Healthcare legislation updates

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
India2		#21	[-]
Posts: 14389 (Jun 16, 2009 12:15 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Color me so unsurprised: GOP using incomplete study to undermine health care reform...* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/gop-pushed-for-incomplete_n_216206.html GOP Pushed For Incomplete Health Care Study, Then Politicized It: Hill Dems On Monday afternoon, critics of a major health care overhaul seized on a report from the Congressional Budget Office showing that a Democratic reform bill could cost $1 trillion over ten years despite adding only 17 million Americans to the ranks of the insured. But the results are incomplete, and they know it. The CBO findings made for a traditional attack based around fears that the government would spend larges swaths of taxpayer money with minimum systematic change. "CBO makes it clear -- the Democrats' plan will force millions of Americans to lose the care they have now," Sen. Mike Enzi, the ranking Republican on the Senate HELP Committee, said in a statement. "Anyone who says that if you like the care you have, you can keep it under this bill doesn't have their facts straight." House Minority Leader John Boehner sent out an email alert on the report, saying the Democrats "costly plan is exposed." His colleague, Minority Whip Eric Cantor, meanwhile said the CBO score card was "troubling when we're trying to save money that we would be calling for that kind of expenditure." The CBO's findings, however, are for an incomplete piece of legislation, making the cost-per-coverage estimates much worse than they will ultimately be. Republicans on the committee knew this, according to Democrats. But they pushed for the bill to be studied by the CBO now. And when poor results came back, they ran with them. "The reality is there are still some outstanding issues, including employer responsibility and a public insurance option," said a Democratic aide to a committee member. "Those are two outstanding issues. So what we did in a good faith effort to find bipartisan consensus, we did not include those elements because we are trying to find common ground. But Republicans wanted there to be a score even though, the reality is, if there is an incomplete bill you will have an incomplete statement." Another Democratic aide to the HELP Committee member concurred, adding that Sen. Ted Kennedy's office, in an effort to "find bipartisan consensus with Republicans colleagues" filed the bill and allowed it to be scored by the CBO -- not expecting it to be used as partisan fodder. <snip> The CBO's findings do create politically bad optics. In the end, however, the situation could be remedied when a full analysis is released sometime in the next week. Once the bill is scored with a stronger individual and/or employer mandate for coverage, as well as various other details, HELP Committee members fully expect the cost-per-coverage breakdown to improve significantly. For now, progressive activists in the health care debate are holding their breath, hoping that the next CBO findings have more resonance. "If this was a true reflection of the bill, it would be bad," said one operative. "But it's not -- it's more like they graded a test halfway through the testing period. HELP is rushing language back to them and are hoping for new projections (that include employer and individual mandate) by Friday. That's pretty pie in the sky, I fear. They will revise it though." All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
India2		#22	[-]
Posts: 14398 (Jun 19, 2009 5:46 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://unsilentgeneration.com/2009/06/19/health-care-bait-and-switch-video/ Health Care Bait and Switch�Video June 19, 2009 After seeing my post on health care co-ops over at Mother Jones this morning-along with�information on the reams of cash Senator Max Baucus is receiving from�health care companies-video blogger Lee Stranahan was inspired to produce a video on the subject. In his videos on health care reform, Stranahan says he is "a guy with a preganant wife, a pre-existing condition, and no insurance, and I'm taking on the health care industry." He's also a�writer, photographer, and independent filmmaker�who blogs for The Huffington Post. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
India2		#23	[-]
Posts: 14399 (Jun 19, 2009 6:03 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/house-democratsanxious-to_n_218177.html House Democrats "Anxious To Take On" Health Care Reform Opponents The Democratic Party showed on Friday what it's capable of when led by the majority of its members rather than its conservative wing. In stark contrast to Senate Democrats, who spent the week backpedaling on reform, unified House Democrats unveiled a draft health care overhaul bill jointly endorsed by three powerful committee chairmen. Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel and George Miller, chairs of the Energy & Commerce, Ways & Means and Education & Labor Committees, announced the result of six months of negotiations. The sight of three united committee chairmen in the turf-conscious House is a historically rare one. Where the Senate Finance Committee's outline of a bill didn't include a public health insurance option for people to buy into, the House version includes a robust public plan that would operate nationally and compete with private insurers on a level playing field to keep them honest. The public plan would be self-sustaining and not subsidized by the federal government, although an upfront infusion of capital would be needed. It would initially be tied to Medicare reimbursement rates, to capitalize on the existing infrastructure, but would evolve into a separate plan that paid higher rates. Participation by doctors would be voluntary. Rangel described the public plan as "the best of Medicaid, best of Medicare, then kick it up a notch." The chairmen estimated the plan would cover 95 percent of Americans. While the Senate has cowered from the debate over a public option in the face of Republican and conservative Democratic opposition, Rangel said he relishes the battle. "I'm anxious to take on those people who oppose a public option," he said. He'll have public opinion on his side. A recent poll showed 3 out of 4 people want a public plan as part of health care reform. "We've got the momentum." Waxman told the Huffington Post after the press conference that the public plan is "essential," when asked if reform was possible without it. "I think it's essential to the reform as outlined by the president and as the three congressional committees have set forth. I'm not gonna say nothing's off the table, because we have a lot of ideas on the table that many of us don't agree with. But from my point of view, I think it makes the health care system work to have competition, which means public choice for those who are seeking health coverage." And, said Miller, it's what the president, who was elected in a landslide, campaigned on. The draft, he said, tries to "put language to what President Obama campaigned on in front of the American people." <snip> Ultimately, the final negotiations will go on in a conference committee between the two chambers, and Miller said his body hopes to take the fight there. "We hope to take it to conference committee," he said. If the conference committee emerged with a public plan intact, it would force Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats to take a stand for or against health care reform. "What we had today was a good start, because the three committees are not competing. They're starting off together. We're on our way," said Waxman, raising his fist as he entered an elevator. "There's no stopping us now!" All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Gitsie007		#24	[-]
Posts: 13859 (Jun 19, 2009 9:51 PM) Captain Jack Sparrow's Wench Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Stupid insurance companies.
India2		#25	[-]
Posts: 14404 (Jun 20, 2009 4:52 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/20/healthcare/ Memo to President Obama Six things you must do to save universal healthcare By Robert Reich June 20, 2009 \| Dear Mr. President: Momentum for universal healthcare is slowing dramatically on Capitol Hill. Moderates are worried, Republicans are digging in, and the medical-industrial complex is firing up its lobbying and propaganda machine. But, as you know, the worst news came days ago when the Congressional Budget Office weighed in with awful projections about how much the leading healthcare plans would cost and how many Americans would still be left out in the cold. Yet these projections didn't include the cost savings that a public option's bargaining power could generate to lower drug prices, doctor fees, and hospital costs, and force private insurers to be more competitive. Projecting the future costs of universal healthcare without including the public option is like predicting the number of people who will get sunburns this summer if nobody is allowed to buy sun lotion. Of course the costs of universal healthcare will be huge if you leave out the most important way of controlling them. If you want to save universal healthcare, you must do several things, and soon: 1. Go to the nation. You're not only a powerful orator; you're also capable of motivating, energizing, and mobilizing the American public. You must go on the road -- building public support by forcefully making the case for universal health care everywhere around the country. The latest Wall Street Journal poll shows that three out of four Americans want universal healthcare. But the vast majority don't know what's happening on the Hill, don't know how much money the medical-industrial lobbies are spending to defeat it, and have no idea how much demagoguery they're about to be exposed to. You must tell them. And don't be reluctant to take on those vested interests directly. Name names. They've decided to fight you. You must fight them. 2. Be LBJ. So far, Lyndon Johnson has been the only president to defeat the American Medical Association and the rest of the medical-industrial complex. He got Medicare and Medicaid despite their cries of "socialized medicine" because he knocked heads on the Hill. He told Congress exactly what he wanted, cajoled and threatened those who resisted, and counted noses every hour until he had the votes he needed. When you're not on the road, you have to be twisting congressional arms and drawing a line in the sand. Be tough. 3. Forget the Republicans. Forget bipartisanship. Universal healthcare can pass with 51 votes. You can get 51 votes if you give up on trying to persuade a handful of Republicans to cross over. Eight years ago George W. Bush passed his huge tax cut, mostly for the wealthy, by wrapping it in an all-or-nothing reconciliation measure and daring Democrats to vote against it. You should do the same with healthcare. 