Originally Posted by BookishXer

I'm not a socialist. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, so I don't have any political platform to which I'm trying to maintain an allegiance. I am just growing increasingly skeptical as I watch what I believe is our government trying to create a very significant plan of change that could very well include too many concessions for the wrong reasons.

Any input?

No real input, but I think you are asking the right question from the right place.

SOB -

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html

Joe Lieberman: I'll block vote on Harry Reid's plan

This dude needs to be hammered and hammered hard. Not just stripped of his chairmanship but much more. The netroots and lawyers will focus on this until they come up with some real political pain for this ass.

2012 cannot come too soon for me. My fantasy is to have the Republicans nominate Palin for prez and Lieberman gets his justice in Connecticut.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

... Are we capitalist or socialist? How much socialism can we participate in while still beating our chests to the rest of the world over our capitalist successes?

Up until January of this year, the last 8 years have shown that "beating our chests" is not just worth nothing but actually causes a lot of pain. Its dawn on lot of Americans that its time to grow up and start actually dealing with the real problems. Its still a fight to convince a majority with so many theocon/neocons/thugs and really stupid people running around - hope you change your mind and decide that the future is worth fighting for.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

... Because of that conflict of ideals, I fear that our first steps into nationally-funded healthcare will be a blend of socialism and capitalism that will ultimately be a disaster.

It already is, and if we don't fix it, its going to get a lot worst.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

... We won't want to anger the highly profitable insurance and pharmeceutical industries, who will, somewhat accurately, say that they need profits to continue cutting-edge research.

Since the mid-90s, this has become a myth. Outside of NIH (run by our govt), other countries with much more socialized medicine have been cleaning our clock on new miracle drugs and treatments. For example, while we had our theocons' thumbs up our collective arses over stem cell research, guess what the rest of the world was doing?

Originally Posted by BookishXer

... But we need to somehow ensure that the sick child of underinsured waitress gets quality care for no other reason than that child is a human being. So our two-party system will create a plan that tries to please both sides.

However, I just don't think a successful plan will please both sides. I admit right now that I might be woefully wrong, but I'm beginning to think that, for national healthcare to be a success that doesn't require the insured to compromise what they currently have, we have to go fully socialist on this. Does the thought of relenquishing that kind of control to the government leave me unsettled? Yes, but I would be more unsettled if I thought lawmakers were trying to create a socialized plan with series of small compromises to keep those with an eye on profit happy. When dealing with helping those who need medical attention, I don't want the government to have conceded points in the name of pleasing a profitable industry.

I'm not a socialist. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, so I don't have any political platform to which I'm trying to maintain an allegiance. I am just growing increasingly skeptical as I watch what I believe is our government trying to create a very significant plan of change that could very well include too many concessions for the wrong reasons.

Any input?

So, yea, welcome to the real world. The one thing that seems to be off-key here is an implicit presumption that things aren't already broken - that only new legislation has the potential to create harm to you and your love ones.

- if only that was anywhere near reality.

How many people are losing their health care coverage right now? How many people are dying due to a lack of health care coverage? How many people are finacially ruined by a lack of health care coverage?

When you talk with skeptics, be sure to ask what kind of coverage they have. For example, guys who served in the military, regardless of how pedestrian the service, are covered for life - a nice perch to tell the rest of us how undeservng we are.

However, my primary advice -

Wake up; smell coffee.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

2012 cannot come too soon for me. My fantasy is to have the Republicans nominate Palin for prez and Lieberman gets his justice in Connecticut.

No, no, how about a Palin/Liberman ticket?!!!

If you don't think Lieberman is a puppet for the insurance companies (seems to be a lot of those HQ in Conn, isn't there?), then take a close look at these photos -



See any difference? I don't.

