-
The Man With the Plan: April 2010
August 11, 2012 | 0 comments
-
A Wonk in Sheep’s Clothing
March 25, 2011 | 293 comments
-
Scapegoating Mitch Daniels
March 17, 2011 | 150 comments
-
Money Train
March 1, 2011 | 109 comments
-
The Race for Comparative Advantage
February 14, 2011 | 87 comments
Political Hay
Will the Left Kill Health Care Reform?
Liberals insist that any health care bill must include a new government-run plan, but moderate Democrats say such a bill couldn’t get through the Senate.
As President Obama and Democrats in Congress continue their push to overhaul the nation’s health care system this year, it’s turning out that their biggest obstacle is not Republicans, but each other.
The dilemma is simple: moderate Democrats see the need to scale back legislation, but liberals yearn for something bolder. The evolving dynamic is similar to the one that ultimately killed comprehensive immigration reform during the Bush administration when Republicans tried to compromise to win over Democrats, but incurred the wrath of conservatives in the process.
The key sticking points on health care involve whether at a time of unprecedented debt, the nation can absorb the massive cost of insuring everybody, and whether Congress should create a new government-run plan, which proponents call the “public option.”
In recent weeks moderate Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu and Joe Lieberman came out opposed to the government-run option, while fellow Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Dianne Feinstein have publicly said that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to pass such a plan.
Another moderate Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson, told the Hill that “There is a risk of not doing anything by trying to do too much.” He added, “I think there is going to be a narrowing-down as time goes on.”
Yet while a pared down piece of legislation could satisfy moderate Democrats and maybe even win over a few Republicans, many liberals view that as an unacceptable outcome. From their perspective, legislation centered on providing subsidies for individuals to purchase private insurance is not genuine reform, but merely a case of pouring more money into a broken system.
“I will not vote for any health care that does not include a public option,” Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison declared this week. “I will not do it, that’s a guaranteed no vote and I will not be dissuaded from that.”
Ellison is not alone. He’s a part of the House Progressive Caucus, whose co-chair, Rep. Lynn Woosley, has said repeatedly that a majority of the 80-member bloc would not vote for any bill that did not include a “robust” government-run plan, which typically means one modeled after Medicare. This is the formulation that is opposed most vigorously by the American Medical Association because it would drive down reimbursement rates for doctors, and by insurers who do not believe they would be able to compete with a government plan that had access to tax dollars and would benefit from the fact that government would be writing the rules of the game.
If Woosley is serious about liberal House members voting against a compromise bill, that means scaled-back legislation could die in the House even if some Republicans defect and vote for it. And on the flip side, should the House go ahead and pass a bill with a strong government-run plan, it would have a tough time getting the necessary votes in the Senate.
As a result, instead of attacking Republicans, liberal activists have focused their strategy on pressuring a handful of moderate Senate Democrats who hold the keys to health care legislation.
“Self-appointed spokespeople like Senator Feinstein and Senator Conrad [have been] lately saying, ‘Well, it’s a matter of getting enough Democratic votes,’” Roger Hickey, co-director of the activist group Campaign for America’s Future, explained on a Tuesday conference call. “They are the Democratic votes that we need to step up and pass this.”
Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary during the Clinton administration, suggested on the call that “it’s important for the President to make it crystal clear to Democrats and Republicans alike that he will not sign a bill that does not have a public option in it.”
On Thursday, thousands of liberal activists gathered in Upper Senate Park on Capitol Hill to rally for the passage of health care legislation, and attendees heard speeches from a number of lawmakers and Sopranos star Edie Falco, who asked them to keep up the fight for the government plan.
The crowd waved signs such as “Health Care, Not Profits” and “Affordable: Yes/Premiums: No.” At one point, they sung a ditty, “We Want Health Care,” to the tune of Queen’s “We Will Rock You.”
“We’re counting on you to go across the street, and convince, and persuade, and cajole and do whatever you need to do to get a strong public option,” Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown hollered, the Capitol dome behind him.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (76) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/26/will-the-left-kill-health-care
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Current Wisdom
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Jay Molyneaux| 6.26.09 @ 7:29AM
As american we must insure that any health care legislation that does not include congress and the President is not acceptable. If the paln isn't good enough for those who work for us, its damned sure not good enough for citizens either.
WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS TODAY AND OFTEN ON THIS TOPIC.
Robert Rosencrans| 6.26.09 @ 7:37AM
What happened to the cries and demands for bipartisanship when the Republicans ran things? Bipartisanship is a word and concept I never respected because it's baloney, but you will notice there is no call for bipartisanship now.
Melvin| 6.26.09 @ 7:50AM
One young lady during the last Presidential election was asked by some intrepid journalist, "What is your opinion on heath Care in the United States?" The young girl replied, "It should be free for everybody." The journalist asked another question, "Considering the economics of health care in this Country, how should the government make it free." The young lady's response to this question hit me like a hammer. "I don't want the responsibility of thinking of all that, I just want it to be free."
It goes to show us the indoctrination of the youth in this Country. The reporter in one of her questions noted that it was the governments job to provide free health care, and the young twenty something felt that, yes, government should provide this free health care, and that she didn't want to be burdened with the responsibility of providing for her own health and welfare because that was someone else's responsibility.
This seems to be the general opinion of the crowd and many in this Country. The only health care reform that they are interested in is that it is, "Free," and they don't want to shoulder the responsibility of providing insurance for themselves.
