ObamaCare and me By Zane F Pollard, MD

[tyflier]

Kind of like the bad intelligence, given to Pres. GWB regarding the weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein had. :sidestep:

Wayne

Almost. Difference would be that GWB and his administration were told, when they were given the information, that it was outdated, and from an unreliable source. They chose to follow the lead, regardless.

As an interesting side note, when the GWB Administration was given word of a "pending attack" several days prior to 9/11/01, and they were assured it was good intel which provided reason for concern, they chose to ignore it...:uzi::duck:

 

[tyflier]

Dont forget about the hurricane machine the GWB and Haliburton have in the gulf.

They have one of those?

See...nobody ever accused the Bush Administration of causing the hurricanes...just of not responding to them. There is a difference here...

KJUN is insinuating, in his post, that the Obama Administration has some sort of actual input or knowledge regarding the developement and distribution of vaccinations. He doesn't. The office of the President has very little, if ANY, control over that.

Conversely, FEMA IS a Federally Funded program, that should have been deployed with resources immediately...not a week later. Nobody blamed Bush for the Hurricanes...they blamed him for his absolutely deplorable mismanagement of the National Emergency situations after the hurricanes.

See the difference? KJUN is blaming Obama for things that are absolutely outside of his control(like hurricanes).

Bush was blamed for Bush's failings after Katrina.

There's a very basic difference, there...

 

[danielle]

#2-There is no conspiracy. Nobody is trying to kill you with vaccinations. Nobody is trying to enslave you for the New World Order. Nobody is trying to control you, your money, and your thoughts. It's simply not happening... They tried for the previous 8 years and failed, so they gave up. Feel better? :roflmao::roflmao:

I feel better that was freaking hillarious Chris.

Now for the truth about flu vaccinations. Every year scientists guess which strains of flu will be most dominate in a given country, and then which of those will be most dangerous. All flus are serious for small children, the elderly, the immunocompromised, and asthmatics, but certain strains more so than others.

From this point they have a year or less to develop the vaccination which usually includes inactive flu strains notice the pluralization of strains. Most other medications/vaccines take a decade or more to devlop and test and many more years before they ever hit the market, but not flu vaccines which is scary to me. In the defense of these scientists they do have a proven base to start with, but the rest is intelligent guess work. It wasn't long ago they whipped up a batch of vaccinations that was useless against the strains that ravaged the US and Europe, they have never generated enough, and this year the new nasal vaccine carries the live H1N1 virus even though tests showed the most predisposed populations for complications should be the population a live vaccine is NEVER used on.

Flu vaccines are funded by our government in LARGE part, and no administration has been able to prevent a shortage because government funds aren't endless, but every administration has put pressure on scientists to make the vaccines faster and faster every year. I don't and won't get a flu vaccine and neither will my children because the integrity and use of the vaccine is not proven. If you look up statistics on people receiving the vaccine and then see how many get the flu it is obvious there is little reason to get one. However, for sensitive populations it doesn't hurt as long as its an inactive vaccine because there is evidence these people who get the vaccine usually have less severe symptoms when they contract the flu.

I doubt theres an Obama conspiracy against vaccinating his children he may have actually done some research and realized his children aren't at risk for complications and getting the flu in most cases isn't the end of the world. And on the bright side is once you get one strain of the flu you can't get the same exact strain again:dancer:


__________________

 

[mike17l]

government funds aren't endless

Well if you own the printing press and have China on speed dial they are.

 

[tyflier]

#2-There is no conspiracy. Nobody is trying to kill you with vaccinations. Nobody is trying to enslave you for the New World Order. Nobody is trying to control you, your money, and your thoughts. It's simply not happening... They tried for the previous 8 years and failed, so they gave up. Feel better? :roflmao::roflmao:

I feel better that was freaking hillarious Chris.

