19072 Members
14 Forums
40341 Topics
614112 Posts
Max Online: 887 @ 01/11/25 11:07 AM
|
|
|
#437965 - 07/22/09 08:44 AM
Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/09/06
Posts: 9113
Loc: red dirt state of mind
|
Quote:
A telling episode recounted by Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley reveals the Obama administration might be more worried than they are letting on that a Republican senator's comparison of the healthcare overhaul to Waterloo might be dangerously close to the truth.
Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama's bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.
"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
MORE
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437969 - 07/23/09 08:43 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Icon
Registered: 01/27/06
Posts: 3440
Loc: Jaundice Town
|
This whole affair could turn out to be the Republican party's own "Waterlo" sic... as the American people see that the party cares more about profits of health insurance companies than average people.
I just can't understand why we are supposed to trust a for profit privately owned company over government... we have already seen how fair the hidden hand of the market can be.
I can understand how Cit can be misled by the Repubs on this...he is southern and they have a history of voting against their own interests.
This is a good example of Republican's flipping the script because they know that if this passes, and it will, it will be another huge win for the Democratic party and will once again show that the R's are on the wrong side of history.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437970 - 07/23/09 08:53 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/09/06
Posts: 9113
Loc: red dirt state of mind
|
Jesus Gunkabator, If Obama scattered sand in front of you and told you it was grain, you'd bend over and start to peck at it. Wake up it's time for you and the rest of the Obamatons to take the red pill and deal with the reality:
Reforming health care has nothing to do with fixing the economy.
Government can not do anything cheaper than private enterprise.
Cap and Tax will do nothing but further destroy the American manufacturing industry.
It's time for the pres to understand: it's the economy stupid
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437971 - 07/23/09 09:47 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 09/07/03
Posts: 565
Loc: State of Moral Decay
|
The Great Messiah is the black twin of Bernie Madoff. A nice guy in a good suit willing to help you out with a good deal. They are almost totally alike. It's always been "about them", they are both amoral sociopaths and both have the same goal. To control everything and enjoy THEIR life at the expense of YOUR life. Barack Madoff. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437972 - 07/23/09 10:56 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Quote:
Government can not do anything cheaper than private enterprise.
They can't do it cheaper, but they can subsidize by keeping raising taxes to try to pay for how much the cost of health care is ballooning and remove coverage for more and more health issues and tests that they suddenly deem 'unnecessary', in uncanny timing with their needs to lower costs.
Then private health insurers will have to compete on costs and try to make the same cuts as the government health insurance plan, and all our coverage will start to suck as bad as the government shit.
It's was completely shocking to me how little an issue health insurance coverage was in the presidential election. The recession blew away coverage of everything. We're gonna get out of the recession, but the decisions made on health care are going to be with us decades, maybe centuries.
Best thing that can happen is Obama's efforts get stalled and the Congressional election in '10 becomes a nationalized rather than local ized effort in the Dem.'s vs. Republicans battle where the main issue is health care. Have a real debate over the issue where the citizens learn than just the country falling in love with a cult of personality who has next to no qualifications to do the job anyhow. And, he gets to dictate the outline for the plan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437973 - 07/23/09 11:09 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Quote:
I just can't understand why we are supposed to trust a for profit privately owned company over government... we have already seen how fair the hidden hand of the market can be.
Because, companies are subject to the markets. With the information available to everybody on the internet, people like Greenspan have said companies have to respond now more to the marketplace now than ever in history. E.g., you don't just walk into the store not knowing a damn thing about the various stereos and just have to trust the salesman who very well is just trying to get rid of the junk he can't sell. You know what the good stereo is, you read about it on the internet!
Government is subject elections. But, Obama is trying to make historical moves in health insurance coverage, the issue was barely even brought up in the election. Hillary tried to raise it in the Dem. primary, but people yawned at the distinction she was drawing between her and Obama's plan. Then, the real differences in approaches, Obama vs. McCain, damn thing didn't even come up.
And dude, "how fair the hidden hand of the market"?? WTF??? You didn't see the Soviet Union collapse?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437976 - 07/24/09 10:14 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 01/07/06
Posts: 4268
Loc: Portland
|
Quote:
Reforming health care has nothing to do with fixing the economy.
The exorbitant cost of American health care IS a drag on the economy. When a multi-national corporation decides upon which plot to plant a factory, the cost/effectiveness of health care is a concern.
And don't forget the stagnation of American employees trapped in an employer-based health care situation instead of embarking upon their entrepreneurial bent to do something better.