WRTolkas| 6.26.09 @ 8:06AM
Dear Jay,
I emailed your comment to my two Dimocratic senators.
Thank you all for the inspiration. Sometimes I feel as a "voice crying in the wilderness."
Regards and have a safe weekend,
WRTolkas
Marcell| 6.26.09 @ 8:21AM
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7923615
In order to win a long debate like the one surrounding health care, we have to stick to our main point (the high cost), & continuously add fresh strong points in disagreement. The goal is to keep those who are concerned about the plan concerned, or The Dems will ward off all those fears & accomplish their goal.
President Obama says that If we don't change reimbursement structure; prevention, etc., Medicaid/Medicare will be broke.
The question is why should the government create a new program that will take on more people & cost more when the program they already have in place is going broke? Why won't they just fix Medicare & Medicaid then expand the program as the funds come available?
Might I add, you should be forcing them to be specific about what they are doing to force the price of health care down; just creating a new government program won't accomplish that goal.
Right now the debate is centered on the high cost, so we should be talking about what is causing the cost of health care to continuously rise at the rate it is rising; arguing for tort reform is not enough.
It also doesn't make sense that another creation of a Medicare / Medicaid program, that is suppose to be new & improved, will create competition, which is suppose to drive down the price of all health care," It's like buying snake oil," because none of the politicians can really project the future of any of the bills... Heck, who would have thought the price of health care would be sky rocketing as it is doing today.
This is how the story goes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww2JEQXezhA
Here is an example of what I am talking about ( I am not promoting this solution):
baltimoresun.com
Health reform must address issue of cost
June 26, 2009
Health care reform should address three goals: increased accessibility to health insurance, improved affordability and improvement in the quality of health care.
It seems the serious proposals now before Congress only concentrate on one of these goals: accessibility. I am sure there are elements of the other goals - improving technology and record keeping and sharing will improve affordability and quality, but only marginally.
Increased accessibility is a desirable main goal, but this kind of concentration on accessibility will increase demand for services without a corresponding improvement in supply and will mainly serve to drive up cost.
Greater accessibility would increase demand and thereby drive costs so high that there then would be such a strong demand for national health insurance as to make it politically impossible to oppose.
I urge Congress to do something significant regarding cost. The system cannot sustain what has been happening. Employers cannot sustain a continual 10 percent a year increase in premiums. More and more individuals will opt to go without insurance coverage.
One approach that will reduce the cost for many individuals is to lower the age of eligibility for Medicare. Now, one must be 65 years old to get Medicare coverage. If that age were lowered to 55, there would be millions of relatively healthier people added to Medicare rolls paying premiums and requiring fewer services.
This one step would solve Medicare solvency. Additionally, just think what would happen if auto industry employers could offer their 55-and-older employees and retirees the lower cost Medicare coverage.
The only constituency hurt by adding the above proposal to the mix is private insurance companies. They might lose some of their current customers to Medicare under the above plan. However with increased accessibility for individuals not covered now, the insurance industry will more than make up for that loss. Given the scope of the problems the system is under now, that seems like it would be a prudent risk.Mel Mintz, Pikesville
Robert Rosencrans| 6.26.09 @ 8:31AM
Here's an excerpt from an article about Sen. Kay Hagan, Democrat from North Carolina which proves the point. She's against the public option and the deranged voices from the left are accusing her of supporting corporate America.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/70817.html
Although U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan told community activists at a health care rally Thursday that she agrees with the need to reform health care, she isn't ready to support President Barack Obama's call for a public health care option.
Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, has come under fire recently after word got out on Capitol Hill that she disagreed with Obama's plan for a public option. Such an option would allow residents to join a government plan if they liked, and would be open to all.
Hagan sits on the Senate health committee that is helping write the bill, and her vote could be necessary to get the measure out of committee.
"We absolutely have to have a government option," said Dana Cope, executive director of the State Employees Association of North Carolina.
"She represents North Carolinians. She does not represent the big health-care companies."
Tenn Slim| 6.26.09 @ 8:55AM
ALL
While the Dems confab re The Limits of Health care, the Cap and Trade, IE Electorate Tax Bill, will also be voted on this Friday. This diversion, while interesting, IE the Health Care Details, will die a slow death, while the Electorate Tax Bill sails thru the House. REMEMBER THE GOAL. THE DEMISE OF THE USA CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM, via Taxes, debts, controls by OBNA.
We are well on the way.
Semper FI
end
Marcell| 6.26.09 @ 9:26AM
How does giving tax payer paid health care to Kay Zwan create competition & lower costs?
*****************
N.C. Sen. Hagan not ready to back Obama's health care plan
Barbara Barrett | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: June 26, 2009 07:47:02 AM
Kay Zwan, a mother from Wilmington, talked about her son's terminal illness and her husband's cancer. She could not get private insurance for the two after losing her job.
"The health care system has destroyed my family in many ways," Zwan said.
"We must protect our children the same way Kay Hagan has protected her children," Zwan continued. "My children deserve nothing less than she does."
mmw| 6.26.09 @ 9:39AM
For crying out loud, what makes Bam Bam think he has a right to "meddle" with health care?
Howard| 6.26.09 @ 9:47AM
The Left will roll out examples of people who were hurt by the private health care system. Never a word about people who have been well cared for by the system. Also, the "magic wand" of liberals is the myth that a government run system will be inexpensive to them, fair, efficient, and provide for all their needs. Obama and his shock troops at Acorn, etc. will clench an iron fist at his opponents. As a CPA, I wonder what tax rate the "rich" will have to pay to finance all of Obama's spending plans. Tax shelters will increase, gimmicks will abound.
