW, FDA regulations, EPA regulations etc, and etc, and etc.
SO, please stop with your "I don't want the government in my life" sad childish attitude. THE GOVERNMENT IS IN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!! Find an island like Lita Ford did and move there. Otherwise, accept government interference in your life.

FUCK! You are so sadly binary. It is not a question of whether the government should make choices for us or not. It is a question of which choices and how to incentivize or disincentivize those choices.

There is nothing sad or childish about not wanting the government in your life.

If Republicans take over and make Christianity mandatory, I don't want to hear you complaining.

I'll just say "Get over it!!! The Government is in your life!!!"

Now go worship Jesus and don't question anything that comes from the Holy Land, which seems to be Washington D.C. in your case...

[foodcourtdruide]

There is nothing sad or childish about not wanting the government in your life.

If Republicans take over and make Christianity mandatory, I don't want to hear you complaining.

I'll just say "Get over it!!! The Government is in your life!!!"

Now go worship Jesus and don't question anything that comes from the Holy Land, which seems to be Washington D.C. in your case...

You don't think that by having major Christian holidays be national holidays this isn't happening? Obviously, not to a huge degree... but somewhat.

[Crispy123]

There is nothing sad or childish about not wanting the government in your life.



I disagree. Government is necessary in a civilized society.

The question of good government is another story. States rights vs Federal authority is a good argument.

Saying something like, "if Bush is elected Im moving to France" or just immediately opposing everything from another poltical party is a childish attitude. The great thing about our government is that if we dont agree with it we can elect new officials that reflect our ideals.

[Serpico1103]

There is nothing sad or childish about not wanting the government in your life.
If Republicans take over and make Christianity mandatory, I don't want to hear you complaining.
I'll just say "Get over it!!! The Government is in your life!!!"
Now go worship Jesus and don't question anything that comes from the Holy Land, which seems to be Washington D.C. in your case...

Again, it is a question of how much government involvement.

And, is there proof that belief in religion will help society?

Regardless, "THE GOVERNMENT IS IN YOUR LIFE!"

Yes government interaction is not all candy and nuts. But, neither is allowing people or corporations to run unregulated. The question is how much and the method.

AGAIN!!!! I have proposed incentives to healthy living. Not criminalizing being fat or smoking. Understand the difference? It may be subtle, but it is different.

[badmonkey]

Again, it is a question of how much government involvement.

And, is there proof that belief in religion will help society?

Regardless, "THE GOVERNMENT IS IN YOUR LIFE!"

Yes government interaction is not all candy and nuts. But, neither is allowing people or corporations to run unregulated. The question is how much and the method.

AGAIN!!!! I have proposed incentives to healthy living. Not criminalizing being fat or smoking. Understand the difference? It may be subtle, but it is different.

If you refuse health care to people because the smoke or become fat and you don't want to pay for it, then does it really matter if you "criminalize" it?

[Serpico1103]

If you refuse health care to people because the smoke or become fat and you don't want to pay for it, then does it really matter if you "criminalize" it?

I never mentioned refusing it.
I have said, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, that the real costs of smoking and eating foods should be reflected in there price. Which would be the case if we lived in a functioning free market.

Or, have insurance companies give more physicals, so it can charge people appropriately for people voluntarily being unhealthy. The same way car insurance charges you more when you show bad behavior.

It is called personal responsibility.

Oh yeah, and let me throw in "STRAW MAN." Since, it seems the cool way people avoid addressing posts. Refusing health care= straw man.

[A.J.]

Y'know, as ineffectual as the Democrats are, it really does pale in comparison to the balls on Republicans to say that they oppose Democratic reform because they want to offer their own version of health care reform, yet that didn't crop at all in the 8 years they controlled, well, everything, plus they started that whole period off with the biggest budget surplus in history. If they had no motivation to offer up any kind of reform then, why the fuck should we believe they'd do it now?

Because they were busy killing terrorists, you freedom-hating monster.

[IMSlacker]

Looks like the insurance industry didn't do themselves any favors with their report on the Finance Committee health care bill this week.

WASHINGTON — Frustrated with health insurers, Democratic lawmakers are calling for revoking the industry's antitrust exemption.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the health insurance industry wants to continue the monopoly that it enjoys in some states. Reid says the companies are anticompetitive because they make more money than any other type of U.S. business.

Reid's comments came hours after the industry unveiled ads critical of Democratic health care bills.

Reid testified at a previously scheduled hearing on whether to repeal the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act that lets states regulate insurers without federal interference.

Christine Varney, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's antitrust division, said the department supported repealing the antitrust exemption.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York wants to make repeal part of health care overhaul (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_p_qcnp3Wc6f2PwlloROOq1rbxwD9BB1B8G0).