Quote:
Government can not do anything cheaper than private enterprise.
Laughable. Government appointees are somewhat more accountable than CEOs of the health insurance companies, whose top 10 salaries would provide health care for thousands:
Ron Williams - Aetna
Total Compensation: $24,300,112
H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA
Total Compensation: $12,236,740
Angela Braly - WellPoint
Total Compensation: $9,844,212
Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care
Total Compensation: $9,047,469
Michael Neidorff - Centene
Total Compensation: $8,774,483
James Carlson - AMERIGROUP
Total Compensation: $5,292,546
Michael McCallister - Humana
Total Compensation: $4,764,309
Jay Gellert - Health Net
Total Compensation: $4,425,355
Richard Barasch - Universal American
Total Compensation: $3,503,702
Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group
Total Compensation: $3,241,042
_________________________
"My people (the real Americans- descended from the original Angle-Saxon pioneers)"-Coke S.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437978 - 07/25/09 01:19 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Reforming health care has nothing to do with fixing the economy.
The exorbitant cost of American health care IS a drag on the economy. When a multi-national corporation decides upon which plot to plant a factory, the cost/effectiveness of health care is a concern.
And don't forget the stagnation of American employees trapped in an employer-based health care situation instead of embarking upon their entrepreneurial bent to do something better.
Quote:
Government can not do anything cheaper than private enterprise.
Laughable. Government appointees are somewhat more accountable than CEOs of the health insurance companies, whose top 10 salaries would provide health care for thousands:
Ron Williams - Aetna
Total Compensation: $24,300,112
H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA
Total Compensation: $12,236,740
Angela Braly - WellPoint
Total Compensation: $9,844,212
Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care
Total Compensation: $9,047,469
Michael Neidorff - Centene
Total Compensation: $8,774,483
James Carlson - AMERIGROUP
Total Compensation: $5,292,546
Michael McCallister - Humana
Total Compensation: $4,764,309
Jay Gellert - Health Net
Total Compensation: $4,425,355
Richard Barasch - Universal American
Total Compensation: $3,503,702
Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group
Total Compensation: $3,241,042
you forgot to mention-
HCA, Inc.
Quote:
The Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) is the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world.
the company was investigated by the government for Medicare and Medicaid fraud and paid a settlement of $1.7 billion, the largest fraud settlement in US history at the time. Then-CEO Rick Scott was ousted by the board of directors but he was not criminally prosecuted.
the other end of the barrel....
another funny webpage-
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/health/nme_founders.html
Quote:
Louis Parisi (New Jersey fraud investigator) says, "These people just care about making money."
-----------------------------
James Garcia (health insurance investigator) contends that - - - "patients were seen solely as profits".
so the current privatization of healthcare is broken and needs to be fixed....medicare and medicaid fraud wouldnt be so tempting if the government was controlling the entire process.
Edited by Milli Vanilli (07/25/09 01:54 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437980 - 07/25/09 02:35 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Quote:
The exorbitant cost of American health care IS a drag on the economy. When a multi-national corporation decides upon which plot to plant a factory, the cost/effectiveness of health care is a concern.
No doubt.
The Republican plans to minimize cost include thin regulations and exposing health insurance more to free market economics than it currently is. Free market economics rather than creating large bureaucracies where government is supposed to be wise enough to manipulate the entire system so they can sit in their offices and dictate how the market is "supposed" to work.
An example of thin regulations is the one that both McCain and Obama supported in the last election. Allowing importation of meds. Canada, India, paying such lower prices for drugs, that regulation will just force pharmaceutical companies to charge much less in the USA.
Quote:
And don't forget the stagnation of American employees trapped in an employer-based health care situation instead of embarking upon their entrepreneurial bent to do something better.
The center-piece of all the Republican plans I've seen is to remove the health care tax break for corporations and give it to individuals. This makes the people who actually use the system more aware of the costs instead of burying it down in government and book keepers for large corporations. More awareness of price, more exposure to competition.
And, if health insurance companies have to compete more for individuals rather than just rely on large accounts with corporations, the entrepreneurs are going to have more people competing for their dollars.
Quote:
Government can not do anything cheaper than private enterprise.
An entire philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution is to make government inefficient. That's why we've got 2 houses of Congress who's job is to run their mouths debating constantly. They didn't want government to be effective because they don't trust it.
Arguing with the precepts for the most successful document in the history of the world... It's just un-American.
Government does it only if free markets can't. And, no one's tried maniuplating the system to try to get the markets doing it more efficiently. That's the 1st thing to try.