Colin | 6.26.09 @ 10:08AM
The killer for millions like me is the Nazi "mandate to buy" attachment on any of these proposed, bogus scams. A "mandate" is simply ... a tax. This current crook college doesn't give a ratz butt whether I have healthcare coverage or not. All these cretins are concerned with is staying in a position to get their worthless cans re-elected term after after tax increasing term. And that requires the monthly " premium payments" that will be ... "mandated" for your ... "protection."
Back in the Capone Days - the payments were called ... "protection." And if you're not a product of the government school system ... or some Ivy League College you may know what I'm referring to.
Oh, and again on the "mandate thing?" Hell, as a senior living on a fix income ... I can barely afford the bills currently landing in my mailbox much less another damn wallet grab re-painted as "mandatory reform."
If still confused - refer back to "Capone Days" for clarification.
Remember, Grasshopper: This "reform" is nothing more than new "tax makeup" on the same old D.C. pigs.
Say goodnight, Barbara, Diane and "Teddy No Pants."
Rockman| 6.26.09 @ 10:10AM
Health care for all? sure, why not? How to pay for it is another matter. How about a VAT tax of 1/2% on all purchases except food. That way everyone can contribute. Also to make it fair to all, everyone and I mean everyone including the President, White House staff, members of congress, all government employees, military, the candle maker and who ever else receives the exact same coverage.
Obama has stated that we all should share, so let's share equally regarding health care also. After all, that's what good socalist should really be in favor of isn't?
NED| 6.26.09 @ 10:39AM
Once more for the new kids: the problems with health care in this country, as with so much else that's wrong here, is NOT that there is too little government interference. There is already far, far too much "government" in "health care".
Who, for example, requires you to sign a new HIPA form every time you get within 50 feet of a doctor? That sure isn't the doctor's idea. Nor your insurance company's.
Cut back the government's intrusion into what goes on between you and your doctor, and you and your insurance company, and much of the overhead costs go away, too. But, to placate the bleeding hearts of the country, we will destroy health care for 280M Americans by pretending there are vast numbers without any coverage at all. Simply not true, and even if it were, why are we even thinking of tearing down the house when all that's wrong is a broken window?
John II| 6.26.09 @ 11:19AM
Melvin: Terrific quote from the airheaded young lady re "free" medical care. I've heard similar comments among students, but nothing so bluntly honest as "I don't want the responsibility of thinking of all that."
In fact, it would be more accurate of her to have said, simply, "I don't want responsibility!" And that's the current generation. The next generation won't know what the word "responsibility" means. The Left is pushing us into their creepy Brave New World as fast as they can. We need to push back.
Dustoff| 6.26.09 @ 11:28AM
I'll take GOV health care. WHEN I can get the same coverage that Ted Kennedy got and still get's!
_______
Ask yourself, why did they exempt themself's from it. (doesn't that say it all)
Old Texican| 6.26.09 @ 11:31AM
Please guys!
Allow me to remind us again...Cap and Tax can be repealed easily enough When Americans get clobbered soonest.
Conversely,
A public option health insurance passed will be the ultimate in stealth tyrany.
How many young healthy Americans will actually have to test their NEW health insurance over the next two years while the fangs are going in?
KyMouse| 6.26.09 @ 11:50AM
Part of what is so awful about all of this, from my perspective, is that one thing Obama's healthcare plan WILL pay for is untold millions of abortions, with money from taxpayers who include me. Obamanation, indeed.
Oldefarte| 6.26.09 @ 12:08PM
Another Obama WELFARE proposal, for which taxpayers are going to have to PAY FOR!!!!
Tony in Central PA| 6.26.09 @ 12:27PM
Conservatism in this country is dead. It implies the worth of conserving things as they are. We need revolutionairies !
Joe B| 6.26.09 @ 12:52PM
I wonder if ObamaCare will cover the cost of gold crowns like the ones I see cemented into Howard Dean's mouth.
jacksmith| 6.26.09 @ 1:04PM
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and demand that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
George True| 6.26.09 @ 2:10PM
Mr jacksmith: Your rantings sound straight out of some 1930's communist manifesto guidebook. So now Obama should seize all the insurance companies and seize people's private insurance policies, huh? Do you realize what a blithering idiot you sound like?
There are not 50 million uninsured. The regressive democrats have been pulling that fradulent number out of their ass for the last 15 or 20 years. The real number of chronically uninsured is somewhere around 7-12 million, or about 2 to 4 percent of the population. Is that a problem? Sure it is. But to solve it you don't have to become tyrannical and take everybody's private healthcare away from them a gunpoint, which seems to be what you are advocating.
Regressive democrats also conveniently ignore the fact that polls indicate that 80 percent of people are currently happy or very happy with their health care. In fact, healthcare is way, way down the list of issues that people cite when asked what the most pressing issues of our time are. Healthcare typically ranks 12th or 15th, if it makes the list at all.
No my clueless friend, so-called healthcare "reform" in its current form is nothing more than a regressive democrat power grab and tax grab. Like you, they think that they are soooo smart, in fact so very, very much smarter than all of us unwashed masses out here that they know better than we do what's best for us poor rubes in flyover country.