Now for the truth about flu vaccinations. Every year scientists guess which strains of flu will be most dominate in a given country, and then which of those will be most dangerous. All flus are serious for small children, the elderly, the immunocompromised, and asthmatics, but certain strains more so than others.

From this point they have a year or less to develop the vaccination which usually includes inactive flu strains notice the pluralization of strains. Most other medications/vaccines take a decade or more to devlop and test and many more years before they ever hit the market, but not flu vaccines which is scary to me. In the defense of these scientists they do have a proven base to start with, but the rest is intelligent guess work. It wasn't long ago they whipped up a batch of vaccinations that was useless against the strains that ravaged the US and Europe, they have never generated enough, and this year the new nasal vaccine carries the live H1N1 virus even though tests showed the most predisposed populations for complications should be the population a live vaccine is NEVER used on.

Flu vaccines are funded by our government in LARGE part, and no administration has been able to prevent a shortage because government funds aren't endless, but every administration has put pressure on scientists to make the vaccines faster and faster every year. I don't and won't get a flu vaccine and neither will my children because the integrity and use of the vaccine is not proven. If you look up statistics on people receiving the vaccine and then see how many get the flu it is obvious there is little reason to get one. However, for sensitive populations it doesn't hurt as long as its an inactive vaccine because there is evidence these people who get the vaccine usually have less severe symptoms when they contract the flu.

I doubt theres an Obama conspiracy against vaccinating his children he may have actually done some research and realized his children aren't at risk for complications and getting the flu in most cases isn't the end of the world. And on the bright side is once you get one strain of the flu you can't get the same exact strain again:dancer:


__________________

Very well stated. Precisely why my daughter doesn't get a flu vaccine. Getting sick is not so bad, and every vaccine, every year, is different, out of necessity. I don't like to use vaccines. Even dormant viruses can cause complications. In my research, it seems that the people that benefit the most from flu vaccinations are the same that are most susceptible to it's side effects and risks. I'll take my chances with the actual illness, thanks...

The irony is...it's ALWAYS been like this. This is not something new, nor is it something that's going to change. That's why it's so silly that all of a sudden, it is being made into some sort of administration organized conspiracy against the people. This isn't anything new...

 

[tsst]

10 characters

 

[KJUN]

This should be read and understood by all Americans. Read the bottom portion

(NOTE: This isn't mine. It's an email forward going around, and I felt it is appropriate to post in this particular thread. It might sum up many people's thoughts and concerns.)


To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,
It is now official. THEY ARE ALMOST ALL CORRUPT MORONS


* The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
* Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
* Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke..
* War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
* Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
* Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
* The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected officials" in Washington !!

 

[Drizzt80]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

 

[tyflier]

Holy Crap! You two never quit, do you?

How's it feel to know that there is nothing standing in the way of the legislation not only being passed, but it being done WITH a public option? That must burn your hide, don't it?

Fear not...you can use that burned hide to cover yourself once the liberals take over and you are cast out into a field to survive like a dog...

 

[mike17l]

Holy Crap! You two never quit, do you?

How's it feel to know that there is nothing standing in the way of the legislation not only being passed, but it being done WITH a public option? That must burn your hide, don't it?

Fear not...you can use that burned hide to cover yourself once the liberals take over and you are cast out into a field to survive like a dog...

Don't be so sure about that. Before the elections of yesterday were finished, Prince Harry Reid was already doubtful that health care would be passed by his predetermined date of the end of this year. Now that the elections of yesterday have occurred and we have what seems like an obvious voice of opposition to the liberal movement has occurred, will any (or at the very least, enough) of the blue dogs support health care reform? I highly doubt it. As of yesterday, health care is dead in the water with only a hand held fan for propulsion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/senate-democrats-doubt-health-care-year/?test=latestnews

Despite President Obama's goal of signing healthcare reform legislation this year -- one backed by assurances from congressional Democrats -- Senate Democratic leaders Tuesday subtly acknowledged that's not likely to happen as they started the delicate dance of walking back expectations.