Quote:
Laughable. Government appointees are somewhat more accountable than CEOs of the health insurance companies, whose top 10 salaries would provide health care for thousands:
Yeah, even Dubya complained about how much CEO's make. He just decided not to make it a political class warfare issue like Obama has. Private business isn't perfect, but the idea is that even with their flaws, they do it better than government. If I weren't so lazy, I'd go research an example for you to try to convince you.
Yeah I know, too long. Nobody will read it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437981 - 07/25/09 03:11 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gag Factor Guru
Porn Jesus
Registered: 07/15/05
Posts: 5290
Loc: Dayton
|
Quote:
Quote:
The exorbitant cost of American health care IS a drag on the economy. When a multi-national corporation decides upon which plot to plant a factory, the cost/effectiveness of health care is a concern.
No doubt.
The Republican plans to minimize cost include thin regulations and exposing health insurance more to free market economics than it currently is. Free market economics rather than creating large bureaucracies where government is supposed to be wise enough to manipulate the entire system so they can sit in their offices and dictate how the market is "supposed" to work.
An example of thin regulations is the one that both McCain and Obama supported in the last election. Allowing importation of meds. Canada, India, paying such lower prices for drugs, that regulation will just force pharmaceutical companies to charge much less in the USA.
Quote:
And don't forget the stagnation of American employees trapped in an employer-based health care situation instead of embarking upon their entrepreneurial bent to do something better.
The center-piece of all the Republican plans I've seen is to remove the health care tax break for corporations and give it to individuals. This makes the people who actually use the system more aware of the costs instead of burying it down in government and book keepers for large corporations. More awareness of price, more exposure to competition.
And, if health insurance companies have to compete more for individuals rather than just rely on large accounts with corporations, the entrepreneurs are going to have more people competing for their dollars.
Quote:
Government can not do anything cheaper than private enterprise.
An entire philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution is to make government inefficient. That's why we've got 2 houses of Congress who's job is to run their mouths debating constantly. They didn't want government to be effective because they don't trust it.
Arguing with the precepts for the most successful document in the history of the world... It's just un-American.
Government does it only if free markets can't. And, no one's tried maniuplating the system to try to get the markets doing it more efficiently. That's the 1st thing to try.
Quote:
Laughable. Government appointees are somewhat more accountable than CEOs of the health insurance companies, whose top 10 salaries would provide health care for thousands:
Yeah, even Dubya complained about how much CEO's make. He just decided not to make it a political class warfare issue like Obama has. Private business isn't perfect, but the idea is that even with their flaws, they do it better than government. If I weren't so lazy, I'd go research an example for you to try to convince you.
Yeah I know, too long. Nobody will read it.
I read it. Bullshit, through and through.
There is no Republican plan. They tried for eight years, and failed miserably.
How's that thin regulations working? If you get sick, they cancel your insurance. And they will only insure healthy people.
How's that free market health care going? Great, if you are a health care corporation, or if you are rich enough to afford good care, or have a good employer based system like I do. Not worth a fuck for most of us.
What the Republicans want to do is make individuals pay their own way, so their corporate sponsors can shed themselves of the cost. And try to justify totally fucking the public by giving a tax break for what we would have to pay. Fuck the people some more.
Quote:
An entire philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution is to make government inefficient.
That is one of the more stupid things I've seen on this stupid board. The idea wasn't that Government programs be inefficient. The idea was that the lawmaking process be difficult enough to prevent easy radical changes. I'm doubtful if Franklin wanted the Post Office to be all fucked up, or Madison wanted an incompetent military.
Quote:
Arguing with the precepts for the most successful document in the history of the world... It's just un-American.
Yeah, the Republicans really wiped their asses with it the last 8 years. And you think supporting a Government program for health of the citizens, and saying it can be effective, is un-American? That's just stupid.
Quote:
Government does it only if free markets can't. And, no one's tried maniuplating the system to try to get the markets doing it more efficiently. That's the 1st thing to try.
So, now you admit the free market system is not regulated enough? It needs the Government to "manipulate" it? WTF? You can't have it both ways.
The current system is badly broken. For-profit health care is just wrong, on so many levels. Some things should not be done for profit, like war, prison, and hospitals. I agree with Bill Maher in this article:
New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit
I don't usually just call someone's post stupid, but damn, there are some stupid things on here lately.
-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy 
Edited by charin (07/25/09 03:29 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437982 - 07/25/09 04:08 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I read it. Bullshit, through and through.