[west milly Tom]

"Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed."



http://thebsreport.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/rasmussen-support-for-health-care-reform-hits-new-low/

no wonder the committee is meeting behind closed doors and vowing to use the "nuclear" option. i wonder how well aarp will do this year. :unsure:

[underdog]

"Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed."



http://thebsreport.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/rasmussen-support-for-health-care-reform-hits-new-low/

no wonder the committee is meeting behind closed doors and vowing to use the "nuclear" option. i wonder how well aarp will do this year. :unsure:

So people who are already getting government aid are against government aid? Old people are crazy.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Here's how Obama and crew will get around this whole "illegals wont be covered". If Im correct the healthcare bill wont take effect until 2011. If this gets passed next on the agenda is another blanket Amnesty program already being devised by Luis Guiterrez and Chuck Schumer. Once Amnesty is passed the illegals will be legal and they will be eligible. This will be done in time for his re election bid and Obama has millions of new loyal voters

[GregoryJoseph]

So people who are already getting government aid are against government aid? Old people are crazy.

They know about Obama's death squads coming for them in the middle of the night.

"Natural causes" indeed...

[badmonkey]

Here's how Obama and crew will get around this whole "illegals wont be covered". If Im correct the healthcare bill wont take effect until 2011. If this gets passed next on the agenda is another blanket Amnesty program already being devised by Luis Guiterrez and Chuck Schumer. Once Amnesty is passed the illegals will be legal and they will be eligible. This will be done in time for his re election bid and Obama has millions of new loyal voters

2013

[angrymissy]

FYI - that Rasmussen poll is almost a month old.

Rasmussen pretty much consistently skews right. Example:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/photos/uncategorized/rasmussentwoyears.jpg

[underdog]

Here's how Obama and crew will get around this whole "illegals wont be covered". If Im correct the healthcare bill wont take effect until 2011. If this gets passed next on the agenda is another blanket Amnesty program already being devised by Luis Guiterrez and Chuck Schumer. Once Amnesty is passed the illegals will be legal and they will be eligible. This will be done in time for his re election bid and Obama has millions of new loyal voters

I think the only way to stop it is to deport Luis Guiterrez.

[angrymissy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.html

This recent WaPo poll shows 57 approve, 40 disapprove.

[underdog]

Rasmussen pretty much consistently skews right. Example:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/photos/uncategorized/rasmussentwoyears.jpg

I just find it funny that, even without knowing the source, I know what the outcome will be if I look up any of WMT's sources.

[angrymissy]

I just find it funny that, even without knowing the source, I know what the outcome will be if I look up any of WMT's sources.

There is a lot of interesting reading on the Rasumussen slant online. You'll notice their trend is in line with other polls, yet skews a good 5-10 points on the R side.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

They've been doing the same thing with Obama approval ratings. They grade their "Disapprove" differently from other polls and if you compare, you'll notice how skewed their "Disapprove" rating is.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.html

This recent WaPo poll shows 57 approve, 40 disapprove.

Rasmussen skews right. WaPo leans left. Is Zogby more centrist?

[Furtherman]

I just find it funny that, even without knowing the source, I know what the outcome will be if I look up any of WMT's sources.

TYPICAL!!!!

[angrymissy]

Rasmussen skews right. WaPo leans left. Is Zogby more centrist?

I just compare as many polls as possible. Right now if you compare them all, you'll see a trend of people favoring a National Health Care plan by 5-10 points. When I then see something like Rasmussen that doesn't even come close to matching up with 10 other polls, you can pretty much figure they're way skewed.

For example, Gallup is showing 51/41 in their latest poll:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/odh9wc-91ka9x2zfori5pw.gif

The other thing you absolutely have to do is read their methodology and how they phrase the questions theyre asking in the poll.

[angrymissy]

For example, this is the question Rasmussen poses:

1* Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

The way that question is phrased, I could myself answer no as I wouldn't favor a plan with no public option.

Here is the question WaPo poses:

8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

This question is more specific and speaks right towards whether or not you approve of a public option.

[Crispy123]

Here's how Obama and crew will get around this whole "illegals wont be covered". If Im correct the healthcare bill wont take effect until 2011. If this gets passed next on the agenda is another blanket Amnesty program already being devised by Luis Guiterrez and Chuck Schumer. Once Amnesty is passed the illegals will be legal and they will be eligible. This will be done in time for his re election bid and Obama has millions of new loyal voters

This was already devised by Bush & Cheney. Dont you remember?

[booster11373]

I love how all the right wing sites are making a point of telling us how many pages make up the bill

[HBox]

I love how all the right wing sites are making a point of telling us how many pages make up the bill

They make a valid point. I see no reason why reforming the entire health system would require more than 3 paragraphs, 1 sentence and 3 sentence fragments.

[epo]

They make a valid point. I see no reason why reforming the entire health system would require more than 3 paragraphs, 1 sentence and 3 sentence fragments.

Sounds like one of Paul Ryan's "bills", complete with graphs!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

This was already devised by Bush & Cheney. Dont you remember?

