I gotta hand it to Barney Frank!

[DroppinScience]

Hands down this is the best way to take down the wing-nuts who compare Obama to Nazis.

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

He goes on to say: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/19/barney-frank-confronts-wo_n_262682.html

[kaiser soze]

See the video of the woman yelling Heil Hitler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHsUi2Hu4Ug&eurl

and here I thought THEY were blaming Obama and his people for being Nazis :rolleyes:

nazis calling other people nazis, I guess they're looking for friends?

[DroppinScience]

Ugh, these nut jobs need to get a hold of reality.

Yelling "Heil Hitler" to a Jewish man discussing Israel's health care system? :rolleyes:

[ToucanSpam]

People like that must be nothing more than uneducated attention whores. Barney Frank put those assholes in their place.

[Freebasser]

That woman is ignorant braindead scum.

The guy is making perfectly legitimate points (except for maybe national service). We have free healthcare here in Britain, and sure we pay taxes, but I'll tell you now - I'd rather pay a little tax than receive a bill for £2,000 for going to the hospital every time I injured myself.

Somebody should take her stupid arse to the Holocaust Museum - actually, the racist bitch would probably enjoy it.

[ToucanSpam]

If she had saluted it would have been really, really bad. Where is this constant Hitler reference bullshit even coming from? People are screaming about communism and Hitler in the same sentence these days and it makes no sense. Hitler's politices were entirely totalitarian and hardcore fascist, which is quite far away from Marx or any of the other names/words these numbskulls find on urbandictionary.com.

[Dorothy Wood]

as much as I think that was awesome what he said, I don't think it's going to make anybody on the other side feel any better. they're just going to get angrier and call him a liberal elitist.

I think what's needed is someone to explain exactly why calling Obama Hitler is wrong. calmly and simply, and to answer questions calmly and simply. you can't even use humor with these people, they are just too thick. unless maybe they could get Larry the Cable Guy to deliver the message.

[DroppinScience]

as much as I think that was awesome what he said, I don't think it's going to make anybody on the other side feel any better. they're just going to get angrier and call him a liberal elitist.

I think what's needed is someone to explain exactly why calling Obama Hitler is wrong. calmly and simply, and to answer questions calmly and simply. you can't even use humor with these people, they are just too thick. unless maybe they could get Larry the Cable Guy to deliver the message.

Well, everyone else at these town hall meetings have tried that approach, and I don't think that worked either. Look, Barney Frank is going to be called a "liberal elitist" no matter what. If people seriously believe that Obama and Hitler are one and the same, they probably need to get into one of those "re-education camps" (i.e. AmeriCorps) that Michelle Bachman warns against (although her son is going to them). Other than that, they're beyond help.

And Barney Frank is Jewish, so for some dingbat to tell him that he supports a "Nazi plan," I think he's 100% justified in reacting the way that he did.

[RobMoney$]

Where is this constant Hitler reference bullshit even coming from?


Nazi = Socialist


Proposing to take over an industry (healthcare) that is roughly 20% of the GDP is a pretty good step towards socialism, I'd say.
Also, factor in the Banking and Automaker Bailouts.
The socialism concern is justified.

[ToucanSpam]

Nazi = Socialist


That is an absolute BRUTAL oversimplification.

Nazism employs both left AND right political ideas. As most academic texts will tell you, the Nazi party of Germany was allied almost entirely with fascist states, including Benito Mussolini's version of Italy. Also, after Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933, a law was passed that disabled unions and all other political parties, including the once prominent Communist party of Germany. Highly totalitarian and gathering support from hardcore right wing countries, Nazi Germany was predominantly fascist, not socialist, in nature.

Hitler assaulted all forms of liberalism, Marxism, and Communism to the point where they were ILLEGAL under his rule. Hitler spat in the face of leftist ideals.

So again I ask you, if people are comparing Obama to Hitler and the United States into Nazi Germany, where is it coming from? Why is Obama a fascist because he wanted to consider reforming health insurance? According to Republican pundits he was a communist and a Marxist, but now he's swung violently the other way because of one potential policy change? He went from being far left to far right overnight? Who does he think he is, Stalin? Come on.

[Knuckles]

That is an absolute BRUTAL oversimplification.

Nazism employs both left AND right political ideas. As most academic texts will tell you, the Nazi party of Germany was allied almost entirely with fascist states, including Benito Mussolini's version of Italy. Also, after Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933, a law was passed that disabled unions and all other political parties, including the once prominent Communist party of Germany. Highly totalitarian and gathering support from hardcore right wing countries, Nazi Germany was predominantly fascist, not socialist, in nature.

Hitler assaulted all forms of liberalism, Marxism, and Communism to the point where they were ILLEGAL under his rule. Hitler spat in the face of leftist ideals.

So again I ask you, if people are comparing Obama to Hitler and the United States into Nazi Germany, where is it coming from? Why is Obama a fascist because he wanted to consider reforming health insurance? According to Republican pundits he was a communist and a Marxist, but now he's swung violently the other way because of one potential policy change? He went from being far left to far right overnight? Who does he think he is, Stalin? Come on.
Excellent post, sir. (y)

[Dorothy Wood]

Nazi = Socialist


Proposing to take over an industry (healthcare) that is roughly 20% of the GDP is a pretty good step towards socialism, I'd say.
Also, factor in the Banking and Automaker Bailouts.
The socialism concern is justified.


okay. first of all, GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKER, OBAMA IS NOT A NAZI!!!!!!

ahem. sorry. secondly, he's not proposing to "take over" healthcare. he's proposing reform and to possibly create a public option. which would mean that a good portion would still be private.

as far as the bank bailouts go, that shit was decided before he took office.

for the past year and half everyone's been all "help us help us, we need someone to make america all better!" and now that a president is saying, "okay, I'll try some stuff and lay down the law so we're all protected", half the people are like, "whoa whoa whoa, sloooowww down, I don't actually want anything to really change. I don't actually want to put any effort towards making my life different, I just want it magically fixed."

well, sorry assholes, it doesn't work that way. grow the fuck up.

[Bob]

Nazi = Socialist



my stomach hurts

[DroppinScience]

Guys, don't be so hard on RobMoney. I think he's got a point with this "Nazi = socialist" theory!

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/970041/McBain_vs_Kommunistennazis

[Echewta]

Take Over vs. Option. So funny.

[Freebasser]

That is an absolute BRUTAL oversimplification.

Nazism employs both left AND right political ideas. As most academic texts will tell you, the Nazi party of Germany was allied almost entirely with fascist states, including Benito Mussolini's version of Italy. Also, after Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933, a law was passed that disabled unions and all other political parties, including the once prominent Communist party of Germany. Highly totalitarian and gathering support from hardcore right wing countries, Nazi Germany was predominantly fascist, not socialist, in nature.

Hitler assaulted all forms of liberalism, Marxism, and Communism to the point where they were ILLEGAL under his rule. Hitler spat in the face of leftist ideals.

So again I ask you, if people are comparing Obama to Hitler and the United States into Nazi Germany, where is it coming from? Why is Obama a fascist because he wanted to consider reforming health insurance? According to Republican pundits he was a communist and a Marxist, but now he's swung violently the other way because of one potential policy change? He went from being far left to far right overnight? Who does he think he is, Stalin? Come on.

That is an absolutely excellent post. Full marks (y)

P.S. Rob - speaking as somebody who comes from a country that has had free healthcare for over 50 years, I can tell you that unfortunately, I am not greeted by goosestepping doctors every time I go to the hospital. Sorry to disappoint you.