Calming words from Erza -

don't know why I don't take Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster health-care reform more seriously, but I just don't. Take what Lieberman told reporters today:

I told Senator Reid that I'm strongly inclined -- I haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined -- to vote to proceed to the health-care debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together because it's important that we start the debate on health-care reform because I want to vote for health-care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.
Well, the bill is certain to change between now and then. That's a lot of wiggle room. Additionally, Lieberman's argument against the public option is simply false. "I think a lot of people may think that the public option is free," he says. "It's not. It's going to cost the taxpayers and people who have health insurance now, and if it doesn't it's going to add terribly to the national debt." Soon enough, he'll be looking at Congressional Budget Office numbers saying the exact opposite. The public option costs taxpayers nothing, adds nothing to the debt and saves everyone money. Lieberman won't be able to hang onto this argument for very long, and then what?

Plus, Lieberman has not, traditionally, been conservative on health-care issues. He's a moralist and a hawk, but not a particular critic of the safety net. It may be that his friction with the Democrats has changed him, but somewhere, deep down, this guy is still lurking:

Also from Reid, himself -
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...y-problems.php

Reid: Lieberman Is The Least Of My Problems

could this be a brilliant tactical move by Reid actually inconjuction with Lieberman - i.e., have Lieberman come out with I'm dead set against the Public Option because it will cost us, then have CBO come out and tell that it will save billions. And Lieberman gets to say "thumbs up!"

Maybe this is why the more-in-the-know netroots aren't going as crazy as I would have thought.

I need to fish around...

Originally Posted by The Rani

I agree, and that's why I've been staying out of the fighting even though it directly affects my livelihood. Most other doctors that I know feel the same way.

My cousin is a registered emergency nurse in TX. She said the day that bill is signed, she is giving it all up.

Well, there are medical professionals that are for America -

http://drsforamerica.org/

The Voice of Physicians in Your Community
Doctors for America has over 15,000 members in all 50 states who are getting involved to build a better health system. For too long, the voices of physicians in our broken system haven't been heard

At Stake: The Future of Health in our Nation
14,000 Americans are losing access to a doctor every day. Doctors across the country are finding it harder and harder to provide the care patients need. As doctors and medical students, we're fighting for a health care system that ensures that all Americans receive access to high quality care - the kind of care that we, as physicians, want to be delivering to our patients.

Be a Doctor for America: Take Action Today
GET INFORMED
BUILD the coalition - invite your colleagues
SHARE your story
CONTACT your legislator
SPEAK UP in your community

Rani, maybe you just need a little encouragement -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2HcRl4wSk

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why not wait til the law actually takes effect? But good to have a back up plan in the meantime. That's what I'm doing anyway.

I didn't see any mention of a back up plan, just a statement that she will quit.

I work in the industry too, but reform that reduces drug prices will benefit me, since I work entirely in off-patent medicines.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Putting away my snark (w/apolgies to my Silent friends), this is my thinking as well
- just much better stated, HT.

Damn, you Southern writers have always been tough to compete with!

WOW! I've never had a complement quite like that one. :

*HT drops to his knees and does his best Wayne's World takeoff.*

'I'm not worthy
I'm not worthy."

*HT stands back up with huge smile on face.*

Thanks. :

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why not wait til the law actually takes effect? But good to have a back up plan in the meantime. That's what I'm doing anyway.

Have to agree on a backup plan. What I am more interested in the Messiah to work on getting Americans working again. Wasn't it Jobs, Jobs, Jobs in 2008.

Lieberman Twists the Knife

The Connecticut senator declared Tuesday that he would support a filibuster of any health care reform bill that has a public option—even the version with the “trigger” compromise accepted by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe—because it might cost money

Not sure what's worse: The corrupt politicians, or the enablers saying "something is better than nothing."

Originally Posted by wtrg8

My cousin is a registered emergency nurse in TX. She said the day that bill is signed, she is giving it all up.

Did she give any specific reasons why she would quit? What precisely is in "that bill" that would cause her to give up her entire career?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Did she give any specific reasons why she would quit? What precisely is in "that bill" that would cause her to give up her entire career?

I say let her quit... and regret it ever after. Sometimes that's the only way people learn.

