patrick.net

jdavidadams@email.com says

Patrick,
You are getting conned by the system. People in power do not care about liberal / conservative, they care about control. They also don’t care about black or white - they care about control.
There are more than two answers to a single problem and you seem to be implying that we either go with Obama’s plan or some unknown plan of the protesters.
Think outside the box. People in control use emotion to agitate the people to get the mob away from the fact that they are parasitical.
Ask yourself a few questions before making emotional rants
1. Do illegal immigrants get a good deal? They are underpaid, and live in an off mainstream culture that takes advantage of them. Is this only because of Republicans? Seems a little odd since the Republicans control nothing. Is it possible that disingenuity on both sides might be keeping the status quo?
2. Health care - are the angry mobs really any different than the people protesting Iraq? They are not of a single opinion, so lumping them all together is short sighted. Maybe some of them want control of spending, maybe some of them have a better idea, maybe some of them just like yelling.
3. Black versus white - people are individuals. Once we stop dealing in categories and start dealing as individuals, this becomes much less relevant. Lazy people talk in generalizations as they are not willing to confront the issues where change can take place. Change comes from the bottom, not the top. Help an underprivileged kid and by doing so, you will illustrate what makes America great. America has great ideals, with fallible people living under them.

^^ My vote for Post of the Day.

~Misstrial

"Having lost the election to a black man who is ten times smarter than Bush."

That's not sayin' much ;) "Ten times smarter than Bush" puts him at about the "imbecile" level....

"Fuck you"

That's classy. And a PERFECT illustration of "Wanna see INSTANT HATE? Disagree with a Libbie ;) lol

You ARE an OWhammy Zombie ;) Now OWN it :)

Patrick - you have degraded yourself to street level talk by using somebody's crude language quote and your f word. Show respect. You lose credibility.

Regarding Gov't healthcare involvement - there are basic questions to be answered before going further. BTW - we have not seen the final package - the cost of new program, who gets it, what does it proviide, etc.

1. Is "affordable (or free for poor)" health care a right for everyone?
2. Can the Gov't afford it with muliti trillion annual deficit and Nat'l Debt?
3. What is the role of Gov't and is it Constitutional?

My brief answers are:
1. No, it is not a right to be paid by others (taking from taxes or gov't borrowing/money creation). Let charity do it. We are all dead in the long run in this short earthly life.
2. It is impossible that the Gov' can afford to take on a massive new program long term without PAIN such as massive taxation, bloating debts leading possibly to hyperinflation or other types of economic catastrophe.
3. It is not the proper role of Gov't and nowhere in the Constitution is stated so. The new Gov't program feeds on the growing statism. In the long run it will lead to punitive medicine.

Another question - how is the new Gov't program (funded by taxpayers with new taxes and new borrowing) going to meet the new demand for doctors once millions and millions get on board?

Patrick - you need to add fairness in this discussion/debate by presenting other views such as the Austrian School and libertarian.

I have yet to hear a solution from republicans for the current health care issue ..never heard.

so what do you republicans want us to do …sit on our asses and do nothing ??

A nugget from one of the posters on Paul Krugman's blog:

"Steve Benen, asked to explain why people are against health care reform despite the obvious, gave a useful taxonomy. He divided opponents into the Greedy (who stand to lose), the Partisans (who want Obama to fail), the Tin-Foil Hats (who think reform is Soylent Green), and the Dupes (the useful idiots for any and all of the above)."

renter for ever san jose:

You need to do some internet searching for the various GOP alternatives (I am not a GOP or Dem).

Also look into what the Austrians and libertarians have to offer.

wcalleallegre says

renter for ever san jose:
You need to do some internet searching for the various GOP alternatives (I am not a GOP or Dem).
Also look into what the Austrians and libertarians have to offer.

To clarify for the those who may not know. Austrian School of Economics. A great place to start is on Mises.com

Check out http://mises.org/articles.aspx

drfelle says

renter for ever_san jose says

I have yet to hear a solution from republicans for the current health care issue ..never heard.

That’s because it’s not a crisis!

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

By the way, most republican politicians are scum in my humble opinion.

