# Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill



## del (Jul 17, 2009)

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

Three House committees are slated to begin considering the $1 trillion-plus bill this week, but the Energy and Commerce looms as the biggest challenge. That's because it counts among its 36 Democratic members seven members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a fiscally conservative bloc that is opposing the House Democrats' effort

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...eaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill


----------



## elvis (Jul 17, 2009)

del said:


> WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> 
> "Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
> 
> ...



wait.  what are the Lefties gonna do with no republicans to blame for this?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 17, 2009)

Yay! Everything's going to stay the same! 50 Million People still won't have healthcare! And insurance companies are going to keep fucking you in the ass! Isn't that awesome? 

Good job, guys. *thumbs up*


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 17, 2009)

del said:


> WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> 
> "Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
> 
> ...



Good.

Now hopefully there will be some form of honest debate and compromise on the bill.

Oh wait, this is Congress we are talking about.  Scratch the honest part and hope for compromise.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Yay! Everything's going to stay the same! 50 Million People still won't have healthcare! And insurance companies are going to keep fucking you in the ass! Isn't that awesome?
> 
> Good job, guys. *thumbs up*


half those 50 million are either in transition to other jobs or recently unemployed
and many in the other half have access to it but they just choose not to get


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Good.
> 
> Now hopefully there will be some form of honest debate and compromise on the bill.
> 
> Oh wait, this is Congress we are talking about.  Scratch the honest part and hope for* a bill that isn't totally watered down and does nothing*.



Fixed it for you Article.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> half those 50 million are either in transition to other jobs or recently unemployed
> and many in the other half have access to it but they just choose not to get



I have access to a mall, doesn't mean I can afford to buy it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Good.
> ...


them doing nothing looks like the best option to me


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> them doing nothing looks like the best option to me



Oh yes, meanwhile the insurance companies continue to fuck the average american up the ass. Did you not hear the CEOs of these companies in Congress investigations when they said they would not change of their policy of dropping people whenever the fuck they feel like it?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > half those 50 million are either in transition to other jobs or recently unemployed
> ...


when you can get it from your employer for about 20% of the cost(in your actual deduction) most should be able to afford
most employers that have healthcare, pay aprox 80% of the cost
thats why the COBRA coverage is too expensive for most to buy during the transistion between jobs


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > them doing nothing looks like the best option to me
> ...


well, it would be better than totally fucking the whole thing up just to pass SOMETHING
dont ya think?

btw, how many of those insurance companies did that include?
and how many of them would stay in business long if they just dropped paying customers at random?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> well, it would be better than totally fucking the whole thing up just to pass SOMETHING
> dont ya think?



No, they don't have to fuck it up. However, if both sides stopped playing politics for about three god damn seconds, and actually took the American people into consideration for ONCE in their lives then maybe, just MAYBE something could get done.

All they've done is watered it down constantly since it was first talked about. At this point it's not even the Liberal vs Conservative option. It's the Moderate Center to Right options. This COULD BE done correctly if the fucking Republicans in congress and Republican Democrats stopped crying Socialism for a damn second when every other wealthy industrialized nation in the WORLD has at least an HEALTH CARE OPTION.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm happy with my healthcare but I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with benefits.  I'm more concerned with helping those in need and eliminating waste.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

btw, bobby, if i'm a business owner and they just try to randomly drop my employees from coverage, they have broken the contract and i would take my business elsewhere


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> btw, how many of those insurance companies did that include?
> and how many of them would stay in business long if they just dropped paying customers at random?



Plenty of them, you didn't see them all in front of Congress?

You don't understand, they drop these customers the minute they get seriously ill so they don't have to pay for their bills. They assign someone to their case in order to try and find a loophole to drop them. Which is basically being able to drop these people anytime they feel like it.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> them doing nothing looks like the best option to me


Gimmie some of that gridlock, baby!!


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > well, it would be better than totally fucking the whole thing up just to pass SOMETHING
> ...


yeah, and they also have shitty healthcare too
when i call for an appointment i dont want to wait 3 months to get it
longest i have ever had to wait is a week


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > btw, how many of those insurance companies did that include?
> ...


Too bad...Let 'em go on Medicare/Medicaid if it's such a hot deal.

Life's tough...Shit happens...Wear a fuckin' helmet.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > btw, how many of those insurance companies did that include?
> ...


bullshit
thats not even close to the truth
they provide the coverage they agreed to provide in the contract


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> ...


Blame republicans anyways.....It's the only play they have when they fail.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> bullshit
> thats not even close to the truth
> they provide the coverage they agreed to provide in the contract



Misfortune Tellers: 10 ways insurance companies will screw you. at DailyStrength

Where&#8217;s the Outrage? » Why Are Congressional Democrats Screwing Up Healthcare Reform? (Update)

5 Loopholes Where Your Insurance Company Can Screw You Over | 24/7 Quote US - Online Insurance Quotes, Tips, and News!

You May Be One Serious Illness Away From Bankruptcy | 24/7 Quote US - Online Insurance Quotes, Tips, and News!

Yup, how is living down in the rabbit's hole doing?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > bullshit
> ...


Fine....Don't carry insurance and save up for your own potential medical services.

Who in hell made it a right to have a third party pay for your medical bills??


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> bullshit
> thats not even close to the truth
> they provide the coverage they agreed to provide in the contract



Oh, and if you still don't believe me:

Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coverage - Los Angeles Times


> Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.
> 
> The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.
> 
> ...






> But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.





> Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."
> 
> The answer from all three executives:
> 
> "No."



But hey, keep defending these companies, but god forbid if you get cancer (I hope that never happens) go and see what these companies do.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Tough shit....Go on Medicare/Medicaid.

They're miracles....Haven't you heard??


----------



## Modbert (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Tough shit....Go on Medicare/Medicaid.
> 
> They're miracles....Haven't you heard??



Dude, stop being such a asshole. Honestly, we already know that Medicare/Medicaid aren't perfect. I can understand that you don't give a shit whether these people live or die.


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 17, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> ...



Election years, candidates won't vote for an expensive and comprehensive bill.  Democrats have to get this through this year if they are going to ever.

The debate is fine, get something less expensive, more efficient, whatever but big insurance is driving people to the poorhouse.  Perhaps not you all here yet but at some point, you might be hoplessly at the mercy of the insurance companies.

Maybe you'll wish that they didn't have quite so much power over your health and the decisions you need to make.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Not really sure who or if it really even is but I think it's wrong to deny the sick medical care.  I think that we as a society should be able to come up with a way to ensure all those who need care get it.  How that can be accomplished efficiently is something I don't have the answer to but I would like to see that goal reached.  Your attitude seems to be somewhere along the lines of "fuck 'em."


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 17, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



All those who need medical care can get it now even if they don't have medical insurance.  For routine care and testing, there are free and sliding scale clinics available from the US Health Service, most teaching hospitals and a variety of non profits in virtually every city and every rural area, and for treatment of more serious illnesses, anyone can qualify for Medicaid once they spend down their income and assets.  The whole focus of the House bill and the Kennedy-Dodd bill is to shift the cost of care for uninsured people from them to other taxpayers, not to provide health care that is already available.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> ...



When you guys say "dems are no better", you are referring to people like this Mike Ross.  

Health Care: The Public Plan Option

These Democratic Senators have NOT agreed to support it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) 

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

These names are reported by The Hill here and here

Update: Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) says she supports a public option.
Update: Senator Jeff Binghaman (D-NM) says he supports a public option.


----------



## jillian (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> half those 50 million are either in transition to other jobs or recently unemployed
> and many in the other half have access to it but they just choose not to get



you know, i know that's what the repubs are trying to say, but I've seen not one iota of proof of that. 

do you really think it's logical that people would CHOOSE not to avail themselves of medical coverage if it were available?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



True, but you aren't addressing the problems that we have in our healthcare system.  Pre existing conditions, the fact that we pay more and get less.  Most bankruptsies are due to healthcare costs, poor people go to emergency rooms and get free healthcare at our expense, etc.

For profits should not be in charge of healthcare.  Its not a good fit.  They will keep raising their prices to max profits.  They don't care about the sick.  The sick cut into their profits.  Blablabla.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Again, health care is available to everyone now even if you don't have health insurance and under the present plan, it costs taxpayers trillions of dollars less than it would under the Dem plans.  The Dem plans are good news for uninsured people who get sick and have to spend down their incomes and assets to qualify for Medicaid and bad news for everyone else.  

Private insurance companies may or may not care about sick people but with very few exceptions they do live up to the terms of their policies.  Virtually every new piece of equipment and every new technology available to your doctor has been paid for with insurance money because the insurance companies are bound by their policies to cover efficacious new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.  