I myself would prefer to keep my venerable Blue Cross /Blue Shield insurance however, not that I have anything against a public option at all, but because (this is silly perhaps) my family has always had BSBC. If there's one company that's always been there for us, they would be the one.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

WOW! I've never had a complement quite like that one. :

*HT drops to his knees and does his best Wayne's World takeoff.*

'I'm not worthy
I'm not worthy."

*HT stands back up with huge smile on face.*

Thanks. :

Well, you are a good communicator and writer. But perhaps it was a little bit of a stretch on my part to compare the H-T with the Big-T - at least during his prime when he was on the cover of Time.

It might be that I'm getting caught up in all the hyperbole that our friends from the Right like to breathlessly spew out. You know -

'OMG, people actually like the President, they must think he's the Messiah!!!"

'OMG, they might pass legislation that will give health insurance to some people, OMG! OMG! I better look for a new career outside of healthcare!’

'OMG, health care legislation! OMG, you better have a back-up plan! Fallout shelter! Canned food! Bottle water! Guns and ammo! Smoke em, if you got em!!!'

‘OMG, Congress is debating a serious issue!!! OMG, they must all be corrupt!!! No, MG, they're all addicts and enablers! OMG! OMG!’

‘OMG, socialism!!! OMG, we're going USSR!!! OMG, fascism!!! OMG, death panels!!! OMG, they're going to throw momma from the train, under the bus and then pick her hand bag!!!’

‘OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!’

Man, these folks must of gone completely nuts when the last Administration started a preemptive war based on falsified information, started torturing people, outing CIA agents, deregulating the financial markets that led to a near collapse of the economy.

Yessir, they must have really gone all hyperbole back then…
.... Oh wait, sorry, I forgot, it was all peaches and cream back then.

Well, anyway, HT, I still think you’re a good writer. Please, just excuse my getting caught up a little in some tiny exaggeration. But, at least it was a positive, and hopefully encouraging, exaggeration.

As for the rest - a bunch of damn cry babies. Again, I think one driving factor to 4Ts is not having the previous Hero generation (in our case, the GIs) to slap these cry babies upside the head about REAL problems and yes, REAL sacrfice.

'OMG, my tax margin might go up a couple percent! IS THERE NO GOD OF MERCY!!!!!!'

P-THETIC

Will you guys please keep quiet?! Its hard enough to set the trap (i.e. public option with opt-out), let alone not letting them know what's coming!

We got a host of right wingers telling us that if the Red States opt out of the public option they should be able to opt out of paying for it!

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910280001

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y2NGYyZmY3MDg=

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270007

Please, please let them tilt at this windmill!!! The trap depends on it!

Please, Angry Bear and others that you reference don't inform them - at least, not just yet; wait for their opt outs!

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/1...dest-ball.html

I got the idea from Rich Lowry who asked "Does a state get to opt-out of the taxes too?" Hmmm now that is an interesting idea.



First don't give Lowry too much credit for originality. The bogus argument is clearly the right wing talking point of the day. I have no way of knowing who thought of it or how it spread.

Lowry is pretending that "the taxes" pay for the public option. Since the cost of a robust public option is negative $ 100 B over ten years, I guess the way to implement his proposal is to give states a second option -- the option to voluntarily send money to the Federal Treasury to make up for the extra cost due to their choice to opt out of the public option. the value of this second option is zero, so, taken literally, Lowry's proposal amounts to nothing.

But one can make sense of it. States could be allowed to opt out of federal financing. That is they get the medicare tax, the excise tax on cadillac plans. the share of income taxes that go to medicare and medicaid the whole boodle and, in exchange they must provide medicaid, medicare and health care reform insurance subsidies to their citizens.

That way no state would subsidize health care in any other state.

If Rich Lowry were sincere he would support such a proposal. he would also be unable to travel safely in Red America if the massive subsidies they get from Blue America were actually cut off. Of course that won't happen. Senators from states which get more back from the Federal government than they pay in taxes will make very sure that the proposal is blocked. The utter hypocritical dishonesty of Lowry's argument will be made clear.