There is no Republican plan. They tried for eight years, and failed miserably.
How's that thin regulations working? If you get sick, they cancel your insurance. And they will only insure healthy people.
How's that free market health care going? Great, if you are a health care corporation, or if you are rich enough to afford good care, or have a good employer based system like I do. Not worth a fuck for most of us.
What the Republicans want to do is make individuals pay their own way, so their corporate sponsors can shed themselves of the cost. And try to justify totally fucking the public by giving a tax break for what we would have to pay. Fuck the people some more.
There was a (R) plan???? please show link next time....and not to a Fox news website....lol
Quote:
An entire philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution is to make government inefficient.
Quote:
That is one of the more stupid things I've seen on this stupid board. The idea wasn't that Government programs be inefficient. The idea was that the lawmaking process be difficult enough to prevent easy radical changes. I'm doubtful if Franklin wanted the Post Office to be all fucked up, or Madison wanted an incompetent military.
Was that before or after Franklin got hit with lightning?
Quote:
Arguing with the precepts for the most successful document in the history of the world... It's just un-American.
Quote:
Yeah, the Republicans really wiped their asses with it the last 8 years. And you think supporting a Government program for health of the citizens, and saying it can be effective, is un-American? That's just stupid.
Hillary Rodham Clinton then first lady....tried something of that and at the time...maybe I am wrong but at that time a republican congress...said....FUCK OFF CHICK! KNOW YOUR ROLE......told her to be as her predecessors had been.....with the exception of Lady Bird Johnson.
Quote:
Government does it only if free markets can't. And, no one's tried maniuplating the system to try to get the markets doing it more efficiently. That's the 1st thing to try.
Quote:
So, now you admit the free market system is not regulated enough? It needs the Government to "manipulate" it? WTF? You can't have it both ways.
The current system is badly broken. For-profit health care is just wrong, on so many levels. Some things should not be done for profit, like war, prison, and hospitals. I agree with Bill Maher in this article:
New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit
I don't usually just call someone's post stupid, but damn, there are some stupid things on here lately.
-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy
The only thing the GOP will never privatize is LAW ENFORCEMENT.....Prisons...YES but NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT...it will never get to a "Robocop Ville" state......why.....simple they still have the MILITARY.
And they will never privatize that as well.
Where else can you buy a toilet seat for $640.00
I don’t know but the DOD did......
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437983 - 07/25/09 04:44 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Quote:
I read it. Bullshit, through and through.
Quote:
There is no Republican plan. They tried for eight years, and failed miserably.
Bush didn't do shit. Like in year 8 he tried to get rid of the tax break that ties your health insurance to your job. The Dem's laughed at the lame duck.
The fact that health care is only getting to be more and more a huge problem has been apparently well before Dubya. Clinton didn't make shit happen either.
Quote:
How's that thin regulations working? If you get sick, they cancel your insurance. And they will only insure healthy people.
It's not working. The government hasn't even tried to fix it.
Quote:
What the Republicans want to do is make individuals pay their own way, so their corporate sponsors can shed themselves of the cost. And try to justify totally fucking the public by giving a tax break for what we would have to pay. Fuck the people some more.
No faith in the free market system. It's crazy how many have just seemed to have missed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
It sucks having your health care tied to your job. My field, jobs are transient. Employers hire looking for people who will stay 2 years. They get laid off, they find new jobs. Tieing your health care to your job sucks big time for the unemployed. COBRA is a band-aid that completely fails. And, people don't switch jobs to what they would like better simply because they're afraid of what might happen to their health care. Companies can swoop in and change your plan to some health insurer who sucks and you have no fucking choice. That shit has happened to me before.
That's the system Obama wants to buttress. Until it completely falls on its ass. At which point his government health care is going to be the only main option.
Salaries are based on the market. If companies have more money because of less spent on health care, some of them will spend it on salaries. Those will be the jobs everyone wants, other companies will have to up their salaries or get stuck in the mire with employees who can't compete for the better jobs. Which is how it should work. Those companies stuck in the mire, entrepreneurs will sink their teeth into and eventually replace. Or, other companies will expand and do the job right - creating better jobs by a company who does it right.
And, some companies will just use the money to keep paying health care like they are now.
Quote:
Quote:
An entire philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution is to make government inefficient.
That is one of the more stupid things I've seen on this stupid board. The idea wasn't that Government programs be inefficient. The idea was that the lawmaking process be difficult enough to prevent easy radical changes. I'm doubtful if Franklin wanted the Post Office to be all fucked up, or Madison wanted an incompetent military.