[DroppinScience]

P.S. Rob - speaking as somebody who comes from a country that has had free healthcare for over 50 years, I can tell you that unfortunately, I am not greeted by goosestepping doctors every time I go to the hospital. Sorry to disappoint you.

I'm shocked you can even say this, Freebasser. I mean, haven't your death panels come and knocked down your door yet?

[DroppinScience]

Stephen Colbert does the impossible and does what Barney Frank refuses to do: have a conversation with a dinner table! :D

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/247151/august-19-2009/barney-frank-refuses-to-talk-to-dining-room-table

[Bob]

i liked the daily show's answer to barney frank's "what planet do you come from?" question: "apparently a planet where a mixed-race president and a gay jew qualify as nazis"

[RobMoney$]

That is an absolute BRUTAL oversimplification.

Nazism employs both left AND right political ideas. As most academic texts will tell you, the Nazi party of Germany was allied almost entirely with fascist states, including Benito Mussolini's version of Italy. Also, after Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933, a law was passed that disabled unions and all other political parties, including the once prominent Communist party of Germany. Highly totalitarian and gathering support from hardcore right wing countries, Nazi Germany was predominantly fascist, not socialist, in nature.

Hitler assaulted all forms of liberalism, Marxism, and Communism to the point where they were ILLEGAL under his rule. Hitler spat in the face of leftist ideals.

So again I ask you, if people are comparing Obama to Hitler and the United States into Nazi Germany, where is it coming from? Why is Obama a fascist because he wanted to consider reforming health insurance? According to Republican pundits he was a communist and a Marxist, but now he's swung violently the other way because of one potential policy change? He went from being far left to far right overnight? Who does he think he is, Stalin? Come on.


Blah, Blah, Blah,...as if the people who are associating Obama' socialist programs with Hitler's are looking that far into it.
So while your explanation of Nazism may be very thorough, it's irrelevant. They're calling Obama a nazi because of his plans to socialize medicine.
It really doesn't go any deeper than that,...yet.

Hitler is a symbol of a socialism, Obama has socialist views. PERIOD

You asked a question, I answered it.
To not understand that makes you kind of naive.




And the rest of you are all doing a fine job of reinforcing the liberal elitist snob stereotype, keep up the good work geniuses.

[Bob]

Hitler is a symbol of a socialism,

no, no he isn't.

[RobMoney$]

This isn't really debatable.

Toucan asked why people are calling Obama, Hitler.
I'm just trying to tell him why someone would make the comparison.
They compare the two because they see Hitler as a symbol of Socialism.
Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Whether it's accurate or not isn't the point.

[DroppinScience]

Connecting Hitler to socialism is something only lamewads like Jonah Goldberg do.

And those crying "fascism" wouldn't even know the word "Nazi" comes from "National Socialist." That's rather campus fuckface of you to know such a thing, Rob. Are you spending office hours with a Harvard prof?

[Bob]

This isn't really debatable.

Toucan asked why people are calling Obama, Hitler.
I'm just trying to tell him why someone would make the comparison.
They compare the two because they see Hitler as a symbol of Socialism.
Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Whether it's accurate or not isn't the point.

alright, well, they're wrong to think that, and that isn't really debatable either

[RobMoney$]

Connecting Hitler to socialism is something only lamewads like Jonah Goldberg do.

And those crying "fascism" wouldn't even know the word "Nazi" comes from "National Socialist." That's rather campus fuckface of you to know such a thing, Rob. Are you spending office hours with a Harvard prof?


Name-dropping - CHECK
Condescending - CHECK
Personal Insults - CHECK
Douchebag - CHECKCHECKCHECK

I find people who constantly have a need to try to prove how much more intelligent they are than everyone else are some of the most insecure, cowardly people you'll find.
Kind of like short-mans' disease, but with intelligence.

[Documad]

It takes just ten seconds and an internet connection to know that "nazi" doesn't mean "socialist." I have NO TOLERANCE for people who throw the word "nazi" around lightly.

Yeah, the defining characteristic of the nazis was their health care for poor children.

[Freebasser]

Rob - let me give you an example at why you should never take any politican or political party at face value (besides the fact that a large majority of them are liars).

The UK is currently governed by the Labour Party. However, our government has little to no compassion for the working man, and has shifted to the right over the last 2 decades. The main oppositon in this country is the Conservative Party, which has traditionally campaigned for right of centre issues yet it has also shifted to become more centrist. Neither party really stands for that which it was named for and now both sit somewhere just right of centre.

Hitler fronted the already existing National Socialist party because it gave him an excuse to drum up support by saying to people 'I am standing for the values of Germany's citizens' thus getting them on his side. However, once he came into power he began to push forward his other viewpoints, and we all know what they were. Hitler used a popular movement at the time, that of socialism, to gain a foothold in politics and only brought out his true fascist viewpoints once the party came into power. The party had no true socialist values. Hitler used the party as a vehicle to move towards implementing his final solution. Since WW2, both socialists and far-rights have distanced themselves from the term 'National Socialism' because of its contradictory nature.

The British National Party, a far-right, whites-only party currently operating in the UK, are currently using the 'say one thing, mean another thing' tactic. They say that they want to curb immigration, and create British jobs for British workers. In a time of recession, this works quite well - they received more votes at the recent local elections than at any time in their past. However, their leader is a notorious far-right loon - look more closely and you'll find that the BNP want many other things, including the right to ban all Muslims from flying in and out of the UK and to try and extradite any non-whites to their 'countries of origin'. Not that they mention that during party political broadcast of course (or even so much as alude to it in public).

If you feel that socialsm is even on the same spectrum as nazism, then I suggest you research it a little more before making such rash statements about nazism in future. they are at completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I consider myself to have mainly socialist viewpoints, and I am in no way shape or form a racist. To call me one would be both insulting to my beliefs and just plain ignorant. As a socialist, I want everybody, no matter what their ethnicity, background, sexual persuasion, disabled or no, to have a right to the basic human needs - one of which is a right to free healthcare. Socialsm is about working together as humans, not becoming animals and gassing each other. Socialism is not Nazism.

[Bob]

Blah, Blah, Blah,...as if the people who are associating Obama' socialist programs with Hitler's are looking that far into it.
So while your explanation of Nazism may be very thorough, it's irrelevant. They're calling Obama a nazi because of his plans to socialize medicine.
It really doesn't go any deeper than that,...yet.


i got so distracted by the "hitler is a symbol of socialism" thing that i completely overlooked this. can you explain what you meant by "....yet"?

[ToucanSpam]

Rob, are you serious? I think you desperately need to read some books on Nazism before you begin to discuss it with a historian. I say this in the most respectful tone possible, you are dead wrong and I am dead right. There's nothing naive about me asking a series of questions about where the heck these righty pundits get their information from.

If you'd like to debate this further with me, I would be happy to provide you with a bibliography for totalitarian states in 20th century Europe as well as detailed explanations of how the Third Reich was exactly as I describe it: a fascist totalitarian regime who allied with hardcore right wings groups dedicated to destroying all leftists.

[DroppinScience]

Name-dropping - CHECK
Condescending - CHECK
Personal Insults - CHECK
Douchebag - CHECKCHECKCHECK

I find people who constantly have a need to try to prove how much more intelligent they are than everyone else are some of the most insecure, cowardly people you'll find.
Kind of like short-mans' disease, but with intelligence.

You're the only person here who is afraid of books, schools, professors, and free thought. No one is trying to "prove" anything here.