Putting the legislation together has proved exceedingly difficult, and most aides now say there is virtually no way a bill can get to Obama's desk this year.

When asked directly if he could finish legislation this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday, "We're not going to be bound by any timelines. We need to do the best job we can for the American people. We want quality legislation, and we're going to do that."

Previously, the Nevada Democrat had said a bill could be finished by various other deadlines, with Thanksgiving being the most recent one. But Reid started to qualify his answer after an August recess deadline came and went, saying that he didn't want to be bound by "arbitrary timelines."

Later Tuesday, a spokesman for Reid told Fox News that Democrats are willing and able to finish work on a health care bill this year.

"Our goals remain unchanged. We want to get health insurance reform done this year and we have unprecedented momentum to achieve that," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.

"There is no reason why we can't have a transparent and thorough debate in the Senate and still send a bill to the president by Christmas," he said.

But other Democratic leaders echoed Reid's earlier shift in position.

"We will move with all deliberate speed," Sen. Chuck Schumer said, a far departure from last week when he said that a health care bill would get done by Christmas.

"The most important thing is to get it done right, not quickly," added the New York Democrat and vice chairman of Reid's caucus.

Democrats are divided on how to move ahead on reform, and that has taken a good deal of time in back room negotiations, in committee markups. And a big part of the hold up is getting an analysis and so-called "score," or overall cost, of legislation from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which has been inundated with healthcare bills and pieces of bills for nearly a year now.

Reid is currently awaiting CBO scores on a menu of options for his own reform bill, but Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mo, chairman of the Finance Committee, said Tuesday that none would be coming this week.

This shifting of timelines has become all too familiar in the healthcare debate. Some Democratic lawmakers said early on that a health care bill could get done by the August recess before walking that back.

The timeline then shifted gradually to one Vice President Biden and Reid both said could be met: Thanksgiving. But that's not even remotely possible now because the Senate will likely be just starting to consider a bill just before that holiday deadline.

But Schumer, a former chairman of the Democrats' campaign committee, predicted that passage of a bill in a year beset with tough re-election efforts would not be problem.

Congrats to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell.

 

[tyflier]

Don't be so sure about that. Before the elections of yesterday were finished, Prince Harry Reid was already doubtful that health care would be passed by his predetermined date of the end of this year. Now that the elections of yesterday have occurred and we have what seems like an obvious voice of opposition to the liberal movement has occurred, will any (or at the very least, enough) of the blue dogs support health care reform? I highly doubt it. As of yesterday, health care is dead in the water with only a hand held fan for propulsion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/senate-democrats-doubt-health-care-year/?test=latestnews


Congrats to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell.

I suppose you can grasp whatever straws you'd like... I mean...we all gotta hang on to something, right?

Just because it won't pass by a pre-determined date (thanks almost entirely to fillibustering, sensationalism, and propoganda spewed by the republicans) doesn't mean it won't pass. Not everyone is as blinded by propoganda as the general conservative population is...

 

[mike17l]

I suppose you can grasp whatever straws you'd like... I mean...we all gotta hang on to something, right?

Just because it won't pass by a pre-determined date (thanks almost entirely to fillibustering, sensationalism, and propoganda spewed by the republicans) doesn't mean it won't pass. Not everyone is as blinded by propoganda as the general conservative population is...

Health Care reform, the size and scope that was originally envisioned by Obama, Reed, and Pelosi will not pass anytime soon, if ever.

 

[tyflier]

Health Care reform, the size and scope that was originally envisioned by Obama, Reed, and Pelosi will not pass anytime soon, if ever.

Ahh...but healthcare reform WILL pass, and it WILL include new regulations for the insurance companies and, most likely, a public option.

When was the last time a bill introduced was passed without any changes, addendums, riders, or rearrangements being made? :shrugs:

Does it really give you such a great sense of accomplishment to know that all of the fillibustering and propoganda in the world succeeded in nothing more than causing this bill to follow the same path as 99% of ALL bills? Does it really fill you with pride to know that all of the republican efforts to thwart this bill really did nothing more than keep it in line with the majority of legislation, rather than "fast tracking" it?