If you are uninsured for any reason, you can get fairly comprehensive routine medical and dental care, even for mild to moderate chronic condition like diabetes, at a variety of free clinics located throughout the US.  For example, if you go to a US Health Service clinic, you will be seen by a physician, provided with basic diagnostic tests such as blood work and x-rays and in most cases given prescribed medications and small medical devices all for free or for a sliding scale fee depending on the financial information you provide.  The problem with this system is that if you develop a more serious illness that requires tests and treatments beyond the scope of the clinic, you might have to spend down your assets and income to the point of poverty before you would qualify for Medicaid.

Again, medical care is already available to the uninsured, and the Dem bills only really address the issue of whether the uninsured pays for it or other taxpayers do.  If we decide other taxpayers should pay for it, doesn't the government owe it to those other taxpayers to provide this financial relief to the uninsured in the least expensive way that is likely to produce good health outcomes?  The federal government can do this by starting a public service program that encourages uninsured people to get their routine care from already existing free clinics, providing tax incentives for people who increase their charitable giving to help fund these clinics and by providing sliding scale subsidies to uninsured who honestly cannot afford to buy their own insurance for any reason to buy catastrophic health insurance that will only kick in when their needs go beyond what can be provided at the free clinics.  This would provide universal health care without requiring anyone to go broke to get it at a cost hundreds of billions of dollars less for taxpayers than the Obama-Dem bills will.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> addressing the problems that we have in our healthcare system.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Healthcare was out of control when the GOP were in charge and they did nothing about it.  Most likely because the healthcare companies paid them to leave it alone.  Now the healthcare companies are bribing Democrats to obstruct progress.  

Healthcare is bankrupting too many Americans

When you are old and in a retirement home, do you want a healthcare professional taking care of you or a minimum wage high school kid or illegal alien taking care of you?  Because ultimately, for profits will cut any and all costs that they can.

The current system will cost the rich less than the Dems plan, but not everyone.  When you say "taxpayers", you mean the rich.  And it isn't 'bad news" for everyone else.  Thats just the for profits and rush limbaugh talking.  

For profits do live up to the terms.  Just make sure you read the small print.  And part of the terms is that they can deny you or take you off the program.  Maybe not your plan, but many plans aren't as good as yours. 

You're just worried about you.  Thank god the founding fathers weren't like you.  

Bottom line is that you don't grasp just what a mess our healthcare is.  It needs reforming.  But the insurance companies and their lap dogs (you) will do everything you can to keep it the way it is.  Maybe you'll wake up in 10 years when you can't afford it.  Better how the Dems have the power in all three houses then.  Its rare.  

And if the healthcare's win now, we are doomed.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 17, 2009)

del said:


> WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> 
> "Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
> 
> ...



This is the first piece of good news I've heard since before bush signed off on the first round of bailouts (it seems like things went downhill fast once he did that dumbass move).

Thank you for posting it


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > addressing the problems that we have in our healthcare system.



Waaa Obama is a socialist!  Waaaa he's going to ruin America!!!  Waaaaa we have to give the corporations more tax breaks because I'm a house slave and I got it good.  

Yes life got worse for the house slave after slavery was abolished, but life got better for the field slaves, and there were a lot more field slaves than house slaves.  And consider this.  If the house slave would have had his way, black people would still be slaves.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 17, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Yay! Everything's going to stay the same! 50 Million People still won't have healthcare! And insurance companies are going to keep fucking you in the ass! Isn't that awesome?
> 
> Good job, guys. *thumbs up*



No one is cheering for the status quo. What Obama doesn't seem to get yet, is that it isn't enough to just to something, anything about it. It needs to be the right solution and as a lefty his first idea for a solution for a problem is going to be let goverment handle it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

jillian said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > half those 50 million are either in transition to other jobs or recently unemployed
> ...


when you were between 18 and 25 did you have medical coverage?
and if so, were YOU the one paying for it?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You're a "house slave?"

I thought you were just a hack-in-the-box!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 17, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Yay! Everything's going to stay the same! 50 Million People still won't have healthcare! And insurance companies are going to keep fucking you in the ass! Isn't that awesome?
> ...



Exactly.   The system needs work as its not perftect and the medicine for profit aspect causes problems with affordable care.

Its just obama's "Let the govt provide a coverage/control option" is ludicris.  They cant even get social security right and thats just a simple savings plan.

Some stuff needs to be done but not this drastic craziness the President and the Congress are presenting to us.


EDIT:   Up until I was 30 I chose to not pay for health insurance, i didn't really think I needed it...you know the "i'm invincible" years.   Now, at least in my state, if I choose not to get it to save myself some money I end up getting fined by the govt.....so in reality I no longer have the freedom to choose whether or not I want health insurance.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Yay! Everything's going to stay the same! 50 Million People still won't have healthcare! And insurance companies are going to keep fucking you in the ass! Isn't that awesome?
> ...



And do you know how they will fuck it up?  The lobbyists will be involved in writing up the bill. 

And you know this is true.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 17, 2009)

They should've just put it off for next year.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



I'm getting tired of your guys lame old arguments, lies and false propoganda.  

Ask any senior if they would give up social security.

And ask any canadian if they would trade theirs for ours.  

PS.  The GOP wouldn't even consider messing with healthcare when they were in charge.  They filabustered any talk of it.  So now that we are in charge, they're saying our ideas are bad and they/you have the solutions?  Too late.

The only hope you guys have is that the healthcare industry can bribe enough Dems to stop change.  

Health Care: The Public Plan Option

These Democratic Senators have NOT agreed to support it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) 

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> They should've just put it off for next year.



Are you serious?

Gotta get done this year with the election being next year.

We have 60 seats now with Al Franken.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Are you rich?  No?  Then why do you caucus with the rich, house slave.  BOY!


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > They should've just put it off for next year.
> ...



Yeah, but like 15 of them are gonna say no. It's gonna fail, dude.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



Yes, and then I will agree with you that 15 Democrats are no better than Republcans.

All bought and paid for by the healthcare lobbyists.

Won't do any of them any good.  They will lose the next time they are up for election.

And good luck getting appointed to any good committees.

Ah hell, they're all in on it.

You and I both know that if they do pass something, its going to be written by the healthcare industry lobbyists, and so you will be right, there will be no real progress and it won't fix the real problems.

Just like when we all stood together and insisted they secure the borders.  

I believe it was in 2006 right before the midterm.  They passed an immigration bill, but it was watered down and didn't do very much.

CNN.com - Senate passes immigration bill - May 25, 2006

But the borders are a little more secure and the numbers have gone down a little, but the bill cost billions so they gave us minimum and took maximum for it.  

God its frustrating.  You're probably right.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 17, 2009)

The cost of doing NOTHING


*Introduction*
The U.S. health care system is in crisis. Health care costs too much; we often get too little in exchange for our health care dollar; and tens of millions of Americans are uninsured.

Our economy loses hundreds of billions of dollars every year because of the diminished health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Rising health care costs undermine the ability of U.S. firms to compete internationally, threaten the stability of American jobs, and place increasing strain on local, state, and federal budgets. As health care costs continue to rise faster than wages, health insurance becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day.

Yet, the recent financial services meltdown has led some people to suggest that we cannot afford health reform and that fixing our broken health care system will have to wait once again. But waiting comes with a price. The crisis worsens every day that we do not act. Premiums will continue to rise; Americans will continue to pay more for less-generous health coverage; and fewer employers will offer health insurance to their workers.

We must reform our struggling health system not in spite of our economic crisis, but rather because of the impact health care has on the American economy. The economic and social impact of inaction is high and it will only rise over time.

*Economic Cost*
The economic cost of failing to fix our broken health care system is greater than the upfront expense of comprehensive health reform. In 2006, our economy lost as much as $200 billion because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. This is by most estimates as much as, if not greater than, the public costs of ensuring all Americans have quality, affordable, health coverage. The economies in California, Texas, and Florida suffer most from productivity loses stemming from the uninsured. Yet, Delawares economy loses more per uninsured person -- over $6,800 per uninsured resident.

*Affordability*
As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.

New Mexico, Maine, and South Carolina will see the greatest increases in the cost of family policies over the next eight years. In Maine, the average family employer-sponsored insurance policy will top $30,000 by 2016. According to our estimates, households in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Maine will have to spend the greatest shares of their income in order to purchase health insurance in 2016. Half of households in South Carolina will have to spend more than 62 percent of their incomes to buy health insurance in 2016.

*Coverage*
The financial protection offered by health insurance coverage will continue to deteriorate if we do not act. Americans will pay more for less and copayments and deductibles will rise. The average deductible nationwide will increase 73 percent to almost $2,700 by 2016. Average copayments will climb to $30.