[cosmo105]

Stephen Colbert does the impossible and does what Barney Frank refuses to do: have a conversation with a dinner table! :D

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/247151/august-19-2009/barney-frank-refuses-to-talk-to-dining-room-table

bahahaha :D

I've had this same argument on another board. It's ridiculous. I'm with Documad - Comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis are NEVER okay. It's clearly not meant to imply their political or economical platforms. It's meant to be inflammatory and incendiary. The Nazis killed millions, public policy aside. Their grievous crimes against humanity are never, ever fair things to which anyone or anything should be compared.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, the defining characteristic of the nazis was their health care for poor children.

(y)
THANK you.

Nazism was strongly anti-liberal, anti-Democratic Socialism, anti-Communism. It's amazing that some would know what "Nazi" stands for National Socialist German Worker's Party, yet don't actually know what Nazism IS (which is why I highly doubt that people are claiming Hitler is the "face of socialism" since he is in fact fascist, the opposite side of the political spectrum). IF they are, based on the flimsy excuse that the word "socialist" is found in the official title, they truly can't see the forest for the trees.

You know, the Nazis also had an official "Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda," that gave the German people their "news," yet people seem to be able to see the "Public Enlightenment" part and laugh now. Believe it or not, the Nazis had a lot of titles that were bullshit.

[JDsmagik]

Barney didn't need to make her look like an idiot, she was doing just fine on her own, but he did it so well. :D

[RobMoney$]

Rob, are you serious? I think you desperately need to read some books on Nazism before you begin to discuss it with a historian.


For fucks sake.
I never made a statement about my beliefs.
I'm simply commenting on why I believe people are connecting Obama with Nazi. I'm simply trying to answer your question.

If you choose not to accept my theory about "Nazi = Socialism", then don't.

[RobMoney$]

Rob - let me give you an example at why you should never take any politican or political party at face value (besides the fact that a large majority of them are liars).

What would give you the idea that I'm taking anyone on face value?
I'm normally the one who's urging others that they (politicians) are ALL liars, and that includes Obama. It's others here who cannot admit that to themselves, not me man.

For the record, although I voted Republican in the previous Presidential election, I hardly consider myself a Republican. I've voted Democrat in every other election in my life. I consider myself a conservative Democrat at this point. In other words, a Democrat who's interested in financial responsibility. But I'm starting to become interested in the Libertarian Party, so I guess I'm in a bit of a transition period as far as my political opinions go.


If you feel that socialsm is even on the same spectrum as nazism, then I suggest you research it a little more before making such rash statements about nazism in future. they are at completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.


I consider myself to have mainly socialist viewpoints, and I am in no way shape or form a racist. To call me one would be both insulting to my beliefs and just plain ignorant. As a socialist, I want everybody, no matter what their ethnicity, background, sexual persuasion, disabled or no, to have a right to the basic human needs - one of which is a right to free healthcare. Socialsm is about working together as humans, not becoming animals and gassing each other. Socialism is not Nazism.

Like I tried explaining to Toucan, please don't confuse my attempt to explain why people are compairing Obama to a Nazi or Hitler, and me accusing Obama of being a Nazi, or Hitler.

I do appreciate your ability to communicate your point without the need to become insulting or condescending though. Those type of comments are becoming a little too familiar on here and it does nothing to foster quality discourse. (y)

[travesty]

But I'm starting to become interested in the Libertarian Party, so I guess I'm in a bit of a transition period as far as my political opinions go.

Come on over! If you can live with the fact your ideas will never beproperly represented OR respected in neither Washington, your state government nor the media, and you enjoy being able to make fun of the ridiculousness of both the Re-pud-lickers AND the Dumb-ocrats then you may just find a home as a Libertarian. It's really not bad and it'll let you sleep better at night knowing you not part of the sheeple majority. It's very liberating to dissolve yourself of the major parties.

PLUS you can smoke bongs AND carry agun without any personal self-conflict :D


However Rob I do remember back during the election when you made a historical comment about there being no reason to have third parties I think you said.............................................. .................................................. ..................................................
.
.
.

.
V

[RobMoney$]

and you enjoy being able to make fun of the ridiculousness of both the Re-pud-lickers AND the Dumb-ocrats

Yeah...ummm, insults like "Re-pud-lickers AND Dumb-ocrats" isn't really helping your cause to sway people ya know. :rolleyes:



However Rob I do remember back during the election when you made a historical comment about there being no reason to have third parties I think you said.............................................. .................................................. ..................................................
.
.
.

.
V


I'll tell you now the same thing I told you when I posted that, you're taking it out of context.
The final vote for POTUS should be narrowed down to two candidates.
Usually that's a Republican and a Democrat.
Now if a Libertarian happened to get in there somehow, it could still be between two candidates like I suggested.
Nah mean?

[travesty]

Yeah...ummm, insults like "Re-pud-lickers AND Dumb-ocrats" isn't really helping your cause to sway people ya know. :rolleyes:

Well that's the good thing about being someone who believes in freedom and liberty. I don't ever intend to "sway" people. I try and respect people's beliefs and individual thought, not what political party they affiliate with. By the same token...I don't like people trying to "sway" me, because it usually doesn't work and then they start calling me names like imbecile, or loon, or condescending, or Nazi or whatever stupid shit they can come up with just because they are intolerant to the fact that I am not ever going to see things their way......get it? I don't believe in organized religion for the exact same reason. I want people to see truth and logic not Elephants and Donkeys.

I'll tell you now the same thing I told you when I posted that, you're taking it out of context.
The final vote for POTUS should be narrowed down to two candidates.
Usually that's a Republican and a Democrat.
Now if a Libertarian happened to get in there somehow, it could still be between two candidates like I suggested.
Nah mean?

I know, I know...I just still get a kick out of it :D

[saz]

Nazi = Socialist


Proposing to take over an industry (healthcare) that is roughly 20% of the GDP is a pretty good step towards socialism, I'd say.
Also, factor in the Banking and Automaker Bailouts.
The socialism concern is justified.

wow. first, president obama is proposing a pubilc health insurance option, not an entire take over of the health insurance industry. the non-partisan congressional budget office has confirmed this (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/28/cbo-gives-boost-to-obamas-health-plan/print/), finding that private insurers can survive competition from a government health insurance option. second, as you've made it well known on here, you're a big fan of the clintons, and there's nothing wrong with that. however, bill and hillary actually attempted a much more drastic form of health care reform back in '93 and '94, as they wanted a complete overhaul of the health insurance industry, with government insurance taking over and provided for everyone. i raised this before in another thread and you ignored it. so according to the logic then that obama is a "socialist" for wanting a public health insurance option, than bill and hillary, according to that same logic, must be stalinists. anyways, the bottom line is that neither obama, bill or hillary are socialists, as they all favour public health insurance, and not a health care system like great britain has. and third, it was president bush who bailed out the banks and gm and chrysler (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html).

[yeahwho]

Yeah...ummm, insults like "Re-pud-lickers AND Dumb-ocrats" isn't really helping your cause to sway people ya know. :rolleyes:






I'll tell you now the same thing I told you when I posted that, you're taking it out of context.
The final vote for POTUS should be narrowed down to two candidates.
Usually that's a Republican and a Democrat.
Now if a Libertarian happened to get in there somehow, it could still be between two candidates like I suggested.
Nah mean?

Well that's the good thing about being someone who believes in freedom and liberty. I don't ever intend to "sway" people. I try and respect people's beliefs and individual thought, not what political party they affiliate with. By the same token...I don't like people trying to "sway" me, because it usually doesn't work and then they start calling me names like imbecile, or loon, or condescending, or Nazi or whatever stupid shit they can come up with just because they are intolerant to the fact that I am not ever going to see things their way......get it? I don't believe in organized religion for the exact same reason. I want people to see truth and logic not Elephants and Donkeys.



