Mr Mister

Clearly, you don't understand what the conservative position actually is. First of all, if a state refuses the public option, their citizens still have to pay the taxes that will pay for the public option. I would be surprised if more than a half dozen states actually refuse the public option since their citizens should riot after being forced to pay a tax that they aren't getting any sort of benefit from. By the way, if you think taxes won't go up, you're a fool.

You mention personal freedom. For a conservative, personal freedom means freedom of the individual, not freedom of the smaller group (a state in this case). Conservatives oppose public health care because it should limit a given individual's choice of doctors, hospitals, or treatments. (I don't know if that will actually be a problem or not. It depends a lot on implementation.)

You are pretty close to an issue that is important to conservatives, which is state's rights. If an individual state wanted to have public health care in their state, I would be all for it since that state would pay all of the cost and it would reduce bureaucracy and one-size-fits-all solutions. A typical conservative should still oppose it since conservatives tend to oppose government solutions of all sizes.

JcP

Unless it's a pregnant woman or two queers. Then the freedoms of an individual are completely the business of the "state." I'd have far more patience for conservatives if they weren't so goddamn hypocritical on a continual basis.

By your logic, I should be exempt from all meat-production subsidies since I do not eat meat. Or should be able to pick and choose where my tax dollars go, since I do not use countless programs the government employs. sorry, that's not how this country works.

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

Mr Mister

Well, I support homosexual rights and abortion except in the third trimester. Maybe you should ask before you make assumptions about people you don't know.

Your tax dollars (or anybody's) shouldn't go to things you don't support. That's theft. It isn't right to do that with tax money just because that's the way things are done now. That's one of the reasons why I support state's rights since it gives people more control over how their tax dollars are spent.

DdC

Yup, can't trust them GOPervert commies.
DNCrats too politically correct, cowards. Almost GOP hypocritical whining about rights for the down trodden but no backbone. Not nice to fight. ConPromise the Moneysluts into Appeasment, not Peace.



Teabog Ditso's Insurance Heros are Drug Thug Worriers

Clearly, you don't understand what the conservative position actually is. First of all, if a state refuses the public option, their citizens still have to pay the taxes that will pay for the Emergency room care presently used. Costing them 10 times more. But it does save the $100,000.00 an hour salaries of a few wealthy Insurance and Pharmaceutical CEO's. Between the Ganjawar and the various Police Actions around the globe Neo-Conservokrats have increased the size of government beyond any Liberal, increased taxes to pay for them beyond any Liberal. Killed more rights enacting the Patriot Ax, Higher Ed Ax and NAFTA/GATT than Stalin. Good job commie.

The Conservative Argument for Legalization

Oh, you're an idiot, sorry. My mistake. No one here supports the drug war ace, but believe it or not when I told the IRS what you said they just laughed. Maybe you should call the cops on the thieves. Like I said, sorry I didn't see your Lipton tag dangling. Protesting the protesters protesting the Oppressors makes you look silly as hell. What you think you'll get an invite to the big house for supper?

You mean you support the Constitution, 10th Amendment that gives everything not deemed Federal to the states to control. Outside of Commerce and apparently with Boosh, the National Guard has become International. You don't support states rights dude, they are granted. What you don't support is America. Or Americans. You force the workers to pay for the rich tax shelters in the Caymans. Or write them off for drug war propaganda lies and hobgoblins. You support the International corporations the workers are forking out $300 billion a year in taxes for the interest on Boosh loans. To bail out the frickin Banksters. Those investors who ran with the money... not a teabog peep. Now you and the Dick Armey still dangling horshit. JFQuirkies Raiders. Pitifuckingful.

Like I said, two choices. You the Neo-Conservokrat Fascism raping and pillaging, or Independent Free Thinking Americans paying for it.

Neo-Conservokrats zero tolerance abortions/Realists use condoms
Neo-Conservokrats Pesticide abortions/Realists advocate Hemp
Neo-Conservokrats War Abortions/Realists Wage Peace
Neo-Conservokrats Pharmaceutical abortions/Realists use Ganja
Neo-Conservokrats Reefer Mad ConPromise on Reality/Realists use the Laws of Physics.

