The Democratic Majority has AWAKENED!! PRO Healthcare Reform supporters are outnumbering the opposition: the birthers, deathers and teabaggers. This is occurring in Town Hall meeting after Town Hall meeting, in Phoenix, to Boulder, to the East Coast.Sure the Beck instigated 912 nutcase Deathers, Birthers and Teabaggers had their moment of glory in the TV and YouTube spotlights. However, I say to all of you nutcases: go back to your closets. WE THE PEOPLE have Spoken! WE THE PEOPLE support Universal Healthcare Reform with the Public Option.
Take Heart Mr. President! We support YOU and the Public Option!!
God Bless America!
God Bless President Obama!
Reference:
Reform Supporters Outnumber Critics At Town Halls
Posts
35 comments:
It's about time!!!!!!!
The American Public is waking up and will NOT ALLOW the Beck driven deathers, birthers and teabaggers to monopolize this discussion.
Healthcare Reform is far too import.
We won the last election.
We will win this fight too!!
Of the people, by the people and FOR the people!!
Just goes to show yuh that some people still think there is such a thing as a free lunch.
Yes, "for the people and by the people" and the majority rules. We shall have to wait and see which side holds the majority viewpoint.
There is no doubt in my mind that most Americans want healthcare reform but in what form? Time will tell.
Kenneth
Kenneth is right. Americans want and need health care reform but some are willing to think for themselves rather than lining up like robots to acquiesce to whatever is proposed.
I'm not convinced that a public option is necessary however, it is true that some overhead and profits would be rung out of the system with a government run program. But that same argument can be made for all forms of insurance and perhaps other things as well so it becomes a question of whether we are ready to fold up the capitalist tent that built this country and settle for cradle to grave government programs supported by confiscatory taxes. Hasn't that been tried already in the former Soviet Union?
Some point to Medicare as an important program that no senior wants to give up. However, no senior wants its funding to be reduced; instead they all want the unfunded liability of this program to be brought under control and retired over a reasonable period of time. Rep. Weiner of New York suggests that we simply begin to lower the age of elibility in ten years steps until everyone is covered by Medicare. I wonder what the unfunded liability will be then.
Great News -- ITS ABOUT TIME!!
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the chess game over health care reform, the White House's last move was to say Democrats might use a procedural move to get a bill through without working with Republicans."
Ultima,
Of course Americans want healthcare reform. As I earlier said, many of us wanted a single payer option. However, we have reconciled to include a public option. The Insurance Carriers need competition, otherwise we are doomed to stay status quo.
Regarding "BOT"like behavior, look to your own republican side. Do you really think the Deathers, Birthers and teabaggers -- those from Beck's nutty 912 groups with their assault weapons on thier hips, shouting "No" or "Hitler" or "Obamacare" have studied any version of the bill? Come on!
More republican "BOT" behavior: Republican Senators and Congressmen who have already told their teabagger constituents they are NOT going to vote for ANY healthcare proposal regardless the compromises/content. Now those are BOTS!!!
Dee wrote, "The Insurance Carriers need competition, otherwise we are doomed to stay status quo."
No, I don't think so. I believe that insurance carriers can be constrained without putting them out of business. Why do you think they can survive if the government offers a plan that costs 20% less?
That is the key question which must be addressed. What if we made them utilities and subjected all proposed cost increases and executive salaries to careful analysis by a utilities commission? What if we outlawed discrimination against pre-existing conditions, dropping of those with chronic and costly conditions, and the unemployed. What if we provided government subsidies to private insurers to reduce the cost to the unemployed and the indigent?
Your continued hyperbole and caustic language never helps your cause. It is a waste of time and makes it look like you are afraid to have a rational discussion. Stick to the substantive issues and don't worry about outnumbering the opposition.
Dee wrote, "Do you really think the Deathers, Birthers and teabaggers -- those from Beck's nutty 912 groups with their assault weapons on thier hips, shouting "No" or "Hitler" or "Obamacare" have studied any version of the bill?"
Of course I have no idea whether they have or not. I believe some of the members of the American Tea Party have. They have even taken the time to read between the lines to see how Congress is trying to hoodwink us with language that says one thing but means another when it comes right down to the implementation.
The problem is you keep dealing in hyperbole of little consequence instead of addressing the issues. What alternatives to a public option have you considered and why do you think that option is imperative?
It's interesting that Obama said Fedex and UPS are thriving while the USPS is perennially in trouble. Unwittingly he made the point that government programs are not effective and lack the discipline of the competitive marketplace.