OK semi serious modified proposal. This just concerns health care reform. The hard part is to decide how to distribute the Medicare budget cuts. I'd say a state can opt out of the fiscal consequences of health care reform if it
1) pays all of the cost of expanding medicaid
2) pays the subsidies.
3) keeps all excise tax revenues collected in the state
and
4) Gets a share of the medicaid cuts proportional to medicare payroll taxes paid collected in the state.

4 is the hard part. Medicare is largely funded with income taxes. I just use payroll tax revenues as a rough yardstick. The plan would probably work fine if the share of Medicare savings were proportional to population.

Now if Texas were to opt out of the fiscal aspects, they would give a huge gift back to the rest of the USA. They have a huge number of currently uninsured people many of whom would get subsidies. They have a lot of poor people. Generally a larger fraction of the population of states with Republican senators are poor enough to qualify for expanded medicare. Also a larger fraction are poor enough for subsidies.

In contrast, my proposal would be wonderful for New York, Massachusetts and, especially Maine. Maine surely would gain from opting out of subsidizing Texas.

Basically all egalitarian Federal programs transfer from Blue states to right wing, anti big government, states rights states. Their representatives make a career of biting the hand that feeds them. They keep doing it, because the hand keeps coming back to be bit again. I think offering to leave them fiscally alone will make them sputter and gasp and maybe even deal with reality (I'm a dreamer).

No, no, Angry Bear
Its not a dream
Things happen in 4Ts
So don't spill the beans!

And that goes for the rest of you on this 4T forum! Let's give those Red States the chance to become third world 'countries' and let all the teabaggers migrate there to wallow in the misery they create. Yea baby!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think it's good to consider the (often unintended) consequences of letting the government run our health care system before we actually do it.

I don't think anyone really knows what the consequences will be. I'm for experimenting state-by-state. Seems to me that the opt-out provision allows for this.

All hail the scientific method!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think it's good to consider the (often unintended) consequences of letting the government run our health care system before we actually do it.

Nay, let's test it out. You can always migrate to an opt-out Red State and taste the full consequences of your political positions.

Or, are you just a friady-cat?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD5zmUDjNRA

meow

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think it's good to consider the (often unintended) consequences of letting the government run our health care system before we actually do it.

Well, we all know how well the current system is working. Are you for keeping the status quo?

Believe me, my cousin has a backup to her backup plan.

All Congress has to do to get Snowe's vote again, bring Portability back or give her the lip service it will be in the final bill. Congress apparently doesn't want the legislation to follow the private Federal Government Health Employee Association. Our spline-less representatives will rather tear down the entire system then allow ordinary US citizens the choice to enter into that plan. By-laws can be changes yearly, folks. But I digress because I am not sticking it to Big Pharma and the Health Insurance Companies, our President's donors. So I say in 2013, please raise my premiums another 20% so those with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance. Look this is what's going to happen, a trigger will be placed. Government run Health will happen, Medicare for all. One less choice in our lives. Well done, Lenin would be proud of us.

Originally Posted by BookishXer

Ugh...I don't really want to step into the battle, but I am interested in hearing what others have to say about the concern I have.

I support health care reform, and I'm insured. I think the current system is a mess that really, at the root, is due to greed. But here's what I fear:

I'd written elsewhere that our country has this on-going identity crisis. Are we capitalist or socialist? How much socialism can we participate in while still beating our chests to the rest of the world over our capiltalist successes?

Because of that conflict of ideals, I fear that our first steps into nationally-funded healthcare will be a blend of socialism and capitalism that will ultimately be a disaster. We won't want to anger the highly profitable insurance and pharmeceutical industries, who will, somewhat accurately, say that they need profits to continue cutting-edge research. But we need to somehow ensure that the sick child of underinsured waitress gets quality care for no other reason than that child is a human being. So our two-party system will create a plan that tries to please both sides.

However, I just don't think a successful plan will please both sides. I admit right now that I might be woefully wrong, but I'm beginning to think that, for national healthcare to be a success that doesn't require the insured to compromise what they currently have, we have to go fully socialist on this. Does the thought of relenquishing that kind of control to the government leave me unsettled? Yes, but I would be more unsettled if I thought lawmakers were trying to create a socialized plan with series of small compromises to keep those with an eye on profit happy. When dealing with helping those who need medical attention, I don't want the government to have conceded points in the name of pleasing a profitable industry.