I mean...if you're really proud of all the wasted effort, by all means...shout from the rooftop. Here, I'll help. This will get your point across accurately...

"WE LOST!! Hurray for us!! We tried our hardest to prevent this country from being better than we have been, and we lost! We wasted time, money, effort, and resources to prevent growth and allwe managed to do was slow it down. We are WESOME!!"

That oughtta help your egos some with the bruising...:dancer::crazy02::flames:

 

[KJUN]

Holy Crap! You two never quit, do you?

I did a search by user in this thread. Posts (before this one) in this thread by KJUN (me) is 14. Posts in this thread by Drizzt80 is 7. Combining those two is 21. Posts in this thread by tyflier is 44 - over twice what "we two" have done combined. That still means you are posting on this topic more than twice what we have done combined. Maybe if we posted that much, we'd have to resort to threatening you and telling you to kill yourself - just like you have done to us!

By the way, WHO WON'T QUIT NOW? Again, your version of reality and the reality of the real world don't seem to match up very well.

How's it feel to know that there is nothing standing in the way of the legislation not only being passed, but it being done WITH a public option? That must burn your hide, don't it?

Yes, it does. My butt is chapped that the government is forcing something on the American public against our will that penalizes the producing class for working hard while giving "benefits" to the leaches on society that are too lazy to EARN what they erroneously feel they deserve without having to work for it. They'd rather suck at the government's tit - a government that is now a parasite on the workers that made this nation great - than earn anything for themselves. LUCK has nothing to do with most people's success - unless you term being instilled with a decent, fair, work ethic as "luck."

Fear not...you can use that burned hide to cover yourself once the liberals take over and you are cast out into a field to survive like a dog...

Wait a second...if we are all cast in the field to die, who's gonna pay for the trillions of dollars of health care given to those that don't earn it themselves? The people saying they deserve it sure as heck aren't going to volunteer to work harder, pay more taxes, and fund the system themselves. If they would, they'd already be doing it and leaving the government out of it. (Oh, yeah. Lots of decent workers already follow that plan and resist this change.) Maybe us tax payers wouldn't mind so much if the tax takers would appreciate it some times instead of just demanding more and more for free!

I just wish I could understand the answer to the simple question, "Why are social democrats too scared (or too lazy) to rely on their own efforts to earn what they want?"

 

[tyflier]

I did a search by user in this thread. Posts (before this one) in this thread by KJUN (me) is 14. Posts in this thread by Drizzt80 is 7. Combining those two is 21. Posts in this thread by tyflier is 44 - over twice what "we two" have done combined. That still means you are posting on this topic more than twice what we have done combined. Maybe if we posted that much, we'd have to resort to threatening you and telling you to kill yourself - just like you have done to us!

Hehehe...I can almost see the steam coming out of your ears from here. Quite funny. I could double that in a week, if you keep posting...

By the way, WHO WON'T QUIT NOW? Again, your version of reality and the reality of the real world don't seem to match up very well.

I don't know...who? I haven't touched this topic for weeks until I saw Brent dig it up this morning. And now you're in here calling me out. Tsk, tsk...

Yes, it does. My butt is chapped that the government is forcing something on the American public against our will that penalizes the producing class for working hard while giving "benefits" to the leaches on society that are too lazy to EARN what they erroneously feel they deserve without having to work for it. They'd rather suck at the government's tit - a government that is now a parasite on the workers that made this nation great - than earn anything for themselves. LUCK has nothing to do with most people's success - unless you term being instilled with a decent, fair, work ethic as "luck."

You know what chaps my hide? The small portion of the population that thinks this is unnecessary, yet insists on referring to themselves as a majority. Most of the country is smart enough to realize that one way or another, medical care in this country, and the way it is insured NEEDS to be changed. You heard me...MOST of the country believes this to be true, according to every news report I've read and seen on TV.