Yes, and I opposed their open borders agenda back then

[HBox]

Here's how Obama and crew will get around this whole "illegals wont be covered". If Im correct the healthcare bill wont take effect until 2011. If this gets passed next on the agenda is another blanket Amnesty program already being devised by Luis Guiterrez and Chuck Schumer. Once Amnesty is passed the illegals will be legal and they will be eligible. This will be done in time for his re election bid and Obama has millions of new loyal voters

This probably isn't a bad thing from a health care perspective, though I doubt it would affect your view on immigration. If what you proposed somehow actually came to pass then these people would not be "getting" health insurance coverage, they would be buying health insurance from their jobs, or buying it on their own, or paying the fine for not having insurance. And they would be paying taxes.

All of which is MUCH more preferable to now where illegal aliens get treated and rarely pay a cent to the hospital, nor to insurance companies to pay for their treatment, not to the government to help fund the hospitals or public health programs. Not to mention that when you expand the pool of insured it spreads costs out further and makes the entire system more stable and cheaper for everyone.

[west milly Tom]

FYI - that Rasmussen poll is almost a month old.

Rasmussen pretty much consistently skews right. Example:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/photos/uncategorized/rasmussentwoyears.jpg


Lol. 05. Nice trend, even if the numbers are polled right, sigh, the numbers among seniors show almost no support. Once again my source is wrong but your data is 5 years old.

[epo]

Fuck healthcare reform, we've got a new military recruiting tool! (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/64677772.html)

[underdog]

the numbers among seniors show almost no support.

This still confuses me.

[angrymissy]

The trend fom 05 simply shows the bias towarda bush. Like I said in later posts, go to the real clear politics page and compare polls and you'll see history repeating itself with rasmussen and obama's job approval. The point if showing the bush ratings as well shows their history of demonstrated bias. Their polls are consistently way off from the others, and always off in favor of th right.

[west milly Tom]

The trend fom 05 simply shows the bias towarda bush. Like I said in later posts, go to the real clear politics page and compare polls and you'll see history repeating itself with rasmussen and obama's job approval. The point if showing the bush ratings as well shows their history of demonstrated bias. Their polls are consistently way off from the others, and always off in favor of th right.



Right. The only trend illustrated here is the one where any source opposite your agenda is biased right. Meh.

[epo]

Right. The only trend illustrated here is the one where any source opposite your agenda is biased right. Meh.

Could you be any more childish in your approach?

[underdog]

Could you be any more childish in your approach?

Typical.

[angrymissy]

Right. The only trend illustrated here is the one where any source opposite your agenda is biased right. Meh.

No, what I'm doing is showing you statistics that prove my point. When you see Rasmussen showing 10% spread AGAINST healthcare reform, yet every other poll shows people in favor of it, wouldn't you question that? Why does Rasmussen have such a huge spread against it when the other polls don't?

Do you deny that Rasmussen skewed 5 points in the favor of Bush over the trend throughout his Presidency?

Or that they're skewing against Obama over the trend right now? They are consistently 8-10 points above the disapprove ratings of all of the other polls. The lighter dotted line is Rasmussen vs. Trend:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a63/angrymissy/pollster.jpg

[IMSlacker]

Right. The only trend illustrated here is the one where any source opposite your agenda is biased right. Meh.

Well, there's also the trend of posting month-old poll results as if they're breaking news.

[Furtherman]

Facts and reliable sources! Typical! Agenda not mine! Yours! Invalid! Grunt! Grunt!

[TheMojoPin]

West Mehlly Tom.

[Furtherman]

No, what I'm doing is showing you statistics that prove my point. When you see Rasmussen showing 10% spread AGAINST healthcare reform, yet every other poll shows people in favor of it, wouldn't you question that? Why does Rasmussen have such a huge spread against it when the other polls don't?

Do you deny that Rasmussen skewed 5 points in the favor of Bush over the trend throughout his Presidency?

Or that they're skewing against Obama over the trend right now?

He won't answer.

Tune in next week for another episode of "Unbiased Facts!"

[Serpico1103]

Rasmussen might be biased because of his affiliation with the Republican party or his bias may be the reason for his Republican Party affiliation.

[west milly Tom]

Since we're talking about trending so much check out some of these trends from our friends at the wsj:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461610985243066.html

http://i36.tinypic.com/35amyhz.jpg

"Washington has just run a $1.4 trillion budget deficit for fiscal 2009, even as we are told a new health-care entitlement will reduce red ink by $81 billion over 10 years. To believe that fantastic claim, you have to ignore everything we know about Washington and the history of government health-care programs. For the record, we decided to take a look at how previous federal forecasts matched what later happened. It isn't pretty.

Let's start with the claim that a more pervasive federal role will restrain costs and thus make health care more affordable. We know that over the past four decades precisely the opposite has occurred. Prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health-care inflation ran slightly faster than overall inflation. In the years since, medical inflation has climbed 2.3 times faster than cost increases elsewhere in the economy. Much of this reflects advances in technology and expensive treatments, but the contrast does contradict the claim of government as a benign cost saver.

