I have to say, Olympia Snowe is a Republican with really good ideas.

[Contumacious]

While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check. :

That is a bullshit clause ; our nation's history shows that the fascists will always find pretexts to allow goverment aggrandizement scams to kick on.

.

 

[GWV5903]

So tell me Vast LWC the $233,941,189 that the lawyers made in political contributions in the '08 campaign cycle, of which 76% went to Democrats, where they paying off all of their staffers, family, maids, yard man, roofers, etc......funny thing about those big bad LOTS of money making Health Insurance companies, they only contributed $14,319,002 and if you take all of the Health Care Industries (Health Professionals, Hospitals & Nursing Homes, Health Services & HMO's and Pharmaceuticals) combined they where still $71,970,519 behind the lawyers......now where is it you want to start cutting expenses????

Oh and BTW combined they distributed their contributions a little more evenly, 56% to Dems & 44% to Repubs......

When you learn the knife has two edges, you might get cut less, just maybe....

Lobbyists for most coporations are Lawyers. Do your figures include them?

And law firms also represent a variety of clients, who they would make contributions for. Do your figures include them?

Besides, I'm not really sure what you're insinuating, that the Law lobby is for health reform?

Lawyers & Lobbyists fall under two different contributors, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 changed how and when lobbyists could make contributions on behalf of their clients....Lobbyists made contributions totaling $36,561,218 in the '08 campaign cycle, still far less than lawyers....

The point is lawyers are making LOTS of money off of you and me, don't you find it interesting that their cash cow is insurance companies????

 

[Emma]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

I hope so.

Yes...We all know how monopolies have worked out in the past!

So you support repealing the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption?

 

[Meister]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

I hope so.

That would be one dangerous road to go down, Emma.

 

[Vast LWC]

Then have the nerve to attempt to blackmail the Congress by promising to quadruple premiums if health care reform is passed.

Woah, woah hold the phone, Health insurance companies actually did this?

Do you have a link? Because I'd really like to see what that's all about.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, OK>
Maybe Obama will realize his programs are abject failures. He might embrace conservative values of personal responsibility, small government, and low taxes. And for his second term he might nominate Barney Frank who maybe will also see the light.

And I might hit the megamillions tonight We can hope for change can't we

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

Yes Pilgrim, certainly people who want "Single Payer" feel that showing people how excellent a public option is would be a strong step towards getting what they want.

But that doesn't mean that a public option is just a means to an end.

We have two diametrically opposed sides here.

One side wants single payer, and the other side wants nothing at all. So, the public option is a compromise.

Since Republicans are so convinced that a Single Payer option would be so horrible, then they should be all for a Public Option, so they can show everyone what a terrible idea a Single Payer plan would be.

Or are they afraid that people would like a government-run plan too much?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, OK>
Maybe Obama will realize his programs are abject failures. He might embrace conservative values of personal responsibility, small government, and low taxes. And for his second term he might nominate Barney Frank who maybe will also see the light.

And I might hit the megamillions tonight We can hope for change can't we

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

Yes Pilgrim, certainly people who want "Single Payer" feel that showing people how excellent a public option is would be a strong step towards getting what they want.

But that doesn't mean that a public option is just a means to an end.

We have two diametrically opposed sides here.

One side wants single payer, and the other side wants nothing at all. So, the public option is a compromise.

Since Republicans are so convinced that a Single Payer option would be so horrible, then they should be all for a Public Option, so they can show everyone what a terrible idea a Single Payer plan would be.

Or are they afraid that people would like a government-run plan too much?

Bah.
Public option is not a compromise. That's like saying we can have a nuclear war with Russia or peace. So let's compromise by invading Mexico.
A bad idea is a bad idea is a bad idea.
And gov't involvement in health care is a bad idea. Virtually all the problems that people identify stem in one way or another from gov't regulations. Common sense dictates that more regulation will not solve those problems, but make them worse.
Repubicans (except for the idiot Snowe) know that the choice is not between one gov't program and another gov't program but between gov't programs and less regulation of the industry. So I'd like to see Democrats compromise here and exhibit bipartisanship by allowing policies to be sold over state lines and tort reform. These things consistently get support in polls anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listen to Rabbi on the Run is a bad idea. Let's move on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Listen to Rabbi on the Run is a bad idea. Let's move on.

Also sprach Jake, der Koenig des unbegruendete Aussage.

 

[Vast LWC]

While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would "kick in" if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check. :

That is a bullshit clause ; our nation's history shows that the fascists will always find pretexts to allow goverment aggrandizement scams to kick on.

.

Medicare D was brought up along the same lines, but has not kicked in yet.

 

[Vast LWC]

Pubic Option is the camel's nose for single payer, which is the ultimate goal of Obama, Frank and their ilk. There isn't any debate on this fact. There are plenty of sound clips of them admitting as much.

Now, I've heard a whole lot of idioms and "old sayings" but what the hell does "the Camel's Nose" mean?

 

[Vast LWC]

Lawyers & Lobbyists fall under two different contributors, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 changed how and when lobbyists could make contributions on behalf of their clients....Lobbyists made contributions totaling $36,561,218 in the '08 campaign cycle, still far less than lawyers....

The point is lawyers are making LOTS of money off of you and me, don't you find it interesting that their cash cow is insurance companies????

But it would be much harder to sue the government than insurance companies...

 

[Vast LWC]

Bah.
Public option is not a compromise. That's like saying we can have a nuclear war with Russia or peace. So let's compromise by invading Mexico.
A bad idea is a bad idea is a bad idea.
And gov't involvement in health care is a bad idea. Virtually all the problems that people identify stem in one way or another from gov't regulations. Common sense dictates that more regulation will not solve those problems, but make them worse.
Repubicans (except for the idiot Snowe) know that the choice is not between one gov't program and another gov't program but between gov't programs and less regulation of the industry. So I'd like to see Democrats compromise here and exhibit bipartisanship by allowing policies to be sold over state lines and tort reform. These things consistently get support in polls anyway.