Every form of socialism/communism that has ever been tried has been a miserable failure, causing incalculable misery and financial ruination for uncounted multitudes of people. It has also been the cause of over two hundred million people murdered since 1917.
But regressive democrats still can't resist trying to run everybody else's lives, I guess so they themselves can feel important and feel "good" about themselves. And it's comical to hear regressives opine that socialism could work, it really, really could work - if only the "right" people were in charge. And the "right people just happen to be.....wait for it......them.
2 guns AZ| 6.26.09 @ 3:02PM
Here's a thought,
If these clowns think their idea for health care reform is sooo great, why not give it an honest trial?
What trial, you ask? How about making the reform apply to all gov employees, including the legislative, executive and judicial. Everyone must sign up and can't go out of the system.
You mules can test it out for us and see how it works before you clowns foist it on the rest of us. I think a 10 year trial should be sufficient.
When you congressmen and senators are happy with the service and can show us all those great savings, I'll be ready to listen.
2 guns, AZ| 6.26.09 @ 3:04PM
I forgot, the plan can't "cost shift", by paying less and expecting the Dr.s and Hospitals to make up the difference by charging everyone else more.
Marc Jeric| 6.26.09 @ 3:51PM
Thanks for showing the picture of that abortion multi-millionaire Howard Dean. He still owns a string of abortion mills in Vermont; each nets him about $2 million/year. What a business!
Robert| 6.26.09 @ 4:47PM
All it would take is ONE bold congressperson to attach a rider to this so-called 'Public Option" madating that all representatives and senators be mandated to participate in the plan. All access to their current free, elitist health care plan be terminated.
You'll never see a bill fail faster as these two-faced 'progressives' head for the hills, faced with having to live with the plan they deem adequate for the unwashed masses.
Marcell| 6.26.09 @ 8:06PM
Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour (R) hits the ball out of the park on Tues. when the Republicans discussed the Democrats' plan for health care reform.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/06/23/Health/A/20097/House+Republicans+Press+Conference+on+Health+Care+Policy.aspx
P.S. I support the Democrats plan more than I support the Republicans plan.
Small Town Surgeon| 6.26.09 @ 9:17PM
NED, you got it right. Too much government interference already. Besides defensive medicine, the other big waste in healthcare are all the people who never see a patient, but are constantly creating new forms to meet some new requirement for CMS directly or indirectly through the Joint Comission surveys.
Another reform that I think the leftists would go for, and we have recently seen a precedent for is more regulation of the insurance companies: more payments to the hospitals and physicians, less to the CEO's as bonuses.
Sue| 6.27.09 @ 10:58AM
Privatize Medicare and Medicaid care; don't socialize everyones' care; the 1965 Medicare bill was nothing more than a "revenue" raiser for the government. They never intended for the majority of us to use it. They could rake in the taxes, spend it, provide coverage for those of us who lived past 70 and 72 with virtually no new technology known and sit like fat cats smoking their cigars handing out favors to their constituents. The joke's on them for now.
With technological advances we have increased the average life span and enhanced it with technology and drugs that will not be seen again if government takes over.
They need to figure out a way to pay for the baby boomers and bringing 40 million uninsured onto the rolls of government welfare won't do it. Mandating insurance purchasing won't do it either. Who on welfare will purchase insurance when they already have it through Medicaid?
They will be forced to increase the medicare taxes, the monthly premiums, the deductibles, etc. to maintain the present level of service. The conundrum is that the present level of service will not stay the same when more baby boomers get heart bypasses, stents, arthritis drugs, cardiovascular drugs, transplants, etc.
Oh, the web we weave when we practice to deceive! And they are deceiving us again. Now they want complete "control" over all decisions through "medical boards." Is this the only way out?
Maybe we could create health savings accounts or an insurance market for catastropic insurance needs, or life insurance purchases where the premium payer could draw down the value of the policy if he become terminally ill.
There are a myriad of ways to induce persons to cover their medical costs.
I don't think this Congress is interested in anything but "controlling" medical costs; not providing medical services.
Pingback| 6.27.09 @ 11:01AM
Will the Democrats Kill Obama Health Care Reform? | Politics News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
George True| 6.27.09 @ 1:28PM
As someone who has been a health insurance broker for the last 20 years, it is appalling to see the breathtaking ignorance and stupidity of those who want to "reform" health care in this country.
As mentioned in my previous post, the 45 or 50 million allegedly uninsured people is a fradulent number. First, they are including illegal aliens in that total. Second, they are including people who were uninsured at any time during the previous 18 months. This would include people who are new hires or have changed jobs and had to wait 90 days to be eligible for benefits with their new employer. Third, the figure includes people who could afford to purchase health insurance (earning $56,000/year or more) but choose not to buy it. It also includes people under the age of 25 or 30 who have very little real need for health insurance other than a catastrophic or accident policy. When you back out these groups of people, the real number of chronically uninsured is at most 12-15 million people. Instead of taking everybody's health insurance away from them at gunpoint, why not just develop a program aimed at this relatively small group of at-risk chronically uninsured?
Part of the problem with this group is that many of them are the "working poor", that is they make just a little too much to qualify for Medicaid but not nearly enough for health insurance to be reasonably affordable. Again, instead of taking everybody else's health insurance away from them, why not develop a program of tax credits or direct subsidies aimed at this specific group?