Stop lapdogging G-20 greedsters, think for yourself ace, I know thats a foreign concept. Start with turning off the Fake News. Stop tolerating lies from Junkie radio dj's. Stop being such a slave to an Un-American traitorous system of interchangeable thieves, bought and paid for to legislate profits. Its obvious with the Ganjawar, banning natural competition to chemical synthetics. But its across the board. Puppets serving their time then Lobby a fortune. Selling treatments, banning cures and preventions. Stop gibbering mouthfarts. Your Free! Act like it. Stop following fossil fools puppets. Circumventing our rights with Fascism. Traitors and Cowards loyal to the party in spite of their country. tsk tsk tsk.



Killing Our Own: The Disaster of Americas Experience with Atomic Radiation, Wasserman relates stories about people and animals living near nuclear weapons facilities, mining and waste storage sites, uranium processing plants, and nuclear power reactors. For example, farmers in central Pennsylvania whom he spoke to reported abnormalities in their animals in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Farmers living near the Rocky Flats plutonium factory in Colorado, and near the West Valley Reprocessing Plant in upstate New York, have also complained of defects and illnesses among their animals.


I'm against marijuana. Period. I am against it.
Why the hell shouldn't I say it?

Washington, DC: "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' or all fronts . . . ." That was Richard Nixon's reaction to his national commission's recommendation that marijuana no longer be a criminal offense, according to Nixon's Oval Office tapes. The year after Nixon's "all out war" marijuana arrests jumped by over 100,000 people.



The virtues are too many, for the booze, fossil fuels and white powders, Even the Fraud of 37, didn't outlaw Hemp or RxGanja. That was Nexxon's Lie, Al Capone and Watergate were Red Herrings. Both Alcohol and Cannabis Prohibitions were Corporate fabrications.



Grassley Censorship Amendment - Take Action Now!

RESTRICTIONS ON AUTHORITY.
The Commission shall have no authority to make findings related to current Federal, State, and local criminal justice policies and practices or reform recommendations that involve, support, or otherwise discuss the decriminalization of any offense under the Controlled Substances Act or the legalization of any controlled substance listed under the Controlled Substances Act.

Free Speech

* High Court Upholds Chicago Park-Use Permit
* No Free Speech or Right to Assemble
* D.E.A. Confirms Grounds To Remove Cannabis from Sch#1
* Drug Czar Manipulating Data in a Report to Congress
* FDA-Approved Medical Marijuana Research Blocked
* Cannabis Shrinks Tumors: Government Knew in 74
* Legislation Introduced to Overturn DC Initiative
* Food Stamps Become a Weapon in the War on Drugs
* Drug Czar Seeks To Ban All Hemp Products
* Meth Bill/Free Speech by Richard Lake
* The Anti-Meth Bill includes hemp - Washington Post
* Closing Ranks on MAPA/Secret Searches Bill Passes
* Knowledge Control - Reason Magazine
* A Lie College Students Might Want To Tell
* Drug Worriors Push Broad Censorship of Speech By Jacob Sullum



Rep. Ernest Istook has sliced the budget of the Washington transit authority by more than $90,000 because of ads placed on local buses promoting the legalization of marijuana.

Free Speech 4 Students Rally
Essentially arguing for a drug exception to free speech right in public schools.
The following activities could be banned:
• Writing a paper on the history of drug prohibition.
• Debating marijuana legalization on a debate team.
• Questioning the school’s drug testing policy.
• Anything that could be construed as promoting illegal drugs.

The Day Ashcroft Censored Freedom Of Information

Setting priorities
Perhaps the leaders of California’s law enforcement community, that has spent so much time and money fighting against any kind of reform of marijuana laws, would be willing to explain this: Via MPP

JcP

um, excuse me, but you took it upon yourself to speak for the entire conservative movement. You speak in generalities, you get generalities back. It is the conservative movement that spearheads both anti-homosexual rights agendas as well as the ridiculous anti-abortion hoopla.
Now you can try to annex your original statements...redefin ing conservative to fit your personal views of what that means, but that's irrelevant. You made a statement suggesting the conservative movement to be a singular entity that views healthcare the way you personally do...and that leads to the hypocrisy that makes my eyes roll every time I hear them speak.
You're a socially liberal fiscal conservative who believes in small government and sticks to your guns across the board (pro gay rights and for government to stay out of a woman's body)? Great. I disagree with you completely on most fiscal issues, but at least you're consistent. But you're fooling yourself if you think the overwhelming majority of the conservative movement is in line with that.