Next let's examine the record of Congressional forecasters in predicting costs. Start with Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that its first-year costs would be $238 million. Instead it hit more than $1 billion, and costs have kept climbing.

Thanks in part to expansions promoted by California's Henry Waxman, a principal author of the current House bill, Medicaid now costs 37 times more than it did when it was launched—after adjusting for inflation. Its current cost is $251 billion, up 24.7% or $50 billion in fiscal 2009 alone, and that's before the health-care bill covers millions of new beneficiaries.

Medicare has a similar record. In 1965, Congressional budgeters said that it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Its actual cost that year was $90 billion. Whoops. The hospitalization program alone was supposed to cost $9 billion but wound up costing $67 billion. These aren't small forecasting errors. The rate of increase in Medicare spending has outpaced overall inflation in nearly every year (up 9.8% in 2009), so a program that began at $4 billion now costs $428 billion.

The Medicare program for renal disease was originally estimated in 1973 to cover 11,000 participants. Today it covers 395,000, at a cost of $22 billion. The 1988 Medicare home-care benefit was supposed to cost $4 billion by 1993, but the actual cost was $10 billion, because many more people participated than expected. This is nearly always the case with government programs because their entitlement nature—accepting everyone who meets the age or income limits—means there's no fixed annual budget.

One of the few health-care entitlements that has come in well below the original estimate is the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. Those costs are now about one-third below the original projections, according to the Medicare actuaries. Part of the reason is lower than expected participation by seniors and savings from generic drugs.

But as White House budget director Peter Orszag told Congress when he ran the Congressional Budget Office, the "primary cause" of these cost savings is that "the pricing is coming in better than anticipated, and that is likely a reflection of the competition that's occurring in the private market." The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services agrees, stating that "the drug plans competing for Medicare beneficiaries have been able to establish greater than expected savings from aggressive price negotiation." It adds that when given choices "beneficiaries have overwhelmingly selected less costly drug plans."


A lesson for President Obama: Government programs always exceed their spending estimates."


West Mehlly Tom.

I'm starting to like you more and more.

cue liberal circle jerk.

[TheMojoPin]

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation at all? It's pretty critical to know if those figures all represent constant dollars or not.

cue liberal circle jerk.

Meh.

[west milly Tom]

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation at all? It's pretty critical to know if those figures all represent constant dollars or not.

they are.

[TheMojoPin]

they are.

It appears so.

I don't get what stuff like this...

Thanks in part to expansions promoted by California's Henry Waxman, a principal author of the current House bill, Medicaid now costs 37 times more than it did when it was launched—after adjusting for inflation. Its current cost is $251 billion, up 24.7% or $50 billion in fiscal 2009 alone, and that's before the health-care bill covers millions of new beneficiaries.

...is supposed to mean. Of course Medicaid costs that much more from when it was launched. That's a period of almost 50 years. You've had the Baby Boomers entering old age in that time. How could there NOT be an increase like that?

[west milly Tom]

It appears so.

I don't get what stuff like this...



...is supposed to mean. Of course Medicaid costs that much more from when it was launched. That's a period of almost 50 years. You've had the Baby Boomers entering old age in that time. How could there NOT be an increase like that?

i think...think inflation followed the baby boomers too,

[TheMojoPin]

i think...think inflation followed the baby boomers too,

My point wasn't talking about inflation. I'm saying that it was inevitable for those costs to shoot up once the Boomers hit retirement.

[Crispy123]

i think...think inflation followed the baby boomers too,

My point wasn't talking about inflation. I'm saying that it was inevitable for those costs to shoot up once the Boomers hit retirement.

dammit when will there be a FOX news poll or Glenn Beck special on logic and facts???

[west milly Tom]

dammit when will there be a FOX news poll or Glenn Beck special on logic and facts???

Wall Street Journal. Hippie.

[TheMojoPin]

Wall Street Journal. Hippie.

In an op-ed piece that seems to be completely ignoring the basic logic of healthcare costs rising as the biggest population surge in our history reached retirement and old age.

[west milly Tom]

My point wasn't talking about inflation. I'm saying that it was inevitable for those costs to shoot up once the Boomers hit retirement.

also...agreed. but when the numbers were originally summised were the baby boomers not included yet? I don't know how they arrive at a cost forcast on the hill.

[TheMojoPin]

also...agreed. but when the numbers were originally summised were the baby boomers not included yet? I don't know how they arrive at a cost forcast on the hill.

Me neither. A big problem with that editorial is that we don't know what the projections were based on and what caused the gulf between those projections and the end cost.

[west milly Tom]

Me neither. A big problem with that editorial is that we don't know what the projections were based on and what caused the gulf between those projections and the end cost.