The next big problem cited by the socialized-medicine-at any-cost crowd is people being denied coverage due to uninsurable medical conditions. This has indeed been a problem, but believe it or not the market itself is addressing this issue. For example, last month I wrote a health policy on an individual in his 50's who is on a list for a liver transplant. You might think that no for-profit insurance company would insure someone like him, but you would be wrong. He now has a plan that will pay for his entire transplant, and will pay for the majority of his medical expenses until then. In addition, he also now has $25,000 of critical illness insurance. When he has the transplant, that company will simply cut him a check for that amount. This plan will pay IN ADDITION TO his health plan which will pay for most of the costs associated with his transplant. His total monthly cost for this plan is $289 a month. Again, the market itself is beginning to provide solutions for people like him.
I do not expect any of the militant advocates of socialist medicine to take any of these eminently logical suggestions seriously. Because their motivation has very little to do with "controlling costs" or making health care "affordable" for all. Rather, it is about control. The socialists who have taken over the Democrat party are well aware of how much additional power they can wield if they can take control of everybody's health care.
Free at point of delivery| 6.27.09 @ 3:54PM
Why don't people in each state collectively buy land and build their own Hospitals. Fund it by every one contributing to it. Do a Lottery Pay out 100'000 per week. the surplus goes to funding the Hospital so every one can have free Health care.
Think of ways to do for yourself, the insurance companies are ripping people off.
aware| 6.27.09 @ 4:27PM
The citizens of Rome were just as fervent in their demands for wine and circuses as the American "citizens" are for healthcare, housing, schools, food, a check to make the hurt go away, and anything else under the sun, all at "public"(somebody other than me) expense.
And the corrupt politicians of the sham political system of Rome( the parallels should be obvious to those paying attention) naturally rushed to give them just that.
It is a sign of the final and fatal stage of empire where people who once saved and endured in the hope of better tomorrow become a people more interested in their own consumption and the satisfying of decadent ways of life, if possible at someone else's expense.
For the Romans the verdict was already in and though they didn't know at the time, they were in their final days. Spendin' when they shoulda been savin'.
And the title says it all...it's up to the Left to kill or not since there is no "right" anymore worth speaking of. This is because the modern conservative movement has proved itself a fraud in its "smaller government" promises.
It has allowed infiltration by the "pragmatic" aiders and abetters of big government to the point that the only choice is socialism lite or socialism regular. We are now at the mercy of the State and will suffer the usual consequences. Republican big government is just as responsible as Democrat big government for reducing this nation to a rabble of beggars.
We have created a government we empowered to fix everything and now it will fix us. As always this is about power and how they can get more. This they do by providing every whim of a decadent people.
I see very few if any candidates of either party who understand that we are showing signs of entering a terrifying and new era. It is an era when individual liberty will be discarded as an impediment that hinders "progress". And smiling faces and flowery words will be ample to mesmerize the mind numbed, in fact they will demand it. They will rush to accept all promises of "security" from the bad things that might happen. But not only will bad things still happen to them, they will have given up real freedoms for illusive promises. Not only for themselves but for their, and our, progeny to who knows what generation.
Without real opposition to the growth of the State as the central front in the fight of our lives, all else is meaningless in the long run. Until a party fields candidates who espouse this fact there is no opposition party in America and the State is unstoppable. None of us are safe in this struggle sooner or later.
Mephistopheles| 6.27.09 @ 10:26PM
If this corrupt administration, with all its tax cheats, racists and bigots, wants to give me universal health care, then I'm all for it, with one caveat. I want the exact same health care that Obama and his family have, the exact same health care that Ted Kennedy has (especially the limousine service and the helicopter at his disposal) and the exact same health care that every one of our senators and congressmen have. After all, they are "public servants" and their job is to "serve the public", right? So, what's good for them should be just as good for us, right?
If that isn't possible, then leave our health care system alone. It's the best in the world.
No moronic government bureaucrat will be making any medical decisions for me, thank you very much.
BODYSLAM| 6.27.09 @ 10:41PM
If this corrupt administration, with all its tax cheats, racists and bigots, wants to give me universal health care, then I'm all for it, with one caveat. I want the exact same health care that Obama and his family have, the exact same health care that Ted Kennedy has (especially the limousine service and the helicopter at his disposal) and the exact same health care that every one of our senators and congressmen have. After all, they are "public servants" and their job is to "serve the public", right? So, what's good for them should be just as good for us, right?
God you are so fucking stupid. That is also the health care plan that all congresspeople have, even the ones who hate govt health care. Ask just one of those rethugs with govt health care to give it up and you will see such crying as you have never seen. Hypocrisy or die! Isn't that one of your slogans?
Marcell| 6.28.09 @ 5:02AM
..."Flash Back!!"
Who won the debate, & why I shouldn't be getting Paid?
>>>>>>>>>
Black Cell Vs. Frank Luntz's
By Black Cell
These are
Barack Obama is handily winning the early rounds of that debate, because he is controlling the most important aspect of the debate, & that is its cost.
While the president is hoping that he could convince voters to agree with his massive overhaul of the U.S. health care system by offering cuts to Medicare & Medicaid, the Republican focus seem to be all over the map as they tout a list of reasons to be against the different plans championed by Democrats.
What seems to be the focal point within the Republicans perspective is that they fear the government taking over the healthcare industry. The issues concerning the sky rocketing cost of healthcare doesn't seem to be a major issue to them.
But the rising cost of health care & the rising numbers of uninsured is fueling the debate surrounding that issue, & not the question should we allow the federal government the power to eventually take over that industry.