They throw so mch money at the military, of course it's great. Is that what you want, the goverment to throw so much money at health care it eventually has to be good? You've heard the stories about the waste and excess in the military.
The post office, don't know why the Libs are using this as an example. How much junk mail you get versus real mail? Government subsidies and junk mail companies are paying for the post office.
And, look at where there is room for business to compete with mail, delivering packages. Who have the people decided to use more? FedEx and UPS or USPS? But, if the government starts subsidizing packages because the cost needs to be lowered, everybody's going to start using the post office to deliver packages, like Obama wants to do with health insurance.
Go talk to people on Medicaid now. One of the things the powerless Republicans are taunting the Democrats with is to make Medicaid one of the options for federal employees to use as their insurer. It's a taunt because the Dems know damn well no one will choose the government health insurance.
Quote:
So, now you admit the free market system is not regulated enough? It needs the Government to "manipulate" it? WTF? You can't have it both ways.
Nobody says we need zero regulations. The current system is fucked up. Of course they need to screw with it. Republicans in Congress want to screw with it. Just not by creating huge bureaucracies.
There's some quote by George Washington where he tries to define government intervention method with the economy. Something like the winds of commerce blow and government stands just at the very top trying bend the flow. Not step down, try to catch the wind, make it blow the way it thinks it should by creating bureaucracies, thinking they're smarter. Yeah I know. I'm too lazy to look for the quote.
Quote:
The current system is badly broken. For-profit health care is just wrong, on so many levels. Some things should not be done for profit, like war, prison, and hospitals.
If it can be done privately, it should be. All the complaints about the healthy system, one of them has not been their motivations for keeping people sick. It's just not been a big problem.
Edited by Northrop (07/25/09 04:47 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437984 - 07/25/09 06:41 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
So, now you admit the free market system is not regulated enough? It needs the Government to "manipulate" it? WTF? You can't have it both ways.
Nobody says we need zero regulations. The current system is fucked up. Of course they need to screw with it. Republicans in Congress want to screw with it. Just not by creating huge bureaucracies.
There's some quote by George Washington where he tries to define government intervention method with the economy. Something like the winds of commerce blow and government stands just at the very top trying bend the flow. Not step down, try to catch the wind, make it blow the way it thinks it should by creating bureaucracies, thinking they're smarter. Yeah I know. I'm too lazy to look for the quote.
Quote:
The current system is badly broken. For-profit health care is just wrong, on so many levels. Some things should not be done for profit, like war, prison, and hospitals.
If it can be done privately, it should be. All the complaints about the healthy system, one of them has not been their motivations for keeping people sick. It's just not been a big problem.
http://www.dhs.gov
created by the Bush (43) presidency.......
Quote:
With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
for real-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security
for real funny-
http://www.wikiality.com/Department_of_Homeland_Security
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437985 - 07/25/09 08:21 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Quote:
http://www.dhs.gov
created by the Bush (43) presidency.......
Quote:
With more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
The Homeland Security thing wasn't new a bureaucracy. It was an amalgamation of already-existing, smaller departments. Many of which were considered to be poorly run. Amalgamating them in the belief that they could share information and centralize management to make them more efficient. I believe DHS has been mostly well-received, but it's been awhile since I've seen news coverage on DHS's performance.
However, FEMA was a casualty of that effort. It was small and well-run by career cilvillians (i.e., not political appointees). But, then they threw them in with the political hoopla of Homeland Security, morale plummeted, attrition rose, Katrina happened, and they all looked like jackasses.
These last two paragraphs don't fit the rhetoric I'm spewing because I don't know enough about them to know if they fit or not. I just know that it wasn't a matter of Bush trying to control new bits of our economy with government. But, trying to make existing government work better.
Bush wasn't as anti-government as I, and most fiscal conservatives, are. Fred Barnes coined a term, "Big Government Conservative", whose definition fit Bush. He later said it was a shitty term and changed it to "Strong Government Conservative". The idea is that govt spends oodles of money, but doesn't create bureaucracies to spend it. Just writes checks to people.
Note how the money was spent post-Katrina. He was writing checks to anyone and everyone thinking pouring money into it was enough to fix it. And, see how the money was given to the big banks after the financial services meltdown. There were no real stipulations on how the money was to be spent. Banks started buying banks which decreased competition and didn't get the money flowing in the credit markets. (Note how financial services have starting doing better but it hasn't helped the economy?) Same thing for the post-invasion reconstruction of Iraq. Just money flying everywhere and nothing got done. If Bush proved one thing to me, it was you can't just start writing checks. If government is going to write checks to achieve a goal, there have to be stipulations on how that money is spent.
