# AARP backs healthcare bill



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

Bad news for the corporate lobbyists and their lapdogs......

Washington (CNN) -- The AARP will endorse the House Democratic leadership's bill to overhaul health care, according to a Democratic source with direct knowledge of the plan. 

The move comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi oversees final changes to the $1 trillion-plus health care bill, which is likely set to come to a final vote Saturday.

The AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that advocates for people 50 and older.

AARP to back House health care bill, source says - CNN.com


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.

Stupid fuck.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

I think they jumped the gun on the AARP endorsement once before - I'll wait and see.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

Dude said:


> Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> 
> Stupid fuck.



No, AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.

AARP is a nonprofit.

Are you really this stupid?


----------



## del (Nov 5, 2009)

Dude said:


> Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> 
> Stupid fuck.



no way


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> ...


AARP is a pass-thru for insurance products with the AARP brand, and receives jillions of dollars in royalties for those products, you blithering idiot.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 5, 2009)

Dude said:


> Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> 
> Stupid fuck.



Is that the AARP whose members are cancelling their memberships because they disapprove of the AARP's sucking up to the Obamanation?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> ...


A lot of people already know that AARP is little more than a leftist corporate lobbying group....This isn't going to help them acquire more members.


----------



## del (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> ...



RNC is a nonprofit as well.

you really *are* this stupid-better increase the almond intake, kirky.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

Dude said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



A leftist corporate lobbying group?

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh my, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time!!!!!!!!

The corporations are now lobbying against themselves!!!!!


----------



## del (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



damn, you're stupid.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

So I don't agree with the AARP's stance on this.... whoop dee fucking do


----------



## Big Black Dog (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bad news for the corporate lobbyists and their lapdogs......
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- The AARP will endorse the House Democratic leadership's bill to overhaul health care, according to a Democratic source with direct knowledge of the plan.
> 
> ...



This is the reason I dropped my membership with the AARP.  They support the Obama Health Care Reform crap along with the Public Option.  Another reason I dropped my membership with AARP is because they donated $7000.00 to Obama's election funds.  I did not feel that was a good use of the money I paid AARP for dues.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 5, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



True, dat.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> ...



AARP is a nonprofit what?  The full term is nonprofit CORPORATION.  Stupid finger is pointing your direction.

AARP is not a corporate lobbyist?  Lobbying Spending Database-AARP, 2009 | OpenSecrets

AARP 2009 Total Lobbying Expenditures: $15,060,000

Pretty good for a nonprofit corporation.


----------



## Mike458877 (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bad news for the corporate lobbyists and their lapdogs......
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- The AARP will endorse the House Democratic leadership's bill to overhaul health care, according to a Democratic source with direct knowledge of the plan.
> 
> ...





Just out of curiosity, have you looked into the lobbying which went into getting this support?

Have you taken the time to investigate what, if any deals and promises were made which would benefit AARP?

Have you paid any attention to what many of the AARP card holders are saying and the opinions they are and have been voicing?

Just curious.

Mike


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

Mike458877 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Bad news for the corporate lobbyists and their lapdogs......
> ...



Who gives a rat's ass?

National health insurance is in the best interest of all Americans, and the people that oppose it in Congress are only doing so because the healthcare lobbyists gave them $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS in the last decade.


----------



## Emma (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bad news for the corporate lobbyists and their lapdogs......
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- The AARP will endorse the House Democratic leadership's bill to overhaul health care, according to a Democratic source with direct knowledge of the plan.
> 
> ...



Heh. 

Death panels


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Mike458877 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Gee Chris, first AARP isn't a corporation and doesn't lobby.  Now it doesn't matter?  National health insurance is NOT in the BEST interest of ALL Americans.  How many are still in Congress from ten years ago?  How much of that money was given to those that support a public option now?  Any of that money find its way to Obama?  You made the assertion, prove it.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Mike458877 said:
> ...



Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

The rest of the world gets it, why don't you?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Nov 5, 2009)

The AARP doesn't lobby??????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I see you ignored my questions.  Can't defend them huh?  Let's take France, one of your favorites.  France has a 40% tax rate.  How much of that is necessary to pay for health care?  Doctors get paid $55,000 a year.  How many doctors do you think will practice at that pay rate? France pays for doctors to go to college.  Is that figured into health care costs?  It is cheaper.  Is that why I should give up my insurance?  You act as though peolpe without coverage don't get care.  That is not the case.  You just want to control me.  I get it.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Nov 5, 2009)

I wonder how much they were paid off...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

It's a huge opportunity for AARP to sell more supplemental insurance...Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 5, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> The AARP doesn't lobby??????????????????????????????????????????


Pardon Chrissy....He was dropped on his head numerous times during childhood.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



No, you don't get it.

In France medical schools are cheap, therefore their are many more doctors per capita than we have here. More doctors, cheaper medical care. Pretty simple really.

And their tax rate has nothing to do with it. They still pay much less per capita for healthcare than we do. Nice try at lying about the cost of healthcare in France, but you can't fool me with bullshit.


----------



## ayiakri (Nov 6, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> ...



Link please?  

The AARP has 40 million members.  If a few are actually canceling their memberships over the groups (tepid) support of some of Obama's programs, I haven't seen any news of this - and if true, it begs the question:  how many have _signed up_ as a result of supporting the President?

Right-wingers really don't get it, do they?  You people are fighting the same fights as you were 20 years ago, while mainstream America is passing you by.

Membership in the NRA recently fell below 3 million, after decades at 4 million or higher.  Meanwhile, liberal MoveOn.org has over 5 million members, and growing.