And your opinion about state's rights does nothing to address your apparent issue with taxes...why do you think STATES will agree with your personal judgements about what your tax dollars should be spent on?

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

verklingen

what's wrong with the public option in the first place? you say choice of doctors, hospitals and treatments will be limited. . . how is it not limited already? this is so fucking stupid and i'm sick of hearing this retarded argument. are you saying people who take the public option (only people who are not currently insured will be eligible btw) will be limited in their choices? maybe so, but they have no choices now. or do you mean people covered privately will be limited in their choices? as i said this is already the case. please stfu with this retarded bullshit. everything you're saying is rehashed from months ago when this whole debate started and i've been hearing it over and over. you are not the first to come here and repeat this drivel, but maybe you can be the first to admit how stupid it makes you seem

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

John F. Kerry

some people just dont get it



which is heartening for republicans next year- the dems are proving as stubborn and bull headed as they used to

__________________
Nasa under Obama

Mr Mister

I'm not a neocon. I don't support the actions of the Bush administration. I believe that the current health insurance system clearly does not work and some kind of reform is needed, I just don't think a federal single-payer program is the way to go. Once again, maybe you should ask before you assume things about people you don't know.

Look at the post I was responding to. Terry made broad assumptions about all conservatives that didn't reflect what conservatives tend to actually believe, so I made an attempt to correct him. Conservatives don't have to support a federal health care program just because states can opt out. There's no real conflict there. I was speaking broadly about conservatives because Terry was speaking broadly about conservatives first and I was responding to him.

States may or may not agree with my stance on any given issue. That's the whole point. If state's rights are respected, I can go and live in a state that more accurately reflects my views or I can attempt to change things in the state I already live in. With the federal government, that's next to impossible since my ideas have to compete with the entire country. There is a lot of variance in opinion in this country and it makes no sense force one solution on everybody unless it can only work with the aid of the federal government, like the interstate highway system, for example.

Calm down. I agree, the current system doesn't work. Why does the solution have to be a federal single-payer health care program?

verklingen

WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS NOT A FEDERAL SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. it is a public insurance option that people lacking coverage can buy into according to their means. this is why i find it hard to remain calm. . . the same fallacious arguments have been made week after week after week.

i'm especially enraged by the "point" that it "will limit people's choices." i've given the example before of my privately insured, cancer ridden mother-in-law being denied treatments to elevate her red blood cell levels: i.e. the only thing that gave her the energy to do anything other than sit around the house. even with a doctor's recommendation, the treatments have been denied for these past couple months. WHAT CHOICE ARE PRIVATELY INSURED FOLK GIVEN THAT COULD POSSIBLE BE STRIPPED AWAY BY GIVING THE UNINSURED A PUBLIC OPTION?!?!?!?!?!

back to your question (well sort of, your question isn't based in reality), why does the solution NOT have to be a public option? why are government-run systems so taboo? what IS the solution? why has a comprehensive, alternative solution not been proposed? what do YOU propose? all i've heard is a lot of whining and disinformation, no answers whatsoever. if a public option can work it can work, and i haven't heard even a single argument pointing out why it cannot work. so again, what's with the stigma? show me how your misgivings are rational and i will kindly salute you for demonstrating something i haven't yet seen

and about the highway system. . . why is our transit dependent upon the federal government but THE DRIVING FORCE OF OUR ECONOMY (healthy workers willing to work) must remain sterile of government intrusion? this is all so ass-backwards and infuriating. i need to take a break from this shit

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

DdC

Once again, maybe you should ask before you assume things period. I copied your lame ass statement dude. You falsely claimed public option would cost tax payers more. No, thats JFQuerry's lobbyist bullshit, not reality. Reality the system is only broken for us paying for it. Those who profit and receive huge salaries want to keep it. As it is without preventive coverage people are forced into the ER's, at 10 times more cost. The poor have medicare. Its the workers paying for the rich we're bitching about and you and your glum bluck nazi's want to out shout because like drug worriers, you have no ass to back it. Stop repeating what the Neocons tell you to say and I might consider not calling you a Neocon.