4. Insist on a real public option. It's the lynchpin of universal healthcare. It's one thing to give up on single payer, and say that a public option is the best feasible alternative. But further compromise would essentially gut any healthcare plan. Don't accept Kent Conrad's ersatz public option masquerading as a "healthcare cooperative." Cooperatives won't have the authority, scale, or leverage to negotiate low prices and keep private insurers honest. 5. Demand that taxes be raised on the wealthy to ensure that all Americans get affordable healthcare. Not even a real public option will hold down costs enough to make healthcare affordable to most American families in years to come. So you'll need to tax the wealthy. Don't back down on your original proposal to limit their deductions. And support a cap on how much employee-provided healthcare can be provided tax free. Yes, you opposed this during your campaign. But you have no choice but to reverse yourself on this. These are the only two big pots of money. *6. Put everything else on hold.* As important as they are, your other agenda items -- financial reform, home mortgage mitigation, cap-and-trade legislation -- pale in significance relative to universal healthcare. By pushing everything at once, you take the public's mind off the biggest goal, diffuses your energies, blur your public message, and fuel the demagogues who say you're trying to take over the private sector. You have to win this. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
India2		#26	[-]
Posts: 14405 (Jun 20, 2009 9:18 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health By KEVIN SACK and MARJORIE CONNELLY Published: June 20, 2009 Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector. <snip> Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better. The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan - something like Medicare for those under 65 - that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed. Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care. But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats. The poll, of 895 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
India2		#27	[-]
Posts: 14408 (Jun 21, 2009 12:50 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/reich-worried-obama-over_n_218545.html Reich: Obama "Over-Learned" From Clinton In crafting health care legislation, the Obama White House may have "over-learned the lesson of the Clinton years," giving too much deference to Congress when presidential leadership is needed, Robert Reich said on Sunday. Appearing on ABC's "This Week," the former Clinton administration labor secretary and his co-panelists acknowledged that the past week of news on the health care reform front was not a good one for progressive activists. CBO reports showed plans in the Senate costing scads of taxpayer funds with moderate returns in coverage, while Republican opposition to a public plan crystallized. In light of it all, Reich said it was time to revisit the chief component of Obama's legislative strategy: allowing a health care bill to originate in Congress so as to keep the process open and accessible to its 535 members. "The worry here is that the President may have, and the White House staff may have, over-learned the lesson of the Clinton health care plan, 'fiasco,' which was don't deliver a package to the Hill, let the Hill take ownership," said Reich. "That was true up to a point... Right now the president has got to get involved, twist arms and say if I don't have A, B, and C I'm not going to sign this bill." "We have reached a tipping point," Reich went on. "And I think the problem is there are so many different bills and so many different conceptions of where the money is going to come from, whether there is going to be a mandate, whether there is going to be a public option, what the public option will look like, that there is no coherence. The president has got to go in there and give it coherence." The remarks were met with agreement from host George Stephanopoulos, who, like Reich, was in the Clinton White House during the last major, failed push for reform. Saying that Reich was "right in part about 1993-94," Stephanopoulos noted that when the Clintons started crafting health care reform there were Republicans willing to compromise. But as the process proceeded, those amenable GOPers walked away. "The politics changed and it wouldn't matter what was in the bill at the end, the Republican Party decided they weren't going to go along with this," he said. "It appears to me this week, you started to see that developing now... It seems to me that the last Republican negotiating right now is [Iowa Sen.] Chuck Grassley." All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
India2		#28	[-]
Posts: 14409 (Jun 21, 2009 4:48 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/doctors-boo-obama Doctors Boo Obama - By Stephanie Mencimer \| Wed June 17, 2009 6:00 AM PST As a rule, people don't boo Barack Obama, the first rock star president. But on Monday, that's exactly what happened. On a charm offensive in support of his health care reform efforts, Obama addressed the American Medical Association, the nation's largest physician lobby. The doctors in the audience booed him for revealing that he didn't support the group's pet cause-caps on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. Nonetheless, he did win some applause by adopting the doctors' language and referring to the "defensive medicine" that is supposedly driving up health care costs. In a carefully parsed speech, he said, "Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That's a real issue. And while I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That's how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care." It