^Exactly. Good analogy Mr. Morin, again the insurance company will be behind the wheel, driving over people like usual. America is not a democracy or a republic it is a corporatocracy. The regulatory capture has totally destroyed America. You conservatives always bleeep and moan about liberals ruining everything, but seriously, do you think it is the government or the companies? It is the companies that ruined the public option and all other forms of progressive legislation that THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY WANTED! America is not a democracy it is a proto-fascist state.
acd…The majority of the country does not want the cr@p progressive legislation that this adminitstration/congress are jamming down our throats to beat the 11/2010 deadline. Their motives are clear, and they are not even close to what was stated as their original goals for passing this legislation. The majority of the country would like less expensive, minor tweaks to start vs. major overhaul of the HC system. Actually, I think the majority of the country are tired of the politics and partisanship from both Republicans and Democrats.
That is not true, people wanted a public option, the MAJORITY of Americans (65%) wanted a public option, and that is not a minor tweak. It was meant to fundamentally change the way insurance generated profits, by treating poeple instead of finding ways NOT to treat them.
Mandarin? Russian?? When Obama was (democratically) elected last year you guys told me I had to learn Arabic. Please make up your minds, I’m not sure what language to learn. Gaah!
“Our Founders sneered at democracy, rightfully regarding it as being mere mob rule, destined to fail”
Like how an uneducated mob can deny a minority equal rights on “mob rule.”
@ANandy - I love the idea of being denied coverage the second something comes up the Insurance companies don’t want to cover even after I’ve paid into it for years. Health care reform is always “kicked down the road” and health care costs are one of the most dominant factors in our ballooning debt [other than the 2 wars].
“Their motives are clear”
Just as Republican ‘motives’ are clear. They don’t care about the people, they care about trying to make Obama look bad regardless of whether or not any particular thing might be better for the country. “Let’s forget the public option and up Medicare,” “OKay.” “Nah, don’t do that either.”
“Put our government in charge of health care, and it will only cost MORE money; take LONGER to see a doctor, or get any help”
And yet people on Medicare [a GOVERNMENT run health care program] are more satisfied with their insurance than anyone on private insurance, and many right-wingers claim that the health care for veterans is the “best in the world.” Both are provided by the government. Cherry picking.
But it’s Okay because many Democrats are to blame for not having a spine to get this through properly with the majority they have.
In case anyone is interested in reading intelligent arguments on different sides, David Brooks and Paul Krugman have good columns in this morning’s New York Times.
wminfeld, A majority of the public wanted healthcare reform back in ‘92. That was one of Clinton’s major campaign themes. An even larger majority wanted healthcare reform in the 2008 election. The evidence that something is wrong, that our delivery system is broken, that costs are too high and escalating out of control has been obvious to most Americans for a long time.
I believe the public has been behind an effective overhaul, not tweaking, for a long time. We’ve been “tweaking” without overhauling for far too long and it has accomplished little. More and more Americans uninsured, a brand new category of “under-insured” has appeared and the percentage of employers dropping healthcare benefits has dropped from 69 percent to 60 percent in a single decade.
When John McCain proposes Medicare cuts in 2008 on the campaign trail, but opposes them in 2009, it’s clear the partisan fix is in. Defeat at all costs. McCain’s reasoning for his 180 degree turnabout is that he would have made sure no benefits are cut, same thing the Dems are saying too.
Remember Ross Perot? he proposed means-testing Medicare and setting Medicare premiums on a sliding scale. He said it was ridiculous that he and his wife were asked to pay the same amount as a retiree living on social security. He was right.
cor-po-ra-tion (kôr puh ray’shuhn) n.
1. an association of individuals, created by
law and having an existence apart from
that of its members as well as distinct
and inherent powers and liabilities.
2. an incorporated business; company.
3. (often cap.) the principal officials of a
city or town.
4. any group of persons united or regarded
as united in one body.
Corporations are very easy to vilify and attack for they are faceless and impersonal, which is one of the main reasons for their use, as opposed to partnerships …
In reality however, it is as all of us, whether you like it or not, whether you are rich or poor, we all have a vested interest in all kinds of corporations - mostly, and hopefully, profitable corporations.
peter, stop with the rush rush nonsense. I posted all the details elsewhere, the entire Medicare Part D prescription plan was introduced, debated and enacted in about half the time spent on healthcare reform this year alone. And the Repub sponsors did not get a CBO cost estimate until after the bill passed. Can we try to be a tiny, little bit honest here?