The Public Option is a seperate issue.

As for the rest of your rant...pointless. Senseless, useseless, and pointless. Nobody that I have seen is looking for a handout. *Most* people looking for medical reform aren't looking to get something for nothing, they are looking to get equal medical treatment. The only way to GET equal treatment at medical facilities is to have insurance.

Of course...that doesn't fit with your warped idea of the "real world", because in your world there are only 2 kinds of people...the haves and the lazy worthless no good, whatevers. Unfortunately, that isn't how the real world actually exists. There are a LOT of people in this country that bust their butts everyday trying to make ends meet. If someone has to chose between an insurance payment and a grocery cart full of food, it's difficult to choose insurance. That makes it impossible to get the treatment we need.

But if you actually acknowledge that the majority of people in support of reform are NOT lazy, selfish, not working scumbags...your whole argument goes to hell. But that IS the fact.

What you failed to realize at the start of this topic, and what you fail to realize to this day is that this reform bill doesn't help or hurt the people on welfare, the people that are illegal, or the people that would rather leech off the government and MY taxes. Doesn't change a damn thing for them. They are already covered. This will help those that fall in the middle. You know...the ones that go to work 5 days a week or more, busting their humps to bring you breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, pump your gas, clean your yard, chop your steaks, stock the shelves, and the millions of other jobs that YOU can't live without...but don't pay enough to afford health insurance. You know...all the menial, labor-intensive, minimum wagwe jobs that you would rather not acknowledge...THOSE are the people this will help.

Of course, in KJUN land...those people don't exist...

Wait a second...if we are all cast in the field to die, who's gonna pay for the trillions of dollars of health care given to those that don't earn it themselves? The people saying they deserve it sure as heck aren't going to volunteer to work harder, pay more taxes, and fund the system themselves. If they would, they'd already be doing it and leaving the government out of it. (Oh, yeah. Lots of decent workers already follow that plan and resist this change.) Maybe us tax payers wouldn't mind so much if the tax takers would appreciate it some times instead of just demanding more and more for free!

I deserve medical insurance. I pay my taxes. I have no issue with paying FOR my insurance, as long as it is an affordable rate. And that seems to be the general consensus of those in support of the bill.

Sop what are YOU talking about? Off somewhere in your own little world again, I see...Careful...I think I hear Liberal Footsteps coming to take you away...

I just wish I could understand the answer to the simple question, "Why are social democrats too scared (or too lazy) to rely on their own efforts to earn what they want?"

That's not the question. That's not even remotely related to the situation at hand in the real world. It may be the question in KJUN-land, but...not in the real world...

The question is, "Why are republican conservatives too afraid to let everyone have a fair shake?"

Or maybe, "Why are consrervative republicans afraid to let people decide for themselves what is moral and what is not?"

Or maybe, "Why do conservative republicans scream about too much government when it is a public program, but fight tooth and nail to get govnernment involved in personal life choices, morality decisions, and what constitutes a "family".

Or perhaps "Why do conservative repubnl;icans feel like it is their job to dictate to everyone else in the country what is right, what is wrong, and what is necessary, yet refuse to acknowledge that they themselves need to be regulated, too?"

Can't answer all those questions, though...Might make ya' think too hard...

 

[KJUN]

Some people make bad (or lazy) life choices - I shouldn't have to pay for those facts. We are all created equal. I believe that, However, if you don't work to succeed, you do NOT deserve as much as those that do. Producers are more necessary than parasites in any system since that is the driving force of those systems. Kill the producers or suck too much energy from them, and the entire system collapses. The parasites should be made to make their own way - or not make it if that is there choice.

If you feel it is so "good," you are more than welcome to pay my share. It has made kalifornia one of the most broke states in the nation - why NOT extend such a successful policy to the other states? That way, kalifornia isn't any more of an embarrassment that the rest of the nation. I guess that can make some kind of sense. Shrug?