Obama's support during the election last year (both primary and the general election) came from actual, grass-roots activists who "self-organized" much of what later became his campaign organization.  They weren't being told what and where to meet by Glen Beck or any left-wing equivalent.  Fox News keeps a website telling potential "tea-baggers" where to go, what to say, what the talking points are.  That's not, in my own opinion, a real grass-roots campaign.  When Glen Beck organizes a protest on the mall in DC, then Fox News covers it as though it was some "spontaneous, grass-roots" thing, it's disingenuous.

When, eventually, there is a _real_ grass-roots movement among conservatives, not being shepherded by Beck, or any other Fox News talking-head, but self-organizing, bottom-up activism, the conservatives may be able to change history.  Until then - history will continue to pass them by.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

Most AARP members are on Medicare ... they would support a government operated and funded medical insurance because they will likely get all the accounts in the US ... and their coverage sucks. How do I know? 

So of course they would support it, they stand to make a large fortune off this idea.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Nov 6, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> This is the reason I dropped my membership with the AARP.  They support the Obama Health Care Reform crap along with the Public Option.



So as someone who is either on Medicare or about to be soon - your stance is that the public option should only be available to old people, like it is now - but that everyone should have to pay for it - like they do now.

Or will you be turning down Medicare coverage?


----------



## 007 (Nov 6, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> ...



Yup, one and the same. Same one my parents belonged to for years, and recently just canceled their memberships.

AARP is quickly becoming a pathetic, left wing, non issue. They won't have enough members left to influence a light switch.


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> Bad news for the corporate lobbyists and their lapdogs......
> 
> Washington (CNN) -- The AARP will endorse the House Democratic leadership's bill to overhaul health care, according to a Democratic source with direct knowledge of the plan.
> 
> ...


The AMA backs the plan too, according to the article. I saw Obama announce it Thursday. 
Pelosi has the votes for Saturday.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Nov 6, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Same one my parents belonged to for years, and recently just canceled their memberships.



Why? Because they only want a public option for themselves, and not for everyone?


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > This is the reason I dropped my membership with the AARP.  They support the Obama Health Care Reform crap along with the Public Option.
> ...



"Old" people are not the only ones who are or can get Medicare or AARP. I'm only 34 and I have both.


----------



## ayiakri (Nov 6, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> AARP is quickly becoming a pathetic, left wing, non issue. They won't have enough members left to influence a light switch.



Yah, only 40 million members... 

(AARP has almost as many members as the entire Republican Party does - 40 million compared to ~50 million)


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


and chris tells this lie yet again


----------



## ayiakri (Nov 6, 2009)

You can add the American Cancer Society to the groups that have endorsed the health-care reform bill that the House is about to approve over the weekend.

Of course, after that, it needs to be painfully reconciled with the Senate version, so I don't know what the final bill will look like when it gets to the President's desk, but the fact that _some_ version of the Democratic health-care reform bill (which Obama ran on as a core campaign promise) is now nearly certain to pass, must be disheartening to the cadre of tea-baggers who spent the day protesting in DC.


----------



## JenyEliza (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Like AARP isn't a corporate lobbyist.
> ...



A "non-profit"?  

Yeah, right.

And I'm Mary Fucking Poppins.  Doh!

The AARP can call themselves a "non-profit" if they want to, but that's just bullshit.

They've got the market cornered on everything related to Senior citizens (or the 50+ crowd, which I don't consider "senior" anymore, since I'm only 3 years away from being eligible).  

They have health insurance plans, their own version of AAA, they have lobbyists in DC to nag and sway our politicians on various and sundry issues affecting those 50 and older--such as medicaid, death taxes, grandparent's rights, social security, yada yada yada.....

Yeah, non profit.  Right.


----------



## JenyEliza (Nov 6, 2009)

ayiakri said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > AARP is quickly becoming a pathetic, left wing, non issue. They won't have enough members left to influence a light switch.
> ...



Yep....and as baby-boomers become senior citizens, the numbers are only going up.

I'm a tail-end boomer ('62).  I'm just 3 years away from being eligible for AARP membership (and all those great discounts).  

However, AARP won't see one thin dime of mine.  Ever.  Because of the position they took on grandparents rights--even going so far as filing an Amicus Brief in Troxel v. Granville before the USSC.  

They believed (and continue to believe) grandparents should have the *same* rights to grandchildren as the child's parents--especially when one of the child's parents has passed away, but also even when the grandchild has two fit parents and they are united on decisions with regard to the care custody and control of the minor grandchild(ren). 

Nope.  Not gonna get my money at all, AARP---you blew it when I was in my 30's and a single mom raising twin preschoolers and threatened with lawsuit after lawsuit by an evil grandmother -- with AARP's encouragement....

Now my twins are teenagers, I'm almost a senior, the crazy woman stopped threatening me and you won't get my money.  Nada.

It would seem the rocket scientists at AARP didn't consider that those parents they were encouraging their members to sue would one day hit 50 years old....and remember the hell they've been put through at the recommendation of AARP.  Oh well.  *shrug*


----------



## Chris (Nov 6, 2009)

WASHINGTON, Nov 5 (Reuters) - The influential American Medical Association on Thursday said it supported passage of the Democratic-written healthcare legislation that the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on this week.
Dr. J. James Rohack, president of the AMA, said the bill was not perfect but was consistent with the group's principles for healthcare reform in expanding medical coverage to the uninsured.