Good lord, I'm having fun typing in this thread. I've gone so far as to hijack a thread I was very interested in...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437986 - 07/26/09 12:12 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 6557
Loc: 2004 - the glory days
|
I don't understand the lib logic on health care. gubbment medicare/medicaid and the VA are all fail. so, what's the cure? dump the rest of the US population into that same failed system and magically we will start saving money while being deficit neutral. also, we'll somehow continue to be on the cutting edge of medical innovation and advancement. huh, what? what borders are americans crossing to find better more accessible health care? balance that number with the amount of people that travel here for medical care. also, what's the last successful business our gov. ran? rumor has it soc. sec. and the usps are working out pretty well. amtrak's a fucking goldmine! 
I'll join obamas universal health care system as soon as all of congress the vp and the pres do.
_________________________
"You are the worst poster in xpt yet I can't stop talking about you" - smelly monkey
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437987 - 07/26/09 01:07 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Quote:
I don't understand the lib logic on health care.
Neither do I. The problem isn't whether health care is provided by government or industry. The problem is health care is too expensive for too many to afford, and is only getting outrageously more expensive.
And, I can't imagine how involving government is going to lower the cost of health care. Government subsidies can be used to redistribute the wealth, but are just going to raise taxes and hurt our economy the same.
The core issue is you've got to lower the cost.
Here's what David Brooks, a conservative, but a New York Times moderate one, said about it on the Newshour:
Quote:
DAVID BROOKS:If you look at what the CBO has said, what the Mayo Clinic has said, what economists I've spoken to have said, what economists on the front page Washington Post story, David Broder column, we've all spoken to a lot of health care economists. And it's not unanimous, but most of them say this does not fundamentally alter the fee-for-service incentives that you need to reduce, to bend that curve, and they haven't done that yet.
JIM LEHRER: It doesn't really change the system itself that much?
DAVID BROOKS: Right, that's the essential critique.
Source: Click
That's all I should have said instead of all that typing I did up in here.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437990 - 07/26/09 02:30 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Yeah, I've seen stories on news magazine shows about luxury hospitals that are basically like resorts. People travel there as a vacation, get their surgery during that time, and pay like 15% of what the surgery alone would have cost in the US. I thought it was Thailand, but maybe it was India?
And, buying Canadian meds are another way people are leaving the US health system. Way cheaper than buying them here for a lot of meds.
But, reading about this whole health care mess, only 4% of US people are buying from Canda, despite a whole lotta more who are having trouble affording them. Americans are just so used to walking around like embiciles with their insurance card held out in front of them, they apparently don't even bother to look for better deals when it comes to that stuff. Which is a major problem with the system. People have been so brainwashed, they don't even expect transparency that would expose health care to competition any more. They just sign on the dotted line.
Involving government bureaucracies would just increase the lack of transparency all the more.
pharmacychecker.com for any XPT'ers who are having trouble affording their meds. That place was set up by a couple of guys who used to work for the FDA to screen foreign pharmacies for consumers.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437991 - 07/26/09 07:28 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
so the current privatization of healthcare is broken and needs to be fixed....medicare and medicaid fraud wouldnt be so tempting if the government was controlling the entire process.
wow, it's scary that free people think like this.
yeah, government is immune to corruption. let's let government control everything. what could go wrong?
Nothing is anyway is "perfect".....yeah that was tried.....it was not the "great success"...that they had wish or hoped for.....people rag on capitalism just as well as on socialism....so you actually have to "debate" these ideas to try and come out with a progressive plan....not either leaning too right or too left either....center is good....but unless it has been done now in a current system/plan….of what we have in the “NOW”…..it is kind of hard to just say…..”fuck it…it has already been tried”…….there is what lies before you….if it was working correctly and was functioning seamlessly without needing correction then there would not be any need to buck the system….why fix something that is not broken……so the current lesson to be learned here is why they are debating it now then…..obviously there must be something abjectly wrong with the current program/system that they have decided to take it to go to such great lengths. That would be absolute and terminal political suicide.