This article in particular is interesting.

http://mises.org/story/3643

futuresmc says

in this example the price the market would bear for the care to save the child would still $500,000.

That would be true if there was only one provider. Unless, of course, we are talking about a very complex procedure using unavoidable resource heavy procedures. Then the cost would be high no matter what system you have.

Real life example. A 62 year old acquantance just got a heart transplant from a 24 year old donor. The bill, including some medical attention before a donor was available, the surgery, and hospital costs, came to about $1 million. His insurance paid about $770k, he is on hook for the rest. He financed his part, and can afford the payments without too serious a degrade in lifestyle. If this procedure prolongs his life by 10 years, the direct money cost to himself/society is $100k per year. Also the opportunity cost of who else may have got that heart. I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system.

kthomas says

“Ideally no one would have health insurance.” Nice. Little bit utopian and idealistic, especially for you, friend. I like.
“Freedom is about who controls the money supply.” Freedom? That’s a stretch. That’s a very loose, VERY loose use of the word freedom.
There’s plenty of money out there, they print enough of it. This is about the haves and the have nots. It’s also about an industry that has been increasing its cost at a rate soon to reach 20% of GDP. How else to control those increases except through govt intervention?

Society is impossible without money. Also without money you have little or no freedom (at least as a member of society). That is only slightly over simplistic but never the less true. And if you have control over some of the money you have some freedom. If not you are just a pawn, unless of course the law of the land grants you freedom that money can't buy (as our Constitution is supposed to but increasingly does not). If you have control over the value of money and how it is spent (like the FED does) you have near absolute control. The FED and its purposeful destruction of the middle class is the biggest problem right now and the cause of the housing bubble, health care bubble and numerous other economic problems.

"I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system." - Well, in other countries it would currently be much cheaper than here, so the odds are yes.

drfelle - "That’s because it’s not a crisis!" - Let me guess, but you think Social Security IS in a crisis?

Some Some Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

That is utter bullshit.

I keep trying to point out the differences between an asset bubble scenario and the healthcare price increases over the past 25 years, but... oh well.

We also have an education bubble. Without government subsidies a college education might be affordable.

srla says

“I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system.” - Well, in other countries it would currently be much cheaper than here, so the odds are yes.
drfelle - “That’s because it’s not a crisis!” - Let me guess, but you think Social Security IS in a crisis?

I can't speak for anyone else but social security more of a travesty than a crisis.

Some Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

That is utter bullshit.

No the real copros is the idea that if we all just send more money to washington we will all magically have more money in our pockets. Zhazam out of thin air... prosperity!

I generally hate both democrats and republicans ...because common sense and goodwill are generally in the middle and is not affliliated to parties. All party stuff has some hidden agenda

Some things i like from republicans :

Tort reform and illegal immigration reform : no matter how much it contributes to health care issue is not a question.
if its the right thing to do , we need to do it...whats the problem demorats..huh ?

Things i like about democrats : kicking insurance companies in the ass and "trying" to fix the problem because its thier condidates ( lower middle class and poor) who are mostly suffering in the current system

Things i hate about republicans :"fuck the poor guys, its thier problem" attitude
Things i hate about democrats : "govt is the saviour" attitude and thier distrust in free market enterprise.

I have searched the entire internet and still never found a convincing answer as to why free market doesn't work in health care. thiere are some lame answers but not convincing ones. Its also interesting that most people don't discuss why health care is broken( both democrats and republicans).looks like we as a nation are still clueless on why its broken and how to truly fix it.we are 300 million people and still can't find a good solution ? the no.1 nation on planet in innovation. ..seems something is fishy...looks like there are major forces behind all the drama..too much money involved.
Rush limbaugh and chrish mathews are too caught up with thier own agenda and insurance companies are fighting for thier survival.

Constitutionalist,

I said: cost of malpractice is 0.46% of health care cost.

You now try to cast doubt on what exactly is included in the number. Allow me to post the details, as provided by poster Kevin.