Since we disagree again, should I either kill myself or are you going to threaten me more directly this time? Both are your modus operandi whenever you lack actual facts to support of your opinions. I mean the ones you don't create out of thin air, of course. Oh, and you can then claim you never told made a threat comment....like always. Nobody believes it, but you can still say it!

Since I'm not a republican, I'll leave those questions to someone else who IS a republican to answer. You can threaten them, and maybe THEY will actuall care more than I do......lol.

 

[tyflier]

Some people make bad (or lazy) life choices - I shouldn't have to pay for those facts. We are all created equal. I believe that, However, if you don't work to succeed, you do NOT deserve as much as those that do. Producers are more necessary than parasites in any system since that is the driving force of those systems. Kill the producers or suck too much energy from them, and the entire system collapses. The parasites should be made to make their own way - or not make it if that is there choice.

You're right. Some people make bad life choices that leave them behind. And I have no more sympathy for them than you do. I don't believe for one second that we are all created equal. There are some smart, some dumb, some I can't even comprehend how they still live. But that's not really whatb this is about. Unfortunately we aren't all born into the same circumstances. And I hate to bring the bad news, but very often circumstances play a major role in the outcome of a person's life. And I'm not crying a river for anybody, because we ALL have the ability to grab our own bootstraps and pull ourselves out. But THAT isn't what this is about either...

Part of the problem is that you see only producers and parasites. You're forgetting to look at all of the individual cogs, mechanisms, springs, shafts, bearings, rudders, and what-nots that give the producer the ability to produce. Without them, you have no producers. And it is THOSE parts of the "machine" that will benefit most from this legislation...not the slag that falls to the floor or the parasites. We(yes, both you AND I) already clean them up everyday with OUR taxes(not just yours...I pay 'em too...)

If you feel it is so "good," you are more than welcome to pay my share. It has made kalifornia one of the most broke states in the nation - why NOT extend such a successful policy to the other states? That way, kalifornia isn't any more of an embarrassment that the rest of the nation. I guess that can make some kind of sense. Shrug?

You keep saying "kalifornia" as if that's supposed to bother me. I'm a New Yorker. I just happen to like the desert.

As for paying your share... That's beyond my control. Believe me, when the legislation goes through, my taxes will go up, just like yours. I DO work. I DO have a job that requires me to pay taxes. I AM a working, living, and contributing member of society. And I still support this legislation. Hmm...go figure...

Since we disagree again, should I either kill myself or are you going to threaten me more directly this time? Both are your modus operandi whenever you lack actual facts to support of your opinions. I mean the ones you don't create out of thin air, of course. Oh, and you can then claim you never told made a threat comment....like always. Nobody believes it, but you can still say it!

ou can do whatever you like. Doesn't effect me either way.

And what facts" don't I have? The fact that there is a HUGE segment of the American Populous that you conveniently leave out of all of your "equations" in these debates? Or maybe the fact that there ain't a lot you can do about this legislation getting passed except continue to cry about it? :dancer:

And if you feel/felt threatened by me...that's YOUR problem, not mine. I don't make threats. In person OR on the internet. If I really had some evil, cold-blooded plan...I'd come visit. But that's just a waste of time. I don't care enough about you to dislike you. Why would I threaten you? :shrugs:

Since I'm not a republican, I'll leave those questions to someone else who IS a republican to answer. You can threaten them, and maybe THEY will actuall care more than I do......lol.