Your going for a black or white...day or night....no holds barred "my way or the highway" attitude…..back up....take a breather....and examine the whole idea....not just an "easy way out"....pure socialism...ideology theory.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437992 - 07/27/09 05:46 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 09/07/03
Posts: 565
Loc: State of Moral Decay
|
The Great Messiah's spin machine has done a masterful job of telling and retelling the fable that ObamaCare= Free Care. If you ask any number of dolts out on the street, you will hear over & over that if this disaster passes, we will all be getting "Free" healthcare. As it takes longer and longer for this bill to pass, the actual truth is coming out, that it will be anything but free, and has the potential to bankrupt the country. So as the sheeple begin to awaken from their slumber and begin to understand what is taking place, The Great Messiah shouts louder & louder about how this bill has to pass NOW..because "lives" are at stake. The "Free" healthcare spin machine is turning faster than a catagory 5 hurricane. It has to. Because despite the best efforts of The Great Messiah..the truth is seeping out, and the the taxpayers don't like what they see.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437993 - 07/27/09 07:10 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/09/06
Posts: 9113
Loc: red dirt state of mind
|
Quote:
The exorbitant cost of American health care IS a drag on the economy. When a multi-national corporation decides upon which plot to plant a factory, the cost/effectiveness of health care is a concern.
It’s only a drag on the economy now that Obama has flushed the rest of the economy down the toilet. How convenient!
Quote:
And don't forget the stagnation of American employees trapped in an employer-based health care situation instead of embarking upon their entrepreneurial bent to do something better.
Most of the people in this country are against cradle to grave government care because most people are intelligent enough to know that when the government sticks their nose in your business only trouble can follow.
Quote:
Quote:
Government can not do anything cheaper than private enterprise.
Laughable. Government appointees are somewhat more accountable than CEOs of the health insurance companies, whose top 10 salaries would provide health care for thousands:
and when Obama is done there will only be 2 kinds of health insurance. The kind for the super rich (the one he and his family will belong to) and the government plan. The one the rest of us will be forced to wait in line for, you know that line, the one right next to bread line we'll be waiting in next because no one has a job to even pay the trillions of dollars in taxes for this health care monstrosity?
YO' IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437994 - 07/27/09 09:16 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 09/07/03
Posts: 565
Loc: State of Moral Decay
|
OdumbaCare. From the same types of people who brought you your local DMV, The Post Office, The IRS & a host of other "people services". Just think, your bleeding leg will be treated with the same care, concern, courtesy and efficiency as mailing a package. Now doesn't THAT make you feel better already??
Edited by SexDJ (07/27/09 09:17 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437995 - 07/27/09 11:38 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
if you look at it from that perspective....
i done a servey of 100 who wanted in the butt....
100% said they were willing to fucking try it...but havent done it....wtf.....
if it dont work it gets repealed.....ever hear of Prohibition???....na ya havent.....ah yeah thats right....too young...you yougsters with your internets....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437996 - 07/27/09 11:46 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 09/07/03
Posts: 565
Loc: State of Moral Decay
|
Quote:
if you look at it from that perspective....
i done a servey of 100 who wanted in the butt....
100% said they were willing to fucking try it...but havent done it....wtf.....
if it dont work it gets repealed.....ever hear of Prohibition???....na ya havent.....ah yeah thats right....too young...you yougsters with your internets....
That may be the only government program that EVER got repealed. But it got repealed because the gummint could make tax money off it's repeal! Internet? Hell..I'm so old I remember party line phones.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437997 - 07/27/09 11:48 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/09/06
Posts: 9113
Loc: red dirt state of mind
|
Thing is we would still be out the several trillion dollars just "trying" this out. Experiment with another persons money, thanks.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437998 - 07/27/09 02:22 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Thing is we would still be out the several trillion dollars just "trying" this out. Experiment with another persons money, thanks.
hey now.....who bright idea was it with the bush stimulus package 2008....now then the obama stimulus 2009....whos money are we wasting with that....
so i guess were 2 for 2 in that or is it d 1 r 1 = tie....
point is were on the road to nowhere....your money, my money, their money....its quite fucked...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#437999 - 07/28/09 07:54 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 09/07/03
Posts: 565
Loc: State of Moral Decay
|
Quote:
Quote:
Thing is we would still be out the several trillion dollars just "trying" this out. Experiment with another persons money, thanks.
hey now.....who bright idea was it with the bush stimulus package 2008....now then the obama stimulus 2009....whos money are we wasting with that....
so i guess were 2 for 2 in that or is it d 1 r 1 = tie....
point is were on the road to nowhere....your money, my money, their money....its quite fucked...
