Go Obama!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
even to relatively routine procedures that in your country can bankrupt a family, which happens nowhere else in the world.



it bears repeating that the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills.

why Republicans refuse to talk about this, i have no idea.
 
From Drudge:

"Pelosi/Hoyer op-ed in Monday USATODAY calls townhall protesters 'un-American'... Developing..."

Can't wait to see what this materializes into tomorrow. Do these morons really think attacks like this will help their cause? It's truly baffling...
 
i'd prefer they use the terms "unruly" or "uninformed" or "irrational" or "fuckin' crazy", as opposed to "un-american". reactionary, rove-ian phrases truly aren't going to do the democrats any favors. rush, beck, hannity, et al will run miles and miles and miles with this op-ed if the reports are true.

why can't the democrats organize their party for mass rallies IN SUPPORT of health care reform? and if they can't do it themselves, why can't they partner with labor unions, community groups, and other progressive groups to make it happen?

majority authorization has been taken off the table in the debate over the employee free choice act, and now i fear that obama's measly public option will soon hear its death knell. what a sad, pathetic excuse for a political party.
 
it bears repeating that the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills.
Are medical costs artificially too high due to the lack of market forces? Yes. Are new regulations needed to keep people from losing coverage they thought they had? Yes.

But
But
But
But

Most medical bankruptcies are more about protecting assets and one's home. In fact, 40% of medically related bankruptcies were filed by people who owed $5,000 or less in medical bills. $5000. Maybe the single largest obstacle to true health insurance reform is that way too many people expect someone else to pay for their care.
why Republicans refuse to talk about this, i have no idea.
Republicans would point out that government run Medicaid and Medicare are bankrupting the entire country. How could expanding their role possibly be a good idea?
 
Uh, no. I'm referring to Pelosi calling them un-American. Bad idea, Madam Speaker.

I happen to agree with you. I don't even know what unAmerican means, it's some idiotic word bandied about by your politicians constantly.

I do think it's rather hilarious though, how up in arms you are about this. I don't recall you being upset when the right wing and neocons called everyone but them unAmerican and anti-American for the last 8 years. It's really, REALLY funny.
 
Most medical bankruptcies are more about protecting assets and one's home. In fact, 40% of medically related bankruptcies were filed by people who owed $5,000 or less in medical bills. $5000. Maybe the single largest obstacle to true health insurance reform is that way too many people expect someone else to pay for their care.

but it's not as if this happens in a vacuum.

i wonder if the data you reference indicate how many of those people have collectors knocking down their doors, or have liens placed on their possessions and lawsuits filed by hospital corporations. moreover, i'd like to know their income bracket, number of household incomes, number of dependents, geographic location to determine cost of living (rent, mortgage, groceries, energy, etc.), and probably a few other indicators to really have an idea of what that stat means. do you happen to know?
 
I happen to agree with you. I don't even know what unAmerican means, it's some idiotic word bandied about by your politicians constantly.

I do think it's rather hilarious though, how up in arms you are about this. I don't recall you being upset when the right wing and neocons called everyone but them unAmerican and anti-American for the last 8 years. It's really, REALLY funny.

I think it's hilarious how people are trying to call Obama fascist and are even bringing Hitler comparisons into the fold. Good to know they're taking the high road.
 
Attempting to obstruct civil discourse of important issues is certainly un-Democratic.

I see nothing wrong, and certainly nothing un-Democratic about people voicing the opinion (the majority opinion now, by the way) that they don't want this reform. Are constituents not supposed to voice their wants to their representatives? Chants of "read the bill!" is in no way over the line, especially when, you know, most people in Washington haven't read the bill.

Again, where are all the supporters of universal healthcare? Why don't they show up to these and have an actual debate? I think I know why. People in Congress don't want a debate. They want what they want and the concerns of the people back home are irrelevant.

A few nights ago my congressman was back home and had a town hall meeting. I saw footage of it on the news and it was as peaceful as can be. Know why? Because they're getting what they want from him.

This whole notion of "obstructing civil discourse" is getting absurd. Most footage I've seen on the news is not multiple people yelling and shouting and asking different questions all at once. Most of what I've seen is one person at a time speaking (in a loud voice, sure, because they're angry) a legitimate concern. The idea of "mobs" that is being thrown around is ridiculous.
 
I do think it's rather hilarious though, how up in arms you are about this. I don't recall you being upset when the right wing and neocons called everyone but them unAmerican and anti-American for the last 8 years. It's really, REALLY funny.

I recall very, very few of those. Were they mainly about the Iraq War? Then yes, I disagree. Opposing the Iraq War was not un-American, unless you went so far as to harm the troops in any way or do something extreme.