I know, I know...I just still get a kick out of it :D

You have not provided any alternatives to the public option backed by any statistical, well thought out researched bills that sound anywhere as good as what is being offered by Obama.

Saying "I don't like democrats, Obama or anything outside of capitalism" doesn't cut it. The plan most of us are defending isn't perfect but is much stronger than anything being proposed by personal opinions.

I say lets intensify the debate and see some serious alternatives to having corporate interests decide your health care.

Most of the other people posting here back up their claims with what they've been reading and researching.

[RobMoney$]

wow. first, president obama is proposing a pubilc health insurance option, not an entire take over of the health insurance industry. the non-partisan congressional budget office has confirmed this (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/28/cbo-gives-boost-to-obamas-health-plan/print/), finding that private insurers can survive competition from a government health insurance option. second, as you've made it well known on here, you're a big fan of the clintons, and there's nothing wrong with that. however, bill and hillary actually attempted a much more drastic form of health care reform back in '93 and '94, as they wanted a complete overhaul of the health insurance industry, with government insurance taking over and provided for everyone. i raised this before in another thread and you ignored it. so according to the logic then that obama is a "socialist" for wanting a public health insurance option, than bill and hillary, according to that same logic, must be stalinists. anyways, the bottom line is that neither obama, bill or hillary are socialists, as they all favour public health insurance, and not a health care system like great britain has. and third, it was president bush who bailed out the banks and gm and chrysler (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html).


Why am I answering the same questions over, and over, and over again?


Let's try this,
I've made the statement that I consider myself a financially responsible Democrat.
I've publicly stated my admiration for Clinton, along with my dislike for Obama many times on here.
Why don't you tell me what the differences are between Clinton & Obama, in your opinion.
Surely you don't think that just because they're both Dems that championed healthcare reform, that they're both exactly alike?
Hell, healthcare reform has been the Dems bread and butter issue for the past 20 years.

[travesty]

You have not provided any alternatives to the public option backed by any statistical, well thought out researched bills that sound anywhere as good as what is being offered by Obama.

Wrong... you just don't want to see accept them because you won't listen to anything outside of the Obama box. Remember when I asked you why insurance companies couldn't compete across state lines. You let that one die with no response. Remember when I asked how Obama was going to exclude pre-existing conditions and raise limits on private insurance AND reduce premiums all at the same time? You let that one die with no response. Remember when I said that real health care problem is America's grossly unhealthy population and inherent refusal to adress it adequately as a scoiety. You let that one die without a response. Remember when I posted an insightful analysis of the House Bill 3200 and some of the things it really does contain, a few of which are a bit scary. You had no comment on that. Remember when I queried whether a government take over of the industry to get a true single payer healthcare system would even be Constitutionally legal? You had no comment on that.
So far as I can see you have no comment on anything that is at all insightful or in any way outside of the pro-Obamcare talking points let alone offer any options. If we are going to "intensify the debate" then I suggest you get in the debate and off the cheerleading line.

Saying "I don't like democrats, Obama or anything outside of capitalism" doesn't cut it. The plan most of us are defending isn't perfect but is much stronger than anything being proposed by personal opinions.

No the plan you are defending does not accomplish what you or anyone else wants it to. It's just a bad plan and is absurdly unsustainable financially. That's all. Just because it's the only one out there right now does not mean it's the one we have to support. This healthcare system has been fucked for no less than 30 years and suddenly we need to take the first overhaul plan proposed in 15 years or else? WTF? I may not know the best option but I do know a bad option when I see one. The plan we have now is also not perfect, so pardon me if I am having trouble buying in to another "not perfect plan" without some dissent.

I say lets intensify the debate and see some serious alternatives to having corporate interests decide your health care.

Here is one of my favorite liberal Hyposcrisies. They complain all day that corporate and special interest have too much control of the government. That government bows to "corporate interest" and the people have no say and their rights are being infringed. Then they say how it would be better to have the corporate controlled government they hate so much run healthcare than the corporations themselves. WTF? Aren't you just adding a middleman? At least when you are dealing with the corporations themselves you have access to the judicial system for recourse and damages if wronged. Once you put it in the government's hands you lose much of that right.

OK then let's do that yeahwho, let's "intensify the debate". What do you want this new healthcare plan to accomplish. Top two things. We're going to need hard numbers here, not just vague dreams like " I want all Americans to have health insurance". What kind of insurance? Average insurance? poor insurance? Certainly you sound like you have spent some time "reading and researching" so I am sure this ought to come pretty easy. Then tell me what are you willing to spend to accomplish those things. Not the "rich, not "the corporations" BUT YOU! What are YOU willing to spend out of you and your family's pocket to accomplish these goals?

That ought to give us a good starting point.

[RobMoney$]

You have not provided any alternatives to the public option backed by any statistical, well thought out researched bills that sound anywhere as good as what is being offered by Obama.

Saying "I don't like democrats, Obama or anything outside of capitalism" doesn't cut it. The plan most of us are defending isn't perfect but is much stronger than anything being proposed by personal opinions.

I say lets intensify the debate and see some serious alternatives to having corporate interests decide your health care.

Most of the other people posting here back up their claims with what they've been reading and researching.

I have answered this before, too. Maybe you missed it.
I proposed one of the things our government could do is to start requiring the Wallmarts and Home Depots of America to provide their employees with quality health insurance. How many of those millions of Americans who are without insurance work for one of those companies?
Why should my kids have to pay the bill to provide Wallmarts' employees with health insurance?

Here's some statistics for you to chew on,

Wallmart employs two million "associates" and provides an option to purchase health insurance to 48% of them. The other 52% aren't even offered the choice to purchase the over-priced ripoff of an insurance package.
Wal-Mart's net income is about 13.5 Billion for '08.

Yet another example of Obama bailing out more corporate greed.

[yeahwho]

Wrong... you just don't want to see accept them because you won't listen to anything outside of the Obama box. Remember when I asked you why insurance companies couldn't compete across state lines. You let that one die with no response.

I'm not feeling guilty because I'm listening to Obama, he is the one who has thrown out the best argument in the history of this Country to reform health care.

John McCain campaigned with that same idea (why insurance companies couldn't compete across state lines), you seem to think I'm going to research this and then waste my time putting up links to prove my point, my time, my research vs. your opinion.

I'm not going to do the work for you. You provide proof, statistical evidence that is worthy of my time, then I will respond. It's been researched.

Remember when I asked how Obama was going to exclude pre-existing conditions and raise limits on private insurance AND reduce premiums all at the same time?You let that one die with no response.

That is what happens when you the provide the buying power of millions of customers. It isn't rocket science.

Remember when I said that real health care problem is America's grossly unhealthy population and inherent refusal to adress it adequately as a scoiety. You let that one die without a response.

I think the First Lady was recently lambasted by the chemical fertilizer lobby for growing an organic garden at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.



Remember when I posted an insightful analysis of the House Bill 3200 and some of the things it really does contain, a few of which are a bit scary. You had no comment on that. Remember when I queried whether a government take over of the industry to get a true single payer healthcare system would even be Constitutionally legal? You had no comment on that.
So far as I can see you have no comment on anything that is at all insightful or in any way outside of the pro-Obamcare talking points let alone offer any options. If we are going to "intensify the debate" then I suggest you get in the debate and off the cheerleading line.

Once again your idea of "insightful" and the statistical analysis that goes with it (provide a link) doesn't hold a lot of weight with millions of uninsured citizens. Obama is the man leading this charge and there is a clock ticking between a complete collapse of our medical system and basically our future. I don't need Obama to tell me this, I see it firsthand every day when I leave the house.