was a cagey move. In throwing the docs a bone, Obama embraced one of their most cherished arguments: that "defensive medicine" is driving up health care costs. But this bone doesn't have much meat on it. Defensive medicine is doctors' favorite anti-lawsuit argument. It goes something like this: The mere threat of malpractice lawsuits drives physicians to overprescribe expensive tests and procedures, ergo, making it harder for malpractice victims to sue would bring down health care costs. I've been looking at this issue for years, as have many government agencies. Like them, I've basically concluded that defensive medicine is a myth. Think of it this way: How many Americans are really out there complaining that they've received too much health care? More common are stories like this one about a case that went to the Texas Supreme Court in 2007. The plaintiff, Sharon Boyd, 57, made four different visits over 16 months to three different doctors, complaining of rectal bleeding and constipation. Not one of them ordered a single diagnostic test, not even a colonoscopy, which is recommended for everyone over 50, bleeding or not. Finally, three years after her initial complaints, Boyd demanded a colonoscopy. Turns out she had stage 4 colon cancer. She died not long after finding a lawyer. There are whole legal practices devoted to little but litigating missed cancer diagnoses like these. Reading their files is a harrowing experience. Most people are lucky to get their insurance to pay for a routine trip to the doctor, much less a battery of unnecessary tests. As the Government Accountability Office and others have pointed out, doctors usually order unnecessary tests only when they can benefit financially. That's one reason Medicare spending on imaging services like MRIs and CT scans doubled between 2000 and 2006, according to the GAO. Obama must know all this. His embrace of "defensive medicine" suggests he really wants the AMA to get on board with his reform plans. Still, no amount of bone-throwing is likely to persuade the AMA to support meaningful health care reform. Hillary Clinton tried this same anti-lawsuit gambit back in the early 1990s and we all know how well that worked out. Obama's situation is probably even more hopeless because he's making promises that the AMA must know he can't keep. Here's why: As a constitutional law professor, Obama knows well that most of the legal measures doctors support to reduce "defensive medicine," including the much vaunted "health court" proposals, are fundamentally unconstitutional. They tend to violate people's Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial, among other things. Moreover, with Democrats running the House and Senate, restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits are most likely dead on arrival. It's not just trial lawyer money that will doom the effort. Trial lawyers don't have nearly as much money as doctors and insurance companies, for one thing. But also, there are some powerful lawyers in Congress who will put up a big fight on this one on principle. Among them: Republican senator and onetime trial lawyer Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, who voted against malpractice reform bills in 2003 and 2004. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), another former trial lawyer, has also been a reliable opponent of lawsuit restrictions. Obama's own vice president might pose the biggest obstacle to any attempt to limit malpractice suits. Joe Biden was a trial lawyer himself (as is his brother and son, Beau), and the biggest donors during his political career have been fellow plaintiff attorneys. Biden has never once supported a tort reform bill in Congress; it seems unlikely he would start supporting such proposals now. Even if Obama could surmount the opposition in his own party to push through some sort of legal protections for bad doctors, it's still extremely unlikely that he'll win over the AMA. The group is one of the nation's most retrograde political institutions. As Kevin Drum has pointed out, the AMA adamantly opposed the creation of the same Medicare system they now argue should pay doctors more money. In the 1930s, the AMA tried to ban its members from working in fledgling HMOs created during the Depression to try to provide health care to the legions of unemployed. The organization ended up convicted of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The AMA has locked arms with such lobbies as the tobacco industry, earning large sums for running cigarette ads in its prestigious medical journal for decades. During the malpractice insurance "crisis" of the early 2000s, the AMA provided political cover to poorly managed insurance companies that lost millions in the stock market on Enron and other investments and then tried to make up the difference by jacking up doctors' malpractice premiums. The AMA lobbied for lawsuit restrictions that generally do little for doctors but much for the bottom lines of insurance companies. In 2003, Donald Palmisano, the president-elect of the AMA who encouraged President George W. Bush to "get out the grassroots" to pass restrictions on lawsuits, was actually the founder of a malpractice insurance company and on the board of another big malpractice insurer. Obama's attempt to woo these people by embracing one of their bogus arguments seems a bit pointless. The AMA may be the loudest voice of the medical profession, but it doesn't represent most doctors. Recent estimates suggest that only 15 percent of the nation's practicing doctors are even members of the group, down significantly from where it was during the last big health care fight. Not only do its members rely on Medicare for income, but a large percentage of them are also old enough to be covered by it. In the end, the AMA doctors may come to regret booing the most popular president in recent memory. It could be that Obama can reform health care without them. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