Do you really think the extremists represent the American people in terms of their understanding of the bill? I have pointed out some flaws which may justify some of the negative responses to the current bill HR3200. I admit there is some hyperbole on the Republican side just as there is on the Democrat side. This can be an effective technique to mobilize and energize the masses but it adds confusion rather than understanding to the debate. As I have written many times, I prefer to address the substantive issues rather than the hyperbole. Tell me why you think the public option is essential. Tell me why alternatives won't work. Do some brainstorming and make a list of those alternatives.
Rep. Weiner says health care is not a commodity (a useful thing); I disagree it is a a commodity and a useful thing.
As I understand it, Sen. Grassly's explanation of his anticipated vote against the bill is based on his role as the Republican representative on the committee attempting to craft a health care reform bill. He doesn't want to sell out his Republican colleagues who are depending on him to represent their views both on the committee and in his final vote. That sounds reasonable to me. Unfortunately too many of our representatives in Congress present their own views rather than the views of their constituents. I don't call that representative government.
Speaking of "Bots" I understand Rep. Wiener is predicting that 100 Democrats in the House will vote against any bill that does not contain the public option. Sound just like Grassley.
Dee wrote, "Republican Senators and Congressmen who have already told their teabagger constituents they are NOT going to vote for ANY healthcare proposal regardless the compromises/content."
Well I guess that is representative government if that is what their constituents want. I suspect that is hyperbole and when it comes right down to it they will vote for or against the final measure based on what they think their constituents want and their own personal evaluation of the merits of the bill.
I think the bill would gain significant support if the public option was dropped or a way was found to subsidize privated plans to the same degree as a public option. This is necessary to assure the survival of private plans. Of course, cost, tax increases and the deficit also figure into the equation of whether a senator feels he can vote for the measure.
I beleive Obama will sign any measure that comes to his desk and that would be a victory for him.
ultima said.. I believe that insurance carriers can be constrained without putting them out of business.
Ultima,
I find your statement very naive. How can they be constrained when they have not been constrained to date? We have been pushing Healthcare Reform for decades, particularly since Clinton. Are we just supposed to wish and hope that they will get better because they say so? It makes no sense.
Every day thousands of Americans lose coverage based on constraints by the insurers including their ever famous "pre existing conditions." I have a girlfriend who lost her coverage for this very reason and all she had was thyroid issues.
Insurance carriers need competition. A public option will provide it.
Now let's get down to brass tacks. You IMAGINE that having a public option will put the Health Insurers out of business and everyone will go to the Public option. I disagree. I have several examples of why I believe this:
1. Government Workers - will keep their plans.
2. Businesses: many businesses utilize benefit packages/perks to retain their employees. No public option will ever help them with employee retention, so I doubt any of these businesses will go to public options.
The only group that may do what you are suggesting is small mom and pops and most of them provide little to no coverage now.
Dee wrote,"How can they be constrained when they have not been constrained to date?"
That is one of the major purposes of health care reform. What I am suggesting is that there are many road to Rome. If any law can be passed, a law can be passed that will constrain insurance company costs and prices. The utility model is one way of doing this. I'm surprised the unions are not worrying more about their pension plans and their investments in insurance companies.
Why do you think there will be choice if a public option subsidized by taxpayers will offer a plan that costs 20% or more less than any private plan? Don't you see the flaw in that thinking? That is the major reason for the opposition to the public option. Everyone generally recognizes the need for taxpayer subsidies to help pay for the indigent and those with pre-existing conditions. It's just that they don't want their private plans to go away because the same subsidies are not available to them. It may well be that the private plans will go away anyway even if because of the overhead costs and the need for profits implicit in a private business. The question is: "What happens to stockholders like pension plans, if private plans are forced out of business. Does anyone see how they can effectively compete with the subsidized public option? One might ask where are the private options to Medicare and Medicaid? I don't believe they exist except for the very rich. Who would want to insure a bunch of old folks or a bunch of folks who cannot pay?
Will this be like Hugo Chavez's nationalization of foreign oil investments without just compensation?
dee wrote, "Are we just supposed to wish and hope that they will get better because they say so?"
No, absolutely not. They will get better because we will outlaw their most onerous practices. There will be certain things they would not longer be able to do such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and dropping coverage for anyone with a serious condition. we will, of course, have to require everyone to have insurance, especially the young and healthy who will then pay their share of the burden of others who are less healthy. Of course, the health insurance companies won't like that enchilada any better and can be expected to pull out all the stops to defeat it. They don't want a bill of any kind.
Dee wrote, "Democrats might use a procedural move to get a bill through without working with Republicans."
Be careful what you wish for. What goes around, comes around. When it is the Republicans turn, we can expect them to use the same procedural move for things they favor which the Dems may find extremely unpalatable.
Dee wrote,"Every day thousands of Americans lose coverage based on constraints by the insurers including their ever famous "pre existing conditions."