I think you really believe you're not being a condescending. You have a viewpoint that will not be changed, so why do you think anyone is going to waste time going back and forth with you? Don't tell me, I already have your answer in my head... you consider yourself advanced and correct.


No the plan you are defending does not accomplish what you or anyone else wants it to. It's just a bad plan and is absurdly unsustainable financially. That's all. Just because it's the only one out there right now does not mean it's the one we have to support. This healthcare system has been fucked for no less than 30 years and suddenly we need to take the first overhaul plan proposed in 15 years or else? WTF? I may not know the best option but I do know a bad option when I see one. The plan we have now is also not perfect, so pardon me if I am having trouble buying in to another "not perfect plan" without some dissent.

The plan I'm defending is going to be the last plan you'll see in your lifetime. The options I've seen to it are compromises that continually make it worse. If this plan goes down we have to realize that a bunch of complete idiots just may make the next plan. Like that plan of privatizing Social Security back in 2001.



Here is one of my favorite liberal Hyposcrisies. They complain all day that corporate and special interest have too much control of the government. That government bows to "corporate interest" and the people have no say and their rights are being infringed. Then they say how it would be better to have the corporate controlled government they hate so much run healthcare than the corporations themselves. WTF? Aren't you just adding a middleman? At least when you are dealing with the corporations themselves you have access to the judicial system for recourse and damages if wronged. Once you put it in the government's hands you lose much of that right.

I have read the above paragraph three times. I give up. What are you talking about? I'm a hypocrite and the government is going to use the courts with my health care? But corporations would never rig the game? The corporations are accountable? LOL.

OK then let's do that yeahwho, let's "intensify the debate". What do you want this new healthcare plan to accomplish. Top two things. We're going to need hard numbers here, not just vague dreams like " I want all Americans to have health insurance". What kind of insurance? Average insurance? poor insurance? Certainly you sound like you have spent some time "reading and researching" so I am sure this ought to come pretty easy. Then tell me what are you willing to spend to accomplish those things. Not the "rich, not "the corporations" BUT YOU! What are YOU willing to spend out of you and your family's pocket to accomplish these goals?

That ought to give us a good starting point.

Vague? Your not providing me with anything. I'm not here for your fishing expedition.

[yeahwho]

I have answered this before, too. Maybe you missed it.
I proposed one of the things our government could do is to start requiring the Wallmarts and Home Depots of America to provide their employees with quality health insurance. How many of those millions of Americans who are without insurance work for one of those companies?
Why should my kids have to pay the bill to provide Wallmarts' employees with health insurance?

Here's some statistics for you to chew on,

Wallmart employs two million "associates" and provides an option to purchase health insurance to 48% of them. The other 52% aren't even offered the choice to purchase the over-priced ripoff of an insurance package.
Wal-Mart's net income is about 13.5 Billion for '08.

Yet another example of Obama bailing out more corporate greed.

I hate Wal-Mart, I don't care who shops there, I just don't. The trade deficit alone disgusts me, let alone Wal-Mart's complete disregard for it's fellow countrymen. But this practice of uninsured employees is precisely what Health Care reform is trying to address.

[Schmeltz]

I proposed one of the things our government could do is to start requiring the Wallmarts and Home Depots of America to provide their employees with quality health insurance.

Ah yes, you proposed this in the same post where you blatantly plagiarized something somebody else had written on another forum. I have to wonder whether you simply ripped this idea off of somebody else too, since it gels very poorly with your tireless campaign against this socialist phantom you've dreamt up out of nowhere. To whit: Why do you find it so acceptable for the federal government to force multinational corporations to develop a universal healthcare option for all of their employees, when you also consider it totally unacceptable for the federal government to offer a publically funded health insurance option to American citizens? What's the difference? Why is the first idea good sound minimal governance, and why is the second idea vicious evil Hitlerian "socialism"?

And please answer in your own words. I will know if you rip somebody else off. I called you on it before and I'll do it again.

Here is one of my favorite liberal Hyposcrisies. They complain all day that corporate and special interest have too much control of the government. That government bows to "corporate interest" and the people have no say and their rights are being infringed. Then they say how it would be better to have the corporate controlled government they hate so much run healthcare than the corporations themselves. WTF? Aren't you just adding a middleman? At least when you are dealing with the corporations themselves you have access to the judicial system for recourse and damages if wronged. Once you put it in the government's hands you lose much of that right.

I don't presume to speak for yeahwho, but here just let me say that yes, it is a matter of adding a middleman. It is a matter of adding a publically accountable middleman to a totally imbalanced and exploitative relationship between individual citizens and the corporate interests who currently dictate the terms through which the former are offered access to health care. In fact the government, which is subject to regular processes of examination and renewal, is much more accountable to the citizenry than any private corporation - that is the very reason why we have government, that is the reason government exists: to provide a comprehensive arbitrator, a middleman that can safeguard the interests of people less powerful than corporate conglomerates with the sole interest of fleecing them out of their money.

The whole point of a government is to pass legislation, and the point of legislation is to regulate public conduct so that these issues are decided before the judicial system is ever involved. This is basic Western civics. These same civic ideals also allow for corporate bodies to compete alongside individual interests for influence in the public sphere - but at this point in time it seems that corporate interests have become overrepresented, at the expense of general social welfare, and it is now time for the publically elected middleman to redress that imbalance, in accordance with the powers granted to it through democratic principle. That's what the debate is all about.

Your question is therefore totally spurious, you might as well ask victims of rape and murder and arson why they even need an expensive and inefficient police force when the only recourse they ought to need is access to the courts. What a crock. Government at all levels evolved for a reason, and while it might not always work perfectly it's a damn sight better than the vicious, top-heavy anarchy to which your libertarian ilk would see us all enslaved.

[RobMoney$]

Ah yes, you proposed this in the same post where you blatantly plagiarized something somebody else had written on another forum. I have to wonder whether you simply ripped this idea off of somebody else too, since it gels very poorly with your tireless campaign against this socialist phantom you've dreamt up out of nowhere. To whit: Why do you find it so acceptable for the federal government to force multinational corporations to develop a universal healthcare option for all of their employees, when you also consider it totally unacceptable for the federal government to offer a publically funded health insurance option to American citizens? What's the difference? Why is the first idea good sound minimal governance, and why is the second idea vicious evil Hitlerian "socialism"?

And please answer in your own words. I will know if you rip somebody else off. I called you on it before and I'll do it again.

First off, you're being a condescending asshole. Altho that may get you somewhere on the internet, it'll probably just lead to you getting an asskicking in real life. So good luck with that.

I'm also amazed how someone who thinks they're soo much more intelligent than me would need me to explain, or would fail to understand what would be the difference between the government legislating that employers provide health insurance rather than just provide it themselves.
You're either not debating in good faith, or your a fucking dolt.
And both options are completely possible with you.

Either way, figure it out on your own. I expect someone to have a modicum of understanding of government and capitalism before I waste my time debating with you.

[Schmeltz]

First off, you're being a condescending asshole.

No more so than you deserve.

what would be the difference between the government legislating that employers provide health insurance rather than just provide it themselves.

I know the difference perfectly well. What I'm wondering is why you think one is any less "socialist" than the other. You've prated on and on about how Obama's plan to provide a publically funded insurance option is a socialist evil worthy of Eichmann and Mengele. Yet you seem to think it would be alright for Obama to introduce legislation that targets specific multinational corporations. In what way does that constitute a lesser degree of federal interference in economic affairs? I mean, you've also argued quite strenuously against the "corporate bailout" represented by Obama's stimulus package (or you've found those arguments somewhere online, anyway). Why do you think it's OK for the feds to force a corporation to give all its employees health insurance, but not OK for the feds to step in and protect those employees' jobs?