But see, this is why you all confuse everyone. If "Single Payer" is so damn bad, then a "Public Option" would surely show everyone just how bad it is.

It's like a test run for single payer.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bah.
Public option is not a compromise. That's like saying we can have a nuclear war with Russia or peace. So let's compromise by invading Mexico.
A bad idea is a bad idea is a bad idea.
And gov't involvement in health care is a bad idea. Virtually all the problems that people identify stem in one way or another from gov't regulations. Common sense dictates that more regulation will not solve those problems, but make them worse.
Repubicans (except for the idiot Snowe) know that the choice is not between one gov't program and another gov't program but between gov't programs and less regulation of the industry. So I'd like to see Democrats compromise here and exhibit bipartisanship by allowing policies to be sold over state lines and tort reform. These things consistently get support in polls anyway.

But see, this is why you all confuse everyone. If "Single Payer" is so damn bad, then a "Public Option" would surely show everyone just how bad it is.

It's like a test run for single payer.

That's like saying that AIDS is really bad so I'll get cancer to see how bad AIDS could really be.
Public option is bad. There is no reason to vote in a bad policy to demonstrate how much worse something else would be.
The right course is to figure out what the proper approach to solving the problems at hand would be and then voting that in. The public option and single payer will not do those things. Ergo they need to be off the table.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stupid comparison, Rabbi, very stupid.

You are terrified that the option will spectacularly be successful and cost effective. You should be terrified.

And you know what? You get to help pay for it! What a deal!!

 

[Vast LWC]

That's like saying that AIDS is really bad so I'll get cancer to see how bad AIDS could really be.
Public option is bad. There is no reason to vote in a bad policy to demonstrate how much worse something else would be.
The right course is to figure out what the proper approach to solving the problems at hand would be and then voting that in. The public option and single payer will not do those things. Ergo they need to be off the table.

That's a really badly conceived metaphor.

How about:

That's like saying "Kissing is great, I should try heavy petting" or "Chocolate Milk is delicious, perhaps I should make a chocolate milkshake"?

There is every reason to vote in a policy people honestly believe would be beneificial, in order to try out their theory.

That's what leadership and innovation is all about.

 

[Emma]

Then have the nerve to attempt to blackmail the Congress by promising to quadruple premiums if health care reform is passed.

Woah, woah hold the phone, Health insurance companies actually did this?

Do you have a link? Because I'd really like to see what that's all about.

That report they put out on Monday. That was a threat, IMO.

 

[logical4u]

Pubic Option is the camel's nose for single payer, which is the ultimate goal of Obama, Frank and their ilk. There isn't any debate on this fact. There are plenty of sound clips of them admitting as much.

Now, I've heard a whole lot of idioms and "old sayings" but what the hell does "the Camel's Nose" mean?

It means once the camel gets its nose thru a tent, the rest of the camel will eventually follow.

Once the gov has control of healthcare, every form of bureaucracy will follow with gov control over citizens, it will change from representative gov to subjugative gov.

Once a little bit of evil (control over citizens' lives thru healthcare), big, BIG evil will follow (read any of the bills you want, there is nothing there to protect citizens/patients from ANYTHING the gov wants to put in place). Maybe you trust this administration to give them absolute authority over your healthcare, but what about if the gov is reversed in the next election, or the one after? Once this is in place, the gov will not repeal it and your childrens' childrens' children, all, will have their freedoms further limited because of the support for this subjugative legislation.

 

[logical4u]

Stupid comparison, Rabbi, very stupid.

You are terrified that the option will spectacularly be successful and cost effective. You should be terrified.

And you know what? You get to help pay for it! What a deal!!

Do you live in a fantasy world that you believe what politicians tell you when they say "trust me"?
Can you demonstrate any gov program that is designed to help citizens that is not filled with long lines, bureaucracy, fraud, waste, unnecessary management posititions (wasted taxpayer money), and total lack of efficiency?
What , who, how, when and where is it possible for the methods used to miraculously change into a system that will work as stated in the beginning?

Seriously, consider: if this gov is sooo great:
why doesn't it fix the waste and fraud in medicare?
why doesn't it fix the waste and fraud in medicaid?
why doesn't it fix the financial state of Social Security?
why doesn't it fix the post office?
why is it still sending checks to dead people and inmates?
why doesn't it fix the corruption in DC (as promised)?

Why don't you, as a taxpayer, demand the gov demonstrate their ability to accomplish one task well before you allow them to distract you out of your freedoms thru personal greed (having someone else pay for something you want)?

 

[The Rabbi]

That's like saying that AIDS is really bad so I'll get cancer to see how bad AIDS could really be.
Public option is bad. There is no reason to vote in a bad policy to demonstrate how much worse something else would be.
The right course is to figure out what the proper approach to solving the problems at hand would be and then voting that in. The public option and single payer will not do those things. Ergo they need to be off the table.

That's a really badly conceived metaphor.

How about:

That's like saying "Kissing is great, I should try heavy petting" or "Chocolate Milk is delicious, perhaps I should make a chocolate milkshake"?

There is every reason to vote in a policy people honestly believe would be beneificial, in order to try out their theory.

That's what leadership and innovation is all about.

OK, fair enough.
Except the pubic option is terrible. It has flunked every test in MA, ME, TN and CA. The result was the same everywhere: spiraling costs and poor quality of health care. Believing that somehow "it's gonna be different this time" is the very definition of insanity.