I have an idea, politicians. Really though I don't know. Take it for what it is.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Maybe all that stimulus money ($787,000,000,000) should have been used for health care vouchers for the uninsured and underinsured. They could have used the money to directly pay the providers, bypassing the insurance companies. Preventative care and screening alone would probably have raised productivity a lot and kept people working and/or brought them on the road back to work. A lot of money would’ve also been injected into a lot of very valuable local services – doctors, nurses, facilities, lots of other “support” people - to bring help to people who really it. Might’ve even put indirect pressure on insurance companies to lower costs. People with “big ticket” issues could’ve qualified for more.

Sure, it would’ve been limited to about 16K for each of 50,000,000 people in need. Maybe just a band-aid really, while a longer term solution was worked out, but can you think of a better way to spend that kind of money? I got to thinking about it when I realized the 10-year CBO estimate for the Senate committee bill was basically the same (within a 100B or so) as all that money marked for the stimulus earlier this year. I always thought the stimulus was kind of porky. By the way, very generally speaking, how the hell is health care for 50,000,000 people going to be covered for ten years with $900,000,000,000. That's $1,800/year per person.

[Crispy123]

Wall Street Journal. Hippie.

peace man

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fw7iF68JR8k/Rl428ttJrII/AAAAAAAADgU/8udAlGTqHlk/s400/old_hippie_peace_hippie.jpg

[Furtherman]

Wall Street Journal. Hippie.

The headline yesterday was Colleagues Finger Billionaire.

Filth rag.

[boosterp]

My point wasn't talking about inflation. I'm saying that it was inevitable for those costs to shoot up once the Boomers hit retirement.

RUN FOR THE HILLS!

[west milly Tom]

peace man

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fw7iF68JR8k/Rl428ttJrII/AAAAAAAADgU/8udAlGTqHlk/s400/old_hippie_peace_hippie.jpg

peace brother

http://kenstoll.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/billy-graham.jpg

[HBox]

Maybe all that stimulus money ($787,000,000,000) should have been used for health care vouchers for the uninsured and underinsured. They could have used the money to directly pay the providers, bypassing the insurance companies. Preventative care and screening alone would probably have raised productivity a lot and kept people working and/or brought them on the road back to work. A lot of money would’ve also been injected into a lot of very valuable local services – doctors, nurses, facilities, lots of other “support” people - to bring help to people who really it. Might’ve even put indirect pressure on insurance companies to lower costs. People with “big ticket” issues could’ve qualified for more.

Sure, it would’ve been limited to about 16K for each of 50,000,000 people in need. Maybe just a band-aid really, while a longer term solution was worked out, but can you think of a better way to spend that kind of money? I got to thinking about it when I realized the 10-year CBO estimate for the Senate committee bill was basically the same (within a 100B or so) as all that money marked for the stimulus earlier this year. I always thought the stimulus was kind of porky. By the way, very generally speaking, how the hell is health care for 50,000,000 people going to be covered for ten years with $900,000,000,000. That's $1,800/year per person.

The problem there is that only one industry would benefit from that and the health care industry was one of the few that was able to weather the recession unscathed. It's economic benefit would be extremely minor.

[Serpico1103]

also...agreed. but when the numbers were originally summised were the baby boomers not included yet? I don't know how they arrive at a cost forcast on the hill.

Assuming those are the actual "projected numbers", I would venture to guess that they were intentionally kept low. If you are trying to pass a bill, for anything from a war in Iraq to new much "needed" military helicopters, you would use low numbers. After all, you have to convince opponents of the bill that the bill will not be too costly.
Also, those projections were 35 years out. Could you imagine telling a senator that in 35 years we would be dealing in trillions instead of millions? It would be an Austin Powers moment; "one billion dollars."
I think an important factor left out, is how accurate were they at predicting the growth of our economy 35 years ago.

But alas, this is still all about numbers. A debate that I think is irrelevant when discussing health care. I don't remember a debate about how much the Afghan war will cost. How many people so far have been personally affected by terrorism, how many people have been personally affected by a lack of good health care.

[A.J.]

The headline yesterday was Colleagues Finger Billionaire.

Filth rag.

He needed the money!

[west milly Tom]

He needed the money!



OH!

[Jujubees2]

peace brother

http://kenstoll.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/billy-graham.jpg

http://www.bonappetit.com/images/tips_tools_ingredients/ingredients/ttar_peas_03_v_launch.jpg

Brother

[SonOfSmeagol]

The problem there is that only one industry would benefit from that and the health care industry was one of the few that was able to weather the recession unscathed. It's economic benefit would be extremely minor.

Yeah - it was just a thought. Would’ve never flown politically anyway. But still I think it could’ve actually helped a lot more economically than just the health industry by getting direct benefits to people who need it and getting them quicker on track to better productivity and long-term wellness.