Again...never amde a threat to anyone. First it was simply me telling you to kill yourself, which was awful, shocking and horrible enough. Now it was a threat. Jeez, dude...by next week you'll have me tried and convicted of murdering you! I guess it fits, what with your penchant for accuracy, and all. I mean...you haven't made an accurate statement YET in this topic. Why would I expect you to start now? :shrugs:

I think I can hear you tae kettle starting to steam over...:dancer::crazy02:

 

[mike17l]

You know what chaps my hide? The small portion of the population that thinks this is unnecessary, yet insists on referring to themselves as a majority. Most of the country is smart enough to realize that one way or another, medical care in this country, and the way it is insured NEEDS to be changed. You heard me...MOST of the country believes this to be true, according to every news report I've read and seen on TV.

I don't think Brent, KJ, myself, or anyone else on this thread has said that health care reform is not needed. What we have said is that health care reform in the size and with the scope that has been presented is ludicrous. There are many ways that health care can be reformed, with out making me pay more taxes, until those steps are taken (small steps before big ones), I will not support a sweeping health care bill.

 

[tyflier]

I don't think Brent, KJ, myself, or anyone else on this thread has said that health care reform is not needed. What we have said is that health care reform in the size and with the scope that has been presented is ludicrous. There are many ways that health care can be reformed, with out making me pay more taxes, until those steps are taken (small steps before big ones), I will not support a sweeping health care bill.

Well, Mike, that is something that none of the 3 of you have ever stated until this moment. And guess what? I don't disagree with you. In fact, I said a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago in this topic that the public option and many other portions of the bill were debateable by and large seperately from the legislation. I've always maintained that no matter how or why it's done, we need change.

I have never advocated for the things that KJUN keeps arguing with me about. I have never advocated a public option. The only thing I have EVER said in this topic is that one way or the other we need reform, even if it doesn't include a public option.

So, if you agree with that...why the hell have you been arguing for 200 posts? :shrugs:

 

[mike17l]

Dead on Arrival.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/09/house-health-senate/

WASHINGTON -- Don't look for the Senate to quickly follow the House on health care overhaul.

A government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate. They're locked in a battle with liberals, with the fate of President Obama's signature issue at stake.

If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.

"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.

Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Nonetheless, the House vote provided an important lesson in how to succeed with less-than-perfect party unity, and one that Senate Democrats may be able to adapt. House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.

In the Senate, the stumbling block is the idea of the government competing with private insurers.

Liberals may have to swallow hard and accept a deal without a public plan to keep the legislation alive. As in the House, the compromise appears to be to the right of the political spectrum.

Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She's proposing to allow a government plan, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the "trigger" option.

That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position," Landrieu said last week. "It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim."

Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program.

For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.

He will keep meeting with senators this week to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.

Toward the end of the week, the Congressional Budget Office may report back with a costs-and-coverage estimate on Reid's bill, which he assembled from legislation passed by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Finance Committee version does not include a government plan.

Reid has pledged to Obama that he will get the bill done by the end of the year and remains committed to doing that, according to a Senate leadership aide.

Both the House and Senate bills gradually would extend coverage to nearly all Americans by providing government subsidies to help pay premiums. The measures would bar insurers' practices such as charging more to those in poor health or denying them coverage altogether.

All Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government plan or by purchasing it on their own.

To keep down costs, the government subsidies and consumer protections don't take effect until 2013. During the three-year transition, both bills would provide $5 billion in federal dollars to help get coverage for people with medical problems who are turned down by private insurers.

Both House and Senate would expand significantly the federal-state Medicaid health program for low-income people.

The majority of people with employer-provided health insurance would not see changes. The main beneficiaries would be some 30 million people who have no coverage at work or have to buy it on their own. The legislation would create a federally regulated marketplace where they could shop for coverage.

The are several major differences between the bills.

• The House would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not.
• The House would pay for the coverage expansion by raising taxes on upper-income earners; the Senate uses a variety of taxes and fees, including a levy on high-cost insurance plans.
• The House plan costs about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; the Senate version is under $900 billion.
By defusing the abortion issue — at least for now — the House may have helped the long-term prospects for the bill. Catholic bishops also eager to expand society's safety net may yet endorse the final legislation.

Lieberman appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Graham was CBS' "Face the Nation."