Probably I’m displaying a terrible form of elitism, but could everyone try to write decent sentences? I don’t mean to criticize everyone – some write well, but the general level of literary in these comments is not a good advertisement for our school system. (To say nothing of the level of argumentation.)
So rather than a public option we’ll get the private option. We get to be forced to buy private insurance, get to pay more if you have a preexisting condition, are old or a woman. And if I can’t pay the government subsidizes the insurance companies who charge an arm and a leg if you don’t get insurance through your job.
Much more cost effective than a public option. NOT!
believe,
Consider this, since you want honesty. First, I have a question. What do YOU feel drug companies are:
A for-profit entity?
Bodies established to provide the latest products to address various maladies, with prices based not on cost, but the prices people can or are willing to pay?
Of course you know very well the answer. If you have a problem with #1, then form your own corporation, hire the very best biochemists (at what they must accept, is an adjusted salary to, you know, show the necessary compassion) Of course, you can canvas the country to find investors willing to take a very minimal return on their investment,(Why not start with attorneys who garner 30% of settlements to people who may or may not be entitled. Talk about legal service ‘usury’ fees!)
Anyway, not very practical huh? Have you heard the solution bantered about suggesting using cheap Canadian drugs as the answer? Well, Canada is but 9% the population of the US. So in the very least, it would put extreme strain of the systems in place in Canada to supply their own population.
Now lets say, even if we think that might be viable, should we trust drugs from outside the US to conform to our stringent (believe it or not, but it is indeed stringent) quality requirements?
I am old enough to remember Thalidomide back in the 60s. For those who don’t , it was a drug manufactured in Germany dispensed in Canada and Europe to counter the effects of morning sickness in pregnant women. The tragic result is that some 10,000 babies were born with deformed, flipper-like limbs.
I for one appreciate the collective brillance of the science involved in the drugs available to us. If it were not for Nexium, I would be living a life of compromised quality. If there were an alternative drug, cheaper, with similar success, would I take it? Of course.
Believe, I apologize if I seem harsh, but I do get tired of finger pointing and name calling. One oft quoted maxim, perhaps considered cold and soulless to some, but I feel it to be timeless and fitting, ‘Supply and Demand’ (and proving I am NOT a laisse-faire capitalist) within a competitive environment. I would rather see the government extending very favorable loan programs to NEW drug companies than bailing out failing companies. If the US government considers companies too big to fail, where was it when Pan Am or Montgomery Wards closed?
Would it be considered ‘heartless’ to those left (the employees, worker bees) at the likes of GM to be laid off? I have a different take. Why not give them the opportunity to work in an efficient, profitable company? I challenge anyone to produce the name of a large company that does NOT have a profit sharing program for its employees.
To one and all, lets temper our rhetoric and give each other a big hug for the holiday season!
“Believecommonsense”…In 2008 the majority of the people didn’t want major overhaul to the health care system. The majority of the people were happy with their health insurance, but thought the system could be better.
These HC bills have been written behind closed doors, want to overhaul the entire system, have had traps in it to default everyone into public plans, cost way too much, have not been made public, have been rushed to votes, and are 2000+ pages of liberal agenda that will drive HC costs up for most people, will raise taxes, will tax immediately (but not have any benefits until 2014), and will still leave 20,000+ uninsured.
These bills fly in the face of common sense. It is obvious that they need to get this agenda rammed down our throat now (before they lose their super majority), vs. trying to control tort reform or loosen interstate commerce regs or address preexisting conditions issues that many conservative people would like to try first. You say we’ve been tweaking for too long, but yet all I ever see in these posts is that nothing has been done in decades. It can’t be both ways.
They can’t even get all the Democrats on board the bills are so against what the majority of the people want.
wminfield, I know we disagree on some things, but I do appreciate your response and civil discourse. We can disagree on word to use to describe people’s unhappiness with what we have, but we agree that majority of people recognized the need for reform.