[west milly Tom]

Assuming those are the actual "projected numbers", I would venture to guess that they were intentionally kept low. If you are trying to pass a bill, for anything from a war in Iraq to new much "needed" military helicopters, you would use low numbers. After all, you have to convince opponents of the bill that the bill will not be too costly.
Also, those projections were 35 years out. Could you imagine telling a senator that in 35 years we would be dealing in trillions instead of millions? It would be an Austin Powers moment; "one billion dollars."
I think an important factor left out, is how accurate were they at predicting the growth of our economy 35 years ago.

But alas, this is still all about numbers. A debate that I think is irrelevant when discussing health care. I don't remember a debate about how much the Afghan war will cost. How many people so far have been personally affected by terrorism, how many people have been personally affected by a lack of good health care.

seriously? that's the point. you're being lied to. that's ok with you, I'm not even sure what the point of this post is.

if you think you were never personally affected by terrorism you are just retarted. the whole world has been affected by terrorism. we here in the ny metro area were affected more than most. what would make you even ask that question? btw why is it that nobody else even noticed? i was affected, many friends were affected, personally, and the entire country was affected.

[Syd]

Somewhere around 40k people die per year due to lack of healthcare. So, in 9/11 math that used to get thrown around back in the day, 10 9/11s occur every year to Americans.

[Dude!]

Somewhere around 40k people die per year due to lack of healthcare. So, in 9/11 math that used to get thrown around back in the day, 10 9/11s occur every year to Americans.

80K people are driven to suicide
each year
by reading your posts

that's like 20 9/11's

[HBox]

80K people are driven to suicide
each year
by reading your posts

that's like 20 9/11's

160K sentences a day are ripped into pieces by you. That's like 30 grammar 9/11s.

[Dude!]

160K sentences a day are ripped into pieces by you. That's like 30 grammar 9/11s.

240K gallons of blue ink
disappear each year
because of your posts

that's like 60 ink 9/11's

[TheMojoPin]

There's no ink involved, stupid. You're so stupid. Why are you so stupid, stupid?

[HBox]

240K gallons of blue ink
disappear each year
because of your posts

that's like 60 ink 9/11's

I already learned that using a pen to write on a monitor doesn't work. You are a week too late my friend.

[Dude!]

There's no ink involved, stupid. You're so stupid. Why are you so stupid, stupid?

at least i'm not racist
like you

[Dude!]

I already learned that using a pen to write on a monitor doesn't work. You are a week too late my friend.

you got it all wrong
it's me printing out
all your posts

i've saved them all
in a nice binder

[TheMojoPin]

at least i'm not racist
like you

I can't help but hate your awful, awful race.

[Dude!]

I can't help but hate your awful, awful race.

i don't hate you at all
even though you are
a horrible person

i just feel sorry for you

you are the Connie Culp
of ronfez.net

[TheMojoPin]

You're the Connice Culp of life.

[Dude!]

You're the Connice Culp of life.

you're the Robert Culp
of thread death

[keithy_19]

You are both the fribbles of a sundae.


...what's going on?

[Serpico1103]

seriously? that's the point. you're being lied to. that's ok with you, I'm not even sure what the point of this post is.

if you think you were never personally affected by terrorism you are just retarted. the whole world has been affected by terrorism. we here in the ny metro area were affected more than most. what would make you even ask that question? btw why is it that nobody else even noticed? i was affected, many friends were affected, personally, and the entire country was affected.
I am not OK with being "lied" to. But you have to understand what the numbers are. They are a tool to sell something. When you buy a car, they don't lie to you, but they make everything sound perfect. So, you as an intelligent consumer have to be able to research on your own. I hope our Congressmen can be trusted with that burden.

By personally affected, I mean someone in your nuclear family dying. Not, that you have a friend who had a second cousin who should have been in the towers that day, but missed their train.
Do you not think the whole country is affected by sub-par health care?
How many Americans people died from terrorism last year?
How many died from preventable medical errors? (just one issue with poor health care)

Understand my point, retard?

[Furtherman]

Easy Serpico... you can ask a question without a personal attack.




Although I doubt you'll get an answer anyway.

[west milly Tom]

I am not OK with being "lied" to. But you have to understand what the numbers are. They are a tool to sell something. When you buy a car, they don't lie to you, but they make everything sound perfect. So, you as an intelligent consumer have to be able to research on your own. I hope our Congressmen can be trusted with that burden.

By personally affected, I mean someone in your nuclear family dying. Not, that you have a friend who had a second cousin who should have been in the towers that day, but missed their train.
Do you not think the whole country is affected by sub-par health care?
How many Americans people died from terrorism last year?
How many died from preventable medical errors? (just one issue with poor health care)

Understand my point, retard?




I'm going to leave the terror aspect out of it because it blurs the point at hand and you really truly believe that only those who had family members die were personally effected. There is so much wrong with that idea Ill never be able to explain it to you as you are unable to grasp the situation and the disrespect you cast.
Our Country does not have a sub-par health care system. Our health cae system is the envy of the world

[epo]

I'm going to leave the terror aspect out of it because it blurs the point at hand and you really truly believe that only those who had family members die were personally effected. There is so much wrong with that idea Ill never be able to explain it to you as you are unable to grasp the situation and the disrespect you cast.
Our Country does not have a sub-par health care system. Our health cae system is the envy of the world

We need to seperate the "quality" from the "access" in the debate. Nobody should be knocking the clinicians, rather we should be talking about access to those amazing clinicians.