All taxes aren't bad. If you don't know the difference, learn. Taxes sheltered by the Dick Armey's are paid by workers. Same as workers paying for the poor. Only paying for the poor at least brings some back to the community when they spend it. Not international insurance corporations. They just suck us dry and the deadbeats write off their responsibility in anti drug commercials or offshore bank accounts. All protecting the same corporations running the drug war. So you made a choice to go against the citizens and stand with the fascists. Your choice dude, don't get all huffy because we call you on it...

Feel the Hate: Right Wingers Duping Teabaggers

Teabog Ditso's Insurance Heros are Drug Thug Worriers

Medical Establishment Cares More About Profits Than People
by yves engler June 24, 2003
Last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal and Financial Times ran front page articles about accussations against Medco, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. over false statements and claims to the government. This is in addition to investigations of Medco over violations of anti-trust, consumer-protection and pharmacy-licensing laws by at least 25 state attorney generals. Chief federal prosecutor in Philadelphia, Patrick Meehan said: these allegations suggest that, somewhere along the line, the focus became the profit instead of the patient. (FT, June 24, 2003) Somewhere along the line a capitalist corporation chose profit over the patient. Stop the presses. This is scandalous. A for-profit corporation, Medco, is accused of throwing ethics out the window to focus on increasing its return on investment. continued…

Big Money Pulling the Strings of Protests

Big Money Pulling the Strings of the Drug War

stoneric

That sounds scary. We'd be segragated in so many ways.

JcP

...stop. just stop. You're not addressing the point here. You decided to "attack the messenger" with my post by showing that you, a self described conservative, do not prescribe to the classic party line of "less government...unless you're gay or wanting an abortion." and suggesting that I "ask" before making assumptions.

What in God's name does WHY you spoke in generalities have anything to do with your sudden decision that speaking in generalities was unfair or not based in logic for people who disagree with you?
Terry spoke in "generalities", you responded with generalities, I responded with generalities, then you responded that generalities are wrong.
That's ridiculous. ANYWAY, back on topic...
I never like to say this, but based on your proposal above it seems extremely apt: I you don't think your rights are respected, you can go live in a country that more accurately reflects your views or you can attempt to change things in the country you already live in.
So your issue with the federal government is that changing things to fit your personal worldview is too hard? That you have to compete with the whole country?
Without "forcing" one solution on everybody, I'd bet you good money the south would still be segregated. Using this not as an inflammatory example but a real life example that has merit. Sometimes the "will of the masses" is not the right thing. That's why we have a government. It's why we have a court system and a constitution. T.S. Mills wrote about the "tyranny of the majority." I find it ironic that conservatives (ON AVERAGE) supported the federal government for 8 years with Bush and Co. in charge...then the second a democrat gets in there it's suddenly back to the old catchphrases.
So I don't know what to say to you here.
THAT'S NOT THE PROPOSAL@!$#!$#@ AAAAHHH!!!!Good christ, this is why the healthcare debate (like global warming and evolution) becomes so emotional...because one side (apparently) doesn't even take the time to know what's actually TRUE.
The single payer health care program hasn't been on the table since like...the first week. We have a proposed ROBUST private sector marketplace where private companies can compete across the country, and we ALSO have a public OPTION to provide help and service to those who cannot afford the private options.
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding of terms you're using? Are you aware of what "single-payer healthcare program" actually means?
Outside of that whopper of a mistake, what is your proposed plan?

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

Mr Mister

Can we all calm down and have a rational discussion on this issue? I understand why you all are so angry. Passions are running hot on this issue and people on both sides are terrified of what could happen. I made mistakes in this debate and will try my best to correct them. Something obviously has to be done about health care in this country. This could be the most important issue facing our country in the next ten years. Let's try to be rational and find the best solution.

I apologize. You're right, the proposed solution is not a single-payer health care system. However, Democrats have said repeatedly that a single-payer system is their ultimate goal. The public option is just a temporary compromise solution until they can get what they really want.

As I said in my first post I don't know if choices will be limited or not. It depends on how the program is run. I think it's possible because they will have to control costs at some point and limiting choice is one way they can do that. Whether they will or won't remains to be seen.