India2		#29	[-]
Posts: 14412 (Jun 22, 2009 8:23 AM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul Democrats may go it alone on gov't insurance plan By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Democrats generally are standing behind their position that a health care system overhaul must include a government-sponsored plan that would be available to middle-class workers and their families. A key Democrat, New York Sen. Charles Schumer, said this option now seems even more of a necessity in view of unsuccessful behind-the-scenes attempts to get a deal with Republicans on nonprofit co-ops as an alternative to a public plan. Schumer told The Associated Press Sunday night that those efforts have proved frustrating, saying that he and his Democratic colleagues now may have to go it alone. <snip> The public plan that most Democrats envision would be offered alongside private plans through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. Individuals and small businesses would be able to buy coverage through exchanges, but eventually businesses of any size might be able to join. <snip> Two recent news media polls have found public support for a government plan, even if many people are unsure about its implications. The most recent survey, a New York Times-CBS News poll released Sunday, found that 72 percent supported the idea, including half of those who identified themselves as Republicans. "The polling data backs up our subjective view that to make health care reform work, you need a public option," said Schumer. Schumer's role is important because he had been acting as an intermediary between liberal Democrats and moderates who are trying to strike a deal on the issue with Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee. Of the five House and Senate committees working on health care, Finance is the only one that appears to have a chance at reaching a bipartisan agreement. Schumer said Finance Republicans had rejected several proposals designed to beef up the suggested nonprofit insurance co-ops. These included setting up a national structure for the co-ops, $10 billion in government seed money, power to negotiate payment rates to medical providers nationwide and creation of a presidentially appointed board of directors. Without "dramatic" changes, Schumer said he would oppose the co-ops deal and urge other Democrats to do so as well. The Finance Committee compromise could be unveiled as early as this week. Senators were forced to start again last week because initial cost estimates were well above their 10-year, $1 trillion target. The next few weeks will be pivotal in the debate. Democrats want to push ahead as far as they can before the July 4 congressional recess. Over the break, comments from constituents could determine whether Congress sticks to its goal of passing legislation this summer. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
vlferrantello		#30	[-]
Posts: 1087 (Jun 22, 2009 10:05 AM) Member of the Board Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I was so optimistic in Feb/Mar/Apr that healthcare legislation would occur and it wouldn't be watered down bullshit from the republicans.....That optimism is gone totally now.....and as usual half the democrats are wavering.....I don't want the "farm" here, I'm not asking for universal health care without paying for a premium, I just want a level playing field.... My bet is that it isn't going to happen.....at all..... I sure hope my pessimism is wrong.... We make a living by what we get, We make a life by what we give. - Sir Winston Churchill
India2		#31	[-]
Posts: 14413 (Jun 22, 2009 11:00 AM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	My pessimism runs in another direction, vl.... I'm pretty sure the Dems will force through a public option. Having said that, it would have to be a true public choice, with costs and benefits equal or superior in comparison to private insurance selections. Big question mark on that... however, the Dems are well aware they are under intense scrutiny and will act accordingly. If they fail to deliver the consequences for their policital careers will be dire (activists are already lining up challengers to incumbents), which is why they are actively working to avert political disaster. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
hando49		#32	[-]
Posts: 5982 (Jun 22, 2009 12:28 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I"m with you, VL.........I don't think it'll ever happen either "The tears of the world are a constant quality. For each one who begins to weep, somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh." Samuel Beckett
India2		#33	[-]
Posts: 14415 (Jun 22, 2009 1:32 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Easy enough to fall into helplessness, but I'm not ready to go there. Not yet, anyway... but anything can happen. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
crowereaves		#34	[-]