Or is the intent of your proposal to force any and all business owners, and not just the Wal-Marts and Home Depots, to provide full health insurance to all their employees? Would you prefer a piece of legislation that dominated every business, or just the big ones? Where do you draw the line? Given how passionately anti-socialist you are, what degree of socialism would you prefer to see present in your proposed legislation?

It seems to me that you just like to throw around blanket terms like "socialist" in an attempt to disguise the inconsistencies in your perspectives. But then again you've already said yourself that you don't really have any perspective and you just come here to make a fool of yourself. So carry on.

[travesty]

I'm not feeling guilty because I'm listening to Obama, he is the one who has thrown out the best argument in the history of this Country to reform health care. So far... you're right... He does have the best argument to reform health care. Just not the best solution.

John McCain campaigned with that same idea (why insurance companies couldn't compete across state lines), you seem to think I'm going to research this and then waste my time putting up links to prove my point, my time, my research vs. your opinion.

I'm not going to do the work for you. You provide proof, statistical evidence that is worthy of my time, then I will respond. It's been researched.

by Daniel Wityk

Small business employees are much less likely to have access to employer-sponsored health coverage than the employees of larger firms. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Of the 45.7 million U. S. residents without health insurance, 20 million are employees - or in the families of employees - of businesses with 50 or fewer employees.
Among companies with more than 50 employees, 95.6 percent of workers have health insurance, compared to 42.6 percent of individuals working for small businesses.
Undoubtedly there are many reasons why small businesses are less apt to offer health coverage to their workers than larger firms. However, one likely reason is that small businesses encounter a host of costly state regulations and mandated-benefit laws not faced by larger employers that self-insure.

Small Businesses Face Higher Costs. Since 1999, the cost of employer-provided health insurance has risen 120 percent, or four times faster than prices generally, according to the 2008 Kaiser Family Foundation Employee Health Benefits Survey. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that small businesses face higher than average costs:

Insurance premiums for small businesses are 18 percent greater than those paid by large companies.
Administrative costs account for up to 25 percent of the cost of premiums for some small business health plans, compared to 10 percent for large firms.
Continuing medical cost inflation only exacerbates the problems faced by small businesses. Health care costs are expected to rise 10 percent in 2009, according to the consulting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers.


Why Costs Are Higher for Small Businesses. Costs are higher for small-group insurance because states require small-group health policies to cover certain conditions, treatments and providers. Large employers often self-insure. Their plans are governed by federal law rather than state regulations, and federal government mandates fewer benefits. Small group premiums vary widely by state, and the highest premiums are in the most heavily regulated states [see the figure].

According to the Council on Affordable Health Insurance, there are more than 1,961 state-mandated benefits that insurance companies are required to offer in their health plans, adding to the cost of small group health insurance.

Mental health parity is one of the most expensive and pervasive mandates - 47 states require insurers to cover mental health conditions, adding 3 percent to 5 percent to premiums, according to CAHI estimates.
Forty-six states require coverage for chiropractors, 11 states mandate acupuncturists and four require coverage for massage therapy.
Four states require coverage of naturopaths, who utilize food and herbal remedies to complement (and sometimes in place of) surgery or drugs.
In Massachusetts, the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy reported that 13 cents of every dollar spent on health care goes to cover mandated benefits. CAHI estimates that these mandates add 20 to 50 percent more to the cost of insurance, depending on the state.

Why Costs Are Lower for Large Employers. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) exempts self-funded employer plans from state regulations. In self-funded plans, the firm pays employees' medical bills and a third party processes claims. Large employers (and trade unions) do not face costly state mandates, but do enjoy economies of scale. Therefore, their costs are lower. In firms with 5,000 or more employees, 89 percent of workers were covered by self-insured arrangements in 2006, up from 62 percent in 1999, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Annual Family Policy Premiums
2006-2007
Heavily Regulated States
Massachusetts- $16,987
New York- $12,254
New Jersey- $10,398

National Average- $5,799

Less Regulated States
Michigan- $4,118
Utah- $3,259
Wisconsin- $3,087


That is what happens when you the provide the buying power of millions of customers. It isn't rocket science.

Then maybe you need to go back to space camp. Explain to me how eliminating the two biggest actuarial devices available to limit the risk insurance companies take on is going to LOWER premiums? If insurance companies have to assume the risk of everyone's pre-existing conditions (even that of 47 million more people) AND they will be forced to have higher yearly limits....you really think this is going to reduce premiums....really?

I think the First Lady was recently lambasted by the chemical fertilizer lobby for growing an organic garden at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Maybe but so, but not by me.


Once again your idea of "insightful" and the statistical analysis that goes with it (provide a link) doesn't hold a lot of weight with millions of uninsured citizens.
Yes it does, just not with you.

Obama is the man leading this charge and there is a clock ticking between a complete collapse of our medical system and basically our future.
WTF? Are you serious? This is the only chance we get? EVER? Well that certainly is scary then. According to the CBO the ticking clock is actually whether this $1T+ bill bill gets passed and doesn't collapse the economy again. Oh and there are even worse Deficit projections (http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32513705/ns/politics-white_house/) now than when all this started...by $2T! How is all of this possibly sustainable?

Look I, and everyone else want health care reform. It HAS GOT to be fixed. All I am is asking is Is this the right approach to take at this point in time? To me, most answers keep coming up "no". I'm just looking for a little sanity. Unfortunately my brain is overpowering my heart on this one.

I think you really believe you're not being a condescending. You have a viewpoint that will not be changed, so why do you think anyone is going to waste time going back and forth with you? Don't tell me, I already have your answer in my head... you consider yourself advanced and correct.

I know I type like that when I get heated. I apologize for the stuffy tone. That seems to be the problem you and I both have, we are both kinda stubborn in our views about this issue.


The plan I'm defending is going to be the last plan you'll see in your lifetime.
I'll bet you $10,000 you're wrong.

The options I've seen to it are compromises that continually make it worse.
I happen to see this bill as a weak copromise as well. What happened to single payer? Now even the public option is out the door.

If this plan goes down we have to realize that a bunch of complete idiots just may make the next plan. Like that plan of privatizing Social Security back in 2001.

OR someone may come up with a WAY better one. How can you say.


I have read the above paragraph three times. I give up. What are you talking about? I'm a hypocrite and the government is going to use the courts with my health care? But corporations would never rig the game? The corporations are accountable? LOL.

The courts system give you means to make the corporations accountable. Suing thhe Federal Government is not usually an option. That was my point...probably not my best point ever but....

[travesty]

I don't presume to speak for yeahwho, but here just let me say that yes, it is a matter of adding a middleman. It is a matter of adding a publically accountable middleman to a totally imbalanced and exploitative relationship between individual citizens and the corporate interests who currently dictate the terms through which the former are offered access to health care. In fact the government, which is subject to regular processes of examination and renewal, is much more accountable to the citizenry than any private corporation - that is the very reason why we have government, that is the reason government exists: to provide a comprehensive arbitrator, a middleman that can safeguard the interests of people less powerful than corporate conglomerates with the sole interest of fleecing them out of their money.

The whole point of a government is to pass legislation, and the point of legislation is to regulate public conduct so that these issues are decided before the judicial system is ever involved. This is basic Western civics. These same civic ideals also allow for corporate bodies to compete alongside individual interests for influence in the public sphere - but at this point in time it seems that corporate interests have become overrepresented, at the expense of general social welfare, and it is now time for the publically elected middleman to redress that imbalance, in accordance with the powers granted to it through democratic principle. That's what the debate is all about.

