Bob Dole speaks
-
"Discussing the failure to get a health care reform passed in 1993 and 1994, he said politics -- both from Congress and the White House -- was to blame. "Politics took over," he said. "And you lost."
So you have the votes Heck.
The evil repubicans can't stop you.
Lets say you make a couple of those changes they keep asking for?
At least you'd shut 'em up and get your bill.
What's stopping you?
This:
1 You want the issue.
2 If it sucks you can blame the right.
WSS
It is kinda funny cos one of Jon Stewart's show actually portrayed the same thing ... are u jon stewart in disguise ?
It is kinda funny cos one of Jon Stewart's show actually portrayed the same thing ... are u jon stewart in disguise ?
Sorry.
Didn't see it, but I'm hardly Jon Stewart.
I sing better.
WSS
-
Are you ready, Steve? Not that it's going to make any difference.
- Republicans, specifically Olympia Snowe, asked to have the public option taken out of the Baucus Bill because Republicans didn't support it. It's out. How you miss this huge concession, perhaps the biggest of all, is beyond me. Obviously, my hope is that the reconciled bill puts it back in, since there's no need to concede to people who aren't going to vote for the plan anyway. But this didn't get the bill any Republican support.
- John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, asked for an amendment to allow companies to buy insurance across state lines, which is one of the main pillars of Republican health care reform plans, like the one Bobby Jindal proposed in the WSJ the other day, or the one McCain proposed in the campaign. This proposal was included in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
Also funny, since above you complained that the bill doesn't include this:
"Tells me you're malking it up.
What are they, these big compromises?
...Licencing companies federally as opposed to by state?
Um, yeah. It's on page 12, under the title "Interstate Sale of Insurance". You can look it up yourself. Really, you probably shouldn't be rolling your eyes and challenging me to "list 'em" when you don't know what you're talking about. It's just embarrassing for you.
So you had that wrong. But let's continue.
- John McCain (and Eric Cantor in the House) both asked for high-risk pools for people who have been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and have them be run at the state rather than federal level. That's in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans wanted a means to verify citizenship so that no illegal aliens would be allowed to receive subsidies, even though the Democratic plan already banned them from receiving subsidies. Even though all it's going to do is make it harder for legal immigrants to get coverage while catching maybe a handful of people. (Remember the GAO study? 8 million dollars to catch 8 illegals. Money well spent?) But it doesn't matter. The Baucus bill has that, too. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans asked for a ban on any federal subsidies to provide abortion services. That's in the Baucus Bill. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans, specifically Mike Pence, wanted to give young, healthy people the option of buying cheaper, high-deductible policies, or catastrophic insurance, rather than joining the larger insurance pool. That's included in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans (as well as many Democrats, including Obama) demanded that the plan not add to the federal deficit. That's part of the bill. There's even a mechanism that reduces benefit levels should the costs grow more than forecast to maintain budget neutrality. That's a Republican plan too. (And a dumb one.) Still no Republican support.
But yes, other than that, there are no Republican ideas in the Baucus bill.
Again, Steve, just because you don't follow this stuff very closely, that doesn't mean nobody does. Just like every other debate we have, you like to have them on a very basic level, and cram them into your tiny prism of how you think people are, and how Democrats work.
That's not my problem.
-
More Bob Dole: "This is one of the most important measures members of Congress will vote on in their lifetimes," the former Republican Senate majority leader and presidential candidate told an audience in Kansas City today. "If we don't do it this year I don't know when we're gonna do it."
Socialist.
-
Are you ready, Steve? Not that it's going to make any difference.
- Republicans, specifically Olympia Snowe, asked to have the public option taken out of the Baucus Bill because Republicans didn't support it. It's out. How you miss this huge concession, perhaps the biggest of all, is beyond me. Obviously, my hope is that the reconciled bill puts it back in, since there's no need to concede to people who aren't going to vote for the plan anyway. But this didn't get the bill any Republican support.
- John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, asked for an amendment to allow companies to buy insurance across state lines, which is one of the main pillars of Republican health care reform plans, like the one Bobby Jindal proposed in the WSJ the other day, or the one McCain proposed in the campaign. This proposal was included in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
Also funny, since above you complained that the bill doesn't include this:
"Tells me you're malking it up.
What are they, these big compromises?
...Licencing companies federally as opposed to by state?
Um, yeah. It's on page 12, under the title "Interstate Sale of Insurance". You can look it up yourself. Really, you probably shouldn't be rolling your eyes and challenging me to "list 'em" when you don't know what you're talking about. It's just embarrassing for you.