Doctors' group backs U.S. House healthcare bill | Reuters


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 6, 2009)

Do the AARP rank and file members support Obamedicine or is it the "Leadership"


----------



## chanel (Nov 6, 2009)

> Let's follow the money. AARP takes in more than half of its $1.1 billion budget in royalty fees from health insurers and other vendors that market services with the organization's name. Medicare supplementary policies, called "Medigap" plans, make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue.
> 
> A Washington Post front-page story on Oct. 27 questioned whether AARP has a conflict of interest in appearing to represent seniors while watching Congress cut Medicare.
> 
> ...



AARP's tacit endorsement of Medicare cuts line its pockets, but shortchanges seniors -- chicagotribune.com


----------



## editec (Nov 6, 2009)

The AMA and AARP both sign onto HC reform.

Good for them.

Of course, based on what I understand of the HC plan, thus far, I can see why the AMA is signing onto the concept.

Doctors are going to continue enjoying raising fees when we give HC benies to those 40,000,000 Americans who currently don't have it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 6, 2009)

The AMA and AARP have always been supporters of the Democrats health care reforms.

The press and Obama act like this is something new.

Obama announced this yesterday knowing that he's always had their support, then he walked out of the room like a spoiled brat without answering a single question from the press. The look on his face when he left was very telling. He was getting out before he had to further explain himself. What an asshole.

So much for Transparancy.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 6, 2009)

This might wipe that smug look off his face:

Pelosi still dealing as vote nears - Yahoo! News

Pelosi says she'll have 218 votes by Saturday.  That was after telling us she had them already earlier in the week.  Hey Nancy, got votes?  This one vote will define you for the 2010 election Democrats.  No is the wawy to go.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

May have been said here already...

But I am sure all are aware that AARP is going to have a corner on the market for the medicaire insurance that is being eliminated in the bill.....I think it is called Medicare advantage or something like that......

Anyone wonder whether or not that may have something to do with their support?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 6, 2009)

editec said:


> The AMA and AARP both sign onto HC reform.
> 
> Good for them.
> 
> ...


AARP is a bunch of lobbyists and the AMA represents less than 1/3 of all MDs.

Hardly resounding endorsements.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

Dude said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The AMA and AARP both sign onto HC reform.
> ...



AMA membership makes up 17% of all medical professionals with their doctorates currently practicing in the US.

Hardly a majority.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Please explain how the currently proposed health care bill will address the United States' doctor supply.  We already have a hard time keeping up with demand for nurses.  What will happen to costs when 30 million more people begin going to the doctor because they now have coverage if the doctor/nurse supply does not increase to handle these people?

Using what countries pay per capita without looking into the reasons why is foolish.  Too many people apply numbers and statistics to a situation and reach an incorrect conclusion.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 6, 2009)

Chrissy is famous for his endless and truly unintelligent post hoc ergo propter hoc claims.

You might as well get used to it.


----------



## Chris (Nov 6, 2009)

Christopher said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



You really are clueless.

The rest of the world pays less per capita for healthcare because national health insurance is more effective and cheaper than the emergency room.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yet you assume they "pay less" (though we know most don't) just because the government pays for it ... that's more clueless.


----------



## elvis (Nov 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



what have I told you about picking on mental midgets?


----------



## Chris (Nov 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



 A link to show the assumption you made in the post I quoted? 

Clueless? Did I call you clueless? I meant, extremely stupid.


----------



## Chris (Nov 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 &mdash; Infoplease.com


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


now prove it would cost less to have the government do it here


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



First ... you don't have anything more recent?

Second ... that does not address how you came to your assumption that the government paying their healthcare costs influences the price ... a rather flimsy assumption really.


----------



## Chris (Nov 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Two years ago is not recent enough?

That's hysterical. 

The rest of the world uses national health insurance to keep costs down and provide basic coverage for everyone. We need to do the same.


----------



## elvis (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


yes, comrade stalin.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



How does having the government pay for everyone keep the costs down?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


$400 hammers
$600 toilet seats


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

AARP is losing customers. seniors will not support them anymore. archive  

AARP, Losing Members Over Health Care, Faces Challenge From Grassroots Senior Advocacy Group



> Look out AARP. There's a new senior advocacy group on the block offering a conservative alternative to seniors.
> 
> The Atlanta-based American Seniors Association (ASA), which is opposed to President Obama's health care plan, is trying to capitalize on growing public dissatisfaction with the AARP.



[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/18/aarp-losing-members-health-care-faces-challenge-grassroots-senior-advocacy/"]story[/URL]

[youtube]AoMNDdQ1_h0[/youtube]


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

JenyEliza said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Non-profit does not mean they don't make a profit.


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Larger _healthier_ client base, more money in premiums vs money spent.


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

my aunt told AARP to fuck off because of their crushing premimums.


----------



## chanel (Nov 7, 2009)

> The health "reform" bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee *would eliminate the tax deductibility for all insurance company executive salaries over $500,000. However, as drafted by the Committee, the legislation would exempt AARP from this requirement,* even though fully 38 percent of its $1.1 billion in 2008 revenue came directly from "royalty fees" paid by United Healthcare-more than AARP received in membership dues, grant revenue, and private contributions combined. But for Chairman Baucus' exemption, AARP salaries would in fact be subject to the penalties in the Finance bill-in 2008, then-CEO William Novelli received total compensation of $1,005,830-more than 78 times the average annual Social Security benefit of $12,738.



Democrats Cut Back-Room Deals Benefiting AARP - GOP.gov

This is a very, very interesting article.  Explains a lot.


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

Membership is $16 / year. 