Its rising cost has forced many Americans to struggle to pay their medical bills. Employees are more & more complaining that they cannot afford high premiums for health insurance. Employers are cutting back or eliminating health benefits. Even state and federal governments are struggling to afford the rising cost of public programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
So, why should we buy into the typical rhetoric by politicians that claim they can save us more money by putting the burden of the sky rocketing cost on the tax payers back?
Even though I agree with the fact that the federal government will eventually take sole control over healthcare cost because businesses will eventually opt out of healthcare & force their employees to receive the Federal governments healthcare for financial reasons, I believe the real issue is that what President Obama is trying to offer, lower cost healthcare, can't be accomplished by the feds eventually taking over that industry.
I believe that the large number of U.S citizens who are uninsured & the even larger number of elderly who are receiving private care, along with the potentially large numbers of employers shifting their employees to the government programs will eventually overwhelm the federal government & force taxes to have to be raised or eventually the quality of healthcare will drop.
While Democrats are using their pull with the media to market how businesses (specifically small businesses) are struggling to pay for rising medical cost, Republicans could be using the same information to point out that if many of those businesses had the option to dump their healthcare cost onto the federal government there is a likely hood that they would.
How does the federal government taken over those businesses healthcare costs lower the over all cost in general?
President Obama says by creating more competition, but the reality is that the only thing would be happening is that businesses would be only shifting their burden onto the taxpayers.
Maybe the Republicans should be attempting to force Democrats to explain why the existing government ran healthcare programs Medicare & Medicaid are struggling, & conclude that Democrats should be solving those problems before taking on such projects as what ever version of universal healthcare they are marketing.
I am hoping that the Republicans start to focus more on the rising cost of healthcare & how the burden will be solely put on the backs of the tax payers if President Obama's plan is enacted.
I believe our President is fighting a noble cause, but it is one that the private industry can't solve, so why put that burden on the rest of us?
Here are two videos showing how weak the republicans look in this debate. That could be changed if they fight Obama on the issue he is trying to champion.
****
Appearing on CBS' Face The Nation Sunday, McConnell told host Bob Schieffer that Mr. Obama's plan for a government health insurance plan would essentially crowd out other insurers from the private market, eliminating competition.
BOOM!!
MINORITY WHIP REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA)
Thursday
Rep. Cantor (R-VA) discussed this week's major events in Congress, including the status of health care legislation and the energy/climate change bill, the situation in Iran, and the day's major news events. Rep. Cantor detailed the House Republicans' agenda after the July 4th recess.
Washington, DC : 27 min.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/06/25/Health/A/20164/Minority+Whip+Rep+Eric+Cantor+RVA.aspx
sted on May 7, 2009
Frank Luntz's "The Language of Healthcare 2009"
PRINT PAGE
EN ESPAÑOL
THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009
By Dr. Frank I. Luntz
This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.
You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes “President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,” then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless. Republicans must be for the right kind of reform that protects the quality of healthcare for all Americans. And you must establish your support of reform early in your presentation.
THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE “WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” OF HEALTHCARE
(1) Humanize your approach.
(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences.
(3) “Time” is the government healthcare killer.
(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.
(5) The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them.
(6) Healthcare quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.”
7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”
Marcell| 6.28.09 @ 5:05AM
Smash Mouth Football=)
Roots of Blues -- Lead Belly „On Monday"
On June 28th, 2009 BLACK CELL said:
This is a trip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjFOfzC0YTA
Sources & Dates | 6.28.09 @ 5:39AM
Black Cell Vs. Frank Luntz's
Sources & Dates
Who is Winning the Debate?
By Marcell| 6.15.09 @ 2:20AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/12/its-time-to-get-serious
I have chosen to focus on helping the Republicans to win the healthcare debate to show my stuff. Try following my lead on this issue & you will eventually get traction. You have nothing to lose.
Who is winning the Healthcare Debate?
THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009
By Dr. Frank I. Luntz
This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.
It's Time to Get Serious
By W. James Antle, III on 6.12.09 @ 6:08AM
Frank Luntz's "The Language of Healthcare 2009"
THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009
Dr. Frank I. Luntz
Posted on May 7, 2009
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/may/frank_luntzs_the_l.php
THE LANGUAGE OF HEALTHCARE 2009
By Dr. Frank I. Luntz
This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.
Barbour on"De-Face the Nation"| 6.28.09 @ 7:26AM
"Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour gives CBS "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer his first Sunday interview since succeeding Sanford as chairman of the Republican Governors Association last week. Also, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, will sit down to provide her perspective on Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Afghanistan.
Read more:
http://www.microsoft.com/isapi/redir.dll?prd=ie&ar=hotmail
P.S. Don't don't forget that " the teliprompters loves me."
GOP losing the new-media war| 6.28.09 @ 7:40PM
On or around 6-6-08, I created a news blog called, "The Politico Insider."
@ http://thepoliticolinsider.blogspot.com/
The blog was used to gather info for other Democrats & Republicans to read. I also used it to help defeat John McCain.
Now check this out:
************
GOP losing the new-media war
By: Jonathan Martin
July 24, 2008 10:13 AM EST
Republicans have no lack of would-be George F. Wills. But what they really need are some more Robert D. Novaks.
The distinction between the two prominent conservative journalists isn't always obvious, but it's nevertheless important to understand: One almost exclusively writes opinion pieces, while the other offers reporting with a point of view.