So you had that wrong. But let's continue.
- John McCain (and Eric Cantor in the House) both asked for high-risk pools for people who have been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and have them be run at the state rather than federal level. That's in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans wanted a means to verify citizenship so that no illegal aliens would be allowed to receive subsidies, even though the Democratic plan already banned them from receiving subsidies. Even though all it's going to do is make it harder for legal immigrants to get coverage while catching maybe a handful of people. (Remember the GAO study? 8 million dollars to catch 8 illegals. Money well spent?) But it doesn't matter. The Baucus bill has that, too. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans asked for a ban on any federal subsidies to provide abortion services. That's in the Baucus Bill. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans, specifically Mike Pence, wanted to give young, healthy people the option of buying cheaper, high-deductible policies, or catastrophic insurance, rather than joining the larger insurance pool. That's included in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
- Republicans (as well as many Democrats, including Obama) demanded that the plan not add to the federal deficit. That's part of the bill. There's even a mechanism that reduces benefit levels should the costs grow more than forecast to maintain budget neutrality. That's a Republican plan too. (And a dumb one.) Still no Republican support.
But yes, other than that, there are no Republican ideas in the Baucus bill.
Again, Steve, just because you don't follow this stuff very closely, that doesn't mean nobody does. Just like every other debate we have, you like to have them on a very basic level, and cram them into your tiny prism of how you think people are, and how Democrats work.
That's not my problem.
Are you ready, Steve? Not that it's going to make any difference.
Nope.
(even though most of this is just an efffort to get your own guys on board, because the constituents don't want it forced on them)
Your regurgitation of soft facts is as reassuring as asking a used car salesman why the clunker he has for sale is a great deal.
But lets look a little further.
- Republicans, specifically Olympia Snowe, asked to have the public option taken out of the Baucus Bill because Republicans didn't support it. It's out. How you miss this huge concession, perhaps the biggest of all, is beyond me. Obviously, my hope is that the reconciled bill puts it back in, since there's no need to concede to people who aren't going to vote for the plan anyway. But this didn't get the bill any Republican support.
Rock ribbed conservative Snow!!
But wait...
Heck says there will be a public option.
He's bet 100$.
So that one's meaningless.
- John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, asked for an amendment to allow companies to buy insurance across state lines, which is one of the main pillars of Republican health care reform plans, like the one Bobby Jindal proposed in the WSJ the other day, or the one McCain proposed in the campaign. This proposal was included in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
We'll see if it stands.
Seems pretty soft and easily skirted to me.
>> Starting in 2015, states may form ―health care choice compacts to allow for the purchase of individual health insurance across state lines…. Once compacts have been agreed to, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact.” (pg. 12)
<<
Also funny, since above you complained that the bill doesn't include this:
"Tells me you're making it up.
What are they, these big compromises?
...Licencing companies federally as opposed to by state?
Um, yeah. It's on page 12, under the title "Interstate Sale of Insurance". You can look it up yourself. Really, you probably shouldn't be rolling your eyes and challenging me to "list 'em" when you don't know what you're talking about. It's just embarrassing for you.
So you had that wrong. But let's continue.
See above.
- John McCain (and Eric Cantor in the House) both asked for high-risk pools for people who have been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and have them be run at the state rather than federal level. That's in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
Uh they can do that now.
Open enrollment.
It's just ridiculously expensive for good reason.
Understand?
- Republicans wanted a means to verify citizenship so that no illegal aliens would be allowed to receive subsidies, even though the Democratic plan already banned them from receiving subsidies. Even though all it's going to do is make it harder for legal immigrants to get coverage while catching maybe a handful of people. (Remember the GAO study? 8 million dollars to catch 8 illegals. Money well spent?) But it doesn't matter. The Baucus bill has that, too. Still no Republican support.
If Obama is the constitutional scjholar you think he is you'll know that's not likely to get past the supreme court.
Failed efforts to deny illegals public services sound familiar to you?
- Republicans asked for a ban on any federal subsidies to provide abortion services. That's in the Baucus Bill. Still no Republican support.
That one is bogus.
Of course the door is open to pay for abortion.
- Republicans, specifically Mike Pence, wanted to give young, healthy people the option of buying cheaper, high-deductible policies, or catastrophic insurance, rather than joining the larger insurance pool. That's included in the Baucus bill. Still no Republican support.
Again that's available now. Again they don't want to buy ANY plan.