"You’re still wrong. Try digesting this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632 (in 2001 the figure was 0.46% for the combined cost of defending, insuring, and settling malpractice claims; less than a quarter of that was awarded to victims. At best, completely banning lawsuits is going to reduce medical care costs by less than 1%. Awesome. To clarify for the non-believer, this includes ALL cost of underwriting."

Reference:

/?p=16417&cc=427

All the issues i see are linking to one single thing : lobbying and political contributions.

democrats don't want to do tort reform because they get significant money from lawyers as political contributions. They don't want to touch immigration because they don't want to lose hispanic votes.

republicans are in bed with insurance giants so won't do anything which hurts the insurance companies.
they also want to protect the rich class's right to buy health care rather than see it rationed. They wan't to do this because they represent the rich class.
BTW, i personally know a doctor who pays half of his income for malpractice insurance ( around 100K).I don't give a fuck about internet stats when i personally know from many aquaintances that malpratice insurance is huge part of thier income drain.

The free market SHOULD decide.

LOL...do you really believe we have free market in healthcare.

both supply side ( excessive licensing) and demand side ( price insensitive patients) of the market is broken.

To all: If the FED, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the VA Hospital/Veteran's Health Care plan, and The wars in Vietnam and Iraq are any indication of what government can do for you, I hope the public health plan lobbyists get what they deserve rather than what they want. Because we all deserve better than GovernmentCare.

Wow I live in the UK and I think our healthcare is great...I also live in Florida for 4 months of the year and I am a little concerned as what ads will be on the tv breaks...as the only ones I see are prescription ones like ask your Dr if ........is good for you...We dont have any such ads over here...

By the way the WHO (world health org) ranks us at 18 and the USA 37

Constitutionalist,

>>Lame facts…

You are the type of person that cannot be bothered with facts, that is the problem.

Then you complain that I refer to an earlier posting that laid out those facts. How completely bogus. When someone like you is making bogus claim, the proper way of correcting them is to refer to previously established facts, and also one should of course give credit to whoever did the work of finding the data.

You are here to argue a position, and you do not care that you are utterly wrong, because your objective is not to establish fact. You simply do not want health care reform, so you are trying to derail the debate by bringing up strawman arguments, plain falsehoods and red herrings to sow doubt.

I'm here to debunk your errors and point out your dishonesty. I don't expect you to change, but people should not be exposed to your lies and propaganda without getting a chance to hear the truth. It is that simple.

PS: Which type of reform denier are you? The categories can be found here, via Paul Krugman:

“Steve Benen, asked to explain why people are against health care reform despite the obvious, gave a useful taxonomy. He divided opponents into the Greedy (who stand to lose), the Partisans (who want Obama to fail), the Tin-Foil Hats (who think reform is Soylent Green), and the Dupes (the useful idiots for any and all of the above).”

All,

This is another one of the Constitutionalists lies:

>>Try reading some numbers from August 2009 where the actual total is 10% annually and increasing.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/06/the_high_cost_of_medical_malpractice_97346.html

Here is what the reference really said:

"malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975."

Are you listening, LIAR? Your reference DID NOT SAY that cost of malpractice was 10% of health care spending. You just fucking MADE THAT UP. Why? Because the truth just is not good enough for you.

Phew, what a dishonest loser you are. Go and crawl back up under drfelle's skirt, you slimeball.

Some Guy says

O.K., I am officially sick of retarded anarchists spouting anti-government dogma. Get a fucking life.

Again,

Were the writers of the constitution and declaration of independence anarchists? I have a life and I just want to live it the way I choose.

BTW how do we know you aren't Patrick's sock puppet? You speak with the same language and hatred /venom for anything anti-government takeover. It seems neither of you can behave civilly either (so full of foul language and personal attacks that bring nothing to the "debate").