I'm not a socialist. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, so I don't have any political platform to which I'm trying to maintain an allegiance. I am just growing increasingly skeptical as I watch what I believe is our government trying to create a very significant plan of change that could very well include too many concessions for the wrong reasons.

Any input?

One of the better ideas on this, in my opinion is from Sen. Wyden:

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/

..."For starters, every American will have the power to choose - and will be required to choose - a comprehensive health insurance plan. The plans will be high-quality, at least as good as what Members of Congress have today. Every American will be able to choose from any plan offered in their region; and they can keep their plan even if they change jobs, lose their job, or become too sick to work.Under Wyden's plan, employers would no longer provide health coverage, as they have since World War II. Instead, they'd convert the current cost of coverage into additional salary for employees. Individuals would use this money to buy insurance, which they would be required to have.
Private insurance plans would compete on features and price but would have to offer benefits at least equivalent to the Blue Cross "standard" option. Signing up for insurance would be as easy as ticking off a box on your tax return. In most cases, insurance premiums would be withheld from paychecks, as they are now.
Eliminating employers as an additional payer would encourage consumers to use health care more efficiently. Getting rid of the employer tax deduction, which costs a whopping $200 billion a year, would free up funds to subsidize insurance up to 400 percent of the poverty line, which is $82,000 for a family of four.
The Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, has estimated that Wyden's plan would reduce overall national spending on health care by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and that it would save the government money through great administrative efficiency and competition."...

Originally Posted by radind

One of the better ideas on this, in my opinion is from Sen. Wyden:

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/

..."For starters, every American will have the power to choose - and will be required to choose - a comprehensive health insurance plan. The plans will be high-quality, at least as good as what Members of Congress have today. Every American will be able to choose from any plan offered in their region; and they can keep their plan even if they change jobs, lose their job, or become too sick to work.Under Wyden's plan, employers would no longer provide health coverage, as they have since World War II. Instead, they'd convert the current cost of coverage into additional salary for employees. Individuals would use this money to buy insurance, which they would be required to have.
Private insurance plans would compete on features and price but would have to offer benefits at least equivalent to the Blue Cross "standard" option. Signing up for insurance would be as easy as ticking off a box on your tax return. In most cases, insurance premiums would be withheld from paychecks, as they are now.
Eliminating employers as an additional payer would encourage consumers to use health care more efficiently. Getting rid of the employer tax deduction, which costs a whopping $200 billion a year, would free up funds to subsidize insurance up to 400 percent of the poverty line, which is $82,000 for a family of four.
The Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, has estimated that Wyden's plan would reduce overall national spending on health care by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and that it would save the government money through great administrative efficiency and competition."...

Someone forget to tell Sen Harry Reid to include it.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Believe me, my cousin has a backup to her backup plan.

All Congress has to do to get Snowe's vote again, bring Portability back or give her the lip service it will be in the final bill. Congress apparently doesn't want the legislation to follow the private Federal Government Health Employee Association. Our spline-less representatives will rather tear down the entire system then allow ordinary US citizens the choice to enter into that plan. By-laws can be changes yearly, folks. But I digress because I am not sticking it to Big Pharma and the Health Insurance Companies, our President's donors. So I say in 2013, please raise my premiums another 20% so those with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance. Look this is what's going to happen, a trigger will be placed. Government run Health will happen, Medicare for all. One less choice in our lives. Well done, Lenin would be proud of us.

I am not sure if it was meant as a response to my question, but I don't find this statement particularly coherent.

Originally Posted by radind

One of the better ideas on this, in my opinion is from Sen. Wyden:

I'm with you on that - as long as the PO is part of the bigger and more inclusive exchange.

In a few years, this combination would have the US leap from the lower end of developed countries on health care to near or at the top!

Its so damn close, you can smell the wax burning on the puppet strings that the insurers use to animate Lieberman.