Public Insurance Off The Table?

[nathanm]

I think they really want a reasonably priced option, it doesn't need to be a public option.

Given how competition in the private sector has thus far failed to produce reasonable prices, what do you think will bring costs back to something affordable for most people other than public competition?

The 'private option' has resulted in the siphoning off of 12% or more of our health care dollars just on the health insurance side. Not to mention what they're doing to us through malpractice insurance, which has a cost in most specialties far in excess of actuarial necessity.

I'm getting really mad at the Republicans and their blatant lies regarding the reform plans. If they disagree ideologically, that's fine. Good, even. We should have vigorous discourse on such an important issue. Blatant lies like the "death council" thing are not at all conducive to that, however.

[Conan71]

I'm getting really mad at the Republicans and their blatant lies regarding the reform plans. If they disagree ideologically, that's fine. Good, even. We should have vigorous discourse on such an important issue. Blatant lies like the "death council" thing are not at all conducive to that, however.

Nathan,

Why be mad at the GOP?  That's just irrational bias to keep from accepting the possibility that there is true dissention amongst the Dems on this.

The Democrats have majorities in the House and Senate.  They don't need the GOP for this plan to pass.  There's a bunch of Democrats who know a sh!t burger when they smell one and GOP "fear tactics" isn't what's keeping them from jumping on board. 

[guido911]

I'm getting really mad at the Republicans and their blatant lies regarding the reform plans.

Aw, well too bad Nate considering you don't seem to give a damn about the blatant lies told by Obama both prior to and after his election. Here's a partial list: transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, accept public finance to campaign, no tax increase on middle class, no signing statements, recognize Armenian genocide, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, military tribunals, rendition, and most blatant that if the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.

Awaiting your righteous indignation over the foregoing...

[nathanm]

Aw, well too bad Nate considering you don't seem to give a damn about the blatant lies told by Obama both prior to and after his election. Here's a partial list: transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, accept public finance to campaign, no tax increase on middle class, no signing statements, recognize Armenian genocide, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, military tribunals, rendition, and most blatant that if the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.

Awaiting your righteous indignation over the foregoing...

Bad behavior on the part of one party only excuses bad behavior on the part of another party in the mindset of a 6 year old. Most of us develop a more reasonable moral code at some point in our life.

And just so you are aware, one of those things in your list is not like the others. A 'forward looking statement' in the parlance of the securities act. I'll leave it to you to figure out which that is. (You were doing great up to that point, though!)

[guido911]

Bad behavior on the part of one party only excuses bad behavior on the part of another party in the mindset of a 6 year old. Most of us develop a more reasonable moral code at some point in our life.

And just so you are aware, one of those things in your list is not like the others. A 'forward looking statement' in the parlance of the securities act. I'll leave it to you to figure out which that is. (You were doing great up to that point, though!)

Wow. The point I was making flew right over your mature mindset. It was not about excusing bad behavior, it was your rank hypocrisy.

Not sure what "forward looking statement" you are referring to, perhaps the middle class tax increase? Here is Obama during the campaign:

Did you hear that? Now, how are we funding SCHIP? Why, with a tax increase on tobacco, which I can fairly presume will be paid by those making less than $250K. Here is a Gallup poll which proves my point and then some:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/

[nathanm]

Wow. The point I was making flew right over your mature mindset. It was not about excusing bad behavior, it was your rank hypocrisy.

Not sure what "forward looking statement" you are referring to, perhaps the middle class tax increase? Here is Obama during the campaign:

Did you hear that? Now, how are we funding SCHIP? Why, with a tax increase on tobacco, which I can fairly presume will be paid by those making less than $250K. Here is a Gallup poll which proves my point and then some:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/american-smokers-and-income-charted/

My hypocrisy? I am not Barack Obama, if you hadn't noticed.

As far as the forward looking statement, I would think someone in your profession would have grasped that I was referring to the last of the items in your list. The one regarding predictions of the future where that future is not directly controlled by the person making the predictions.