The same might be said of the emerging differences between the conservative presence on the Internet and the liberal one: The right is engaged in the business of opining while the left features sites that offer a more reportorial model.
At first glance, these divergent approaches might not seem consequential. But as the 2008 campaign progresses, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the absence of any websites on the right devoted to reporting — as opposed to just commenting on the news — is proving politically costly to Republicans.
While conservatives are devoting much of their Internet energy to analysis, their counterparts on the left are taking advantage of the rise of new media to create new institutions devoted to unearthing stories, putting new information into circulation and generally crowding the space traditionally taken by traditional media. And it almost always comes at the expense of GOP politicians.
While online Republicans chase the allure of punditry and commentary, Democrats and progressives are pursuing old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting, in a fashion reminiscent of 2004. Back then, the Drudge Report and other lesser-known conservative portals played a key role in defining John Kerry and pushing back against criticism of George W. Bush, such as when conservative bloggers debunked documents purportedly related to the president’s Air National Guard service.
Just as Drudge and critics of the now-infamous “60 Minutes” report on Bush were able to push stories damaging to Kerry or beneficial to Bush into the mainstream media, liberal online organs are now doing the same, to the detriment of GOP presidential nominee John McCain.
This week, for example, a young liberal writer named Spencer Ackerman heard that McCain committed a gaffe on Iraq in an unaired portion of an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric. Ackerman, a former reporter for The New Republic and The American Prospect who now blogs at the liberal Firedoglake site, posted the transcript and pointed out the relevant portion just after 5:00 p.m. Tuesday night.
It was picked up by the Huffington Post two hours later, discussed on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, moved onto The Associated Press wire overnight and by Wednesday afternoon McCain was forced to respond.
“We amplify its effect and then stay on it,” explains Arianna Huffington, namesake of the popular liberal news and entertainment hub.
But the left isn’t simply promoting its own version of the news — it’s also breaking it.
Deploying writers with backgrounds grounded in journalism rather than politics, The Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo, in particular, have already become a persistent problem for McCain’s campaign, regularly posting negative opposition research and embarrassing videos in addition to advancing damaging story lines against the GOP nominee.
There is simply no equivalent on the right to these two liberal-leaning websites.
The challenge these sites present have become so apparent that McCain was forced to hire his own in-house blogger to ensure dissemination of a steady stream of anti-Barack Obama material, much of it culled from the campaign’s extensive research file.
Michael Goldfarb, a former reporter at the Weekly Standard, almost exclusively uses his blog on McCain’s website to target the Democratic nominee in the hopes mainstream reporters will link to or pick up the oppo he’s posting.
To be sure, neither of the two liberal-leaning sites — referred to online as TPM and HuffPo — have yet to break the next Watergate story this campaign.But every day, there comes a steady drip.
It ranges from the amusing (reporting that McCain’s campaign lifted recipes from the Food Network while he’s giving a major economic speech) to the strategic (popping up research on McCain’s opposition to a bill that included wind energy incentives when he’s about to give a speech at a turbine facility) to the eyebrow-raising (disclosing that Mitt Romney said at a private meeting that he would not likely appoint a Muslim Cabinet member).
In some cases, the stories incrementally move the anti-McCain message forward (by flagging an off-message Iraq statement by a McCain surrogate, for example). In others, the reporting scores broadside hits that inflict notable damage (such as posting controversial audio of the Rev. John Hagee that would prompt McCain to finally renounce the pastor).
Add in the increasingly aggressive online efforts of liberal think tanks such as the Center for American Progress, and it leaves the right at a severe disadvantage in the high-stakes business of distributing information about favored candidates and the opposition.
“It’s something we have to get in gear on,” says Patrick Ruffini, the Bush campaign’s webmaster in 2004 and former RNC ecampaign director. “What drives discussion in the blogosphere is original information.”
The lack of any meaningful right-wing entities today is partly because of how left and right media outlets sprung up, he says.
“Liberal media has traditionally been upstream media, generating information and putting it into circulation. Conservative media is downstream; it’s the second bite at the apple.”
For years, says New York Times columnist David Brooks, the model for conservatives who developed a passion for writing (or vice-versa) was not a reporter but a commentator: National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr.
Besides being attracted to his elegant language and compelling arguments, up-and-coming conservatives saw something else in Buckley: job stability.
“In the past 60 years, only one employee of the National Review, Weekly Standard or any conservative magazine has actually been hired as a reporter for a newspaper,” says Brooks, who researched the question a few years ago.
At the same time, scores of young reporters from liberal-leaning journals such as The New Republic or The Washington Monthly have been called up to the journalistic big leagues by general interest newspapers and magazines.
“There is just no career line for a conservative reporter,” observes Brooks.
Further, prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin have prospered by seizing upon the sense of grievance conservatives have felt toward the mainstream media.
Liberals, on the other hand, responded to their own disenchantment with the media and the Bush era by channeling their anger into the creation of parallel reporting outlets geared toward doing what old-line news outlets purportedly weren’t doing.
This development just happened to take place right when the mood matched empowering new technologies, enabling new players who would have found it impossible to break through under the old media model.
“It’s fair to say that the mainstream media…was increasingly either neutral or effectively browbeaten by the right,” says Josh Marshall, the founder and editor of Talking Points Memo.
The powerful presence of Limbaugh on the radio airwaves and the ascendance of Fox News on cable television energized liberals, Marshall says.