Residents from Delaware and Vermont will see the biggest difference in their deductibles in 2016. Rising deductibles combined with higher premiums will make many Americans financially vulnerable to high health care bills. Residents of New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Hawaii will notice the biggest difference in how much they pay when they see a doctor in 2016. In New Mexico, a single office visit could cost an insured patient almost $50.

*Conclusion*
U.S. businesses, governments, and American families have all demonstrated that health care reform is a vital component of their long-term economic stability. Our nation will recover from its current financial services crisis, and when it does the U.S. will still be faced with a crumbling health system. As the data in this report shows, the cost of failing to act is high and it will only rise over time.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/cost_doing_nothing


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



PS.  If the Dems can't get er done, they are going to lose seats.

Can't bring jobs back home, can't fix healthcare, can't help gays, can't help unions, can't raise wages, can't end the wars.

Yea, they will be in serious trouble.  

But I'm not throwing in the towel yet.  I'm just warning them what WILL happen IF...


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 17, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> I'm happy with my healthcare but I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with benefits.  I'm more concerned with helping those in need and eliminating waste.



Then grab a person in need and help them and you've done your part. Why waste money on a middle man ?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Yay! Everything's going to stay the same! 50 Million People still won't have healthcare! And insurance companies are going to keep fucking you in the ass! Isn't that awesome?
> ...


And a shitload of the remainder qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but haven't applied for it.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Tough shit....Go on Medicare/Medicaid.
> ...


Why not act like this??...It's what you Fabian socialist loons what to believe, so why should I let you down??

Not only aren't Medicare/Medicaid perfec,. they're broke and cost about five times what they were projected to cost.

And somehow, we're supposed to believe that the D.C. dipshits are going to control costs _*this time*_??


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


welkl, of course they will "this time"
and the next time and the next time and so on


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 17, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm happy with my healthcare but I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with benefits.  I'm more concerned with helping those in need and eliminating waste.
> ...



That's what we are doign with the for profits.  The government will do it for much less than the for profits.  No CEO demanding $20 million bonus'.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 17, 2009)

Nope...Just kooks like Bill Frist writing legislation on what procedures you can have and which you cannot.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 17, 2009)

Dude said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



and im sure plenty are part of the illegal Immigrant Brigade.....


----------



## Meister (Jul 17, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> They should've just put it off for next year.



Your right, they should have.  But, Obama has his shove it in your face attitude with all these bills.  If done right a good healthcare bill could work, but not on a time frame that has been laid for it.  There are ways that it could work, but not in it's current wording.  The government needs to step back, and not bully it through.  Obama knows he has a short window of opportunity before he really loses major support, and possibly seats in the House and Senate.  This is what's driving his timetable.


----------



## elvis (Jul 17, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



how much is boss paying you to fuck around on the internet at work?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The problem is that employers do cover around 80% of the cost, but the cost continues to rise.  It's going to double again, and believe me, we're going to hit a breaking point where employers can no longer afford to offer this coverage.  Of course, large employers are mandated to cover their employees, so they're only option will be to shut down.  

Again, despite the problem of having so many uninsured, the bigger problem is the rising costs which are greatly outpacing inflation and eating a larger percentage of companies revenue.  It is unsustainable, but nobody wants to address this.  We keep getting the same argument that everything is fine the way it is.  Sorry, but that is not the case.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



They do it all the time.  Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not the business of providing healthcare.  If you have a need for healthcare, they will only take you on if they are forced to, or they will charge so much that the coverage is unaffordable to most.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> I'm happy with my healthcare but I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with benefits.  I'm more concerned with helping those in need and eliminating waste.



The average policy for a family of four costs around $12,000 per year.  What are companies going to do when that $12,000 becomes $24,000 in today's dollars?  This is where we are headed, and very few companies will be able to stay in business with that type of expense.  Healthcare costs are nearly breaking companies already.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The only reason they don't drop everyone that becomes sick is because there are laws against it.  However, those laws don't cover everyone, specifically the self-employed.  If you work for a company and move from one company to another, you'll get coverage under HIPAA rules.  But if you're self-employed, you're fucked.

But again, that isn't the biggest problem overall.  Cost is the biggest problem, but everyone keeps denying that and thinks the current system will remain affordable for most people, but it won't.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

And the last time politicians and bureaucrats made _*ANYTHING*_ less expensive and delivered a superior product was???


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Yea, Dude's answer to everything is "fuck em".  If they can't afford healthcare, no biggie.  Society has no obligation to the welfare of it's people.  But the bigger problem is that the cost is spiraling out of control for everyone, and many who may just be finding a way to afford coverage now, will not be able to much longer.  Within ten years, the number of uninsured will double under our current system.  And the more that are uninsured, the higher the cost will go.  

But you gotta love Dude's ideas.  He thinks we shouldn't have insurance at all, just pay cash for your healthcare.  Then those who can't afford it should be denied any treatment.  Now that's a great plan, don't you think?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...


and cost isnt going to change even if EVERYONE gets coverage
more likely the costs would skyrocket


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Ah if it were so simple.  Let me explain something; to qualify for Medicaid, you must be under the poverty line.  In other words, you need to be dirt poor.  If you make $30,000 per year, but medical insurance and out of pocket costs amount to $20,000, you won't qualify for Medicare.  So you go without.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Yea, Dude's answer to everything is "fuck em".  If they can't afford healthcare, no biggie.  Society has no obligation to the welfare of it's people.  But the bigger problem is that the cost is spiraling out of control for everyone, and many who may just be finding a way to afford coverage now, will not be able to much longer.  Within ten years, the number of uninsured will double under our current system.  And the more that are uninsured, the higher the cost will go.
> 
> But you gotta love Dude's ideas.  He thinks we shouldn't have insurance at all, just pay cash for your healthcare.  Then those who can't afford it should be denied any treatment.  Now that's a great plan, don't you think?


Who cares what my ideas are??....You sure as hell don't. You're just all about getting something for nothing.

So I say fuck it...I'll just play the role you freeloaders assume is the default "let 'em die in the streets" position, and be done with it.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



I can't buy a catasrophic insurance policy.  I am uninsurable, blah blah blah.  Of course I'm uninsurable because I moved from one state to another.  Go figure.  But again, this is how the insurance companies operate.  They find any way they can to not cover you if you become sick, if they can legally.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > addressing the problems that we have in our healthcare system.



We're going to bankrupt the country by leaving it the way it is.  Find a fucking solution rather than telling us how great our current system is.


----------



## elvis (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



the reason they are stalling in congress is because the spending is out of control.  social medicine isn't free.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


well, if the choice is to mess up the healthcare and go bankriupt or leave it as it is and go bankrupt, i say leave it alone


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> The cost of doing NOTHING
> 
> 
> *Introduction*
> ...



Great post and article.  I think their projections are a bit high too soon, but this is exactly where we are headed without some major changes, and it will bankrupt this entire country.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Dude said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



They cost so much more than projected because people are living so much longer and needing care for a much longer period of time, at least that is the case with Medicare.  You want us to believe Medicare is over budget because it is poorly run, which is not the case.  But nice try.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The cost of doing NOTHING
> ...


but what they are planing will bankrupt us also
so why do it?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



One thing Hillary said that I agree with completely.  If you're going to insure everyone, then everyone needs to help foot the bill.  That means anyone working must pay a percentage toward their own care because it can't be a free ride and it shouldn't be left to everyone else to pay for it.  But make it affordable to everyone and help those who can't afford it.  But to do that, you have to force everyone to pay into the system whether it is government run or privately run.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> They cost so much more than projected because people are living so much longer and needing care for a much longer period of time, at least that is the case with Medicare.  You want us to believe Medicare is over budget because it is poorly run, which is not the case.  But nice try.


Bullshit.

It costs more because there's no market mechanism to contain costs.

Make all the lame assed excuses you want, the simple fact remains that you cannot name _*just one *_bloated federal program that has ever come in under budget and delivered a superior product.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Dude said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, Dude's answer to everything is "fuck em".  If they can't afford healthcare, no biggie.  Society has no obligation to the welfare of it's people.  But the bigger problem is that the cost is spiraling out of control for everyone, and many who may just be finding a way to afford coverage now, will not be able to much longer.  Within ten years, the number of uninsured will double under our current system.  And the more that are uninsured, the higher the cost will go.
> ...



Screw you with your something for nothing.  The insurance companies found a way to get me out of the system.  I was able to afford the $6000 to $7000 per year for my healthcare, but no, I can't afford the $14,000 to $16,000 it will cost me now.   So if I get really sick now, I'll lose any assets I do have, and then I'll end up on Medicaid and your stupid ass will help pay the bill.  Just brilliant, isn't it?