justme says

Constitutionalist,
>>Lame facts…
You are the type of person that cannot be bothered with facts, that is the problem.
Then you complain that I refer to an earlier posting that laid out those facts. How completely bogus. When someone like you is making bogus claim, the proper way of correcting them is to refer to previously established facts, and also one should of course give credit to whoever did the work of finding the data.
You are here to argue a position, and you do not care that you are utterly wrong, because your objective is not to establish fact. You simply do not want health care reform, so you are trying to derail the debate by bringing up strawman arguments, plain falsehoods and red herrings to sow doubt.
I’m here to debunk your errors and point out your dishonesty. I don’t expect you to change, but people should not be exposed to your lies and propaganda without getting a chance to hear the truth. It is that simple.
PS: Which type of reform denier are you? The categories can be found here, via Paul Krugman:
“Steve Benen, asked to explain why people are against health care reform despite the obvious, gave a useful taxonomy. He divided opponents into the Greedy (who stand to lose), the Partisans (who want Obama to fail), the Tin-Foil Hats (who think reform is Soylent Green), and the Dupes (the useful idiots for any and all of the above).”

Yes, it is very useful to call people who don't agree with you names.

Constitutionalist,

Thanks for posting the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
It is heartening to know that the American people have spoken and the president is actually listening. I may not agree with him on a lot of things but he is no fool when it comes to facing political realities. In fact maybe he knew all along there was no way public health care would pass but made a show out of pursuing it anyway just to make his base happy. He is a master politician.

Thank you for the yahoo link.

I would have no problem with the consumer owned non-profit co-op option as described here in the yahoo article:

[Begin Quote]
Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.
With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.
[End Quote]

Constitutionalist says

[Begin Quote]
"2nd Class, you may be right. I do find it odd he would push so hard for it prior to the recess if he wasn’t bent on ramming it through. Not sure I buy that he knew all along this is how it would go, and really think he underestimated the opposition to his “plan” … if not, why the “Angry Mob” references, etc.?
I think the reality is a combination of what you state above in addition to the fact this is the first time he hasn’t “gotten his way”. He was forced to adjust or watch his approval ratings plummet.
Also not sure I will concede the “Master Politician” moniker. Master Campaigner? Yes .. but governing is not campaigning and he was woefully inept at articulating to the American people just exactly what it is he was proposing. The President was put on the defensive from the get go and never recovered.
The good news is its back to the drawing board and as Americans we will not have this debacle forced down our throats."
[End Quote]

Obama is a one-termer.

The questioning elderly will NEVER forget how they were marginalized, lumped together and described as a "mob," "astroturf," "tea-baggers," "Republican operatives," "Nazis," and other insulting descriptors.

They will NEVER forget the Unions being called in, the black man being beaten for handing out leaflets, and being locked out of their own town halls all the while only supporters of the President were allowed such as ACORN.

Obama is OVER.

btw, I am NOT a Republican, I am a Decline to State which is generally viewed as an independent voter here in California.

chrisborden says

Maybe now we can have honest, open debate and do this thing properly without rushing (I sincerely hope).

Actually, what you will likely now get is mandated healthcare without even an anemic mechanism (like a public plan) to drive down policy costs, which is what the insurance and pharma lobbies have been angling for behind the scenes all along. Without any true competition in many markets, you will be mandated to buy helathcare at a price set by the biggest player in the market. As a person who is serious about understanding healthcare, you, of course, know this is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts - they mandated that everyone buy healthcare without any mechanism to control costs and insurance premiums went through the roof.

drfelle says

Sweet Victory!

Yes, a victory for insurers, pharma companies, the AMA, and every other healthcare interest. Of course that writing has been on the wall for months due to massive lobbying efforts and PR campaigns aimed at the feeblest of minds. That's why we've been discussing actual healthcare reform here like single or multi-payer or other national approaches - for the inevitable NEXT time Congress takes up this issue. It would have been delusional to hope or fear truly nationalized healthcare would never come out of the current environment, as it was never even on the table. But by instituting a Massachusetts style plan nationwide, we're basically tossing gasoline on the fire and accelerating premium costs by giving insurers a captive audience to charge what they will. This just boots reform down the road and sets the stage for more massive gouging of consumers in the interim.

2ndClassCitizen says

Constitutionalist,
Thanks for posting the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

It is heartening to know that the American people have spoken and the president is actually listening. I may not agree with him on a lot of things but he is no fool when it comes to facing political realities. In fact maybe he knew all along there was no way public health care would pass but made a show out of pursuing it anyway just to make his base happy. He is a master politician.