...or say the war is lost.
 
I recall very, very few of those. Were they mainly about the Iraq War? Then yes, I disagree. Opposing the Iraq War was not un-American, unless you went so far as to harm the troops in any way or do something extreme.

...or say the war is lost.

Bear in mind that there was an organised campaign against the Dixie Chicks.

Can you define 'do something extreme'?

In relation to your cute little spoiler, anyone who would say the war is lost is clearly an idiot, as the war is clearly won - it has achieved (unfortunately) its colonialist objectives of removing the government of Iraq, the conquest and murder of the Iraqi people and turning Iraq into a death camp, and stealing the oil.

That said, the larger neocon objective of conquering the entire Middle East is probably lost - thankfully. Iran and Russia have been discovered not to be the pushovers that AIPAC, the criminal organisation that hi-jacked large elements of the US government, and brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of people all around the globe in the advancement of an invented 'Global War on Terror', thought they were.
 
"I think, if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer." - Barney Frank

YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank

I'm not against a public option. I am against a bill that's a trojan horse for single payer. I understand some of the concerns of protesters, and the general distrust of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

Transparency please. And more details.
 
(the majority opinion now, by the way).

Source?

Are constituents not supposed to voice their wants to their representatives? Chants of "read the bill!" is in no way over the line, especially when, you know, most people in Washington haven't read the bill.

Except these aren't your every day average constituents just voicing their opinions.

And when they resort to simply chanting over and over again, it is most definitely an attempt to obstruct regular discussion.

A few nights ago my congressman was back home and had a town hall meeting. I saw footage of it on the news and it was as peaceful as can be. Know why?

Because he's Republican, and thus is not being targeted by the right to create the impression that there is far more discord on the issue than there actually is. Fox News recently broadcast a list of town hall meetings in various states. Not one was being held by a Republican.

The youtube link I posted a couple pages back shows the result of some journalistic research into the background of one of these "concerned citizens" who claimed to not have any political motivation for showing up to the meeting and also claimed to have left the Republican party 2 years ago. She was the leader of the local chapter of the Republican Party, and also worked on the campaign for the Republican who lost to the Democratic congressman whose town hall meeting she was crashing. Check out the link again, there is ample evidence that more than just a few of these concerned citizens are acting on behalf of special interest groups:

YouTube - Rachel Maddow: "Mob Rule" - It's Not About Health Care
 
"I think, if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer." - Barney Frank

I'm not against a public option. I am against a bill that's a trojan horse for single payer. I understand some of the concerns of protesters, and the general distrust of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

Transparency please. And more details.

i think you can rest easy in the knowledge that a public option will, in all likelihood, be underfunded and a dumping ground for the sick and the poor. the next conservative administration will decry its existence, eliminate it, and dash all hopes for a single payer plan forever. "remember, we tried a government plan and it failed!!!!!"

on the other hand, if the public option IS good enough to attract large numbers of people, provide good coverage, compete with the private sector and drive down the costs of healthcare, is that really such a terrible thing??? people aren't going to flock to a public plan if it's a pile of shit, consists of a death panel, routinely euthanizes seniors, aborts every fifth pregnancy "just in case", and rations routine physicals to one every 36 months.
 
Thanks for proving me (somewhat) wrong, Indy. The crisis rhetoric is far less forceful, at least in my opinion, than the "scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense." If you can give me an equivalent example of Democratic fearmongering, I'd welcome it.

That said, a couple of questions about your plan:

1. If your plan were put into place, my brother who takes medication for paranoid schizophrenia--what would happen to him? (I'll be honest and tell you I'm not sure how he gets his meds now--I know he gets social security but I don't know if he's paying out of pocket or has insurance or what).
Since I'm not writing a bill I'm not going to try and get specific but you can see that my reforms are not the type that the Democratic party is endorsing.
If your brother gets social security than he no doubts gets medicaid as well.
2. Under your plan, would insurance companies still retain the right to deny any type of coverage to certain people? I have a friend who simply cannot buy insurance of any kind because of sports-related injury. No insurance company will take him.
Good question with no easy answer. But again I would be pushing high deductible insurance. For young adults this would be very cheap but medical costs would be out of pocket until the deductible is meet. Great deal unless you actually need care, which most young healthy adults do not.
3. What in your plan might result in a lowering of healthcare costs? Or is that important at all in your estimation?
That's the good news for your friend. As more people are purchasing health care directly prices would fall. Less paper and clerical work and competition with other providers for patients.
4. What happens to those who can't afford any kind of health insurance? Would you keep Medicare and Medicaid around?
Wouldn't do away with those but man could they be reformed.
5. Tell me more about the benefits of taxing health benefits? I hate the idea of anything that doesn't reflect my actual income--cash in hand--being taxed.
It's simply taxing it as if it were a part of your pay, which is it. real health reform demands that one can see how much they actually spend on health insurance. Most people would see an increase of 12-15 % in pay if a health insurance benefit was treated as income. Thus the need for tax credits for those that buy their own insurance.

