It's time for President Obama to step up!

It's time for President Obama to step up!.

hitler.jpg

cool pic, who's the guy?
 
Nope, he ran on "uniting." Looks like "bipartisanship" is his baby.

Consequences, consequences...

I knew some idiot would say something like this. Its hard being bipartisanship when the other side says..no matter what, I am voting against this. No matter what.


Are you serious saying this?

Screw the republicans. He tried to appease them, they said no matter what, we are saying no. Screw em.

I was glad to see the president is going to present his own healthcare bill.

The forces of evil have held back national health insurance for too long.

Every other Western democracy has it, and we should have it too.

Guess what these ten countries have in common? Guess what they don't, besides Elvis and CrusaderFrank and divecon?

High Living Standard Countries
 
I knew some idiot would say something like this. Its hard being bipartisanship when the other side says..no matter what, I am voting against this. No matter what.


Are you serious saying this?

Screw the republicans. He tried to appease them, they said no matter what, we are saying no. Screw em.

I was glad to see the president is going to present his own healthcare bill.

The forces of evil have held back national health insurance for too long.

Every other Western democracy has it, and we should have it too.

Guess what these ten countries have in common? Guess what they don't, besides Elvis and CrusaderFrank and divecon?

High Living Standard Countries

:lol::lol::lol: :clap2:
 
They also provide half as much service, have per capita half as many catscan machines per capita half as many MRI's and far far longer waiting times for even basic services.
 
Compromise won't work when only one is at the table. It's now (past) time for President Obama to move forward with universal health care for all Americans.
The insurance industry has for too long inserted its agents between the patient and their doctor, putting profit first and medical care a distant second.
A governmental insurance program available to all Americans can be administered more economically then the private sector. Government will not pay huge bonuses, nor need to hire salespersons, district managers, or lawyers to limit payouts.
Cost to medical providers will be reduced as their need to interact with scores of insurance companies will be reduced to one; denials will be eliminated and tort reform will become reality if independent arbitrators are hired to resolve disputes.
See HR 676 for the general idea.

Remind me again, which country did Teddy Kennedy go to for treatment?
Do you really think that's logical?


It's the Teabagger talking point du jour. Pretty weak, eh?
 
I hope the doomsayers on the right are wrong. Of course it looks like the fear and smear campaign funded by the insurance industry has scared many voters, expecially the aged and infirm; but I give more credit to the voter.
If the effort to reform the way health care is paid for is killed - as crazy Michelle Bachman and most Republicans hope - and nothing changes, the consequences of this will be known in November 2010. Health insurance has become an albatross around the neck of American business and industry and is talking more and more of the disposable income of the American family.
It's unfortunate a reasonable debate cannot be held here, but alas, when facts and critically thinking get in the way of faith, spam is sure to follow.
 
Last edited:
You mean like the fact that Medicare costs nearly ten times -adjusted for inflation- as much as it was projected to cost, back in '65?

You mean like the fact that the so-called "war on poverty" has flushed no less that $7 TRILLION down the federal dumper, and we have basically the same level of poverty today?

Or maybe the fact that most states have instituted defacto insurance monopolies, insofar as their citizens being able to shop out of state for coverage?

Facts and critical thinking indeed.
 
You mean like the fact that Medicare costs nearly ten times -adjusted for inflation- as much as it was projected to cost, back in '65?

Ummm.....What were we paying for private insurance in 1965?

Medicare has lower overhead and is more efficiently run than any private insurer. The reason the private sector is spending billions to defeat this bill is not because they care for their customers, but they care for their bottom line.
Someone is threatening the goose that lays the golden eggs and the insurance companies aren't happy. At least they have the republicans protecting their interests. If only we could get the republicans to protect our interests
 
You mean like the fact that Medicare costs nearly ten times -adjusted for inflation- as much as it was projected to cost, back in '65?

Ummm.....What were we paying for private insurance in 1965?

Medicare has lower overhead and is more efficiently run than any private insurer. The reason the private sector is spending billions to defeat this bill is not because they care for their customers, but they care for their bottom line.
Someone is threatening the goose that lays the golden eggs and the insurance companies aren't happy. At least they have the republicans protecting their interests. If only we could get the republicans to protect our interests
What was being paid for private insurance is irrelevant to the fact that costs have exploded under Medicare.....Which is proof positive that bureaucrats are completely incapable of controlling costs.

Your party man e-mail blast hack-in-the-box demonization of insurance companies is falling totally flat, especially considering how grossly overburdened with rules and regulations they are already.