Posts: 10777 (Jun 22, 2009 2:35 PM) After Being With Me Mance Is A Thing Of The Past Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Getting this through is about as easy as trying to get voters in Oregon pass a sales tax. I am thinking pretty slim chance. The higher taxes, thinking it will be like socialized medicine with the long waits to get appointments, etc. turn people againist this. "Because we don't know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. Yet everything happens a certain number of times, and a very small number, really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, some afternoon that's so deeply a part of your being that you can't even conceive of your life without it? Perhaps four or five time more. Perhaps not even that. How many times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless." Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles
India2		#35	[-]
Posts: 14416 (Jun 22, 2009 2:50 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Obama will�have to act decisively, but�I'm not absolutely certain�he has the�stones to twist arms and apply the stick when the carrot fails.� He will need a lot of help from Congressional Dems.... we shall see. Here's a taste of the smug condescension these Beltway types have for the needier among us, may their�wretched souls smolder in hell... http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/22/davis-insurance-good-luck/ Former Rep. Tom Davis To Elderly Woman With Diabetes: 'Good Luck' Finding Health Insurance On CSPAN's Washington Journal yesterday, former Republican congressman Tom Davis received a call from an elderly woman named Dorothy, who said that because she has diabetes, health insurance companies "reject" her. "They don't even want to accept me," said Dorothy. "Is that, is that possible they could get away with that? That seems like discriminating." Davis responded by saying that he understood her "dilemma" and that she probably wouldn't be able to retire by 62 as she desires. Advising her that she'd be alright if she found "a job with a major employer," Davis said it would be "difficult" on her own: DAVIS: I don't think you'll find, probably be able to find some health insurance but if its with a small business or you're going out on your own, it's difficult at this point. There may be a government plan or private plans that are mandated coming out of this that are maybe able to help you. … I don't know any reason why you shouldn't be able to find something out there, but you want to look for an employer that has a health care plan. Good luck. Later in the show, another caller criticized Davis for his "good luck" response, saying that it "encapsulates the entire Republican Party's attitude towards any problems that are facing the American people today." Davis replied that he didn't mean "good luck" as a "kiss off," but just as "good luck to you as you try to move through this problem." Watch it: Beyond responding to Dorothy with seeming callousness, Davis' answer to her problem is also contradictory in its approach to a public health care option. Davis first tells Dorothy that "a government plan" may "be able to help you." (Which is true.) But when challenged by the later caller, he argued, "I don't know that she can count on Washington to solve it for her." In the next sentence, however, he said that she "can probably get some relief" when she qualifies for Medicare, which is government-provided. A NYT/CBS News poll this weekend found that 72 percent of Americans support creating a public health insurance option. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
India2		#36	[-]
Posts: 14418 (Jun 22, 2009 7:46 PM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/22/conrad-moves-closer-to-pu_n_219266.html ] Conrad Moves Closer To Public Health Care After Negotiations Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) moved sharply toward public health care Monday, saying that he could "absolutely" support major parts of Sen. Chuck Schumer's compromise proposal for a public option after closed-door negotiations. Conrad has backed a health care co-op proposal that advocates of a public option have thoroughly rejected. Schumer (D-N.Y.) took their side on Sunday in comments made to the Associated Press. "I don't think I could say with a straight face that this [co-op proposal] is at all close to a nationwide public option," Schumer said. "Right now, this co-op idea doesn't come close to satisfying anyone who wants a public plan." The wheels looked to be coming off with health care reform last week. But a poll showing huge public support for a public health care option and a strong bill from the House of Representatives have changed the dynamic. Schumer and other backers of a public option insist that any plan must be national in scope, have substantial funding at the beginning from the federal government, and include national purchasing power in order to negotiate lower prices. Conrad ticked off the areas of agreement that were reached Monday. "National structure: I believe to be effective there has to a national entity with state affiliates and those affiliates have to have the ability to regionalize. I think his concern there can be addressed," said Conrad. "Second, he believes there needs to be national purchasing power. I think that's a good point that the national entity would be able to do purchasing on behalf of the state and regional affiliates and on behalf of the national entity itself." All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
lusty4rusty39		#37	[-]
Posts: 551 (Jun 23, 2009 9:14 AM) Perch Pro Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.standwithdrdean.com/LastChance This is an inspirational message with a chance to sign Dr. Howard Dean's petition which he will take to Washington. Take a look before you decide.