My problem with the currently proposed solution (whether it's single-payer, public option, or something else) is that it's a federal solution. The federal government regularly looses money that it can't account for. It carries with it a lot of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. They will probably go with a single set of regulations and policies that all states have to follow. I'd rather have individual states set their own policies that they can tailor to meet their needs. If a state doesn't want or doesn't need a government run health care system, they won't have one, and those that do will be more efficient and less costly since the operation will be smaller and better designed to meet the needs of that state.

As for my solution, to be honest, I don't have one. As I've been describing, state solutions are a good possibility. We could regulate the health insurance industry so they can't refuse needed care or restrict what doctors or hospitals a patient can use, etc. We have an opportunity to do something better than a federal program. Unfortunately, conservatives aren't taking the problem seriously (or blaming some vague "regulations" that they can't pin down) and liberals are too enamored with a federal solution to consider anything else.

The only way we can pay for the public option is by raising taxes or by borrowing more money which means printing more money and putting a greater strain on the economy. Taxes will probably have to go up at some point. If not, how else are we going to pay for it? A government program might reduce health care costs overall, but it still has to be paid for.

I don't like the health insurance companies any more than you do, I just don't see a federal program as the best solution. Other countries with government run systems have efficiency problems that we should be learning from so we can develop a better solution.

I'm sorry. This was entirely my fault. I will try to be more careful in the future. I'm an atypical conservative and it drives me nuts when people assume I have beliefs I don't have just because I choose the conservative label.

Opinions vary so widely that the federal government can't accurately reflect everyone's opinions. People should have as much control over their lives as possible, and when governments are as local as possible, then individuals will have more control.

Sometimes the federal government should interfere with states. Federal action to end segregation is one of the best examples of positive interference. That doesn't mean that state's rights should be overridden at every opportunity.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have brought up a single-payer system since that isn't what's currently on the table. I still have a problem with a public option since everyone in the country will have to pay for it even if their state opts out, and it will carry with it the bureaucracy inherent in a federal program.

JcP

it's not every opportunity. And it's not just liberals. But you're right that the federal government shouldn't be involved in everything.
I guess this issue boils down to whether you think healthcare is one of those times when the federal government should interfere. I think it is. If you think it isn't that's fine. But suggesting THIS BILL should fail because it could LEAD to single-payer is silly. It would only lead to that if the public option is a raging success. If it fails, no one will want it. So it's win-win. If you think the public option is a bad idea and will fail, you'll get to gloat in a couple years. anyway...

Thank you for cutting through the bullshit. Just as you get "nuts" when people prescribe attributes to you based on the more typical version of a conservative, I get "nuts" when I am faced with the kind of post(s) that those typical conservatives post...like your admitted misstatement about single-payer takeover in this bill....which it isn't.

See? we're not so bad, you and I

__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.

DdC

Dude the Ganjawar and Iraq and Bailing out the Exxons is why Boosh borrowed the money. Same Banksters getting bailed out are charging us $300 billion a year in interest. Earth to Mister, are you daft? The Medicare system can't handle the boomers. Now the uninsured get ER care at much greater tax expense. So you want it to continue till it collapses? No I mean your bossman. I've decided you're a troll, or someone else is typing for you. Can't be that stupid and know how to type. Neocons WTO Insurance, Fossil fools and War toys cost the tax payer and no cowardly teabog ditzo ever peeps. Now glen bluck points out the obvious and the silent for Boosh come hissing a fit about the "people" having affordable health care. Same sicko nazi idiots thinking its their job to keep me from smoking a joint. Why are you lapdogs against clean air and water? Peace? Health care including herbal medicine. What human is against clean air and water? Let alone an American. Pitifuckingfools. Sorry dude your polite manners will get you know where.