Your question is therefore totally spurious, you might as well ask victims of rape and murder and arson why they even need an expensive and inefficient police force when the only recourse they ought to need is access to the courts. What a crock. Government at all levels evolved for a reason, and while it might not always work perfectly it's a damn sight better than the vicious, top-heavy anarchy to which your libertarian ilk would see us all enslaved.

Yes I get it..and as I mentioned to yeawho...probably not my best point of debate. However, we certainly have differing views on what are acceptable levels of government involvment in our lives. I could use a lot less, not a lot more. I have never known a corporation to screw people nearly as hard as the government has.

"vicious, top-heavy anarchy to which your libertarian ilk would see us all enslaved"

I like that one schmeltz. I am going to use it often.
You can label libertarians however you want but you kinda sound like you might be a bit scared of Liberty and Freedom the way you come off. I can understand that. When you so badly desire that others provide for you, limit your choices and make crucial decisions for you then yes Libertarians do seem like vicious anarchists. Happy to be one in your eyes.

[yeahwho]

So far... you're right... He does have the best argument to reform health care. Just not the best solution.

Nobody is happy all of the time, especially when the scope of a bill is as large as HB3200. This is the Change that millions of Americans want. The problem we have today is the most vocal are being portrayed as raving bigoted lunatics, which is a dis-service to everyone involved. Especially people such as you Travesty. For whatever reason (pick a strategy from inside to outside job by either party), that is how this is being played out by the media. The end result of the mayhem and idiotic behavior at these Town Halls is it actually bolsters the supporters.


Then maybe you need to go back to space camp. Explain to me how eliminating the two biggest actuarial devices available to limit the risk insurance companies take on is going to LOWER premiums? If insurance companies have to assume the risk of everyone's pre-existing conditions (even that of 47 million more people) AND they will be forced to have higher yearly limits....you really think this is going to reduce premiums....really?

Not every human in the United States has chronic illness, at least not yet. In the past 20 years our population has jumped by 25 million people. (This is for a whole other topic, "earth's sustainability") We've got a growth rate that is currently outgrowing the amount of jobs to sustain it. I know it's wrong, I know that the numbers are mind-numbing. If we all have health insurance, if we all get preventative health care, if we all stay healthy then at least the overwhelming majority of citizens will be contributing more than they're taking out of the pie. At some point I have to have faith we will regain the status of a Country that actually believes enough in itself to manufacture it's own products.

Outside of this focus we have an obvious point that is ignored by millions of folks who argue against Universal Health Care, we are paying for those uninsured in America right now. A disproportionate amount of our taxes and our health insurance is currently covering those who cannot be refused health care. Those who do not pay their bill and those who never intend on paying for health insurance or any sort of medical service. Call it trickle up economics, what Reagan actually introduced to the middle class.





WTF? Are you serious? This is the only chance we get? EVER? Well that certainly is scary then. According to the CBO the ticking clock is actually whether this $1T+ bill bill gets passed and doesn't collapse the economy again. Oh and there are even worse Deficit projections (http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32513705/ns/politics-white_house/) now than when all this started...by $2T! How is all of this possibly sustainable?

Look I, and everyone else want health care reform. It HAS GOT to be fixed. All I am is asking is Is this the right approach to take at this point in time? To me, most answers keep coming up "no". I'm just looking for a little sanity. Unfortunately my brain is overpowering my heart on this one.

I'll bet you $10,000 you're wrong.


I happen to see this bill as a weak copromise as well. What happened to single payer? Now even the public option is out the door.



OR someone may come up with a WAY better one. How can you say.


I do think this is the only chance we will ever get in our lifetimes. I see this not only as a epic battle against the corporate profiteering of our health, I also see it as a moral imperative. If this fails (and I mean the public option) the odds of single payer option or any sort of competition with major corporate profits will be dead. For decades.

I too was under the impression that single payer was going to be the plan, it was how Obama campaigned, it is the best solution. But here's the caveat of why I will not bet $10,000 dollars with you, if this Bill is further compromised to the point of 0 returns, he can veto. Plus President Obama has pledged to veto any legislation (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1355&query=home) that is not paid for. I'm willing to pay a little extra for full coverage as I do on my vehicle for uninsured motorists.

As far as the Daniel Wityk piece, I have to say I find it unenlightening, if we start to sell insurance across state lines it will become a race to the bottom.

Insurers will set up shop in states with few regulations and market low-cost policies to people across the country. These policies will offer minimal coverage and appeal primarily to younger consumers.



"It will be a race to the bottom," Praeger said, and there will be "very few consumer protections. ... You'll have plans that don't cover the benefits that people need...And healthy people are going to buy those less costly plans, because they don't think they need [the protection]." ...

Purchasing insurance across state lines: a good idea? (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/10/purchasing-insu.html)

[RobMoney$]

Obama is the man leading this charge and there is a clock ticking between a complete collapse of our medical system and basically our future.



LOfuckinL
Talk about scare tactics.

[yeahwho]

LOfuckinL
Talk about scare tactics.

Intelligent response, do you have a link to go with it?

[RobMoney$]

The sky is falling...

again...

and this time we mean it...

really.

[RobMoney$]

The plan I'm defending is going to be the last plan you'll see in your lifetime.

Which plan would that be, yeahwho?
There's so many different proposals making their way through Congress and the House that nobody can be sure what the final bill will look like.
It's back-up plans in case one plan gets exposed, they can quickly bring on the next and change it to suit their needs. They're hellbent on pushing a plan through, any plan, regardless of the will of the majority of american people being opposed to it at this time.

Here's a link for ya, linky linkerton...
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/08/10/102872.htm



Lawmakers in Congress are working on three versions of proposals to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system. Many of these changes would be phased in over a number of years.
In the House of Representatives, three committees have each approved changes to one House bill. The changes will be melded by House leaders into final legislation before a floor vote expected in September.
In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has approved its version and the Senate Finance Committee is working on a separate healthcare overhaul bill.
The following is a comparison of major points in the various proposals.


INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS
All bills include the following:

Bar discrimination based on gender or pre-existing medical condition.
Coverage is guaranteed and benefits could not be rescinded after coverage is issued.
No annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments.
The Senate Health Committee and Finance Committee bill:


Premiums could vary only on family size, geographic region, tobacco use, age and benefits provided.
Coverage is guaranteed and benefits could not be rescinded after coverage is issued.
Insurers must provide financial incentives for quality and preventive care.

House bill:

Would eliminate co-pays for preventive care.

COVERAGE
Senate Health Committee bill:

Individuals are required to obtain coverage or pay a penalty of up to $750 per year. To help people pay for it, credits would be available up to an income of $88,000 a year for a family of four.
Employers are required to pay 60 percent of coverage for workers or pay $750 per year penalty. First 25 employees are exempt.
Health and Human Services Department would decide what is in a basic insurance plan required to be offered to all.
(/ul)
Senate Finance Committee bill:
An individual mandate is likely. No employer mandate is expected to be included but employers whose workers obtain subsidized coverage through an insurance exchange would have to cover some of the cost of those subsidies.
House bill:

Individuals would be required to obtain coverage or pay a penalty based on income.
Employers would be required to contribute 65 percent of workers' family insurance premiums or pay an 8 percent penalty. No penalty for small businesses but competing versions define small business as either under $250,000 or $500,000 annual payroll.