Lastly, I would also think that you, as an attorney, would be capable of understanding the difference between income and excise taxes. At a minimum, one is purely voluntary, while the other is mandatory. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

[USRufnex]

Aw, well too bad Nate considering you don't seem to give a damn about the blatant lies told by Obama both prior to and after his election. Here's a partial list: transparency, no lobbyists in his administration, accept public finance to campaign, no tax increase on middle class, no signing statements, recognize Armenian genocide, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, military tribunals, rendition, and most blatant that if the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%.

Awaiting your righteous indignation over the foregoing...

I'll do it.  Gweed's a LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE....
Blatant lies?  Typical partisan doublespeak from someone who has DESPISED Obama from day one....

Per usual, the doe-doe decides that campaign promises that have gone unfulfilled  makes President Obama a liar.  If Obama is able to fulfill a majority of his promises, Obama voters should be happy, and independents will have to decide whether he's fulfilled enough of them to warrant a second term...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/


The Obameter Scorecard
  * Promise Kept 35
  * Compromise 11
  * Promise Broken 7
  * Stalled 12
  * In the Works 79
  * No Action 372

Using Guido's criteria, Ronald Reagan was a big fat hairy LIAR.....
And looking at many of Greed's previous posts (oops, typo), using his own criteria makes him a liar too.

In 1980, Guido's political MESSIAH, Ronald Reagan, promised a balanced budget within three years (he said this would be "the beginning of the end of inflation").
Ronald Reagan promised to ABOLISH the Dept. of Education.
Ronald Reagan promised to create a global defense system.
And then there was Iran-Contra.... http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/04/world/arms-to-iran-weren-t-for-hostages-reagan-says.html

Reagan loved to rail on-and-on ad infinitum about "special interests" in Washington... Here's Reagan's legacy...
A Multitude of Lobbyists With Reagan Ties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29703-2004Jun9.html

And it's hardly fair to call Obama a liar, when on the very same issues the rabid right insists he's a big fat hairy liar... he's made progress over the previous administration's policies....
transparency?  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/melber
no lobbyists in his administration?  http://www.newsweek.com/id/194652
accept public finance to campaign?  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/politics/20obama.html
no signing statements?  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html
---recognize Armenian genocide? (Bush's 2/2000 campaign promise) http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=3
recognize Armenian genocide? (Obama) http://yandunts.blogspot.com/2009/05/president-obama-in-turkey-raises.html


***"If the nearly $1T stimulus got passed unemployment would not exceed 8%?"

The gweed-spinster talks like Barack Obama is supposed to be Miss Cleo..... back in my day, Ronald Reagan gave this country double-digit unemployement for month after month after month after month.... when the big tax cuts offered by Reaganomics was supposed to spur employers to hire MORE workers...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/stimulus-history-lesson/


And Ronald Reagan was so busy breaking his campaign promises when we had double-digit unemployement that he RAISED TAXES.... he had an approval rating of 35% at one point in his first term... but Reagan didn't have to deal with a 24-hour cable news cycle.... and nutjob bloggers....

Guido gets an "F" in Chattering Class 101.

[guido911]

I'll do it.  Gweed's a LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE....
Blatant lies?  Typical partisan doublespeak from someone who has DESPISED Obama from day one....

What does my dislike of Obama have to do with the fact that he is a liar? Nothing. BTW, are you suggesting that Obama was truthful about accepting public finance? He was truthful about lobbyists not being in his administration? Like your links (which in large part acknowledge the lie but try to minimize its significance) and your analysis. Its a matter of degree of the lie.

For your edification as to what Obama ACTUALLY SAID, as opposed to news prints' reflection/distortion, as to several of these issues raised in this thread:

LOBBYISTS:

SIGNING STATEMENTS:

Obama has issued five signing statements to date, any idea the number Bush had issued at this point of his presidency?

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm#a2001

PUBLIC FINANCE:

I don't think anything more needs to be said about this one.

TRANSPARENCY:

Well, how's that working out:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obamas_fiveday_rule_broken_aga.html

As for your attack on Reagan, are you serious?  Reagan was a bad president on the economy?

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0165_Reagans_accomplishme.html

Noticed you left off of your list of Reagan failures the end of the cold war.

USRUF has once again brought a knife to a gun fight. You newbies out there, remember this thread if you are thinking about taking Nate and this guy seriously.