Come back when you have something that anyone couldn't already get from the WH jabbering point list.
 
Dude,
Facts? Post a link with evidence that your 'facts' are in fact factual.
Here's one piece, from esteemed PhD. economist Walter E. Williams, who rarely if ever gets his facts wrong.

A MINORITY VIEW

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?
 
Last edited:
You mean like the fact that Medicare costs nearly ten times -adjusted for inflation- as much as it was projected to cost, back in '65?

Ummm.....What were we paying for private insurance in 1965?

Medicare has lower overhead and is more efficiently run than any private insurer. The reason the private sector is spending billions to defeat this bill is not because they care for their customers, but they care for their bottom line.
Someone is threatening the goose that lays the golden eggs and the insurance companies aren't happy. At least they have the republicans protecting their interests. If only we could get the republicans to protect our interests
What was being paid for private insurance is irrelevant to the fact that costs have exploded under Medicare.....Which is proof positive that bureaucrats are completely incapable of controlling costs.

Your party man e-mail blast hack-in-the-box demonization of insurance companies is falling totally flat, especially considering how grossly overburdened with rules and regulations they are already.

Come back when you have something that anyone couldn't already get from the WH jabbering point list.


Far from irrelevant. The point is that healthcare costs in 1965 were miniscule compared to costs today. To say that Medicare costs increasing 10 times what was projected and blaming bureaucrats, while ignoring the fact that PRIVATE insurance increased at a much higher rate than Medicare is intentionally deceptive on your part

Medicare has much lower overhead and is more efficient than private insurance....documented fact
 
As usual, you also neglect to factor in the costs associated with states keeping their citizens captive to in-state insurance providers, and an FDA red tape monster that forces pharm companies and medical equipment inventors to go through approval processes that cost in excess of $500 BILLION per approval......And those are just for starters.

But g'head and keep the DNC yammering points a-comin.
 
As usual, you also neglect to factor in the costs associated with states keeping their citizens captive to in-state insurance providers, and an FDA red tape monster that forces pharm companies and medical equipment inventors to go through approval processes that cost in excess of $500 BILLION per approval......And those are just for starters.

But g'head and keep the DNC yammering points a-comin.

I agree with allowing insurers to compete in all states. Put it on the internet, let the consumer pick from hundreds of offerors
I'm also OK with eliminating red tape in getting FDA approval. But with restrictions on patent extensions allowed before a drug can go generic. As long as we are talking free trade, let me buy my drugs from the cheapest source available. Even if it means importing them. Make doctors and hospitals advertise what procedures are going to cost as well as impartial ratings of which doctors and hospitals are the best and who is not cutting it.
 
Well dude, it's one man's opinion. An opinion based on this political reality - that was then, this is now.
Dr. Williams makes the claim that universal health care will cost X today, and X++ tomorrow. He bases his opinion, prophecy if you will, on the experience with Medicare. Is this a valid argument? And even if valid, is the conclusion true? (please see rightwinger's post above).
Is Dr. Williams unbiased? His essay (linked above) is not only a minority report, it posits the extreme conservative perspective without offering an alternative to the status quo.
Mr. Williams opposes the income tax, demeans public education and health care reform. Having a Doctorial degree does not confir on the recipient omnipotent authority. One voice, one opinion, written by a partisan.
 
As usual, you also neglect to factor in the costs associated with states keeping their citizens captive to in-state insurance providers, and an FDA red tape monster that forces pharm companies and medical equipment inventors to go through approval processes that cost in excess of $500 BILLION per approval......And those are just for starters.

But g'head and keep the DNC yammering points a-comin.

I agree with allowing insurers to compete in all states. Put it on the internet, let the consumer pick from hundreds of offerors
I'm also OK with eliminating red tape in getting FDA approval. But with restrictions on patent extensions allowed before a drug can go generic. As long as we are talking free trade, let me buy my drugs from the cheapest source available. Even if it means importing them. Make doctors and hospitals advertise what procedures are going to cost as well as impartial ratings of which doctors and hospitals are the best and who is not cutting it.





lmao............(see above).........""even if it means importing them". Like Ive been saying for years, the 21%ers have zero understanding about the market no matter what you're tallking.
So s0n............where exactly are we going to import them from? Mars?








smiling-black-man-3.jpg
 
you 21%ers like to watch yourself post stuff.....................meh................................

Americans dont want to not have the option of keeping what insurance they have = end of story.

Tune in tomorrow and watch as Obama STILL continues to lie about it!!!!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top