I can’t and won’t defend the bill as it is now. But I will disagree with calling it rushed, because it hasn’t been rushed, more time spent on this than medicare prescription drug plan in 2003, as I’ve written about elsewhere. I also disagree that it’s been craft primarily behind closed doors, because both the Senate and House committee hearings have been televised on C-span, floor debates televised on C-span, etc. I’ve watched so much of the committee hearings and debates that even the news junkie with a real interest in the topic as I am is sick of it.
I think the public is worn out by the 11 months of this. I think the public is disappointed in Congress and the process. I think the public has been ill-served by those intent on spreading distortions (e.g., death panels). I know it is a complex subject that most do not understand in its full complexity so false charges and claims by both sides have a greater chance of being perceived as factual.
I say there’s been tweaking for a number of reasons. Managed care began to take over healthcare from the big non-profits starting back in the ’70s. (it developed first on both coasts.) So we’ve had a good 30 years of “tweaking” with things like COBRA and the health portability laws, development of SCHIP (insurance for children) to fill the growing gap in coverage, and many regulations enacted to prevent some of the most abusive and discriminatory practices by the private insurance market. (I’ve written elsewhere about them, so won’t repeat here.)
It shows how far apart opposing sides are when one side wants to increase patient protection by banning retroactive recision w/o cause and the other wants to eliminate all state laws that have already banned retroactive recision.
That’s just one example, there are others. (Getting rid of interstate commerce regs usurps state rights to regulate insurance within its borders.)
There is a majority of Dems on board with healthcare reform, but not a super majority of 60 in the Senate. Again, appreciate the dialogue.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
^Exactly. Good analogy Mr. Morin, again the insurance company will be behind the wheel, driving over people like usual. America is not a democracy or a republic it is a corporatocracy. The regulatory capture has totally destroyed America. You conservatives always bleeep and moan about liberals ruining everything, but seriously, do you think it is the government or the companies? It is the companies that ruined the public option and all other forms of progressive legislation that THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY WANTED! America is not a democracy it is a proto-fascist state.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
He had an heart-attack listening to Obama.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
^Again no factual basis what so ever, nothing more that parroting the fear mongering paranoid drivel he hears on TV.
wminfield over 14 years ago
acd…The majority of the country does not want the cr@p progressive legislation that this adminitstration/congress are jamming down our throats to beat the 11/2010 deadline. Their motives are clear, and they are not even close to what was stated as their original goals for passing this legislation. The majority of the country would like less expensive, minor tweaks to start vs. major overhaul of the HC system. Actually, I think the majority of the country are tired of the politics and partisanship from both Republicans and Democrats.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
That is not true, people wanted a public option, the MAJORITY of Americans (65%) wanted a public option, and that is not a minor tweak. It was meant to fundamentally change the way insurance generated profits, by treating poeple instead of finding ways NOT to treat them.
Michael Scott Premium Member over 14 years ago
Mandarin? Russian?? When Obama was (democratically) elected last year you guys told me I had to learn Arabic. Please make up your minds, I’m not sure what language to learn. Gaah!
cdward over 14 years ago
Government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 14 years ago
“Our Founders sneered at democracy, rightfully regarding it as being mere mob rule, destined to fail”
Like how an uneducated mob can deny a minority equal rights on “mob rule.”@ANandy - I love the idea of being denied coverage the second something comes up the Insurance companies don’t want to cover even after I’ve paid into it for years. Health care reform is always “kicked down the road” and health care costs are one of the most dominant factors in our ballooning debt [other than the 2 wars].
“Their motives are clear”
Just as Republican ‘motives’ are clear. They don’t care about the people, they care about trying to make Obama look bad regardless of whether or not any particular thing might be better for the country. “Let’s forget the public option and up Medicare,” “OKay.” “Nah, don’t do that either.”“Put our government in charge of health care, and it will only cost MORE money; take LONGER to see a doctor, or get any help”
And yet people on Medicare [a GOVERNMENT run health care program] are more satisfied with their insurance than anyone on private insurance, and many right-wingers claim that the health care for veterans is the “best in the world.” Both are provided by the government. Cherry picking.