INSURANCE OPTIONS
Senate Health Committee bill:

Insurance "gateway," or exchange, would serve as a clearing house for private insurers and a new public insurance option run by the government to sell policies to those who do not have coverage elsewhere.
New government-run insurance system would negotiate with providers for payments not more than the average of private insurers in the gateway system.
Those who have insurance would be permitted to keep their current plans and health insurers could sell policies outside the gateway system.
Health and Human Services Department would set out essential health benefits and minimum coverage for individuals.
Temporary aid for employers to cover retirees between ages 55 and 64 until the gateway system is in place.
Dependents would be covered until age 26.
Senate Finance Committee bill:

Expected to provide for non-profit co-operatives rather than a government-run insurance plan.
Establishes state insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals without employer-sponsored insurance.
The proposed new government-run plan or co-op insurance plans would be offered through these exchanges.

House bills:

Would set up a public insurance option similar to the Senate Health Committee bill.
State insurance exchanges would offer individuals and small businesses insurance from private insurers or the government-run plan.
Insurance co-operatives would be allowed.

INSURANCE SUBSIDIES
Senate Health Committee and House bills:

Provide various forms of individual subsidies on a sliding scale up to 4 times the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four).
The bills provide for some form of premium credit or tax subsidy for small businesses.

Senate Finance proposal

Expected to provide refundable tax credit for individuals up to 3 times the poverty level.
To provide a small business tax credit.

MEDICAID

Millions more people would become eligible for state Medicaid health plans for the poor.
Senate Health bill:

Expansion to those with incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level.
Senate Finance bill:

Expansion to be determined. Federal government would bear added costs for a number of years, expected eventually to shift those costs to states.

House bills:

Expansion of coverage to 133 percent of poverty. Requires states to enroll those newly eligible.

MEDICARE

All bills include provisions to improve quality of healthcare in the Medicare program for the elderly. Payments to be designed to encourage quality, not quantity of services.
House bill:

Requires government to negotiate prices with drug companies.
Eliminates the drug coverage gap over 15 years.
Will cover the cost of voluntary discussions with healthcare providers on end-of-life care.

[travesty]

For whatever reason (pick a strategy from inside to outside job by either party), that is how this is being played out by the media. The end result of the mayhem and idiotic behavior at these Town Halls is it actually bolsters the supporters.

I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure that is true. I see all the idiocy making the Dems and Obama reel backwards. He is backpeddling on the public option and now Lieberman is calling for the Pres. to wait to address this issue when the economy has satbilized.

Not every human in the United States has chronic illness, at least not yet. In the past 20 years our population has jumped by 25 million people. (This is for a whole other topic, "earth's sustainability") We've got a growth rate that is currently outgrowing the amount of jobs to sustain it. I know it's wrong, I know that the numbers are mind-numbing. If we all have health insurance, if we all get preventative health care, if we all stay healthy then at least the overwhelming majority of citizens will be contributing more than they're taking out of the pie

Like Social Security? I see your point and I agree, always have. Having everyone covered and as healthy as possible benefits everyone. My point was more specific about what Obama has been selling about his plan. I'm fine if he tells me he is getting rid of pre-x and raising or eliminating payout limits. Just don't tell me that by doing this it is going to reduce permium costs... that's simply a lie.

At some point I have to have faith we will regain the status of a Country that actually believes enough in itself to manufacture it's own products.

I honestly hope you are right. I really do but it's not looking good.

Outside of this focus we have an obvious point that is ignored by millions of folks who argue against Universal Health Care, we are paying for those uninsured in America right now. A disproportionate amount of our taxes and our health insurance is currently covering those who cannot be refused health care. Those who do not pay their bill and those who never intend on paying for health insurance or any sort of medical service. Call it trickle up economics, what Reagan actually introduced to the middle class.

True.

I do think this is the only chance we will ever get in our lifetimes. I see this not only as a epic battle against the corporate profiteering of our health, I also see it as a moral imperative. If this fails (and I mean the public option) the odds of single payer option or any sort of competition with major corporate profits will be dead. For decades.

It may be dead before it starts. One of my points earlier was that I really don't know if it will ever be possible. I think this goes way beyond the health care debate and into the very fabric of Washington. Until something is done about iron boot special interest has on the neck of Washington, this is what we are going to get.....shitty corporate compromises.


I too was under the impression that single payer was going to be the plan, it was how Obama campaigned, it is the best solution. But here's the caveat of why I will not bet $10,000 dollars with you, if this Bill is further compromised to the point of 0 returns, he can veto. Plus President Obama has pledged to veto any legislation (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1355&query=home) that is not paid for.

I think he's passing this regardless of what it says. His ego will not allow him to not get a health care bill passed. regardless of what's in it. He'll justify it to himself somehow.

As far as the Daniel Wityk piece, I have to say I find it unenlightening, if we start to sell insurance across state lines it will become a race to the bottom.

Insurers will set up shop in states with few regulations and market low-cost policies to people across the country. These policies will offer minimal coverage and appeal primarily to younger consumers.

"It will be a race to the bottom," Praeger said, and there will be "very few consumer protections. ... You'll have plans that don't cover the benefits that people need...And healthy people are going to buy those less costly plans, because they don't think they need [the protection]." ...

Purchasing insurance across state lines: a good idea? (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/10/purchasing-insu.html)[/QUOTE]

Also an "unenlightening piece" The Kansas Insurance Commissioner? Seems obvious to oppose an idea that would eliminate much of your control of the market. Anyhow, to compare the idea to auto insurance. Yes, large companies have become prevalent selling cut-rate insurance at mandated "state minimum" levels, but those companies also offer pretty inexpensive rates for more comprehensive coverage should you choose it. Why can't this work for health care? Can't states set Minimum coverage levels or define what a "base" policy must cover? Letting as many companies as possible compete for that coverage is logically better than letting only a few, right? You said yourself you pay more thatn what is required for better than required car insurance. I do too and I think most people do that are able to.

I'm not saying this is the solution to it all, far from it. But I do think it would help. But then again I'm more of a free market "loon".

[yeahwho]

Which plan would that be, yeahwho?
There's so many different proposals making their way through Congress and the House that nobody can be sure what the final bill will look like.
It's back-up plans in case one plan gets exposed, they can quickly bring on the next and change it to suit their needs. They're hellbent on pushing a plan through, any plan, regardless of the will of the majority of american people being opposed to it at this time.

Here's a link for ya, linky linkerton...
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/08/10/102872.htm

That is common knowledge, It is sparked because now all of a sudden it is on. As I've said before, Obama is willing to listen to all sides of the issue and he has ... but reality is this, HB3200 is the bill being discussed and anything outside of a strong public option will likely not be considered. Cheers if somebody is able to come up with something positive and makes everybody happy, I'm going to be the first to say RobMoney is the MAN!

That is sort of old news (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/the-early-word-looming-recess-on-health-care/), the alternate plans, and the Insurance Trade Journal is hoping, wishing and praying to the almighty dollar (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-06-11-lobby_N.htm) HB3200 never materializes.

[saz]

Why am I answering the same questions over, and over, and over again?


Let's try this,
I've made the statement that I consider myself a financially responsible Democrat.
I've publicly stated my admiration for Clinton, along with my dislike for Obama many times on here.
Why don't you tell me what the differences are between Clinton & Obama, in your opinion.
Surely you don't think that just because they're both Dems that championed healthcare reform, that they're both exactly alike?
Hell, healthcare reform has been the Dems bread and butter issue for the past 20 years.

again, you're avoiding what i've posed to you. how are the clintons not socialists for wanting to completely reform health insurance, who wanted every citizen to have public health insurance, but obama is a socialist for wanting to introduce a public health insurance option?

First off, you're being a condescending asshole.

so it's bad when people do it to you, but it's okay when you patronize others?