[Conan71]

Gweed,

Here's your new avatar



Ruf just loves to drop the LIAR card.  You must have hit a soft spot.

Ruf, I've never heard an objective thing about Obama come out of your mouth.  From the time you were in Chicago and he was a community organizer then went to the state legislature, etc. you've been infatuated with everything the man has done.  If anyone is even slightly critical or holds him to the same standard Democrats held Bush II to, you go off on them and resort to calling people liars.  The revisionist Reagan legacy you and others like you keep spewing is a total laugh riot.  Talk about partisan hacks.  Sheesh.

If you want to sit around and play "My guy is better than yours" make sure he really is any better or more accurate in fulfilling campaign promises.  I have a feeling if McCain had unkept promises, broken promises or unfulfilled promises your response would be: LIAR!!!!

Hugs & kisses,
Conan

[waterboy]

You might be a bit taken with yourself and your arguments. I think you lost hands down. I lived through Reagan and his tax cuts, unemployment, Beirut barracks bombing and cold war policies. He sucked.  No one but die hard Republicans give him credit for "winning the cold war".

Your arguments are partisanship and you lose credibility with your hatred of the president.

[Conan71]

You might be a bit taken with yourself and your arguments. I think you lost hands down. I lived through Reagan and his tax cuts, unemployment, Beirut barracks bombing and cold war policies. He sucked.  No one but die hard Republicans give him credit for "winning the cold war".

Your arguments are partisanship and you lose credibility with your hatred of the president.

Try again Waterboy.  President Reagan, Cap Weinberger and George Schultz were the masters of detente`.

The rough patch our region went through in the 1980's had little to zilch to do with Reagan's economics or tax cuts.  There was a never-ending orgy of higher and higher interest rates from the Carter years which finally broke the back of the average homeowner and businessman, a borrowing binge based on oil approaching $40 a barrel, and some seriously greedy and dishonest bankers willing to roll the dice and bankroll speculative life-styles.

Reagan inherited a very full plate.   Can you honestly say with a straight face that America was worse off when Reagan left office than when he took it?  Where's your credibility when you spit on President Reagan, a man whom history has objectively shown was a very, very effective President?  Who won the Cold War, if it wasn't Reagan?

[FOTD]

Without reform, health insurance rates to nearly double in 11 years

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/22/insurance-rates-double/

Insurance rates will rise 94 percent by 2020 if cost-saving reforms to the US health care system aren't enacted, a new study from the Commonwealth Institute finds.

The 90-year-old non-profit health care charity released an analysis of health care costs and forecasts that says employer-sponsored family plans will rise from an average cost of $12,298 in 2008 to $23,842 in 2020.

By contrast, the same coverage would have cost around $9,200 in 2003.

"Across the United States, middle-income individuals and families have been los ing ground as the cost of health insurance continues to rise at a faster rate than incomes," the report states. "Rising employer insurance premiums have forced many working fami lies to trade off increases in their wages just to hold onto their health benefits. The expanding share of health insurance premiums paid by workers themselves has also taken a greater cut out of paychecks."



And you whiny freaks cry out against taxes....families are supposed to work only to buy health insurance, not food, clothing, shelter...nothing more important than than worthless piece of paper to own.

CoCo, stay on topic. Your usual diversionary tactics are rather odd and rather old.

[Conan71]

Back on topic FOTD, who's to say that the government can cap these costs?  Do we really want the government to subsidize escalating costs when we've got such a huge deficit?  If the government could cap medical costs via their vision of reform, at what cost does it come in terms of the American health care worker and all the companies which supply the health care industry. 

[FOTD]

Back on topic FOTD, who's to say that the government can cap these costs? OMB Do we really want the government to subsidize escalating costs when we've got such a huge deficit? YES If the government could cap medical costs via their vision of reform, at what cost does it come in terms of the American health care worker and all the companies which supply the health care industry. WHATEVER IT COSTS THEM, TFB

[Conan71]

Okay, I'll go off topic again since, when pressed with serious legit questions, some members can't reply with cogent responses.  It's obvious he was waiting in the weeds to throw out another of the cartoons from his DNC talking points kit.

"Look little liberals, for only $24.99 you can look like a total imbecile on-line too!"