But hey, in ten to twenty years, when half the God Damn country is without insurance, you can bet your ass, the government will take over completely.  Then you can kiss your options goodbye, because people like you don't want to deal with the problem now.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



I've never said it was free.  And to be honest, I don't care if the government runs it or the private sector does.  But there have to be changes that force everyone to pay into the system to spread the costs as much as possible, and they have to find ways to cut costs.  We cannot continue on the path we are on.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


i'd rather wait those 20 years than to do it NOW


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



This is what I love.  Rather than addressing the problem, you want to leave it alone, knowing it will bankrupt us all.  Everyone saw this coming ten years ago, yet nobody wanted to address this.  Now that someone is trying to, the answer is that we better leave it the way it is?  Come on, use some common sense here.  At least offer a better solution.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Screw you with your something for nothing.  The insurance companies found a way to get me out of the system.  I was able to afford the $6000 to $7000 per year for my healthcare, but no, I can't afford the $14,000 to $16,000 it will cost me now.   So if I get really sick now, I'll lose any assets I do have, and then I'll end up on Medicaid and your stupid ass will help pay the bill.  Just brilliant, isn't it?
> 
> But hey, in ten to twenty years, when half the God Damn country is without insurance, you can bet your ass, the government will take over completely.  Then you can kiss your options goodbye, because people like you don't want to deal with the problem now.


And screw you with your attitude of entitlement to a third party picking up the tab for your bills....._*THAT*_ is what the real problem is here.

You whine and cry about the possibility of having to go on Medicaid, yet have no qualms about forcing everyone else into that same fucked up program so you can spread the misery around.

TFB for you...Life's tough, shit happens, wear a fucking helmet.


----------



## elvis (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



and this action obama is trying won't bankrupt us?  christ, he's spending like it's monopoly money.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


but you are talking about it taking DECADES to bankrupt us, where as what they are planning now will do it much faster


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Dude said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > They cost so much more than projected because people are living so much longer and needing care for a much longer period of time, at least that is the case with Medicare.  You want us to believe Medicare is over budget because it is poorly run, which is not the case.  But nice try.
> ...



Tell me, has private healthcare come in under budget?  Oh that's right, in the private sector the budget is as much as the market can bare.  Well, the market can't bare much more.

And in case you haven't researched it, the CBO estimates show Medicare costs to continue rising as a percentage of GDP, but the biggest rise in healthcare costs as part of GDP will come in the private sector.  Their estimates project that healthcare spending will hit 49% of GDP by 2082, and that is with some drastic cuts in spending.  If they stuck with the rate of growth in healthcare spending over the last thirty years, total GDP for healthcare spending would go beyond 100% of GDP by 2082.  

So the private sector under the current situation creates a much worse scenario than the public option.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

Dude said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Screw you with your something for nothing.  The insurance companies found a way to get me out of the system.  I was able to afford the $6000 to $7000 per year for my healthcare, but no, I can't afford the $14,000 to $16,000 it will cost me now.   So if I get really sick now, I'll lose any assets I do have, and then I'll end up on Medicaid and your stupid ass will help pay the bill.  Just brilliant, isn't it?
> ...



Well TFB for you when this system collapses and your arrogance leads you to a system that offers you no options whatsoever.  And guess what, you will be forced into that fucked up system because you can't see past today.  Talk about having your head in the sand.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Good luck.  Along with all those not having insurance, you can bet unemployment will be higher than you can even fathom.  Our economy will completely crash and burn.  Think about it; how many companies would be viable today if they had to foot a bill of $24,000 per year to cover their employees health insurance?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


and yyou think it wont by adding $2 TRILLION more debt per year?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Bush bailed out the banks.  Obama just followed through, so they're both at fault there.  They needed to do something with the banks, but the way they did it was a mess and way too expensive.  The stimulus was a joke and unnecessary as was bailing out the car companies.  They should have forced the car companies into bankruptcy first rather then doling out all that money up front.

But healthcare is another story.  Should the government be running the show?  Maybe, maybe not.  What I do know is that the current situation is unsustainable and the Republicans have only fought to keep things the way they are, and that will not work.  What it will do is completely destroy our economy.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Finding a way to control longterm cost now will not bankrupt us later.  Putting this off until our kids need to deal with it will.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


the plan they are proposing the CBO says is unsustainable
how does that fix anything?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Please show me anywhere that states this healthcare plan will put us in debt by $2 trillion per year.  You are using the current debt that includes stimulus spending, the bailout of the banks, and everything else.  

Again, I'm still willing to listen to reasonable options, and I've even made some of my own.  But we can't leave it as it is, and there are going to be changes.  And for those who don't want the government running the entire show, you better start coming up with some real good ideas that address both costs and coverage, because as the costs continue to rise, the liklihood of the government taking it over completely will increase exponentially as more and more become uninsured.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


since when do government programs ever only cost what they project?
and they are already projecting $1.4(or more) trillion for this plan


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 18, 2009)

Again, I wanna throw this out there, just to see if anybody responds: In every developed country IN THE WORLD besides America there are health care plans; almost everybody is insured IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; LIKE THE US, you know, not shitty ass backwater shiteholes, I'm talking about Europe and East Asian economic giants throughout history. Almost universally; these countries manage to cover their entire population with even less money than the US; you know, like they insure EVERYBODY and each person's (per capita) health coverage is WAYYYY lower than in the US: So my question is, besides ideological jokes like "America is a rugged inidvidualist nation" can these things be reconciled?

 I mean, the libertarians out there like to claim that either 1) the free market will cover everyone or that 2) well, health care is something you gotta work for, and if you didn't, you deserve to die or steal from the taxpayers, becuase you just don't deserve it, you didn't plan for the future. I personally think this is a silly thing to argue for: if everybody is covered that eliminates a huge hurdle for most people who simply can't afford it: whose ancestors won't be able to afford it either. If you cover everyone that elmiminates the continuum that if one is not insured the rest won't; and it allows everybody to follow their career choices without having to worry about whether it has health benefits or not; because everybody is covered.

I would also like to pre-empt the argument that without these non-national health insurances there is no competition to make new drugs. This is a complete distortion of the truth. The fact is that medicine-innovating companies have nothing to do with national health plans. Dozens of the most successful medical R&D firms are European, or Indian, or even Chinese, and from all over. Health R&D has nothing to do with private coverage; they are separate, and they actually BENEFIT from government-funded plans, linkages and connections between national and private univerisities and such; there is NO SUCH WAY TO LINK IT. EVEN in National Health Care Plans; i.e. Costa Rica's for example. the NHP [National Heath Plan] is constitutionally mandated to buy even the most expensive brand-name drugs to treat patients' illnesses. And these drugs are produced and bought from from any and every sort of company in the world. These are separate issues; and whoever tries to defend private health coverage through R&D justifications does not understand the issue. 

The main problem left is really waiting lines; which are experienced in many countries with NHPs. I mean, in Costa Rica this is a gigantic problem; and in actually rich countries these are problems; but we have to remember that America is the RICHEST country. Per capita GDP [nominal] is 10 times what it is in Costa Rica; and there are tons of doctors [more than in Costa Rica, which I'm using because I'm from there and because it's an underdeveloped country with which I'm familiar with], how can you guys simply not afford to make an affordable plan with less waiting lines when it is SO much cheapre elsewhere? I know that Americans like to think of themselves as innovators and "mavericks" and "rugged individualists"; but surely there must be some things that you can learn from other places that work; like other places have learnt from America things that have worked, right?? That's not such a far-fetched idea. 

Maybe the current health bill isn't the answer; but Americans have to realize that it will take money and it will take some sacrifices; but that at the same time 1/6 (50 million) of their people can't afford HEALTH CARE; which is a RIGHT in most DEVELOPED [read: not 'socialist' backwarer shitholes, but THE happiest, most advanced, equal, and tolerant societies in the world] countries. There is such a wide menu and ways to do it, you guys have to find a way to reconcile these different ways and adapt it to your own: it's the only way to truly take advantage of that huge chunk that remains less-than-productive and less-than-healthy than what should be the NORM in developed countries such as your own.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.






By Lee Iacocca

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

http://www.leeiacocca.net/thoughts-on-leadership/health-care.aspx


----------



## editec (Jul 18, 2009)

*Toomuchtime* believes that: 



> If you are uninsured for any reason, you can get fairly comprehensive routine medical and dental care, even for mild to moderate chronic condition like diabetes, at a variety of free clinics located throughout the US.


 
News to me. I am aware that people can show up at some ERs to get some services.

As to dental care?

That's pretty rare.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jul 18, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Yay! Everything's going to stay the same! 50 Million People still won't have healthcare! And insurance companies are going to keep fucking you in the ass! Isn't that awesome?
> 
> Good job, guys. *thumbs up*



ASS oon,   errr, as soon as you use the term "50 million people" it proves you are more interested in propaganda and  arent interested in the truth and an honest discussion on the topic.