A great deal of the so-called "Bush Stimulus" actually did some good. A fair amount of the money went to the states to extend unemployment benefits for people who had lost or were about to lose their benefits. The Odumba 2009 Stimulus was mostly pork projects for the the loony-left. All the talk about the money going to FDR-style "shovel ready" projects was just so much spin. Translate..lies.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#438003 - 08/01/09 12:17 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 01/07/06
Posts: 4268
Loc: Portland
|
Wake me up when we're socialist!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
_________________________
"My people (the real Americans- descended from the original Angle-Saxon pioneers)"-Coke S.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#438004 - 08/01/09 10:20 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing is anyway is "perfect".....yeah that was tried.....it was not the "great success"...that they had wish or hoped for.....people rag on capitalism just as well as on socialism....so you actually have to "debate" these ideas to try and come out with a progressive plan....not either leaning too right or too left either....center is good....but unless it has been done now in a current system/plan….of what we have in the “NOW”…..it is kind of hard to just say…..”fuck it…it has already been tried”…….there is what lies before you….if it was working correctly and was functioning seamlessly without needing correction then there would not be any need to buck the system….why fix something that is not broken……so the current lesson to be learned here is why they are debating it now then…..obviously there must be something abjectly wrong with the current program/system that they have decided to take it to go to such great lengths. That would be absolute and terminal political suicide.
Your going for a black or white...day or night....no holds barred "my way or the highway" attitude…..back up....take a breather....and examine the whole idea....not just an "easy way out"....pure socialism...ideology theory.
are you on crack?
nope meth.....but thats another story??? 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#438005 - 08/02/09 08:17 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/03/03
Posts: 5849
Loc: TX, USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
It costs 1/3 as much to have a baby delivered in Mexico as it does in the US,
that isn't surprising. they're a third world nation.
A lot of the cost difference is that the unskilled labor was paid to Mexican standards, not US levels.
But most of the difference was that the hospital actually got paid, on time and in full. A lot of US hospital ER patients never pay, and welfare and insurance patients tend to pay very late, and Medicare in particular doesn't pay the full bill.
US hospitals often give 30% discounts for cash patients so for a Mexican hospital to claim this is a 50% reduction isn't impossible.
Quote:
Quote:
and you get better service.
this, on the other hand, is surprising. what services are better in mexico than the us regarding childbirth?
The most obvious is that there was a "nurse" (not an RN) assigned to you alone from the moment you walked in the door until you checked out. That nurse had no other patients during that time: you got 100% attention. I liken the job to a "personal medical concierge".
There was a huge difference between the RNs and other nurses: the RNs were graduates of US schools whereas other "nurses" were from Mexican schools, and the RNs called the shots. But the personally-assigned nurse was really there more for coordination, translations (the doctors and RNs spoke English but not everyone else did), etc - as much for marketing as anything else.
The biggest obvious drawback is payment. Right inside the door is the business office, and you don't go any further until you've paid in full. Your wife may be in labor and about to pop, but no one will lift a finger or even look your way until you pay, and that means cash, no credit cards or checks. My friend paid in advance so there would be no delay (this is what the hospital recommends for deliveries).
Quote:
ok, so you know one person that went to mexico and zero that went to india for health care. well done. to be honest, I'm ready to have my mind changed on this issue.
It's not that rare. This hospital did a fair amount of business with American patients and was trying to grow that.
Keep in mind they aren't doing brain transplants or anything like that: they're doing fairly mundane low-risk procedures. Had it been a problem pregnancy the family would have been sent back to the US.
Quote:
is it equal to or greater than the amount of our friends from the north that come here for heath care?
Probably not. Mexicans have been going to Houston for at least 50 years for complex medical treatment, but there haven't been many first-world trained doctors and nurses in Mexico until recently (likewise India).
But the goals suggest parity is coming: the Mexican hospitals are trying to get into the market for "routine" procedures and leave the specialized cases to the US, meaning they'll compete for "volume" business. India is trying to focus on more extensive (read: expensive) services because of the extra cost of travel to India and this may be a little harder.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#438006 - 08/03/09 08:18 AM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/09/06
Posts: 9113
Loc: red dirt state of mind
|
Quote:
Wake me up when we're socialist!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
So never? That sounds like a plan everyone can live with.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#438007 - 08/03/09 03:20 PM
Re: Dems Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterlo'
|
Gay For Pay
Registered: 01/13/07
Posts: 1011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Wake me up when we're socialist!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
So never? That sounds like a plan everyone can live with.
We may never call ourselves socialist, but that damn Obama Health Care plan. We're borrowing from the Europeans more and more.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
723
Guests and
15
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