- Republicans (as well as many Democrats, including Obama) demanded that the plan not add to the federal deficit. That's part of the bill. There's even a mechanism that reduces benefit levels should the costs grow more than forecast to maintain budget neutrality. That's a Republican plan too. (And a dumb one.) Still no Republican support.
LOL But it will.
Everybody with a brain knows that.
But yes, other than that, there are no Republican ideas in the Baucus bill.
So far you have one proposal that seems to have been addressed, the selling over state lines.
We'll see how that ends up.
And avoided even mentioning real torte reform.
Plenty of punishment for evil insurance workers, investors and doctors but none for the trial lawyer pigs!!
Again, Steve, just because you don't follow this stuff very closely, that doesn't mean nobody does.
You just follow the talking points. That's not a very deep well.
Just like every other debate we have, you like to have them on a very basic level, and cram them into your tiny prism of how you think people are, and how Democrats work.
Again Heck all you know is the bullet points from the Democrat sales manual.
And like every debate you see it as a good guys V bad guys issue no matter what is on the table.
That's not my problem.
No it isn't.
It's our problem.
You are a true believer.
Obama/Dems = good helpul.
Republicans = mean selfish.
What ? Heck worry?
And no Heck.
No republican support because
A they ain't gonna let Obama pass anything if they can stop it.
Remember the last 8 years?.
B the bill sucks in the end.
Like asking you to support the death penalty if I let you paint the electric chair your favorite color.
WSS
-
Like I said, it isn't going to make any difference.
Some of these objections were flat out funny. The "states may" one was my favorite. And Republican Olympia Snowe doesn't count as a Republican because you think she's too moderate. (Nevermind that the rest of the Republicans also objected.) Nor do you seem to know the difference between the public option that was rejected and the compromise options that are now being proposed. But then we're back to your problem with distinctions, from which much of your idiocy stems.
And no, the high-risk pools in the bill aren't the same ones you're talking about. It's an entirely new plan.
And there are certain states that have verification measures for illegals right now. They waste a lot of money, as we discussed. But they sure are tough on illegals! (And legals.) How can this be if they're so obviously unconstitutional? Beats the hell out of me.
I also like the continued insistence from Republicans like you that what's wrong with our health care system is we haven't had tort reform. It's the drum you guys have been beating since the 90s, along with "We have the best health care in the world!" and "Something, something, hip replacement in Canada." It's just an indication of how unserious the party is, and how little they know or care, about health care reform. Or just look at what's happened in states where they have the tort reform you speak of. It doesn't have any meaningful effect on insurance premiums.
But yes, I'm sure if we add some Republican tort reform fantasy into the bill then we'll see them clamoring to sign on. And yes, I think people like you, always on about whiners and complainers, are the ones we should trust with the problems of people who have been genuinely affected by medical malpractice. I can tell you're really concerned.
That said, I think there's a lot of waste caused by defensive medicine and we need a better system with better incentives for both doctors/hospitals and the victims of malpractice.
So yes, Steve, other than you being way off on everything, I think I made some real headway.
-
there really is an easy way to show true direction from either party..... What Bill exactly with details have the Republicans pushed for health care reform?
the republicans have not because they dont have a plan except for political opposition for purely political gain, with the side benefit of reaping contributions from healthcare lobbyists....
Its always in the details... which is something the right wing does not have..... for obvious reasons.
come on Steve the right was against medicare/medicaid nothing has changed the political ideologies and all of this "movement"/astroturfing is the same moves they made against medicare..... the same solialist scare charges etc...
-
there really is an easy way to show true direction from either party..... What Bill exactly with details have the Republicans pushed for health care reform?
the republicans have not because they dont have a plan except for political opposition for purely political gain, with the side benefit of reaping contributions from healthcare lobbyists....
Its always in the details... which is something the right wing does not have..... for obvious reasons.
come on Steve the right was against medicare/medicaid nothing has changed the political ideologies and all of this "movement"/astroturfing is the same moves they made against medicare..... the same solialist scare charges etc...
-
I wouldn't mind so much if Republicans voted against the Democrats' plan (after all, that's certainly their right) if they'd made a single effort at real reform while they were in charge. I can think of one major Republican who really takes health care policy seriously, and that's Bobby Jindal. I'm sure there are others - Mitt Romney helped devise a decent but flawed system in Massachusetts. But it's a very small list, which is pretty embarrassing for a major party.
I'd also take them a little more seriously if they'd just come out and say that they don't care or even want all Americans to have health insurance. There's simply no "market" solution that gets us to universal health care, or even close. The solution has to involve government - government programs, government mandates, government funds.