Just checked their health insurance rates. Much better than what I've been quoted from other companies. Ranges from $231 to $434.


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Membership is $16 / year.
> 
> Just checked their health insurance rates. Much better than what I've been quoted from other companies. Ranges from $231 to $434.




dead wrong. my aunt was paying 250 bucks a mon for AARP premiums


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

chanel said:


> > The health "reform" bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee *would eliminate the tax deductibility for all insurance company executive salaries over $500,000. However, as drafted by the Committee, the legislation would exempt AARP from this requirement,* even though fully 38 percent of its $1.1 billion in 2008 revenue came directly from "royalty fees" paid by United Healthcare-more than AARP received in membership dues, grant revenue, and private contributions combined. But for Chairman Baucus' exemption, AARP salaries would in fact be subject to the penalties in the Finance bill-in 2008, then-CEO William Novelli received total compensation of $1,005,830-more than 78 times the average annual Social Security benefit of $12,738.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



its a benefit for kissing Osama's ass


----------



## California Girl (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Which country produces the most innovation in medical developments?


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

California Girl said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



if the deathcare bill pass's it won't be us anymore !!!!!


----------



## California Girl (Nov 7, 2009)

namvet said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



And millions of the worlds poorest people will suffer even more. 

This gawd-awful industry of ours has produced advancements that save the lives of millions around the world. 

Does this mean that liberals are actuall incredibly self-centered, evil people who hate poor people?


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

California Girl said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...





> Does this mean that liberals are actuall incredibly self-centered, evil people who hate poor people??



do i really need to answer this ???


----------



## Christopher (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chrissy is famous for his endless and truly unintelligent post hoc ergo propter hoc claims.
> 
> You might as well get used to it.



I know, I just can't get used.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You did not even answer my question, nor did you provide a source for your statement which I asked for and yet you call me clueless.

Let me give you a clue as to the major reason our costs have increased over the last several decades.  From the CBO, a credible source: Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending



> From 1965 to 2005, real health care expenditures per capita increased nearly sixfold in the United States. That large increase was the combined result of many factors, and accounting precisely for all of them is difficult. Nonetheless, the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system.5



Now, please provide your own credible source for your statement as to why we pay more per capita, not just that we do pay more per capita.  Otherwise, you are the clueless one.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


How does everyone automatically become healthier just because gubmint is running the show?


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

namvet said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Membership is $16 / year.
> ...


If you mean membership, that's $16 / year. If you mean insurance premiums, I do believe $250 / month falls within the range I posted above 

($250 a month insurance premium for a person age 50-64 is a damn good price, btw)


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Because people will be able to go to the doctor before chronic illnesses become life threatening.


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Currently Medicare's client base are the oldest/sickest demographic (either seniors or disabled). If _everyone_ was covered by Medicare, the average age will go down, while the average health will go up. Not only that, but currently only 2.9% of their client base pays premiums (A). Add younger people who have to pay premiums and their revenue increases.


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

Cover everyone with Medicare, and the size and overall health of their client base goes up along with their revenue income from premiums. It's not rocket science, people...


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


Yeah...And those otherwise "healthy" people (i.e those who don't make any contact with medical services) are going to now begin taxing that system for every minor ailment and injury because they're paying in and it's "free".

BTW...How are those gubmint projections on the production and availability of the pig flu vaccine working out?


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



it is??? well now lets put you on a very limited income. now you have the choice. 250 a mon for ins OR food OR rent OR utilities. what's it gonna be ????


----------



## namvet (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



put this in the humor forum


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Considering they started out two months behind and how slow it grows (and because the FDA hasn't approved cell-culture vaccines as they are doing in Europe), I'd say they're doing pretty good.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Considering they started out two months behind and how slow it grows (*and because the FDA hasn't approved cell-culture vaccines* as they are doing in Europe), I'd say they're doing pretty good.


Uh-huh.....I rest my case.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



The FDA is inefficient at approving many things when compared to Europe.  That just shows our government is part of the problem.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


you realize that is only medicare supplemental coverage, right?
if you don't have medicare you don't get that


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Cover everyone with Medicare, and the size and overall health of their client base goes up along with their revenue income from premiums. It's not rocket science, people...


there are currently 3.7 people paying into medicare for each person on it
just where are you going to get the extra people to pay in for all those you want to ADD in?


----------



## Maple (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Yes, and when you add 40 million people who think that they have FREE healthcare, they will go to the doctor for a hangnail removal, overwhelming our health care providers because you are dramatically increasing the patient load with the same number of providers. It's just not possible.

BTW- The AMA only represents 17% of physicians, the overwhelming majority of Physicians do not want a federal 1 payer system because they know it will cause rationing and the reduction of the quality care in this county. In fact, the AMA is being pressured to rescind that support by the overwhelming majority of physicians who are in total opposition to Obama care.

BTW, I know several seniors who have cut up their AARP card and sent it back to them. Millions are doing just that. You can't tell any senior that they are going to cut medicare by 500 billion a year and tell them at the same time that they will retain the same quality of care they do today. It's not possible. Only dumbacrats beleive that crap.

They can not get out the right number of swine flu vacinations, people are waiting in lines for this. As my daughter states if they can't handle a simple flu vacination how in the hell are they gonna handle the entire health care system. Answer- they can't!!!!!


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Yes, our government is the problem.

Specifically the Republicans and the Blue Dogs in Congress who received $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS from healthcare company lobbyists in the last decade.