But it’s Okay because many Democrats are to blame for not having a spine to get this through properly with the majority they have.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Excuse me, charlie, you’re blaming the government for insurance company greed? Are you being funny?
petergrt over 14 years ago
“Government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.”
What are those corporations?
Again, those nasty, evil Martians!
lonecat over 14 years ago
In case anyone is interested in reading intelligent arguments on different sides, David Brooks and Paul Krugman have good columns in this morning’s New York Times.
4uk4ata over 14 years ago
“Government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.”
What are those corporations? ”
To paraphrase: Government of all the people, by a few of the people, for fewer still of the people.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
wminfeld, A majority of the public wanted healthcare reform back in ‘92. That was one of Clinton’s major campaign themes. An even larger majority wanted healthcare reform in the 2008 election. The evidence that something is wrong, that our delivery system is broken, that costs are too high and escalating out of control has been obvious to most Americans for a long time.
I believe the public has been behind an effective overhaul, not tweaking, for a long time. We’ve been “tweaking” without overhauling for far too long and it has accomplished little. More and more Americans uninsured, a brand new category of “under-insured” has appeared and the percentage of employers dropping healthcare benefits has dropped from 69 percent to 60 percent in a single decade.
When John McCain proposes Medicare cuts in 2008 on the campaign trail, but opposes them in 2009, it’s clear the partisan fix is in. Defeat at all costs. McCain’s reasoning for his 180 degree turnabout is that he would have made sure no benefits are cut, same thing the Dems are saying too.
Remember Ross Perot? he proposed means-testing Medicare and setting Medicare premiums on a sliding scale. He said it was ridiculous that he and his wife were asked to pay the same amount as a retiree living on social security. He was right.
petergrt over 14 years ago
cor-po-ra-tion (kôr puh ray’shuhn) n. 1. an association of individuals, created by law and having an existence apart from that of its members as well as distinct and inherent powers and liabilities. 2. an incorporated business; company. 3. (often cap.) the principal officials of a city or town. 4. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
Corporations are very easy to vilify and attack for they are faceless and impersonal, which is one of the main reasons for their use, as opposed to partnerships …
In reality however, it is as all of us, whether you like it or not, whether you are rich or poor, we all have a vested interest in all kinds of corporations - mostly, and hopefully, profitable corporations.
petergrt over 14 years ago
In 1994 the country punished the Democrat Party for not delivering on Universal Health-Care promise.
Keep hallucinating.
If some form of this Health-Care hoax passes, the Democrat Party will be out of power - for the next 10 - 20 years.
The Democrat leadership fears that they maybe thrown out even without the poop, that is why all the rush, rush … .
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
peter, stop with the rush rush nonsense. I posted all the details elsewhere, the entire Medicare Part D prescription plan was introduced, debated and enacted in about half the time spent on healthcare reform this year alone. And the Repub sponsors did not get a CBO cost estimate until after the bill passed. Can we try to be a tiny, little bit honest here?
lonecat over 14 years ago
Probably I’m displaying a terrible form of elitism, but could everyone try to write decent sentences? I don’t mean to criticize everyone – some write well, but the general level of literary in these comments is not a good advertisement for our school system. (To say nothing of the level of argumentation.)
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
So rather than a public option we’ll get the private option. We get to be forced to buy private insurance, get to pay more if you have a preexisting condition, are old or a woman. And if I can’t pay the government subsidizes the insurance companies who charge an arm and a leg if you don’t get insurance through your job.
Much more cost effective than a public option. NOT!
johndh123 over 14 years ago
believe, Consider this, since you want honesty. First, I have a question. What do YOU feel drug companies are:
A for-profit entity?Bodies established to provide the latest products to address various maladies, with prices based not on cost, but the prices people can or are willing to pay?