If taxes go up that come back to communities its a good thing. Its only the taxes wasted on Internationalists not being spent here to generate more taxes thats the problem. Libraries and Schools not foreign private prison industries and paraphernalia. Not OPEC or Colombia or the Ganjawar. Putting back the checks and balances and going after the corporate heads responsible for ripping off the public. The bailout money replaced what was stolen. But reducing the cost and numbers of people in ER's because they didn't have a private doctor. Causing emergencies to have to wait, jeopardizing lives. This efficiency may save the for profits but its lousy health care and its driving nurses crazy. Overloaded and patients having to fork out their own money when Insurances over ride doctors. Thats now dude. When everyone is able to get check ups and sound medical advice, not trauma care when its too late. The tax burden will drop. Even without the taxes, its the way Americans are supposed to treat each other. The drug companies profit on "treatments" not prevention or cures. All you and rush lush are doing is keeping the rich foreign investors rich and the workers taxes rising while the wages stay the same or lower. Same game different day. Turn off your TV. Think, who makes the money in the deal? Ganjawar, health care or War?

The virtues are too many, for the booze, fossil fuels and white powders, Even the Fraud of 37, didn't outlaw Hemp or RxGanja. That was Nexxon's Lie, Al Capone and Watergate were Red Herrings. Both Alcohol and Cannabis Prohibitions were Corporate fabrications.



That is exactly what they want you to think about. Us vs them. It is our good health and it should be us insuring we have it. The casino of wall street has no Constitution binding it. No History of ever doing whats right over whats profitable. Acting like citizens with the money to pay for legislation, or teams of lawyers to tie up courts costing tax payers. Where are the ditzo's? Cliarence Thomas Monsanto lawyer tied up the courts 7 years over a toxic waste dumping case. Tax payers forked out big bucks for the appeals. Same with Exxon Valdeze. $100 billion oil spill. Palin sells out for a penny on the dollar. Not good enough they're still trying to lower it. Tax payers pick up the tab. Fishermen go out of business. Palin gets rewarded Alaska gets screwed. Think dude, don't just mouthfart O'Really or Glum Bluck. You don't trust the government but oh how the Neoconjobs praised Boosh after he raped Texas schools, air quality and faith based rehabs. Him and Jeb were importing prisoners to over crowded conditions. Selling the prisons food from their prison catering biz, that merged with Haliburton. The Asbestos company of Cheney. Now no bid contracted to feed the troops in Afghan and Iraq. The religious right offspring of the Fascists and you helped.

verklingen

firstly mr, thanks for being honest and talking this out with me. i'm really glad to debate with someone who can properly articulate his ideas. for someone with your views (not that i know them all), this is a breath of fresh air

you mean like rep anthony weiner of ny? yeah there are people saying that they feel a single-payer system is the ultimate solution to our health care. and it could actually work, given the success other countries have had. but that's neither here nor there, because it is only the ideal of a handful of our representatives and they do not hold full sway over the direction of our country. and sorry to be insulting, but that last line sounds a bit paranoid.

i see it like this: the sooner ANYTHING is done about our healthcare, the sooner the whole problem will start being delved into and things brought to light. we can't really tell what the solution is exactly at this point because the entire industry is and has for so long been entrenched within its own bureaucracy. the only way we'll know how it works best is seeing how it operates under different conditions in order to ascertain what structure would be ideal. the longer we do absolutely nothing the harder that process will become when we finally decide to get around to it. that's why i support pretty much ANY proposed solution. and so far, it's been the democrats doing the proposing

but what can be seen right now is how private insurance already limits choices for patients. why is a potential future limitation so ominous when we can already see the same problem at work as things are now? if there are limits placed on the care of people who take the public option (which is at this point only conjecture), why is that considered a net detriment to the whole concept when they would have had no access to insurance previously? i've had a really hard time wrapping my head around that one

and if those policies the states must follow would prove limiting and neglectful of their needs, it will have to adapt to accommodate a successful strategy. maybe the states will have to be given more leeway in their commitment as you're describing; perhaps being based on population, gdp, or some other indicator. the point is that we WILL find something to work. that's the american spirit i grew up feeling shivers down my back for.

i don't think it's so much that nothing else will be considered, it's just that many see this proposal as the only opportunity to get (or begin getting) something done about it. the opposition has really pulled all the stops, throwing out accusations of communism, fascism and spreading deliberate misinfo such as "senior death panels" and coverage for illegals. so on that point, i agree that conservatives generally have not taken this issue very seriously. but it is a serious issue, and something seriously needs to be done about it. at this point the conservatives' hysteria has all but ensured this public option proposal is our only chance to do something about it right now.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Ego Tripping

Hoyer: House vote may be pushed back - Health care reform- msnbc.com

lol scroll down and on the left...Now they are calling it "PelosiCare." Jesus christ, can these people find a boogeyman and stick to them?