It falls right in with:
10 % of the population is homosexual
the world is flat, etc


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > They should've just put it off for next year.
> ...



and to put 300 million people on it is no easy undertaking....and not one of these pro-NHC fuckers are talking about the frigging mountains that may have to be scaled to get it done....this is something that may take awhile....not just sign on the dotted line and WHOOSH its done like they are making it out to be.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



our boy is the top salesman there El.....he can be afforded a little slack....plus that,he and the manager teabag each other at lunch...


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 18, 2009)

editec said:


> *Toomuchtime* believes that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then this should be an educational experience for you.  Check out free clinics that exist almost everywhere in the US and are already being paid for by your tax dollars:

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page



> Federally-funded health centers care for you, even if you have no health insurance. You pay what you can afford, based on your income. Health centers provide:
> 
> checkups when you're well
> 
> ...



Next try googling "free clinic (city name)" to get a list of other free clinics.  For example "free clinic nyc" gave this list.

free clinic nyc - Google Search

In addition, virtually every medical, dental or podiatry school in the country, as well as most large teaching hospitals, runs a clinic that provides services for free or on a sliding scale basis depending on your income.  

Clearly these resources put affordable routine medical and dental care within reach of every American, including all low income uninsured Americans.  And no one in America need go into debt, let alone go bankrupt, to get these services.  All that is lacking in our present system is coverage for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that cannot be provided through these clinics, and that can be fixed, relatively inexpensively, with catastrophic coverage that kicks in only for services the clinics cannot provide.  

Clearly, when Pelosi, Rangel, Frank, Kennedy, Dodd, etc., and most especially Obama, paint dire pictures of low income families taking their sick children to ER's because no other health care is available to them, they are lying, and this whole drive to insanely mortgage our economy with an unneeded overhaul of our health insurance system is driven by ideological and political ambitions and not by any concern for health outcomes for the uninsured.

The fastest and cheapest way to provide comprehensive health care for those not presently insured is to provide tax incentives for individuals and corporations to increase charitable giving to free clinics not affiliated with the government, along with government grants where necessary, and sliding scale subsidies for catastrophic coverage for those services the clinics cannot provide.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> But you gotta love Dude's ideas.  He thinks we shouldn't have insurance at all, just pay cash for your healthcare.  Then those who can't afford it should be denied any treatment.  Now that's a great plan, don't you think?



show us where Dude said this....i think YOU are saying this to make it seem like Dude wants this....you know a spin on what he said....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Ah if it were so simple.  Let me explain something; to qualify for Medicaid, you must be under the poverty line.  In other words, you need to be dirt poor.  If you make $30,000 per year, but medical insurance and out of pocket costs amount to $20,000, you won't qualify for Medicare.  So you go without.



bullshit....just being poor does not mean you qualify for Medicaid...something like 60% of the poor in this country are not on it...why?
and you qualify for Medicare just by being 65 ....my folkes had it and they made more than 30 a year with their retirement...and had their own private ins and AARP....but they still had it....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> One thing Hillary said that I agree with completely.  If you're going to insure everyone, then everyone needs to help foot the bill.  That means anyone working must pay a percentage toward their own care because it can't be a free ride and it shouldn't be left to everyone else to pay for it.  But make it affordable to everyone and help those who can't afford it.  But to do that, you have to force everyone to pay into the system whether it is government run or privately run.



i agree with the concept if you take from the pile you must put something back in....so does this include people who dont contribute....and i dont mean the disabled...im talking if the payroll tax is what they are going to use lets say,then those who dont pay taxes when they get paid,should not be eligble...right?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > But you gotta love Dude's ideas.  He thinks we shouldn't have insurance at all, just pay cash for your healthcare.  Then those who can't afford it should be denied any treatment.  Now that's a great plan, don't you think?
> ...


This is why I say it's pointless to come up with any honest alternatives.....You'll just get pigeon holed by the medical care fascists and moochers as a mean spirited, hard hearted, cat kicking, etcetera etcetera so-and-so.

Might as well try to be reasoning with a two year old child throwing a shit fit temper tantrum.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Again, I wanna throw this out there, just to see if anybody responds: In every developed country IN THE WORLD besides America there are health care plans; almost everybody is insured IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; LIKE THE US, you know, not shitty ass backwater shiteholes, I'm talking about Europe and East Asian economic giants throughout history. Almost universally; these countries manage to cover their entire population with even less money than the US; you know, like they insure EVERYBODY and each person's (per capita) health coverage is WAYYYY lower than in the US: So my question is, besides ideological jokes like "America is a rugged inidvidualist nation" can these things be reconciled?
> 
> I mean, the libertarians out there like to claim that either 1) the free market will cover everyone or that 2) well, health care is something you gotta work for, and if you didn't, you deserve to die or steal from the taxpayers, becuase you just don't deserve it, you didn't plan for the future. I personally think this is a silly thing to argue for: if everybody is covered that eliminates a huge hurdle for most people who simply can't afford it: whose ancestors won't be able to afford it either. If you cover everyone that elmiminates the continuum that if one is not insured the rest won't; and it allows everybody to follow their career choices without having to worry about whether it has health benefits or not; because everybody is covered.
> 
> ...



i understand what your saying ED...but here there are 300 million people to deal with....you have 4 million in your country....my problem is the pro NHC people seem to give me the impression that once Obama signs the accord...BINGO...the next morning we have UHC and everythings fine....this is a friggin major undertaking...look at the countries of the world that have pop. in line with the US and tell me how great their MED systems are....


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 18, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



In the meantime, you can get most of your outpatient services, including most medications, for free or on a sliding scale basis depending on your income.  Check out these resources:

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

free clinic toledo - Google Search

It is true that as long as you are earning above the poverty line for your area you will not be able to get Medicaid, but if you avail yourself of these free or inexpensive medical services, you may be able to save some of the money you are now spending against extraordinary expenses that may arise in the future or to put against supplemental catastrophic health insurance, the cheapest kind, that will only cover extraordinary expenses.  

If people like yourself used the free medical care already available to them and the government offered sliding scale subsidies only for catastrophic coverage, everyone would have fully comprehensive health care available to them at hundreds of billions less than Obama & Co. are now proposing.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> I'm happy with my healthcare but I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with benefits.  I'm more concerned with helping those in need and eliminating waste.



You are in the vast majority.  Over 85% are happy with their health care, and the number goes even higher when we poll those who have recently had serious procedures.

while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own  health care than with  the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

And, of course, the 47 million figure of those uninsured is bogus, and is, in actuallity, closer to 15 million, 4.8 % of the population. 

Which leads to the question as to why the Democrats are so hot to throw out a working system.


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 18, 2009)

So, with the help of a few democrats, the Party of NO may win again.


----------



## elvis (Jul 18, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> So, with the help of a few democrats, the Party of NO may win again.



I hope so.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

If we're lucky.

Of course, they weren't "the party of no" when they were spending and expanding bureaucracy at a rate that would make LBJ blush.

But hey, when all you have is party man hack-in-the-box talking points......


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm happy with my healthcare but I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with benefits.  I'm more concerned with helping those in need and eliminating waste.
> ...



It's a good thing you didn't read any further PC; you weren't looking for TRUTH, you were looking for something that would support your dogma...

You picked the wrong article, organization and study...LOL!

The Quality Question

No doubt one of the reasons that quality doesnt make it into the health care discussions as readily as coverage or cost is because of this very satisfaction: if people are happy, then theres no problemso why pick a fight where there need not be conflict? Health care reform is already hard enough. 

*But quality is a problem.* Just because Americans are happy with their care, doesnt mean that they are getting the best careor even recommended levels of care, as determined through medical consensus.

In *2003*, Elizabeth McGlynn, the associate director of RANDs health care program, led *the first national, comprehensive study on the quality of care for adults.* (Read that sentence again: *we didnt have a major nation-wide study on quality until just five years ago.* The Institute of Medicine did focus on medical errors in its  1999 report, To Err is Human"; but the RAND study looked at whether doctors were following best practice.) Quality has clearly been an overlooked issue in health care assessments.

Maggie has touched on McGlynn's study in a previous post, but its worth discussing again here. Using telephone interviews and two-year medical records, McGlynns team assessed whether or not 13,275 participants in 12 metropolitan regions received the level of care that doctors recommend for their specific ailments (25 conditions in all, including congestive heart failure, hypertension, breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, coronary artery disease, STDs, headaches, and alcohol dependence).  What they found was that, on average, patients receive just 55 percent of recommended care for their conditions. (Recommended care was determined by (1) poring over national guidelines and medical literature to come up with key indicators and (2) subjecting these indicators to four nine-person, multi-specialty panels, who nixed or okayed the metrics).

This proportion was remarkably consistent across different kinds of care. The authors found little difference among the proportion of recommended preventive care provided (54.9 percent), the proportion of recommended acute care provided (53.5 percent), and the proportion of recommended care provided for chronic conditions (56.1 percent). 

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee last month, McGlynn nicely summed up the implications of these numbers: *we spend nearly $2 trillion annually on health care and we get it right about half the time. *


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

And if it's one thing that Big Daddy Big Gubbament is known for, it's quality!!


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 18, 2009)

del said:


> WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> 
> "Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
> ...



Mike Ross is one of the few Democrats who deserves to be reelected.  He graduated from the same High School as Mike Huckabee.  Both have similar political views, although Huckabee couldn't remain a Democrat because of the DNC's views on abortion.  There is only one member of Congress from Arkansas who is a Republican.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 18, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> So, with the help of a few democrats, the Party of NO may win again.



*The party of KNOW, votes NO cause we KNOW you cannot pay for it and it stinks.*


----------



## Oscar Wao (Jul 18, 2009)

If we're lucky, we may BARELY pull a '93-'94.

And I'm not speaking as a Republican, either.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

Big corporate Insurance and Pharma are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to lobby for NO change, and right wing pea brains FEEL these corporations are looking out for them... 

morons...

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
*Robert F. Kennedy Jr.*


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

Lying out your ass again, I see.

Nobody here who is against medical fascism has, or likely ever will be, an apologist for insurance companies who try to bail on their contractual obligations


----------



## Oscar Wao (Jul 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Big corporate Insurance and Pharma are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to lobby for NO change, and right wing pea brains FEEL these corporations are looking out for them...
> 
> morons...
> 
> ...


As a "right-wing pea-brain" who KNOWS FIRST HAND what sumbitches insurance companies can be, I find your post to be outright condescending, offensive, and dishonest.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Big corporate Insurance and Pharma are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to lobby for NO change, and right wing pea brains FEEL these corporations are looking out for them...
> 
> morons...
> 
> ...



and so you put a quote from one of the biggest Hypocrites in the country in there....way to go....


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Big corporate Insurance and Pharma are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to lobby for NO change, and right wing pea brains FEEL these corporations are looking out for them...
> ...



Good... I'm glad you know your place...


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Big corporate Insurance and Pharma are spending 1.4 million dollars per DAY to lobby for NO change, and right wing pea brains FEEL these corporations are looking out for them...
> ...



Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the smartest people in the country...


----------



## Oscar Wao (Jul 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


As you have yours.

Government getting their paws in health care further will be so bad, it'll make the insurance bastards look like your best buddy.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oscar Wao said:
> ...



You're right...look what Bush, the Republicans and you right wing pea brain cheerleaders did to Medicare...

Medicare

Traditional Medicare works. Before Medicare existed, only about 50% of people 65 or older had health insurance. By 1970, four years after Medicare went into effect, 97% of those 65 and older had health insurance. Access to health insurance coverage meant that more older people received needed medical care. Access to health insurance also meant that Medicare beneficiaries and their families no longer had to bear the full cost of their care, helping to reduce poverty among older people and their families.

Yet, Medicare program, one of the most successful social programs in the history of our nation, is in danger of being destroyed. Blame lays in large part with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). Nobody can argue that a Prescription Drug benefit in Medicare was a good idea, but the structure of the benefit that was railroaded through Congress has been the subject of much debate. Unfortunately, that debate has actually distracted the public from a tiny, dangerous piece of this legislation.

Every year, a group of people appointed to assess Medicare's financial status " called the Medicare Trustees - issue a report. In this report, the Trustees look at Medicare's three significant funding sources " beneficiary premiums, payroll taxes, and general revenues. Now, this little known provision of the MMA established a new rule. This new rule says that if two consecutive Medicare Trustees' Reports estimate that more than 45% of Medicare's budget within the next six years will come from general revenues, the President must propose legislation to lower the cost to less than 45%. This 45% limit is an entirely arbitrary benchmark. No such benchmark exists for defense spending, education budgets, or, to our knowledge, any other areas of the federal budget. Unfortunately, this year, for the second year in a row, the Trustees' report estimated that the arbitrary 45% mark would be reached by 2013.

This happened in large part because the prescription drug benefit that got added by this same legislation was allowed to be funded only by general revenues. That's billions of dollars in new expenses that are applied toward the entirely arbitrary 45% limit. And the same legislation forbade the government from negotiating drug prices, and mandated extra "incentive" payments to private companies to sponsor the prescription drug plan, rather than allowing the plan to exist in the effective and efficient traditional Medicare program. Further, it happened because the MMA authorizes billions of dollars for private Medicare Advantage plans, dollars that would not be needed to cover the same people in the traditional Medicare program.

Now, thanks in large part to the billions funneled to private plans, traditional Medicare is in danger of being gutted. The President is required to propose policies designed to reduce general revenues as a share of Medicare costs below 45%. Congress has to consider these proposals. And, given the restriction on general revenues, it is very likely that the proposals won't include an increase in the employer and employee payroll taxes that help fund Medicare coverage for needed healthcare services, although these payroll taxes have not been increased for over a dozen years.

Unfortunately, the only things that could be proposed are "reductions in benefits under Part B and Part D, increases in Part B and D premiums, or, ultimately, a cap on the amount the government will pay per beneficiary, regardless of that person's health care needs." In addition, given the recent pattern of so-called "Medicare reform," it is likely that proposals will include more responsibility for the program being handed over to private industry " the very source of the current financial situation.

The stable, reliable, and effective traditional Medicare program will be subject to draconian cuts and more privatization. This is a terrible irony, since traditional Medicare was enacted precisely because private insurance failed our nation's older people.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/72/11787.html


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)




----------



## Oscar Wao (Jul 18, 2009)

When you quit associating conservatives with Bush and the neo-con dream team, THEN I'l have a discussion with you.

Until then, bye bye!


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

Hey Dude...you wear your pea brainism proudly...

Don't LOOK at any facts, that would require intelligence, an ability to discern and work...

It's much easier for you to just be a moron... no solutions, no ideas...just WHINING...


----------



## Oddball (Jul 18, 2009)

Fuck you, asshole.

Your corporate hack fuck-ups are no better just because they carry the title of "The Honorable" in front of their names.

Get a grip, boy.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Jul 18, 2009)

Dude said:


> Fuck you, asshole.
> 
> Your corporate hack fuck-ups are no better just because they carry the title of "The Honorable" in front of their names.
> 
> Get a grip, boy.


He says I "know my place"?

Well...

He knows his place, too!


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 18, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> When you quit associating conservatives with Bush and the neo-con dream team, THEN I'l have a discussion with you.
> 
> Until then, bye bye!



Yea Oscar, I suggest you cut & run...you're out of your league...


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> > When you quit associating conservatives with Bush and the neo-con dream team, THEN I'l have a discussion with you.
> ...


wow, how ironic


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jul 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



This is complete nonsense.  



> Specifically, Part D expenditures are financed through the premiums paid by enrollees, special State payments to Medicare, and appropriations from the general fund of the Treasury.



http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf  page 123

So Part D is not financed entirely by transfers from the general fund of the Treasury as the article claims.  Furthermore, 





> In calendar year 2008, [Part B] contributions received from the general fund of the Treasury amounted to $146.8 billion, which accounted for 73.2 percent of total revenue.



http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf  page 91

And when you consider that total Part D expenditures are less than a quarter of Part B expenditures, it is clear that what the author likes to call traditional Medicare would be over the 45% benchmark even if there were no Part D.  

But all of this is much ado about nothing.  MMA only requires Congress to consider taking action to bring the contributions from the general  revenue fund under 45%; it does not require taking any action.  The Part D account, according to the trustees, will always be in balance, because



> the appropriation language adopted for the Part D account provides substantial flexibility in the amount of general revenues available to the account. Although a specific appropriation amount is referenced, based on estimates from the President&#8217;s Budget, the appropriations language also allows indefinite budget authority for Part D in the event that the annual appropriation amount is insufficient. Thus, further Congressional action would not be required to cover a higher-than-expected level of Part D expenditures.45 Similar flexibility is anticipated for future Part D appropriations.



http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf  page 123

However, the trust fund accounts for "traditional" Medicare will be depleted by 2017 and "traditional" Medicare will be unable to pay its bills unless the current 2.9% payroll tax, half paid by employer and half paid by employee, is raised to nearly 6.8% in the next few years.  However, rather than propose the inevitable payroll tax increase while he is trying to persuade the public to support another gigantic government health care program, Obama is reducing Part B payments to providers, and this will require providers to care for a larger number of patients in order to maintain their income.  It is reasonable to assume that this will compromise the quality of care available to Medicare recipients while Obama is in office.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



wait a second........ok got that out.....hes a fucking HYPOCRITE...you understand that Bf...MR. environmentalist...UNTIL its in his backyard,then it a oh no that will not be.....those wind turbines that they want to put off the coast of Mass.....no good we may be able to see them from our dock...you will have to move them elsewhere....off someone elses coast....but not the sacred Kennedies....Hypocrites every one of them...Robert being the biggest....