[west milly Tom]

We need to seperate the "quality" from the "access" in the debate. Nobody should be knocking the clinicians, rather we should be talking about access to those amazing clinicians.


Agreed.

Why then mess a good thing? Why is there such a desire to hand over your deserved liberty to tyrants?

[IMSlacker]

Agreed.

Why then mess a good thing? Why is there such a desire to hand over your deserved liberty to tyrants?

epo wasn't doing anything that great with his deserved liberty anyway. Let the tyrants have it.

[west milly Tom]

epo wasn't doing anything that great with his deserved liberty anyway. Let the tyrants have it.


:lol: except using it to purchase lots of spf 50.

[Serpico1103]

I'm going to leave the terror aspect out of it because it blurs the point at hand and you really truly believe that only those who had family members die were personally effected. There is so much wrong with that idea Ill never be able to explain it to you as you are unable to grasp the situation and the disrespect you cast.
Our Country does not have a sub-par health care system. Our health cae system is the envy of the world

Just to be clear. You are "personally" affected when it rains in Seattle. I am taking about being affected on a truly deep and personal level that can only come from losing someone within your very close family or small circle of friends. Not that someone in Wisconsin is now afraid that they may die from a terrorist attack.
So, again.
Lets compare the number of people that die each and every year from terrorism compared to preventable medical errors in the US.
Or, if you prefer, you can shiver in fear at the prospect of a jetliner slamming into NJ.

[Dude!]

Just to be clear. You are "personally" affected when it rains in Seattle. I am taking about being affected a truly deep and personal level that can only come from losing someone within your very close family or small circle of friends. Not that someone in Wisconsin is now afraid that they may die from a terrorist attack.
So, again.
Lets compare the number of people that die each and every year from terrorism compared to preventable medical errors in the US.
Or, if you prefer, you can shiver in fear at the prospect of a jetliner slamming into NJ.



doctors and hospitals are a huge problem:

http://www.hkcem.com/html/publications/Journal/2002-4/231-236.pdf

While this assumption is valid, it is also a
fact that between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die
each year as a result of medical errors in hospitals, a
number greater than the number of people killed
annually from car accidents, breast cancer or AIDS.

that's like 11 to 25
9/11's each year

[Serpico1103]

doctors and hospitals are a huge problem:

http://www.hkcem.com/html/publications/Journal/2002-4/231-236.pdf



that's like 11 to 25
9/11's each year

But, people aren't scared of it the way they are terrorism. Irrational fear.

[underdog]

Our Country does not have a sub-par health care system. Our health cae system is the envy of the world

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.

[Serpico1103]

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.

They blew up the World Trade Center because they hate our health care.

[TheMojoPin]

Mmmmmmm, Sweet Retarts.

[Serpico1103]

Mmmmmmm, Sweet Retarts.

Are tarts sweeter the second time?

[hanso]

37 million: Number of Americans who live below the official poverty line—12.6 percent of the total population.

It would stand to reason that most in this category do not have adequate health care coverage.

So the 40 million number seems to be on track.

[high fly]

Agreed.

Why then mess a good thing? Why is there such a desire to hand over your deserved liberty to tyrants?


I'm thinking we take it back from the tyrants in the health insurance industry and their death panels.


I'm tired of paying twice as much for health care and getting such crappy results, compared to everyone else. It pisse me off that the French, of all people, have such a better health care system than we do...

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Karma for saying you Lie?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/23/joe-wilsons-wife-diagnosed-with-swine-flu-2/

[epo]

Agreed.

Why then mess a good thing? Why is there such a desire to hand over your deserved liberty to tyrants?

Your "deserved liberty" doesn't have jack shit to do with expanding access to basic health care coverage.

[Dude!]

Your "deserved liberty" doesn't have jack shit to do with expanding access to basic health care coverage.

it does indeed
if the expanding
comes out of his pocket
against his will

[Serpico1103]

it does indeed
if the expanding
comes out of his pocket
against his will

Is your {enter} key broken?

[Dude!]

Is your {enter} key broken?

you always trivialize
important discussions
with some racist remark

[epo]

it does indeed if the expanding comes out of his pocket against his will

His liberties have many facets other than tax rates that don't effect him.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

it does indeed
if the expanding
comes out of his pocket
against his will

When is enough enough with taxes? When factoring in property taxes close to 60% is taken away from me that means from Monday to Wednesday afternoon I am working for free

With all these government programs in existance people are willing to give Washington the keys to 1/6th of the economy? Unbelievable

[epo]

When is enough enough with taxes? When factoring in property taxes close to 60% is taken away from me that means from Monday to Wednesday afternoon I am working for free

With all these government programs in existance people are willing to give Washington the keys to 1/6th of the economy? Unbelievable

Remember when corporations paid taxes? Unless we can make them pay taxes again...then somebody needs to pay the bills.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Remember when corporations paid taxes? Unless we can make them pay taxes again...then somebody needs to pay the bills.