The ideological blinders that have been put on this generation of Republicans - and it is a fairly new phenomenon - keep them from addressing too many of our nation's problems.
-
Like I said, it isn't going to make any difference.
Some of these objections were flat out funny. The "states may" one was my favorite. And Republican Olympia Snowe doesn't count as a Republican because you think she's too moderate. (Nevermind that the rest of the Republicans also objected.) Nor do you seem to know the difference between the public option that was rejected and the compromise options that are now being proposed. But then we're back to your problem with distinctions, from which much of your idiocy stems.
And no, the high-risk pools in the bill aren't the same ones you're talking about. It's an entirely new plan.
And there are certain states that have verification measures for illegals right now. They waste a lot of money, as we discussed. But they sure are tough on illegals! (And legals.) How can this be if they're so obviously unconstitutional? Beats the hell out of me.
I also like the continued insistence from Republicans like you that what's wrong with our health care system is we haven't had tort reform. It's the drum you guys have been beating since the 90s, along with "We have the best health care in the world!" and "Something, something, hip replacement in Canada." It's just an indication of how unserious the party is, and how little they know or care, about health care reform. Or just look at what's happened in states where they have the tort reform you speak of. It doesn't have any meaningful effect on insurance premiums.
But yes, I'm sure if we add some Republican tort reform fantasy into the bill then we'll see them clamoring to sign on. And yes, I think people like you, always on about whiners and complainers, are the ones we should trust with the problems of people who have been genuinely affected by medical malpractice. I can tell you're really concerned.
That said, I think there's a lot of waste caused by defensive medicine and we need a better system with better incentives for both doctors/hospitals and the victims of malpractice.
So yes, Steve, other than you being way off on everything, I think I made some real headway.
Like I said, it isn't going to make any difference.
Some of these objections were flat out funny. The "states may" one was my favorite. And Republican Olympia Snowe doesn't count as a Republican because you think she's too moderate. (Nevermind that the rest of the Republicans also objected.)
Not to mention your own guys.
Don't get ahead of yourself.
Snow or no Snow, you said the public option is removed.
Then you say it'll be back in.
Great.
Then who cares what your talking points say?
C'mon.
And no kiddijng.
The states MAY choose to give up sovereignty allow interstate sales?
Well goodie.
That's in stone.
Monkeys MIGHT fly outta my ass.
WSS
-
I wouldn't mind so much if Republicans voted against the Democrats' plan (after all, that's certainly their right) if they'd made a single effort at real reform while they were in charge. I can think of one major Republican who really takes health care policy seriously, and that's Bobby Jindal. I'm sure there are others - Mitt Romney helped devise a decent but flawed system in Massachusetts. But it's a very small list, which is pretty embarrassing for a major party.
I'd also take them a little more seriously if they'd just come out and say that they don't care or even want all Americans to have health insurance. There's simply no "market" solution that gets us to universal health care, or even close. The solution has to involve government - government programs, government mandates, government funds.
The ideological blinders that have been put on this generation of Republicans - and it is a fairly new phenomenon - keep them from addressing too many of our nation's problems.
The ideological blinders that have been put on this generation of Republicans - and it is a fairly new phenomenon - keep them from addressing too many of our nation's problems.
The political blinders keep guys like you from admitting that medical services are worth something.
How dare you ask someone to pay!!!!!!!!!
It has to be free.
WSS
-
Like I said, it isn't going to make any difference.
Some of these objections were flat out funny. The "states may" one was my favorite. And Republican Olympia Snowe doesn't count as a Republican because you think she's too moderate. (Nevermind that the rest of the Republicans also objected.) Nor do you seem to know the difference between the public option that was rejected and the compromise options that are now being proposed. But then we're back to your problem with distinctions, from which much of your idiocy stems.
And no, the high-risk pools in the bill aren't the same ones you're talking about. It's an entirely new plan.
And there are certain states that have verification measures for illegals right now. They waste a lot of money, as we discussed. But they sure are tough on illegals! (And legals.) How can this be if they're so obviously unconstitutional? Beats the hell out of me.
I also like the continued insistence from Republicans like you that what's wrong with our health care system is we haven't had tort reform. It's the drum you guys have been beating since the 90s, along with "We have the best health care in the world!" and "Something, something, hip replacement in Canada." It's just an indication of how unserious the party is, and how little they know or care, about health care reform. Or just look at what's happened in states where they have the tort reform you speak of. It doesn't have any meaningful effect on insurance premiums.
But yes, I'm sure if we add some Republican tort reform fantasy into the bill then we'll see them clamoring to sign on. And yes, I think people like you, always on about whiners and complainers, are the ones we should trust with the problems of people who have been genuinely affected by medical malpractice. I can tell you're really concerned.
That said, I think there's a lot of waste caused by defensive medicine and we need a better system with better incentives for both doctors/hospitals and the victims of malpractice.
So yes, Steve, other than you being way off on everything, I think I made some real headway.
Like I said, it isn't going to make any difference.
I also like the continued insistence from Republicans like you that what's wrong with our health care system is we haven't had tort reform.
Then spit out the trial lawyers dicks and pass it.
Problem solved, right?
WSS
-
Why ...do ...I ...bother?
Because the public option they took out won't be the same one they end up putting back in.
They will be different public options.
Different plans.
In other words, they will be set up differently, and accomplish different things.
As in, this isn't what progressives hoped for in a public option, but will be a compromise in order to secure 60 votes in the Senate.
Sort of like how Honda and Kia are both carmakers, but their operations are totally different, as is the result.
It's really not that hard to make this distinction. Even for you. I think.
-
Why ...do ...I ...bother?
Because the public option they took out won't be the same one they end up putting back in.
They will be different public options.
Different plans.
In other words, they will be set up differently, and accomplish different things.
As in, this isn't what progressives hoped for in a public option, but will be a compromise in order to secure 60 votes in the Senate.
Sort of like how Honda and Kia are both carmakers, but their operations are totally different, as is the result.
It's really not that hard to make this distinction. Even for you. I think.
Why ...do ...I ...bother?
Because the public option they took out won't be the same one they end up putting back in.
They will be different public options.
Different plans.
In other words, they will be set up differently, and accomplish different things.
That's really hiarious.
OK so what will the new one be?
WSS
-
Huh? I hate myself because of you. I really do.
It's not clear yet, Steve. It's not clear yet. There's a new opt-out idea that's being floated. There's a trigger idea that Snowe apparently likes. There's the co-op idea. We'll have to wait and see.
What we know if that the original plan for a nationwide public option to cover the remaining uninsured is dead unless the Democrats want to use reconciliation to pass the bill, and there's zero indication that they want to go this way.
Or you could just read a newspaper.
No, not that one. A real one.
-
Huh? I hate myself because of you. I really do.
It's not clear yet, Steve. It's not clear yet. There's a new opt-out idea that's being floated. There's a trigger idea that Snowe apparently likes. There's the co-op idea. We'll have to wait and see.
What we know if that the original plan for a nationwide public option to cover the remaining uninsured is dead unless the Democrats want to use reconciliation to pass the bill, and there's zero indication that they want to go this way.
Or you could just read a newspaper.
No, not that one. A real one.
Huh? I hate myself because of you. I really do.
Glad to help.
It's not clear yet, Steve. It's not clear yet. There's a new opt-out idea that's being floated. There's a trigger idea that Snowe apparently likes. There's the co-op idea. We'll have to wait and see.
Heh heh. Seems like that's the bottom line for every claim you make for this bill doesn't it?
"We have nop idea but there'll be plenty of hope."
What we know if that the original plan for a nationwide public option to cover the remaining uninsured is dead unless the Democrats want to use reconciliation to pass the bill, and there's zero indication that they want to go this way.
Why not?
It's a great bill.
It will save billions and everyone will be covered with first class medical care.
And it won't add a dime to the deficit nor cost the average taxpayer a penny.
So why the hell not?
Or you could just read a newspaper.
NYT? Pravda?
No, not that one. A real one.
Apparently the one you read isn't forthcoming.....
WSS
-
More warmed over talk show cant. And you're so proud of it. The New York Times is Pravda! Nothing but hope! Empty suit!
I liked it better when you were claiming something isn't in the bill that is in the bill. At least it was about something other than your pique.
-
I watched Michael Moo-er on Hannity tonight.
Moo-er sounds more intelligent and less partisan than Heck.
That isn't saying much.
-
More warmed over talk show cant. And you're so proud of it. The New York Times is Pravda! Nothing but hope! Empty suit!
I liked it better when you were claiming something isn't in the bill that is in the bill. At least it was about something other than your pique.
More warmed over talk show cant. And you're so proud of it. The New York Times is Pravda! Nothing but hope! Empty suit!
More of the same?
So we need to read only Heck approved propaganda?