I'm so glad the Republican movement has been shattered. Perhaps now true conservatives can step to the plate...but judging by the current scene, that's still highly unlikely. The GOP is so delusional now, I saw they were already trying to find what contender of the GOP can defeat Obama in 2012. No wonder they can't find a solution to any problems, they can't even stay in the current year rather than salivate at the (delusional) idea of taking back the White House.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...op-candidates/

Oh well for that idea.

__________________

DdC

Jon Stewart takes on Glenn Beck‎

November 5, 2009: The 11/3 Project

Video: The 11/3 Project | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Jon Stewart Daily Show Glenn Beck (see video here!!!!)

Video: The 11/3 Project | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

John F. Kerry

theres really not much you can expect reasonable moderates and republicans to do now but be fed up with the bulshit the liberal left pelosi waxman rengel and schumer and reiddy boy have tried to pull again and again over the last few months.


people have serious doubts about socialized healthcare, they have already been discussed ad nauseum here and in society since the gop managed to stop the madnes from "guarenteed passage by the end of august" according to her highness loopy queen pelosi....

so since we stopped the snowball, every week there is a new focus group tested bulshit way to "sell" something that people DONT WANT, instead of trying to meet and find something that people DO WANT like healthcare reform WITHOUT socialized medicine and a public option.... then they would have found us willing to meet in the middle.

instead they used a variety of plain pathetic and obvious techniques to try to strongarm and brashly shove their way into getting something done that people think is wrong and instead of accepting that people doubt it and compromise is absolutely ESSENTIAL to any kind of healthcare plan that will end up affecting every american intimately, instead of compromising , you hear the dems and the pied piper matthews and olberman telling them they have to stand up to rush limbaugh and that obama must get the public option done or else its his presidency- they get brainwashed by these liberal elites into ruining the moderate tone they had for a year, and look at the results,

pretty nice for american democracy if you ask me, the people elected a demagogue but they already have stopped drinking his kool aid.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

DdC

Well JFQuerry, your Bullshit is fairly consistent. Still Bullshit and very Boring but a small happy note in seeing rednecks whine and sob over the ultra rich paying their fair share. Pitifuckingfools. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Especially the crock about government being involved by the same lame-ass drug worriers begging for government intervention. Same teabog ditzo's brokering wars and pushing synthetics. So if you cut out the $100,000.00 an hour salaries of the Insurance racketeers that will drive the cost up on customers? Like Medicaid? How many seniors could even exist without Medicaid?

Single-payer health care
From Wikipedia

Single-payer health care is a public service financing the delivery of near-universal or universal health care to a given population as defined by age, citizenship, residency, or any other demographic.

Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees and then pays for all services through a single government (or government-related) source. In wealthy nations, this kind of publicly-managed health insurance is typically extended to all citizens and legal residents.

Australia's Medicare, Canada's Medicare, the United Kingdom's National Health Service, and Taiwan's National Health Insurance are examples of single-payer universal health care systems. Medicare in the United States is an example of a single-payer system for a specified, limited group of persons within a country.

Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom). The term single-payer thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care being paid for by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or who doctors work for. Although the fund holder is usually the government, some forms of single-payer employ a public-private system.

The health care reform debate in the United States has for several decades centered around the questions of whether fundamental reform of the system is needed, what form those reforms should take, and how they should be funded. Issues regarding publicly funded health care are frequently the subject of political debate. Whether or not a publicly funded universal health care system should be implemented is one such example.

Both advocates and critics of reform have mobilized citizens to support their views, with particularly visible demonstrations occurring as congressional leaders returned to their districts during August, 2009. As a result, the health care reform debate in the United States has been influenced by the Tea Party protest phenomenon.

Specific bills

* Affordable Health Care for America Act (House of Representatives - H.R. 3962)
* America’s Healthy Future Act (Senate Finance Cmte. / Baucus Bill - S. 1796)
* America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (House of Reps. Bill - H.R. 3200)
* Healthy Americans Act (Wyden-Bennett Bill - S. 391)
* United States National Health Care Act (Single payer - H.R. 676)

Health care reform debate in the United States