This is from a few years back but worth a read


http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=2968#

[Dude!]

Remember when corporations paid taxes? Unless we can make them pay taxes again...then somebody needs to pay the bills.

yes
and/or
we could reduce the bills

[Jujubees2]

When is enough enough with taxes? When factoring in property taxes close to 60% is taken away from me that means from Monday to Wednesday afternoon I am working for free

With all these government programs in existance people are willing to give Washington the keys to 1/6th of the economy? Unbelievable

Freedom isn't free!

[hammersavage]

Freedom isn't free!

Costs a buck 0-5

[epo]

This is from a few years back but worth a read


http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=2968#

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but there was a time in this nation when organizations/corporations paid the majority of tax revenues in this country. Now individuals pay the majority of tax revenues in this country.

That is a serious problem.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but there was a time in this nation when organizations/corporations paid the majority of tax revenues in this country. Now individuals pay the majority of tax revenues in this country.

That is a serious problem.

No disagreements there, but our whole tax system is such a tangled mess, it think its something like 60,000 pages

Back to healthcare. Look how Washington is handling the vaccines for seasonal and swine flu. Shortages throughout the country. There was assurances from the CDC that they would be already available with no shortages. The shortages will cause a de facto case for rationing

[IMSlacker]

No disagreements there, but our whole tax system is such a tangled mess, it think its something like 60,000 pages

Back to healthcare. Look how Washington is handling the vaccines for seasonal and swine flu. Shortages throughout the country. There was assurances from the CDC that they would be already available with no shortages. The shortages will cause a de facto case for rationing

The federal government is making the H1N1 vaccine? Also, I wasn't aware of a shortage of the seasonal flu vaccine. There seems to be plenty on hand, at least here in Houston.

[epo]

No disagreements there, but our whole tax system is such a tangled mess, it think its something like 60,000 pages

Back to healthcare. Look how Washington is handling the vaccines for seasonal and swine flu. Shortages throughout the country. There was assurances from the CDC that they would be already available with no shortages. The shortages will cause a de facto case for rationing

Being a guy who works in the health provider side of the industry, I must say this has been a failure of the market.

The CDC had assurances from the manufacturers of the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines on supplies and timing, and has delivered on neither.

[Serpico1103]

you always trivialize
important discussions
with some racist remark

you trivialize
your own
posts
with
your asinine
writing
style

spear chucker

[Dude!]

you trivialize
your own
posts
with
your asinine
writing
style

spear chucker

i love being called
spear chucker

[Serpico1103]

i love being called
spear chucker

I wasn't calling you a spear chucker. I guess you couldn't follow my simplistic writing style.
I was just making a generalized racist remark to trivialize my post.

[Dude!]

I wasn't calling you a spear chucker. I guess you couldn't follow my simplistic writing style.
I was just making a generalized racist remark to trivialize my post.

no
you called me a spear chucker

[west milly Tom]

Your "deserved liberty" doesn't have jack shit to do with expanding access to basic health care coverage.


Yea it does in the federalist papers John Adams wrote that a man's property rights should be held as highly as Gods word and that as soon as a government could violate the fruits of his labor, at the FIRST sign you had born tyranny.

[west milly Tom]

you trivialize
your own
posts
with
your asinine
writi
ng
style

spear chucker




Ban.

[hammersavage]

I think he just threw javelin.

[Syd]

When is enough enough with taxes? When factoring in property taxes close to 60% is taken away from me that means from Monday to Wednesday afternoon I am working for free

With all these government programs in existance people are willing to give Washington the keys to 1/6th of the economy? Unbelievable

Welcome to the Bush tax cuts. The most regressive tax system of nearly all time in America -- if you were part of the bottom 80% or so of income earners, you're as well off or worse than what you were than in 2000.

[epo]

Yea it does in the federalist papers John Adams wrote that a man's property rights should be held as highly as Gods word and that as soon as a government could violate the fruits of his labor, at the FIRST sign you had born tyranny.

Two points:

1. The Federalist Papers have no bearing upon modern law.

2. Adam's definitions of "property rights" are open to interpretation.

[Serpico1103]

no
you called me a spear chucker

No, I didn't. I replied to you. Then, left a space and made a generalized trivializing racist remark.
But, I can understand how when people refuse to follow syntactic rules, someone would be confused.

Yea it does in the federalist papers John Adams wrote that a man's property rights should be held as highly as Gods word and that as soon as a government could violate the fruits of his labor, at the FIRST sign you had born tyranny.

How are the tax rates in the United States of Adams?