Okay, let's outlaw that kind of behavior on the part of insurance companies. My daughter has a close friend with a blood disorder called hemochromatosis who has had problems with her insurance company. She often has to go into the hospital to get the care she needs even though it could be provided on an outpatient basis if the insurance company would cooperate.
Dee wrote, "Government Workers - will keep their plans."
For how long and why? I believe federal workers have been shifted into some similar federal programs so perhaps that is in the offing for them re: a public option. States now strapped for money would surely like to put all new employees in a public option to save money. They may grandfather the older employees into their current plans. Allowing public employees, especially the federal employees, to be treated differently from the rest of us is basically undemocratic.
dee wrote,"Businesses: many businesses utilize benefit packages/perks to retain their employees. No public option will ever help them with employee retention, so I doubt any of these businesses will go to public options."
This may be true but as in the case of executive pay and perks, a little collusion among businesses would go a long way toward a public option. Look how many businesses have modified or dropped insurance plans already because they could not afford them.
Dee wrote, "Insurance carriers need competition. A public option will provide it."
Competition already exists. There are many insurance companies. Public competition would be okay on a level playing field. If get a 20% subsidy for my apples and you don't, how many are you going to be able to sell as long as I have apples to sell?
Dee wrote, "The only group that may do what you are suggesting is small mom and pops and most of them provide little to no coverage now."
Of course, small businesses provide most of the jobs in the U.S.
"But I fear that a Fed run system would turn out like the VA, and that is by no means a compliment."
I agree. Although I have no direct knowledge regarding the VA or the Brit & Canadian systems, I have read or heard some exposes that suggests quality declines in those systems.
I don't know how the health care ratings systems work but I'll but they are not counting those who did not receive timely service. This is a little like not counting those who are no longer actively seeking employment when toting up the unemployment rate.
Sheehan is and has been irrelevant.
Compared to the United States, Canada's mortality rate for breast cancer is 25% higher, for prostate cancer 18% higher, and for colorectal cancer 13% higher.
In Britain, the hip replacement rate is 2/3rds the U.S. rate. And British coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty is just 1/4 of the U.S. rate. Nearly 1.8 million Britons are are on waiting lists for medical care at any one time.
In Norway, patients wait an average of 160 days for knee replacement surgery, 133 days for hip replacement,63 days for cataract surgery, and 46 or bypass surgery. Of course, the longer the wait, the more deaths occur while waiting for treatment, or worst outcomes than if treatment had been more prompt. Is this tantamount to a death panel?
Senior citizens who need expensive treatments will be denied life-saving care because it is too expensive to treat those who are going to die soon anyway.
Be careful what you wish for if you have any of the conditions above in your family. Family members may get cheap care but it may be too late.
There is no fed run anything.
The recommendation is to have a menu of options and one of the options is a gov't option.
Federal workers will most likely kept their insurance. Many businesses will keep their insurance for their workers. We all have our choices and may choose the govt option. It will the purchase of insurance via the govt. Not free.
With all of this competition prices will go down, just like the cost of communication came down with competition.
The cost of pharmaceuticals will also come down with all of this competition.
The cost of medical will come down with automation and reduction of duplication and unneccessary double-testing.
There will be no more "pre-existing" exclusions.
Only the insurance companies/their lobbyists and the congressmen they buy are opposed to the public option -- and those they brainwash.
Watching Meet the Press. Orrin Hatch looks so ridiculous. He keeps spinning the facts. No wonder the Republican party is defunct.
As the President said, early on the republicans decided - let's not give the democrats a victory. let's be the party of No and make them fail!
Delusional Hatch said, "As bad as our plan is, it is head and shoulders over any other government in the world."
Sheeesh!!!
Schumer makes sense.
No rationing. No govt control.
No single payer option.
Let's compromise with a public option that the buyer can select.
Let's STOP the MONOPOLY by the Insurance companies! Their costs are skyrocketing with no end in sight! THEY NEED COMPETITION!!
You might want to check out this URL for some thoughts on what health care reform might mean.
Dee wrote, "No rationing. No govt control.
No single payer option.
Let's compromise with a public option that the buyer can select.
Let's STOP the MONOPOLY by the Insurance companies! Their costs are skyrocketing with no end in sight! THEY NEED COMPETITION!!"
I would agree but I don't see any way that private insurance companies can compete with a public option given their higher overhead (does the government really count all its overhead for building construction and depreciation, cost of utilities and maintenance, etc.), no government subsidies for them, and their need to produce profits to retain stockholders and stay in business. It just doesn't seem possible to me. Are there any private competitors for Medicare and Medicaid? What does that tell us?
Let's try that again. URL
Here's another way to get more competition in health care insurance
Post a Comment