----------



## Maple (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Considering they started out two months behind and how slow it grows (*and because the FDA hasn't approved cell-culture vaccines* as they are doing in Europe), I'd say they're doing pretty good.
> ...




Emma- made your point for you. FDA= the FEDERAL drug adminstration, boy are they ever competent.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Maple said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Horseshit.

They can, it just requires the political will which means overcoming the idiot Republicans in Congress.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

All that "political will" couldn't come up with anywhere near the amount of flu vaccine that was claimed would be available today.

The ones peddling the horse shit here are you and your chorus line of medical care fascists.


----------



## Maple (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Yes, our government is the problem.
> 
> Specifically the Republicans and the Blue Dogs in Congress who received $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS from healthcare company lobbyists in the last decade.




What about the democrats " Trail lawyer Lobbyists'" Chris. Do you want to talk about them and how they have driven the cost of mal-practice insurance through the roof, how they are in the back pocket of the democratic party, how mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the last few years. How 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. How that cost is passed back onto us the consumer in higher fees for service and higher and ever higher premiums. How a bone surgeon pays in excess of $200,000 per year for mal-practice insurance and how a general practitioner pays $100,000 per year for mal-practice insurance. Then you add on the additional costs of defensive medicine and then tell me that this cost is not a major cause of the increases we see in EVERYTHING when it comes to health care. 

Go ahead and try to convince me of that and I will convince you that the earth is flat and that you will fall right off it if go too far.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> All that "political will" couldn't come up with anywhere near the amount of flu vaccine that was claimed would be available today.
> 
> The ones peddling the horse shit here are you and your chorus line of medical care fascists.



No, your for profit healthcare couldn't come up with any vaccines, because there is no money in it.

Nice try though.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Maple said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, our government is the problem.
> ...



Apparently you did not read my post, so I will repeat it....

Other countries control costs by making medical schools cheaper to attend, reducing the cost of drugs, eliminating useless procedures and tests, using electronic records, streamlining admins,* limiting malpractice*, paying doctors less, and covering everyone, so that the most expensive medical care there is, the emergency room, is used less often.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare because they do these things.

So there it is in a nutshell, my friends. This is how the rest of the world does healthcare better and cheaper than we do.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

Wrong again, Stalinst asshole.

Government Policies Cause Vaccine Shortage


----------



## Maple (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You don't get it, the problem with this massive take over is that there is NO TORT REFORM, it does absolutely NOTHING to control this cost and without tort reform there is no control on costs. Health care costs will increase and they will increase dramatically. Tort reform is not in this bill, you will still be able to sue your doctor for anything and everything, but you can't sue the government for mismanagement of your health care.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Maple said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



You don't get it. I am agreeing with you.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


no you arent, you fucking moron
he doesnt want obamacare like you do


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Wrong again, Stalinst asshole.
> 
> Government Policies Cause Vaccine Shortage



More right wing extremist Wall Street Journal bullshit.

The socialized medicine in England is not having a problem. In fact a lot of our vaccines are made in England because the for profit companies won't make vaccines because there is not money in it for them. 

Game, set, match....

LIVERPOOL, England _ At a public clinic, almost in the shadow of the Chiron plant near the Mersey River, a poster says to "make an appointment today for your free flu jab." 

Flu vaccine may be delayed in some locations, but the shortages America is seeing are not expected here, thanks in part to early action by British health officials. 

Late this summer, at the first sign of new problems at the Chiron Corp.'s long-troubled plant, the British began searching for other suppliers of flu vaccine. 

"When Chiron informed us of the potential problems at the end of August, we made contingency agreements," ... 

Article: No flu vaccine shortage expected in England.(Knight Ridder Newspapers) - Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service | HighBeam Research - FREE trial


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

_*Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*_. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. 

Refute the facts presented, rather than attacking the source like the cowardly fucking cur you are.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong again, Stalinst asshole.
> ...


yeah, this group is so right wing

NCPA | About Us

Chris just continues to prove what a fucking idiot he is


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Considering they started out two months behind and how slow it grows (*and because the FDA hasn't approved cell-culture vaccines* as they are doing in Europe), I'd say they're doing pretty good.
> ...



What case? I'm not arguing for the FDA. They should have approved that several years ago along with the adjuvants that has all the conspiracy theorists up in arms. Approved that and more... just as those evil European countries with universal coverage have done.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


The FDA is just one of numerous bureaucratic symptoms of federal ineptitude and outright graft that is a drag upon and a tremendous expense for the current system.

I fail to see how expanding that inept and corrupt model is going to make anything less costly and/or improve services.


----------



## Emma (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Who wants to expand the FDA?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

You're killin' me!!


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> _*Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)*_. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
> 
> Refute the facts presented, rather than attacking the source like the cowardly fucking cur you are.



England has no vaccine shortage.

Your precious for profit companies can't make money on vaccines.

Same problem with malaria. No profit in fighting it. That's why Bill Gates had to take on that problem with his foundation.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

What's the population of England, shitferbrains?


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> What's the population of England, shitferbrains?



Fuck you, asshole.

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

If Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom can do it....

So can we.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

As was already pointed out, rapidly producible cell culture vaccines are approved in those countries, but not America, you blithering idiot.

You're too stupid for your own good.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> As was already pointed out, rapidly producible cell culture vaccines are approved in those countries, but not America, you blithering idiot.
> 
> You're too stupid for your own good.



No one is arguing that.

But thanks for playing.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 7, 2009)

For once, you're right.