“People on the center-left, especially in the lead-up to the Iraq war and after the 2000 recount, realized that there was nothing on that side of equation,” he adds.
The result was the emergence of TPM and HuffPo, along with the opinion- and organizing-centered Daily Kos.
“Republicans haven’t developed a lot of that infrastructure because they haven’t been forced to,” says Michael Turk, a former ecampaign director at the RNC. But Turk and others say that must change — and the GOP might soon find the impetus.
“If Republicans are out of power, they’ll start to realize this is one of the things we need to do to rebuild,” he says.
A writer for TPM puts it more bluntly.
“If Obama gets in, we'll see a lot of this stuff spring up, probably following the same initial pattern as the lefty Netroots,” predicts Eric Kleefield. “First it's a bunch of nobodies with dingy websites doing the equivalent of writing profanity on bathroom walls. And then it will evolve into some kind of real organization and discourse, and with its own journalism.”
While there is no real national site, Erick Erickson, founder of the popular RedState, points out that there is some reporting taking place on conservative blogs in Minnesota and Colorado.
“The next major wave of conservative funding will be toward journalistic institutions,” he says hopefully.
But for now, Erickson concedes that most potential angel funders are hesitant to bankroll a start-up, still gun-shy after many websites have flopped and skeptical that a right-wing version of HuffPo or TPM would be taken seriously by established media organs.
Conservatives have not been able to obtain the sort of financing that has powered the two sites — for HuffPo, it’s venture capital; for TPM, initially it was reader contributions but is increasingly advertisements.
Amidst the inertia on the right, HuffPo and TPM are not only prospering but growing.
Both major liberal sites have added new elements for this election, and the proprietors for each are already thinking past 2008.
Huffington said in the site's next round of financing, to take place later this year, she’ll hire more reporters.
Each promises that, even if Obama wins in November, they’ll keep up the scrutiny.
“If you want to break stories or report the news, you cannot do it only from your political views,” says Huffington, citing the ironic case of their most significant splash to date: Obama's comments, reported by an Obama donor, concerning the presumptive nominee’s assessment of the psyche of rural America.
“I think if Obama wins, people will see that we’re fundamentally a news organization,” adds Marshall. “We’d cover an Obama administration equally as aggressively. People will believe it when they see it, but that’s what we plan to do.”
Avi Zenilman and Alexander Burns contributed to this report.
Here is a link to my blog called, "The Politico Insider."
http://thepoliticolinsider.blogspot.com/
THE POLITICO INSIDER| 6.28.09 @ 9:27PM
(Updated)
THE POLITICO INSIDER IS A WEBSITE WHERE POLITICAL JUNKIES AND INSIDERS CAN READ BALANCED NEWS AND COMMENTARY WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND LONG HOURS SEARCHING THE WEB.
http://thepoliticoinsider.blogspot.com/
WHO'S SARAH PALIN?| 6.28.09 @ 10:42PM
" I also used it ( My Blog) to help defeat John McCain."
By Me
**********
WHO'S SARAH PALIN?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efACWYRNRcQ
McCain-onomics Rachel Maddow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viwvD56Jsgs
Source:
THE POLITICO INSIDER
http://thepoliticoinsider.blogspot.com/2008/10/gas-is-less-than-3-gallon-if-anyone.html
Source 2:
http://thepoliticoinsider.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-11-05T07:10:00-08:00&max;-results=7
Hawkeye| 6.29.09 @ 6:48PM
"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
Recognize this quote? George Washington's words. Washington was also concerned about the divisiveness of party politics. We need to remember the wisdom from our country's forefathers. I get so weary of the "liberal" vs "conservative" tug o war. There is SO much misinformation circulating over health care facts and accessibility in our country. We believe what what we need to and what we want to believe and discard the rest UNTIL our own circumstances change. Lose your employment, your health insurer denies a claim, you or a loved one near death because you can no longer afford your expensive prescription drugs...... this, after you've worked hard and played by the rules your whole life! How can we all NOT support a single payer health care plan?? A single payer plan, such as the proposed House bill HR 676 by Rep. Conyers of Michigan, makes the most sense of all. It's all of the great people of our country looking out for one another. From the Health-Care NOW website as to how it'd be funded" ...maintain current federal and state funding for existing healthcare programs; employer payroll tax of 4.5%, an employee payroll tax of 3.3%, in addition to the already existing 1.45% for Medicare; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners." The "KISS" principle extraordinaire!
The whole argument that with a single payer health system our care would be "rationed" is not, well, rational. (It is currently "rationed" according to your ability to pay or what kind of insurance coverage your employer provides!) There are many, many good arguments for a single payer system and the resistance is merely a mark of fear of change and of the unknown. We know that we cannot sustain the health care delivery system that we currently have. Let's be brave and use the best of what's worked for other countries. We can do better. We must do better than this!
Some links for more research and info:
http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/
http://pnhp.org/
To see an informative video about how other country's do it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Pingback| 7.1.09 @ 11:03PM
Will the Left Kill Health Care Reform? « Toe Fungus links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
dsfasdfasf | 11.17.09 @ 4:52AM
sdfsdewewe
Trackback| 12.17.09 @ 9:09PM
credit repair vermont, on credit repair vermont, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
berty| 4.23.10 @ 9:10PM
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
Poptropica
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:28AM
Thanks for the interesting post!UTI Treatment
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:28AM
Thanks for the interesting post!UTI Treatment