----------



## elvis (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Bfgrn thinks the Kennedy blood line is holy.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 18, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


oh well, what could have been a boon to the Mass economy is getting a shot up here in Maine, lets just hope the fools up here that vote down jobs all the time wont nix this too


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 19, 2009)

An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
The New York Times
December 16, 2005

By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

Environmental groups have been enticed by Cape Wind, but they should be wary of lending support to energy companies that are trying to privatize the commons - in this case 24 square miles of a heavily used waterway. And because offshore wind costs twice as much as gas-fired electricity and significantly more than onshore wind, the project is financially feasible only because the federal and state governments have promised $241 million in subsidies.

Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.

According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands. The Humane Society estimates the whirling turbines could every year kill thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks.

Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines will be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project. Thousands of small businesses, including marina owners, hotels, motels, whale watching tours and charter fishing operations will also be hurt. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a loss of up to 2,533 jobs because of the loss of tourism - and over a billion dollars to the local economy.

Nantucket Sound is a critical fishing ground for the commercial fishing families of Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod. Hundreds of fishermen work Horseshoe Shoal, where the Cape Wind project would be built, and make half their annual income from the catch. The risks that their gear will become fouled in the spider web of cables between the 130 towers will largely preclude fishing in the area, destroying family-owned businesses that enrich the palate, economy and culture of Cape Cod.

Many environmental groups support the Cape Wind project, and that's unfortunate because making enemies of fishermen and marina owners is bad environmental strategy in the long run. Cape Cod's traditional-gear commercial fishing families and its recreational anglers and marina owners have all been important allies for environmentalists in our battles for clean water.

There are those who argue that unlike our great Western national parks, Cape Cod is far from pristine, and that Cape Wind's turbines won't be a significant blot. I invite these critics to see the pods of humpback, minke, pilot, finback and right whales off Nantucket, to marvel at the thousands of harbor and gray seals lolling on the bars off Monomoy and Horseshoe Shoal, to chase the dark clouds of terns and shorebirds descending over the thick menhaden schools exploding over acre-sized feeding frenzies of striped bass, bluefish and bonita.

I urge them to come diving on some of the hundreds of historic wrecks in this "graveyard of the Atlantic," and to visit the endless dune-covered beaches of Cape Cod, our fishing villages immersed in history and beauty, or to spend an afternoon netting blue crabs or mucking clams, quahogs and scallops by the bushel on tidal mud flats - some of the reasons my uncle, John F. Kennedy, authorized the creation of the Cape Cod National Seashore in 1961, and why Nantucket Sound is under consideration as a national marine sanctuary, a designation that would prohibit commercial electrical generation.

All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity and to God. The worst trap that environmentalists can fall into is the conviction that the only wilderness worth preserving is in the Rocky Mountains or Alaska. To the contrary, our most important wildernesses are those that are closest to our densest population centers, like Nantucket Sound.

There are many alternatives that would achieve the same benefits as Cape Wind without destroying this national treasure. Deep water technology is rapidly evolving, promising huge bounties of wind energy with fewer environmental and economic consequences. Scotland is preparing to build wind turbines in the Moray Firth more than 12 miles offshore. Germany is considering placing turbines as far as 27 miles off its northern shores.

If Cape Wind were to place its project further offshore, it could build not just 130, but thousands of windmills - where they can make a real difference in the battle against global warming without endangering the birds or impoverishing the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer and professor at Pace University Law School.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles.html#


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
> The New York Times
> December 16, 2005
> 
> ...



yea right....its because its in his front yard....

RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm | Grist


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 19, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
> ...



You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...



when a group of like minded people go against one of their own,on an issue that all of them USUALLY agree on.....and the one that suddenly decides this is no longer an issue BECAUSE it involves my families property,kinda makes JR. look like a hypocrite.....if it DID NOT involve his property i can guarantee you he would be telling those who dont want these things off shore of their property....TOUGH SHIT...Kennedy being honest about this?...yes he is....he does not want those windmills offshore of his families property....and his fellow Enviromentalist have now seen his true colors.....the man has just lost a lot of his credability....but then just about every male Kennedy has....so im not suprised,and im sure anyone outside of his kingdom is not also....


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 19, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > You have the right to your opinion, and so do I... I believe Kennedy is being honest, you believe he isn't and that YOU know his intentions...
> ...



Well Harry, like I said you have a right to your opinion, but your guarantees and your bluster are meaningless...

Did you ever consider that RFK Jr KNOWS Cape Cod, the local economy and issues that effect the Cape BETTER than outsiders? He is all FOR the wind turbines a few miles farther out, but placing them on Horseshoe Shoal could have an over $1 billion impact on the local fishing industry and the tourist economy. (from YOUR article)

I really don't understand the right wing hatred for the Kennedys... they have always worked FOR the little guy and the average citizen. They have never been for sale to any corporate interest...

My guess is that right wingers are drowning victims... I learned years ago when I got my Red Cross lifesaving card, that the reason you always place an inanimate object between you and a drowning victim...a drowning victim only see you as land...something to push down so he or she can breath...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



oh yea YOU KNOW the Kennedies.....why do they get away with doing things that you or i would not Bf?.....walking away from a drowning girl,rape and DUI's..and who knows what else....you wanna answer me that?....and hey your hero Ted he knows about drowning victims too,doesnt he?....you have your head so fucking far up their asses you cant even see what kind asses they are...


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


you mean the locals in the other locations DONT, but Bobby does?
what a fucking hypocrite


----------



## Meister (Jul 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You can't really believe in what your typing.    Harry has this correct, and you seem to be all for the elitists on this issue.  Jr. has a problem looking out his kitchen window and seeing windmills.  That is the issue, like what Harry stated.  Sure he would be all for the windmills to be a few miles away....just far enough where he can't see them.  Screw the economy down south.  I didn't think you were this naive, and I don't think you are, you just seem to have no problem with whatever dems shove at you.
  The Kennedy's money roots have been tainted from Joe Sr.  Read up on your history if you want to bash people who have issues with the kennedy's.  If Ted's last name was a Stevens, Pisani, Anderson, or any other name than Kennedy, he would have been in prison, and no political career.  You fail to admit that they have been above the law.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 19, 2009)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Ironic...you right wing pea brains worship and fawn over "entrepreneurs" and captains of industry that F-CK you every day... who do you pea brains call out...union workers and hard working Americans that are swindled and you blame THEM, not the swindlers... they're just "doin' business...

I suggest you look up old man Kennedy. You'll find he made his money through legitimate means. The bootleg allegations have never been proven. But even if he did any bootlegging during prohibition, it was not the source of his wealth.

But what really matters is what did the old man do with his wealth...he raised a big family where education and public service were absolute requirements.

At the dinner table, each child was required to talk about a current or historical event  they had researched. There was no such thing as a slacker or a lazy Kennedy. Entitlement was NOT part of being a Kennedy.

I will tell you the same thing I told Harry, you have the right to your opinion, but don't try to sell me that you KNOW RFK Jr's intentions... he is not ALONE in his opposition to placing the turbines on Horseshoe Shoal...

You indictments are more a reflection of YOUR character, not of his or mine...


----------



## Dante (Jul 19, 2009)

del said:


> WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> 
> "Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
> 
> ...



the devil will be in the details. we will have a health care bill this year. what IT will look like is anybody's guess. 

why are you against (if you are) a single payer plan?  did you ever read up on my links to frontline series?  do you know what you are talking about?  and  I will tell you  health professionals from harvard who were clueless, but had degrees.


----------



## Meister (Jul 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Translation:  Even if he did break federal laws, it's OK because he was a 
Kennedy. 

Who is the wingnut fawn?  Why it's bfrgn, the pea brain.  You should have left well enough alone doofus.  The only reason he didn't get busted was because he was a Kennedy, and was very influencial in the political circle.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 19, 2009)

Meister said:


> Translation:  Even if he did break federal laws, it's OK because he was a
> Kennedy.
> 
> Who is the wingnut fawn?  Why it's bfrgn, the pea brain.  You should have left well enough alone doofus.  The only reason he didn't get busted was because he was a Kennedy, and was very influencial in the political circle.



some people just dont give a dam what a Kennedy or a Rockerfeller or their fellow Mega rich people do Meister....they always justify what these assholes do,no matter what they do.....if those Windmills were off someone elses property Kennedy would be leading the assult to get them installed....no matter what the other property owners say....and everyone knows this INCLUDING Bfgrn.....but he wont say anything because  all those whose heads are in Prince Kennedy's ass,will look down on him and verbally attack him.....cant attack the "Royal Family" now can we....how can you go on day after day after saying something bad about King Teddy the Bloated and Family.....