Nobody is arguing whether or not you're too stupid for your own good...It's evident in your every post.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > As was already pointed out, rapidly producible cell culture vaccines are approved in those countries, but not America, you blithering idiot.
> ...


about time you admit it


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



i'm of age and you won't catch me joining. They just try to ram their version of health insurance down your throat and sell ya other crap.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Membership is $16 / year.
> 
> Just checked their health insurance rates. Much better than what I've been quoted from other companies. Ranges from $231 to $434.



That's only for prescription drug coverage, which is usually added to the $98 for Medicare.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Shifting the cost of who pays and manages healthcare will not in any way insure that the cost of said car will go down, and with our government's history it will likely go up because they will see the chance to increase fees in order to increase the amount of money the politicians can take from us, the tax payer, period, nothing else is logical.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Membership is $16 / year.
> ...



Is that per month? and I'll bet it is just supplemental to medicare.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

FactFinder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



It's per month, then they charge premiums on medications as well, averaging 4 dollars for generics and up to $100 for some (those with no generic counterparts). They send out a huge book listing all the premiums for all the meds they cover every year, this year they all went up.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Oh, and Medicare doesn't cover the full costs of anything, an ambulance ride here will cost at least $50, hospital $500 for emergency room.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

FactFinder said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


it is
you have to have medicare to get it


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



The thing I find humorous (and sad) about people like Chris is that they seem to think that this cost will go down, or even vanish, if everyone is on the same program.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > FactFinder said:
> ...


and it take 3.7 people paying in to cover ONE person on medicare
where are they gonna find another 3.7 people to pay in to cover everyone they want to add to the system


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 7, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Well they are wishful thinkers. Maybe they are hoping illegal immigrants will secretly send in tax payments in good conscience.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > What's the population of England, shitferbrains?
> ...



You continue to regurgitate the same point.  The fact that you have not responded to post #75 which was my reply to you on this same point shows you are clueless.


----------



## elvis (Nov 7, 2009)

Christopher said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



No one knows he's Chrissy from Three's Company.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Mike458877 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



oh so now when you are proven wrong....here comes the back peddling.....your a fucking dipshit Chris.....are you still laughing?.....i know all the posters here are....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



here comes the Chris Hanitty Mantra....


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 7, 2009)

AARP Tops Fortune'sList of Most Powerful Lobbying Groups for the Second Consecutive Year
November 16, 1998
FORTUNE's 1998 Poll Also Ranks the Leading Lobbying Firms and Lobbyist

The American Association of Retired Persons is No. 1 on FORTUNE's second annual ranking of the 25 lobbying groups with the most clout in Washington. AARP captured the top spot last year with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee taking second place for two years running. Completing the list of the top five interest groups are: National Federation of Independent Business (No. 3), National Rifle Association of America (No. 4) and AFL-CIO (No. 5). In the December 7 issue of FORTUNE, senior writer and Washington bureau chief Jeffrey H. Birnbaum identifies the Power 25 and reports on how the business of politics is played in and outside the Beltway.
AARP Tops <I>Fortune's</I>List of Most Powerful Lobbying Groups for the Second Consecutive Year

That was in 1998, so much for AARP not being a lobby group,  and  here we are 11 years later and AARP is right in the middle of this current healthcare legislation as well as the climate change debate. So whoever said AARP is this little group that just  sits around and  does nice things for Seniors needs to do a little more research.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chrissy is famous for his endless and truly unintelligent post hoc ergo propter hoc claims.
> 
> You might as well get used to it.



and get used to his Hannity like Mantras.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> You really are clueless.
> 
> The rest of the world pays less per capita for healthcare because national health insurance is more effective and cheaper than the emergency room.



Chrissy Hannity Mantra.....


----------



## elvis (Nov 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Chrissy is famous for his endless and truly unintelligent post hoc ergo propter hoc claims.
> ...



he wants to be in a love sandwich with hannity and colmes.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chris if this passes and proves to be a huge disaster.....will we see you here admitting it......or will we just not see Chris in any of those threads?......


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 7, 2009)

220 to 215 does not bode well for and easy time in the Senate, it especially is not what you would call resounding agreement on this bill as well.  I ask you, shouldn't legislation that effects every single  American reflect more  agreement  when it comes to a vote?


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


he will never admit it was a disaster


----------



## elvis (Nov 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


He'll continue to gag.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Emma said:


> Cover everyone with Medicare, and the size and overall health of their client base goes up along with their revenue income from premiums. It's not rocket science, people...



i asked the 3 doctors me and my wife see  what they think about this.....all 3 deal with Medicare....all 3 say the management side of medicare is a nightmare to deal with...all 3.... all 3 feel everyone should be able to see a doctor....but if its Medicare that is going to be the public option....they all feel....we may be in trouble.....everyone should poll their doctors....see what other real world doctors are saying instead of the big associations many who are out of touch and in it for perks.....post it here and lets see what the "real" docs are saying about this....


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Naw ... he'll just find someone else to blame for it.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Apparently you did not read my post, so I will repeat it....
> 
> Other countries control costs by making medical schools cheaper to attend, reducing the cost of drugs, eliminating useless procedures and tests, using electronic records, streamlining admins,* limiting malpractice*, paying doctors less, and covering everyone, so that the most expensive medical care there is, the emergency room, is used less often.
> 
> ...



the Chris Hannity mantra.....


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


of course, it will be the GOP's fault, even though they all voted NO


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Fuck you, asshole.
> *
> Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.
> *
> ...



the Chris Hannity Mantra....


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck you, asshole.
> ...



I love it!

You have no answer for the facts, so you resort to personal attacks.