F14K		#38	[-]
Posts: 9580 (Jun 23, 2009 10:08 AM) Strikes Back! Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think Obama should drop the issue, focus on the billion other problems and fix them, win reelection by a big margin and claim mandate, then focus heavily on healthcare. The climate still doesn't appear right.
India2		#39	[-]
Posts: 14420 (Jun 23, 2009 11:10 AM) Member of the reality-based community Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Helen's is the voice of one crying in the wilderness... bless her for saying it, however futile it may be.* Published on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/23 Obama Running Scared by Helen Thomas A universal health care system based on the single-payer model appears to be a bridge too far for President Barack Obama. A single-payer system, such as Medicare for everyone, would provide health care for all. President Lyndon Johnson had the courage to weigh in with all his clout to win passage of Medicare and Medicaid. President Roosevelt put all his chips on the table to win passage of the Social Security Act that makes the elderly more secure. All around the world, governments have long made medical care available for their citizens. Why not us? Obama clearly has no stomach for the political battle that any single-payer plan would ignite. So he's endorsed a step that would allow the government to provide health insurance coverage -- not health care -- to eligible people. Such government-sponsored health insurance is being considered in Congress as it writes health care reform legislation. While the public plan option gets full consideration in Congress, the single-payer model has been unwelcome at the White House or on Capitol Hill. Obama said part of the fierce opposition to health care reform has been fueled "by some interest groups and lobbyists -- opposition that has used fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to, yes, socialize medicine." He made it clear that his idea of health care reform would allow patients to choose their own doctors and keep their own health plans. Somehow government bailouts have been more palatable for Wall Street plutocrats who happen to be needy. Obama stressed in a speech to the AMA in Chicago last week that he does not favor socialized medicine. Some 47 million Americans are uninsured -- many because some employers have dropped coverage in the economic downturn. Others lack insurance because pre-existing illnesses deny them access to private insurance. There also are millions with no way to pay for soaring health insurance payments because they have lost their jobs. Nearly all Republicans and some moderate Democrats oppose any public plan option. These are the same lawmakers who receive many government-provided perks including health insurance. In his remarks to the AMA, Obama warned against "scare tactics" and "fear mongering" by opponents of the public plan option, which the President said should be available to those who have no health insurance. Obama rejected the "illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system." Obama should tear a page out of LBJ's vote-getting manual and shame the heartless opponents. The health of all Americans is our business. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
SweetJulls		#40	[-]
Posts: 3695 (Jun 23, 2009 12:00 PM) Perch Pro Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	For the sake of your citizenry vlf, I hope so too. The population of the US is 3 to 1 in favour of including a single payer option - wtf is wrong with the Dems that they lack the stones to actually put WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT through? Who is it they think they are going to offend - the neocon right and the doctors/big pharma who have been made millionaires by them?? Who freaking cares! Let them go off to their McMansions in their overpriced foreign cars and cry it out. Assclowns. Wasn't the whole point for the Dems to gain the majority in Congress and get a Dem President in the WH so they could actually GET these reforms done on their watch?? So get with it already, FFS! [rant over]