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 19, 2009)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




That's not what I'm saying...the bootleg allegations have never been proven. But, unlike you pea brains, I'm not saying I KNOW he did or he didn't...If he did, he didn't get caught or payed off the right people...you can't PROVE he did and I can't prove he didn't...

Again, you spout what you FEEL, not what you know...


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That's real good for business owners.  You real smaht.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 19, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...


why don't you sober up and try that again, this time in comprehensible English


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Jul 20, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm happy with my healthcare but I'm fortunate enough to have a decent job with benefits.  I'm more concerned with helping those in need and eliminating waste.
> ...



Not only are a vast majority happy with what they have, those who experience health systems in others countries come back to be reall  really happy with what we have.

A Few facts. MOST of those un insured, are like I was between the age of 18-45, healthy, didnt need it, didnt want it. The few times I went to the doctor, I paid cash. They use the numbersx of uninsured to scare people.

If people paid cash for usual normal visits or visits for small things, they would save money in the long run and medical costs wouldnt be running so high. My doctors always gave me discounts cuz they knew I was a cash paying patient, and usually gave me free samples of drugs I needed,

COMPREHENSIVE insurance drives costs up. Insurance, for the most part, on almost anything, should just be for catosthropic situations, that is what insurance was originally about, so a single event wont destroy you financially.

The polititians know we dont have a cirisis, but they want us to believe it so they can gain more control over more more money and have more power. THEY are addicted to it.

Like others have said, you can get free care if you really need it.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 20, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



*You'll find he made his money through legitimate means. *

That is if you think manipulating the stock market is legitimate.


----------



## twogreen2c (Jul 20, 2009)

> If people paid cash for usual normal visits or visits for small things, they would save money in the long run and medical costs wouldnt be running so high. My doctors always gave me discounts cuz they knew I was a cash paying patient, and usually gave me free samples of drugs I needed,
> 
> COMPREHENSIVE insurance drives costs up. Insurance, for the most part, on almost anything, should just be for catosthropic situations, that is what insurance was originally about, so a single event wont destroy you financially.
> 
> ...



I am agreement with you, especially with your comment on the effects of comprehensive insurance.  I use to work managing our company health benefits plan.  I can't tell you how many times I saw people running to the doctor at the first sign of the sniffles.  Their attitude was, it isn't costing me anything.  When I told them our premiums are rising because of their frequent use of the system, they still had the same attitude.  But when the premiums started to skyrocket every year, and the company was forced to go to higher copays, of course the ones that abused the system, were the first  to complain.

Most likely we are going to get some sort of healthcare reform.  I think the first step should be having individuals more responsible for their health by forcing them to cover their primary doctor office visits by 100%.  Of course, this would have to be critiqued to take in consideration the elderly and very poor.  But once people start feeling the pinch of paying for basic health services, they might elect to start living a healthier lifestyle.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 20, 2009)

del said:


> WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> 
> "Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
> 
> ...



Centrists like Diane Feinstein?

Max Baucus (D-MT) chairs the Senate Finance Committee, which plays a huge role with health reform legislation. He has frequently dismissed the importance of a public option, saying, "There's an awful lot more here than the public option," [1] and, "We can achieve the objective [of health care reform] without it." [2] When his committee's draft plan came out, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported, "There's no public plan mentioned anywhere in the document." [3]

When asked on Fox News about the public option, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) replied, "I'm agnostic on that." [1] In another interview, he used right-wing talking points to stoke fears of "socialized medicine." [2]

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) is the architect of the "co-op" plan, a watered-down "alternative" for the public option. He explicitly used right-wing frames in promoting the measure, saying that "the co-op structure has some appeal because it's not government control." [1]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said on CNN on June 21, I dont know that [Obama] has the votes right now." She said she was most concerned about the "cost" of a public option. [1]

While Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has said in public that he supports a public option, the Huffington Post reports that "In a closed-door meeting of Senate Finance Committee Democratic members and their staff Wednesday evening, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) suggested that if the committee bill didn't have enough votes for a public option it include a ten-year delay between passage of health care reform and the implementation of a public option."[1]

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) has said: "No, I'm not open to it. I'm not open to a public option. ... I will remain open to a compromise, a full compromise. Public option is not something that I support. I don't think it's the right way to go." [1]

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has made no bones about his opposition to the public option. Lieberman point blank told a Bloomberg News reporter: "I don't favor a public option, and I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market."[1]

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) not only opposes the public option, but Congressional Quarterly reports that the "inclusion of a public plan in legislation [is] a 'deal-breaker' for him." The same article reports on his plotting to "assemble a coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan." [1]


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



It WAS when he did it...

Joseph P. Kennedy, father of President John F. Kennedy, made much of his fortune in the 1920s by insider trading before it was a crime. When the Securities and Exchange Commission was created in the early days of the New Deal (1933), President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Kennedy to the Commission on the theory that it took an insider to catch insiders.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insider+trading


----------



## joeyc (Jul 20, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> ...



Yeah. More like, we need to get ready for more in-fighting and finger-pointing. 

Good times!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 20, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Good news Harry.  I just got this email:

Wow!! Thanks to your calls and emails on Friday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's amendment to let states adopt single-payer healthcare passed  the House Education and Labor Committee by 25-19. 
Of course the insurance industry will try to kill the Kucinich amendment during future votes, so we will watch carefully and keep you posted.


----------



## joeyc (Jul 20, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
> ...



Republicans. Exhibit A: The Huffington Post's headline as of today:


----------



## JimH52 (Jul 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 20, 2009)

joeyc said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Krystol should be shot on sight.  He was the main liar about invading Iraq.  I wish that punk ass bitch would try his luck in my neighborhood.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...


uh, no, moron
if anyone lied, it was Tenet


----------



## Oddball (Jul 20, 2009)

joeyc said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



We should be so lucky.


----------



## Soaring (Jul 20, 2009)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > them doing nothing looks like the best option to me
> ...


Robert, you obviously have not been to a doctor with any major medical concerns.  If you have a good medical insurance company that you pay about 250 bux a month for a family plan, you will justify that expenditure in the years' time you pay that amount, and you will receive excellent if not outstanding care.  If you can't afford that amount of money, then there are other plans that cost less, but at least you are paying for your own medical coveralge and not relying on your neighbor to bail you out and pay for your coverage.  Do you really want me/us to pay for a tonsil operation for your kid?  Shouldn't you be responsible for taking care of the family you created?  Read more, and educate yourself more about the responsibilities of insurance companies as well.  They cannot legally drop you at their whim.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > joeyc said:
> ...



Him too.


----------



## Meister (Jul 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The problem is that Robt. is a young man himself, and really hasn't experienced the reality of being an independent adult.  I'm not saying that with any negative connotation.  I do believe he is still a teenager.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Good news Harry.  I just got this email:
> 
> Wow!! Thanks to your calls and emails on Friday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's amendment to let states adopt single-payer healthcare passed  the House Education and Labor Committee by 25-19.
> Of course the insurance industry will try to kill the Kucinich amendment during future votes, so we will watch carefully and keep you posted.



hey great news Bo.....A good Teabagging this weekend i take it then?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Krystol should be shot on sight.  He was the main liar about invading Iraq.  I wish that punk ass bitch would try his luck in my neighborhood.



Huggy you would go to slug the guy and your back would go out....or you would go to kick him and miss and hit the door jamb.....


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 21, 2009)

Obama came out today and said health care may not happen on his timetable after all.

Good thing for these "Blue Dog" democrats....the democratic party may just indeed save us.

I dont like the current system but I dont think the Congress' plan is very good.


----------



## oreo (Jul 23, 2009)

I think everyone agrees that there needs to be something done about the ever rising cost of health care insurance in this country.  But I WANT TO SHOP. * I don't want one bill shoved down our throats when there may be a much better plan out there.*

I really don't trust the federal government to run anything effectively.  *Social security/Medicare/Fannie/Freddie/ have all turned in to mega disasters--that we the taxpayer end up paying for.*  And every one of them run by the federal government.


----------



## oreo (Jul 23, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Tough shit....Go on Medicare/Medicaid.
> ...




At the heart of what you're stating is government regulation--which they can do without just taking over.  You refer to it as "recision clause in the policy."  _The federal government could mandate that those clauses are taken out._

The government can do a lot to reduce health insurance premiums--_without taking over._


----------