Of course you know very well the answer. If you have a problem with #1, then form your own corporation, hire the very best biochemists (at what they must accept, is an adjusted salary to, you know, show the necessary compassion) Of course, you can canvas the country to find investors willing to take a very minimal return on their investment,(Why not start with attorneys who garner 30% of settlements to people who may or may not be entitled. Talk about legal service ‘usury’ fees!) Anyway, not very practical huh? Have you heard the solution bantered about suggesting using cheap Canadian drugs as the answer? Well, Canada is but 9% the population of the US. So in the very least, it would put extreme strain of the systems in place in Canada to supply their own population. Now lets say, even if we think that might be viable, should we trust drugs from outside the US to conform to our stringent (believe it or not, but it is indeed stringent) quality requirements? I am old enough to remember Thalidomide back in the 60s. For those who don’t , it was a drug manufactured in Germany dispensed in Canada and Europe to counter the effects of morning sickness in pregnant women. The tragic result is that some 10,000 babies were born with deformed, flipper-like limbs. I for one appreciate the collective brillance of the science involved in the drugs available to us. If it were not for Nexium, I would be living a life of compromised quality. If there were an alternative drug, cheaper, with similar success, would I take it? Of course.
Believe, I apologize if I seem harsh, but I do get tired of finger pointing and name calling. One oft quoted maxim, perhaps considered cold and soulless to some, but I feel it to be timeless and fitting, ‘Supply and Demand’ (and proving I am NOT a laisse-faire capitalist) within a competitive environment. I would rather see the government extending very favorable loan programs to NEW drug companies than bailing out failing companies. If the US government considers companies too big to fail, where was it when Pan Am or Montgomery Wards closed? Would it be considered ‘heartless’ to those left (the employees, worker bees) at the likes of GM to be laid off? I have a different take. Why not give them the opportunity to work in an efficient, profitable company? I challenge anyone to produce the name of a large company that does NOT have a profit sharing program for its employees.
To one and all, lets temper our rhetoric and give each other a big hug for the holiday season!
wminfield over 14 years ago
“Believecommonsense”…In 2008 the majority of the people didn’t want major overhaul to the health care system. The majority of the people were happy with their health insurance, but thought the system could be better.
These HC bills have been written behind closed doors, want to overhaul the entire system, have had traps in it to default everyone into public plans, cost way too much, have not been made public, have been rushed to votes, and are 2000+ pages of liberal agenda that will drive HC costs up for most people, will raise taxes, will tax immediately (but not have any benefits until 2014), and will still leave 20,000+ uninsured.
These bills fly in the face of common sense. It is obvious that they need to get this agenda rammed down our throat now (before they lose their super majority), vs. trying to control tort reform or loosen interstate commerce regs or address preexisting conditions issues that many conservative people would like to try first. You say we’ve been tweaking for too long, but yet all I ever see in these posts is that nothing has been done in decades. It can’t be both ways.
They can’t even get all the Democrats on board the bills are so against what the majority of the people want.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
wminfield, I know we disagree on some things, but I do appreciate your response and civil discourse. We can disagree on word to use to describe people’s unhappiness with what we have, but we agree that majority of people recognized the need for reform.
I can’t and won’t defend the bill as it is now. But I will disagree with calling it rushed, because it hasn’t been rushed, more time spent on this than medicare prescription drug plan in 2003, as I’ve written about elsewhere. I also disagree that it’s been craft primarily behind closed doors, because both the Senate and House committee hearings have been televised on C-span, floor debates televised on C-span, etc. I’ve watched so much of the committee hearings and debates that even the news junkie with a real interest in the topic as I am is sick of it.
I think the public is worn out by the 11 months of this. I think the public is disappointed in Congress and the process. I think the public has been ill-served by those intent on spreading distortions (e.g., death panels). I know it is a complex subject that most do not understand in its full complexity so false charges and claims by both sides have a greater chance of being perceived as factual.
I say there’s been tweaking for a number of reasons. Managed care began to take over healthcare from the big non-profits starting back in the ’70s. (it developed first on both coasts.) So we’ve had a good 30 years of “tweaking” with things like COBRA and the health portability laws, development of SCHIP (insurance for children) to fill the growing gap in coverage, and many regulations enacted to prevent some of the most abusive and discriminatory practices by the private insurance market. (I’ve written elsewhere about them, so won’t repeat here.)
It shows how far apart opposing sides are when one side wants to increase patient protection by banning retroactive recision w/o cause and the other wants to eliminate all state laws that have already banned retroactive recision. That’s just one example, there are others. (Getting rid of interstate commerce regs usurps state rights to regulate insurance within its borders.)
There is a majority of Dems on board with healthcare reform, but not a super majority of 60 in the Senate. Again, appreciate the dialogue.