The entire world is wrong except for the Republicans and FoxNews!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Christopher said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Chris does not answer any questions.....only repeats the Chris Hannity Mantra......*
Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.*.......if i had a dollar for every time this gonad has said this.....


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Cover everyone with Medicare, and the size and overall health of their client base goes up along with their revenue income from premiums. It's not rocket science, people...
> ...



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

*Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.*

Doctors support universal health care: survey | Health | Reuters


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

how come Chris VERY...VERY... seldom will answer questions asked of him?.....is he.....

1....clueless
2.....clueless
3.....clueless.....or
4.....clueless


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



What "facts" do you offer? So far just opinions and spun data, maybe a few very bad false connections ... like that having the government pay and control everything magically causes us to pay less.  Keep us laughing.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> how come Chris VERY...VERY... seldom will answer questions asked of him?.....is he.....
> 
> 1....clueless
> 2.....clueless
> ...



American doctors favor national health insurance, the AARP favors national health insurance, the entire industrialized world favors national health insurance.

Who is the clueless one here?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > i asked the 3 doctors me and my wife see  what they think about this.....all 3 deal with Medicare...*.all 3 say the management side of medicare is a nightmare to deal with*...all 3.... all 3 feel everyone should be able to see a doctor....but if its Medicare that is going to be the public option....they all feel....we may be in trouble.....everyone should poll their doctors....see what other real world doctors are saying instead of the big associations many who are out of touch and in it for perks.....post it here and lets see what the "real" docs are saying about this....
> ...



thanks for giving us an example of my multiple choice post Chris.....


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > how come Chris VERY...VERY... seldom will answer questions asked of him?.....is he.....
> ...



So ... you support giving all the money to AARP now ... good to see you like helping the rich get richer.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



What a stupid assumption.

Having a public option does not mean the "government pays and controls everything."

I outlined twice how the rest of the world keeps healthcare costs down. Here it is again...

Other countries control costs by making medical schools cheaper to attend, reducing the cost of drugs, eliminating useless procedures and tests, using electronic records, streamlining admins, limiting malpractice, paying doctors less, and covering everyone, so the most expensive medical care there is, the emergency room, is used less often.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare because they do these things.

So there it is in a nutshell, my friends. This is how the rest of the world does healthcare better and cheaper than we do.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > how come Chris VERY...VERY... seldom will answer questions asked of him?.....is he.....
> ...



thanks for proving it again Chris.....


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



 You didn't read the bill did you?

So ... now instead of making the students pay for their college, you want the rest of us to pay for it ... yeah, that'll lower costs to ...  You can't make this shit up!


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



No, you can't make this shit up.

The rest of the world uses these methods outlined to reduce healthcare costs, and it works.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



How about using a relevant example, like a country who has as many regulation committees, licensing fees, processing fees, testing fees, and government enforced fees as our country being able to keep their costs down ... or at least a country with at least half those costs.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Oh, please, not that again.

Just go back to watching your Glenn Beck reruns.


----------



## elvis (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



and you're re-reading the communist manifesto.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


why not, YOU do


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Damn, I knew there was something I keep forgetting to watch online ...

Hint: I haven't watched one of his shows yet. I am just posting logic, something you are incapable of using.

So ... show exactly how having the government run and pay for health insurance will decrease the cost ... directly, none of this false connection bullshit anymore, nut up or shut up.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Sorry, I already answered that question.

Three times.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


only in your very delusional mind


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No, you spun off on a new tangent about something completely unrelated to health insurance.


----------



## elvis (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



no that's how many times old rocks made you swallow.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Seriously, have you been drinking?

Here it is for the fourth time....

Other countries control costs by making medical schools cheaper to attend, reducing the cost of drugs, eliminating useless procedures and tests, using electronic records, streamlining admins, limiting malpractice, paying doctors less, and covering everyone, so the most expensive medical care there is, the emergency room, is used less often.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You have yet to say how they do all this ...

See, you are just spinning, nothing more. Making false connections and assumptions does not answer the question: How does having the government control and pay for health care keep the costs down?

Show your damned work for once, show some logic, not just catch phrases, or admit you don't know a damned thing about what's really going on and are just swallowing some political bullshit.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Now you are just being silly.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


no, that would be you


----------



## Oddball (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Now you are just being silly.


You make Ravi look like an National Honor Society candidate.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 8, 2009)

Dude said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Now you are just being silly.
> ...



Right now he's making Sunni look like a Mensa member.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Oh, please, not that again.
> 
> Just go back to watching your Glenn Beck reruns.



why dont you answer her question Chris?......you answered mine...twice....or are you going to just keep letting me and JUST ABOUT everyone else keep thinking your a clueless idiot....


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 8, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, please, not that again.
> ...



He can't, he simply has never been able to counter anything I have posted, much less answer any of my questions, it would require he admitting to being wrong.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sorry, I already answered that question.
> 
> Three times.



no you gave your standard answer to every fucking thing anyone asks you....
"*
Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare because they do these things."
*
you must be a great person in real life to have a conversation with......

hey chris wanna go to the game tonight?....

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare because they do these things."

hey Chris wanna go get some dinner?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare because they do these things."

do you get this line in while your selling the houses you sell in the ghetto?.....while having sex?....if you actually do.....broaden your horizons Chris.....every person here,including those just as left as you are....DONT ...i repeat.....DONT keep on repeating the same shit over and over.....only you and your hero Sean Hanitty seem to do this.....you dont do a good job of convincing people Chris....as a matter of fact ....YOU SUCK AT IT...