Your naivete in this response is pretty surprising to me, given your level of distrust for government actions in general.

This is not about "the people" speaking or government listening to "the people". It is about the group of Senate Democrats, claiming to be moderates, who were elected in historically Republican districts and who have, more relevantly, been taking absolutely massive money from healthcare interests all along. These Senators have been trying to steer the legislation in the direction that those same lobbying interests want it to go. That direction is mandated health insurance for everyone without any mechanism to control what the industry charges us. This is about lobbyists speaking and the government complying.

The only question has been just how much of the industry's agenda we will be forced to swallow, and will there be any mechanism at all to control costs, no matter how weak, built into the legislation. It now appears we have our answers: mandated care, YES. Cost controls, NO. The only sane people who should be cheering that specific outcome are insurance companies and other healthcare interests. They about to score big time. Yet again.

srla,

I agree, the fight is not over. We cannot allow the government to force anyone to buy health insurance (no matter who the insurer is).

2ndClassCitizen says

srla,
I agree, the fight is not over. We cannot allow the government to force anyone to buy health insurance (no matter who the insurer is).

Good luck with that. As should be pretty damn clear from the current scenario, "We" are not in control of this. Lobbyists are. Just as they were with the financial bailouts, etc.

You don't need to go searching for conspiracies in dark corners when you have control of the government wrested away by lobbying interests before your eyes and in broad daylight.

srla says

2ndClassCitizen says

Constitutionalist,

Thanks for posting the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
It is heartening to know that the American people have spoken and the president is actually listening. I may not agree with him on a lot of things but he is no fool when it comes to facing political realities. In fact maybe he knew all along there was no way public health care would pass but made a show out of pursuing it anyway just to make his base happy. He is a master politician.

Your naivete in this response is pretty surprising to me, given your level of distrust for government actions in general.
This is not about “the people” speaking or government listening to “the people”. It is about the group of Senate Democrats, claiming to be moderates, who were elected in historically Republican districts and who have, more relevantly, been taking absolutely massive money from healthcare interests all along. These Senators have been trying to steer the legislation in the direction that those same lobbying interests want it to go. That direction is mandated health insurance for everyone without any mechanism to control what the industry charges us. This is about lobbyists speaking and the government complying.
The only question has been just how much of the industry’s agenda we will be forced to swallow, and will there be any mechanism at all to control costs, no matter how weak, built into the legislation. It now appears we have our answers: mandated care, YES. Cost controls, NO. The only sane people who should be cheering that specific outcome are insurance companies and other healthcare interests. They about to score big time. Yet again.

Oh, and I still believe in the long run it doesn't matter if we elect a republican or a democrat (in the end they are both pushing a fasco-socialist agenda). But each party still wants to be in power and politics is still a game because the elite political class that quasi-wars against one another in public (but secretly are really great friends in general) do profit from making their case and brainwashing the public to believe their lies. The only way the people have chance to rectify the situation is to support third party and independent candidates and throw off the powers that be.

srla says

2ndClassCitizen says

srla,

I agree, the fight is not over. We cannot allow the government to force anyone to buy health insurance (no matter who the insurer is).

Good luck with that. As should be pretty damn clear from the current scenario, “We” are not in control of this. Lobbyists are. Just as they were with the financial bailouts, etc.
You don’t need to go searching for conspiracies in dark corners when you have control of the government wrested away by lobbying interests before your eyes and in broad daylight.

agreed

So long as the Supreme Court of Kangaroos keeps interpreting monetary contributions to Congress as a form of freedom of speech, nothing will get done.

Constitutionalist,

>>Doesn’t matter at this point, thankfully. Not even in the majority and the Republicans have handed the President his proverbial ass on a platter.

We'll see about that. I'm not going to let people be fooled by the likes of you (or any of your multiple net personae).

One thing that matters with certainty is that you have been exposed as a the conniving LIAR that you are, and that will stick with you.

I know one person who earns more than 500K/year and this is what he had to say about the failure of obama to have govt run health insurance.
"I am glad he failed. i am very happy with my health insurance and i don't give a fuck about others who don't have it. you need to earn it ..dude !"