I see.
Proud? Hmmm. Since you offer nothing in return but crying about some talk show that seems to bother you I suppose it counts.
I liked it better when you were claiming something isn't in the bill that is in the bill. At least it was about something other than your pique.
Yeah I know.
Getting you to admit there's nothing in the bill anybody can count on is pretty rich.
I've said over and over I'd like to see something that would make a few of Americas (and my own) health care worries less bothersome.
I don't think this will make much difference and if it does, will probably make things worse.
That's why your guys demegogue the bill but are too scared to use the nuclear option.
WSS
-
you know something about the republicrat "moderates" that I hate? They dont govern or influence from any position really...
at least with the far right and the liberal left they actually do have fairly solid ideologies they govern from. I wish the dems would grow a pair like the republicans do when they are in power and push whatever they want thru.
screw this faux "bi partisan" dog and pony show for bs pr votes.... At least Bush Jr/ cheney governed by what they believed in and did not try to pander to the other side because they knew they could not win them over anyways.
The more I think about it the "blue dogs" are really just the worst sort of politicians.... they pander to both sides to stay elected rather than actually taking a solid position.
The healthcare lobbyist have their hands into the Democrats and far up their butts as much as they do the right..... They just choose the most "moderate" to divide the party enough to destabilize the power.
The right does not apologize and really they should not and neither should the left..... the health care reform without Torte reform OR a true Public option will not help Medicare or Medicaid costs or control costs....
One of my partners was a Hippa/operational VP at a healthcompany that does nothing but service Medicaid and Medicare....... That company makes Billions a year and they are only one of the many companies who administer benefits in multiple states..... talk about BS bloat...... they coud start there in cutting costs...
The longer this drags on the more this demonstrates how the goverment really has been hijacked by lobbyists/money for these major industries and does not represent us.... it makes me angry at BOTH sides because neither are truly on OUR side....
-
you know something about the republicrat "moderates" that I hate? They dont govern or influence from any position really...
at least with the far right and the liberal left they actually do have fairly solid ideologies they govern from. I wish the dems would grow a pair like the republicans do when they are in power and push whatever they want thru.
screw this faux "bi partisan" dog and pony show for bs pr votes.... At least Bush Jr/ cheney governed by what they believed in and did not try to pander to the other side because they knew they could not win them over anyways.
The more I think about it the "blue dogs" are really just the worst sort of politicians.... they pander to both sides to stay elected rather than actually taking a solid position.
The healthcare lobbyist have their hands into the Democrats and far up their butts as much as they do the right..... They just choose the most "moderate" to divide the party enough to destabilize the power.
The right does not apologize and really they should not and neither should the left..... the health care reform without Torte reform OR a true Public option will not help Medicare or Medicaid costs or control costs....
One of my partners was a Hippa/operational VP at a healthcompany that does nothing but service Medicaid and Medicare....... That company makes Billions a year and they are only one of the many companies who administer benefits in multiple states..... talk about BS bloat...... they coud start there in cutting costs...
The longer this drags on the more this demonstrates how the goverment really has been hijacked by lobbyists/money for these major industries and does not represent us.... it makes me angry at BOTH sides because neither are truly on OUR side....
you know something about the republicrat "moderates" that I hate? They dont govern or influence from any position really...
I somewhat agree Sev BUT some who are called "moderates" only have a different take on an issue or two.
Like Toop and Cap and Trade.
But I still think it's a weak gamble to try and trump one side by running a faux military hawk in John Kerry agaisnt Bush OR a faux progressive in John McCain.
The more I think about it the "blue dogs" are really just the worst sort of politicians.... they pander to both sides to stay elected rather than actually taking a solid position.
Or possibly they're not as far left as their party is heading.
One could say the same about Hagel et al.
The healthcare lobbyist have their hands into the Democrats and far up their butts as much as they do the right..... They just choose the most "moderate" to divide the party enough to destabilize the power.
The right does not apologize and really they should not and neither should the left..... the health care reform without Torte reform OR a true Public option will not help Medicare or Medicaid costs or control costs....
True enough.
The longer this drags on the more this demonstrates how the goverment really has been hijacked by lobbyists/money for these major industries and does not represent us.... it makes me angry at BOTH sides because neither are truly on OUR side....
Then again (and this should be in another thread) I think the health care "crisis" is generated as a fear tactic.
I mean lets ask ourselves what the real problems are then ask if these particular things couldn't be repaired with a lot less angst.
WSS
WSS[/b]
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login