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 8, 2009)

I find it interesting when people would  use the AARP and AMA as somehow being the  standard by which Seniors and  Doctors are measured.  As I posted earlier the AARP is a the number 1 lobby group in Washington D.C.  and as a  group that provides insurance services  under Govt. programs , is that a surprise that they would support a bill that they as a group would get wealthy from?  Ask yourself this, if the AARP had intended to represent it's membership i.e. Seniors,  don't you find it interesting they would support a bill that cuts  500 Billion from Medicare? So while AARP may support the bill I would not use that as an endorsement by it's membership. 

As for the AMA it is much the same as the AARP and has for years been losing membership,

The American Medical Association posted a $28.1 million operating profit in 2005, its sixth consecutive year in the black, but also suffered *its sixth straight year of declining membership *despite a national advertising campaign launched last spring to counter the trend.

Chicago-based AMA earned operating profit of about $40 million in 2004, and the decline in 2005 reflects the cost of the national advertising campaign, $22.1 million in 2005, roughly triple what the AMA spent on marketing and promotion in 2004.

AMA profitable in 2005 but membership continues to slide | Crain's Chicago Business

 Seeing the increasing divergence between the perception that the AMA seeks to perpetuate among the general public and an increasingly angered physician population, Sermo polled the 100,000 US physicians in our community as to what they thought of the AMA. Within five days, over 4,100 US physicians voted on the poll and discussed it in over 700 comments. The results were nothing short of stunning * 89% of those physicians say, the AMA does not speak for me* (See full survey results by clicking the image on the right).


So again when you toot the horn of those 2 organizations  please use them in the perspective  , and that is the Lobby part of AARP and AMA and not it's members may support the bill.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, please, not that again.
> ...



For the fifth time....

Other countries control costs by making medical schools cheaper to attend, reducing the cost of drugs, eliminating useless procedures and tests, using electronic records, streamlining admins, limiting malpractice, paying doctors less, and covering everyone, so the most expensive medical care there is, the emergency room, is used less often.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I find it interesting when people would  use the AARP and AMA as somehow being the  standard by which Seniors and  Doctors are measured.  As I posted earlier the AARP is a the number 1 lobby group in Washington D.C.  and as a  group that provides insurance services  under Govt. programs , is that a surprise that they would support a bill that they as a group would get wealthy from?  Ask yourself this, if the AARP had intended to represent it's membership i.e. Seniors,  don't you find it interesting they would support a bill that cuts  500 Billion from Medicare? So while AARP may support the bill I would not use that as an endorsement by it's membership.
> 
> As for the AMA it is much the same as the AARP and has for years been losing membership,
> 
> ...



Doctors support universal health care: survey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

Doctors support universal health care: survey | Health | Reuters


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 8, 2009)

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby &#8212; the powerful American Medical Association &#8212; both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

Whats your point Chirs? see what I mean when you use these polls to suggest that Doctors are somehow all in support of the current legislation it's a very weak position at best. while I will agree that like most everyone, myself included, are in favor of healthcare reform, it's a leap of faith to suggest that favoring reform is favoring this bill.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
> 
> The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby  the powerful American Medical Association  both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
> 
> ...



It's an even bigger leap of faith to believe a poll from the "Investor's Business Daily."


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
> ...


only because you are a fucking IDIOT


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris, FYI

William J. O'Neil (born March 25, 1933) is an American entrepreneur, stockbroker and writer, who founded the business newspaper Investor's Business Daily and the stock brokerage firm William O'Neil + Co. Inc. He is the author of the books How to Make Money in Stocks and 24 Essential Lessons for Investment Success and is the creator of the CAN SLIM investment strategy.

O'Neil was born March 25, 1933 in Oklahoma City and raised in Texas. He studied business at Southern Methodist University, received a Bachelor's degree and served in the United States Air Force. [1]

In 1960, he was accepted to Harvard Business School's first Program for Management Development (PMD). [2]

In 1958 he started his career as a stockbroker at Hayden, Stone & Company, and developed an investment strategy which made early use of computers. He stated in a 2002 interview that one of the books which was an early influence on him was Gerald Loeb's The Battle for Investment Survival. According to O'Neil, this is the best book on the market.[3] Other investors which he took great interest in were Bernard Baruch, Jesse Livermore, Jack Dreyfus, and Nicolas Darvas. He also greatly admired Thomas Edison.

From his research, O'Neil invented the CAN SLIM strategy and became the top-performing broker in his firm.[citation needed] He bought a seat on the NYSE at age 30 (the youngest at that time ever to do so) [4], and in 1963 founded William O'Neil + Co. Inc., a company which developed the first computerized daily securities database in 1963/1964 [5], and currently tracks over 200 data items for over 10,000 companies


I made no conclusions on your source which by the way I have used many times, so let's try and stick to the topic, or is it you didn't like the results of this poll as it was the  opposite of yours?  I did that to show that polls, especially one's like these are subjective.


----------



## Chris (Nov 8, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Chris, FYI
> 
> William J. O'Neil (born March 25, 1933) is an American entrepreneur, stockbroker and writer, who founded the business newspaper Investor's Business Daily and the stock brokerage firm William O'Neil + Co. Inc. He is the author of the books How to Make Money in Stocks and 24 Essential Lessons for Investment Success and is the creator of the CAN SLIM investment strategy.
> 
> ...



Thanks.

The monied interests are fighting tooth and nail to continue to rip off the sick.

In the end they will lose.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris, FYI
> ...


keep up that class warfare chris, someday someone might take you seriously


----------