In my view there is no way to contain costs until we remove the layers of cost-shifting, subsidizing and third-party payers that distorts the cost of most care.
 
Chants of "read the bill!" is in no way over the line, especially when, you know, most people in Washington haven't read the bill.

As far as I know there is no bill yet. There are 4 or 5 variations in committee.

...Which makes it difficult for congressmen to answer pointed questions. Especially since the president hasn't taken a clear stance beyond generalities and catch phrases.
 
I happen to agree with you. I don't even know what unAmerican means, it's some idiotic word bandied about by your politicians constantly.

I do think it's rather hilarious though, how up in arms you are about this. I don't recall you being upset when the right wing and neocons called everyone but them unAmerican and anti-American for the last 8 years. It's really, REALLY funny.
Exactamundo. :up:
 
on the other hand, if the public option IS good enough to attract large numbers of people, provide good coverage, compete with the private sector and drive down the costs of healthcare, is that really such a terrible thing???

I think that would be ideal.
 
Most medical bankruptcies are more about protecting assets and one's home. In fact, 40% of medically related bankruptcies were filed by people who owed $5,000 or less in medical bills. $5000.

A $5000 medical bill would ruin me for sure. Maybe it's not a lot of money to you, but thats almost two months salary for me.

Is it wrong for these people to want to "protect their assests." I don't own home, but I have a car. Should I sell my car so that I can pay these medical bills? How then should I get to my job an hour and a half away?

And wait a second, if 40% of medical bankruptcies are filed by people who owed $5000 or less, what about the MAJORITY of bankruptcies--the other 60%?

Thanks for your thoughts on my questions. I can see why it's easier for so many of us to just take cheap shots at each other--it's a lot easier than doing the homework of really finding out what health care form would or should entail. I know I've realized there's a lot that both of us don't know/understand just from our little exchange.
 

NBC/WSJ- 42% say Obama's plan is a bad idea, 36% good idea
Quinnipiac- 52& disapprove, 39% approve
Plus, most polls show about 8 of 10 believing the plan would add to the deficit. And in fact, the idea of a public plan polls much better than what Obama is currently proposing. So at the absolute very least, the protesters are saying "Hey, you guys suck as salesmen. Get a better plan, and then maybe we'll listen."


The youtube link I posted a couple pages back shows the result of some journalistic research into the background of one of these "concerned citizens" who claimed to not have any political motivation for showing up to the meeting and also claimed to have left the Republican party 2 years ago. She was the leader of the local chapter of the Republican Party, and also worked on the campaign for the Republican who lost to the Democratic congressman whose town hall meeting she was crashing. Check out the link again, there is ample evidence that more than just a few of these concerned citizens are acting on behalf of special interest groups:

Yes, I'm sure there are some people there because of external groups, but (and call me crazy), I get the feeling it's quite a minority. You'd be kidding yourself if you think groups like SEIU and ACORN spawn spontaneous protests. It's both sides.

Still, I fail to see how it's "un-Democratic" or un-American. I hope you think it's un-American the attacks that have been made by the left comparing the protesters to Nazis, brownshirts, political terrorists, and Tim McVeigh, too.
 
I think it's hilarious how people are trying to call Obama fascist and are even bringing Hitler comparisons into the fold.

And there's also a congressman referencing "Brown Shirt tactics" at town halls....Really now...There's a few cranks in every crowd maybe, even in Congress.
 
Still, I fail to see how it's "un-Democratic" or un-American. I hope you think it's un-American the attacks that have been made by the left comparing the protesters to Nazis, brownshirts, political terrorists, and Tim McVeigh, too.

Any chance of some links?
 
Any chance of some links?

Sorry.

Pelosi's "swastika" remark- RealClearPolitics - Video - Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas"

Washinton Post's "political terrorists" remark- washingtonpost.com

By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

Congressman Brian Baird's "brownshirts" and Tim McVeigh remarks-

The Bellingham Herald / Politics Blog / GOP says Rep. Baird 'delusional' over 'brown shirt' comments

"What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics,"

Rep_ Brian Baird accuses protesters of driving people to violence like Timothy McVeigh | NowPublic Video Archives

"If people set out to disrupt town hall meetings, to intimidate people who sincerely want to discuss important serious issues, the first victim is the democracy itself. But beyond that, some of the rhetoric we're hearing is vaguely- not vaguely- eerily reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim Mcveigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom