Here's a great example of the effects of one ceaseless drumbeat of lying Republican and Tea Party propaganda.

Democrats may be able to draw on residual support for major elements of the health overhaul, a new poll by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation suggested.

More than 60% of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support healthcare legislation if it expanded the Medicaid program for the poor, helped seniors on Medicare buy prescription drugs or guaranteed that all Americans could get insurance -- even if they are sick.

More than 70% said they would back a bill that included tax credits for small businesses that provide their workers with health benefits.

Many people do not realize those proposals are in the Democratic healthcare legislation, however. And the overall bills remain very unpopular. Just 42% of Americans say they believe the country would be better off if Congress passed "healthcare reform," down from 59% about a year ago, the Kaiser survey found.

That has helped fuel calls for a smaller piece of legislation.

Is this a great country or what?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Here's a great example of the effects of one ceaseless drumbeat of lying Republican and Tea Party propaganda.

Democrats may be able to draw on residual support for major elements of the health overhaul, a new poll by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation suggested.

More than 60% of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support healthcare legislation if it expanded the Medicaid program for the poor, helped seniors on Medicare buy prescription drugs or guaranteed that all Americans could get insurance -- even if they are sick.

More than 70% said they would back a bill that included tax credits for small businesses that provide their workers with health benefits.

Many people do not realize those proposals are in the Democratic healthcare legislation, however. And the overall bills remain very unpopular. Just 42% of Americans say they believe the country would be better off if Congress passed "healthcare reform," down from 59% about a year ago, the Kaiser survey found.

That has helped fuel calls for a smaller piece of legislation.

Is this a great country or what?

Republicans and conservatives would still like to be "an emerging country" when it comes to a major part of infrastructure like national healthcare?

I have little ties to where I am at now and I could easily emigrate and/or get dual citizenship to further developed nations with better infrastructures overseas and would help the rest of my family move there.

Technically, if you can proove direct lineage via a family tree, you can claim German citizenship. That's my last resort fall-back plan, and Germany is only a hop, skip, and a jump from Austria & Wien.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Technically, if you can proove direct lineage via a family tree, you can claim German citizenship. That's my last resort fall-back plan, and Germany is only a hop, skip, and a jump from Austria & Wien.

Don't worry. They'll stringent that right up when people start bailing out in droves.

Lithuania only had that kind of citizenship rule for less than ten years following its departure from the USSR. With the crisis in Russia, they got so flooded with single-drop-of-blood immigrants that they ended up really quickly making it much more difficult to get citizenship.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Here's a great example of the effects of one ceaseless drumbeat of lying Republican and Tea Party propaganda.

Democrats may be able to draw on residual support for major elements of the health overhaul, a new poll by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation suggested.

More than 60% of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support healthcare legislation if it expanded the Medicaid program for the poor, helped seniors on Medicare buy prescription drugs or guaranteed that all Americans could get insurance -- even if they are sick.

More than 70% said they would back a bill that included tax credits for small businesses that provide their workers with health benefits.

Many people do not realize those proposals are in the Democratic healthcare legislation, however. And the overall bills remain very unpopular. Just 42% of Americans say they believe the country would be better off if Congress passed "healthcare reform," down from 59% about a year ago, the Kaiser survey found.

That has helped fuel calls for a smaller piece of legislation.

Is this a great country or what?

Since Congress is not able to act, perhaps it is time for a "BRAC" type health care system reform commission. (I think that a majority of all politicians lie.)

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

Really?

I'd sign up for it.

national healthcare is dead

Don't be so sure, theyr'e trying to bring it back minus the ban on denying pre-existing conditions.

They're pretty intent on mandating the purchase of this pathetic private product.

Bush's 2001&2003 Tax Cuts: $4-5 trillion deficit since 2001/2003.
Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan Wars: $3-4 trillion deficit since 2001/2003.

yet people are mad about...

National Healthcare: $1 trillion deficit over 10 year period

I just don't get it

I will not buy into healthcare if our money just going to insurance companies.

I guess people have no problem being imperial and sending kids to die for no reason/oil.

While they do not want to have any sort of infrastructure repair that's already been in decline since the 1960's.

On one had, I hope they do pass it so people can get covered with pre-existing conditions. On the other hand, it they don't consider me applying for dual citizenship for a country that has much better infrastructure in place.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

I guess people have no problem being imperial and sending kids to die for no reason/oil.

In my opinion the original reason of "liberation" was even dumber, but I guess people thought the US had an unlimited budget in 2002.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

In my opinion the original reason of "liberation" was even dumber, but I guess people thought the US had an unlimited budget in 2002.

Original excuses for Iraq invasion....

1. WMD's (Rice and Powell in front of UN, mushroom cloud speeches)
2. Liberation
3. Democracy in Middle East

Yet we are still occupying Iraq for imperial purposes.

1985+18=2003, the first 18 year-olds getting sent to Iraq. I had a few friends who bought and still buy the Bush b.s.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Here's a great example of the effects of one ceaseless drumbeat of lying Republican and Tea Party propaganda.

Or, the retroactive effects of what I have been proposing on here, before the first Tea Party was ever even held.

The Democrats succeed if they force the Republicans to try and defend the indefensible; in this case, why should the country's health-care policy as a whole be even redder than one of its reddest states (i.e., Utah)?

At least the Dems show some signs of applying this principle to the banks, in that if the Republicans filibuster Obama's proposed "bank tax" to death, they are going to look horrible (even Bill O'Reilly concedes as much).

Is this a great country or what?

It will be, if there are community health centers in every small town and big-city neighborhood across the country, providing free health care to the poor and low-cost care to the near-poor.

So why try and do all this other garbage?

Obama's proposal is now online:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

Originally Posted by 85turtle

Original excuses for Iraq invasion....

1. WMD's (Rice and Powell in front of UN, mushroom cloud speeches)
2. Liberation
3. Democracy in Middle East

Yet we are still occupying Iraq for imperial purposes.

1985+18=2003, the first 18 year-olds getting sent to Iraq. I had a few friends who bought and still buy the Bush b.s.

Iraq was never a threat to the USA and we had no real reason to invade Iraq. I don't see any imperial purpose for staying. Perhaps this is just some warped version of national pride.

Originally Posted by radind

Iraq was never a threat to the USA and we had no real reason to invade Iraq. I don't see any imperial purpose for staying. Perhaps this is just some warped version of national pride.

I think that we are just there for the defense contracts.
Simply put, war makes money for the people that matter.
It's good to have Haliburton stock.
It's good to be able to sell gasoline for $400 a gallon.

In all of this talk about deficits, we never hear a word about military spending.
Either wars are free or the decision makers choose not to allow military spending to be questioned for their own reasons.

Even though we don't have a military draft, what we have now is IMO worse than Vietnam.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

Obama's proposal is now online:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

Thanks. I am intriqued with this part:

"Americans without insurance coverage will be able to choose the insurance coverage that works best for them in a new open, competitive insurance market – the same insurance market that every member of Congress will be required to use for their insurance. The insurance Exchange will pool buying power and give Americans new affordable choices of private insurance plans that have to compete for their business based on cost and quality. Small business owners will not only be able to choose insurance coverage through this exchange, but will receive a new tax credit to help offset the cost of covering their employees. "

This may help. My own preference is to just put all US citizens in a single pool and then let the competition begin.

Originally Posted by radind

Thanks. I am intriqued with this part:
This may help. My own preference is to just put all US citizens in a single pool and then let the competition begin.

The free-market solution is failing, that's exactly why we need health care reform.

The political dynamic of this whole thing is especially interesting to me. I've been following it in the blogs. It's clear what Obama is doing. This business of inviting the Republicans to a "bipartisan" health care summit is the most transparent BS -- and that's not a criticism.

Fact is, both houses of Congress have already passed comprehensive health-care reform bills. The hard part in the Senate of getting it past the filibuster has already been done. There's no legitimate reason in the world why amending the Senate bill to meet House approval has to jump that same hurdle all over again. The differences between the House and Senate versions are mostly budget-affecting provisions and so amenable to correction in the Senate through reconciliation. Once the Senate does that, the corrected bill can go to the House, pass, and be on the president's desk the next day. In terms of Congressional procedure, it's practically a done deal. There's no need to have the Republicans on board at all.

So why is he doing this? For the sake of the election, of course. Why else? He gets to put on a little song and dance. He gets to say, "OK, we have this problem, Republicans, and you don't like our solution. So let's hear your solution. Maybe you've got a better one." And he can sound all bipartisan and conciliatory, knowing damned well that they not only don't have a solution but don't want one.

So the Republicans get put on display as the Party With No Answers At All, very publicly. And then the Democrats pass the bill, and say, "See, we tried to cooperate with the Republicans but they were unwilling to work with us, but we managed to do this anyway. Aren't we hot shit?"

Of course the Republicans know this, and of course they're complaining that the whole thing's a sham, and of course they're right, it is. Gods bless President Obama. It's exactly the sham they deserve and we need.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You've pretty much captured it IMO except of course that the GOP does actually have some ideas that might actually cut HC costs, but I doubt those ideas are anything that you're interested in. It doesn't really matter because you've made your opinions quite clear: It's a sham!

The only ideas they've expressed so far are tort reform and nationwide insurance sales, and both of those are in the plan as the president has presented it. By themselves, neither of those would do much to solve the problem and the second would make things worse by allowing insurance companies to disregard state regulations. Along with national-level insurance regulations and the exchange idea, though, it's fairly harmless, and tort reform is not a bad idea as far as it goes -- it just won't go very far, since the portion of health care cost affected by lawsuits and malpractice insurance premiums is very, very small.

I think there's a LOT of room in this bill for improvement. I'm not happy about the fact that it does nothing to curb the cost of pharmaceuticals, for instance. I would have liked to see the doors flung wide for Americans to buy prescription drugs from foreign countries, which would then force prices down for U.S. customers. I would also have liked to see the public option included (although that's not as big a deal if you read the fine print on the proposal, since the exchanges would by law have to include at least one non-profit option). But these are not things the GOP is likely to advocate.

If you look at the two things the GOP wants to include, it's clear why they do. The cross-state-lines business would let insurance companies escape state regulations that currently limit how rapacious they can be. Tort reform would provide some limited benefit to medical service providers, but mainly it would slap the noses of the trial lawyers who tend to be Democratic constituents and contributors. The Republicans as the party is now constituted aren't interested in trying to reduce the cost of medical insurance (that would hurt one of their main constituents and contributors), nor are they interested in extending coverage to the currently-uninsured. Since the cost of health care coverage and the fact that a lot of people don't have it are the two parts of the problem with the U.S. health care system, that means the Republicans aren't interested in solving the problem. Some of them have even said that explicitly.

If the 4T plays-out as expected, I suspect that the increases in the responsibilities of Federal Institutions will result in their lack of functioning, if not failure altogether.

On the contrary, we see lack of functioning, and very nearly failure altogether, NOW, and it's BECAUSE the federal government is not allowed to exercise responsibility in areas it needs to. Then again, there are some areas where what you say is true, but mostly they involve foreign policy. I expect we'll see some cutbacks in the military and in foreign interventionism.

There is no reason at all to believe that the health care reform bill will make things worse or less functional. In fact, it's hard to see how it could, given how bad things are now. There is no worse approach to America's health-care crisis than failure to address it.

Thank you for your honesty. That's something, at least. PoC67

I do try to be honest.

I saw a video recently in which Arianna Huffington during a discussion panel with several other people blasted the idea of "bipartisanship" and pointed out that every major reform in U.S. history had occurred at the end of a very partisan struggle, and she was right. The idea that a 4T is a time of national unity and bringing all sides together has no basis in history. Crisis eras are polarizing and involve vicious conflict. We may hope to avoid the levels of violence faced in the last three, but the dynamic is always no-holds-barred struggle in which one side wins and the other loses.

I want my side to win. I want the other side to lose. I am tired of the Democrats, who include far too many Silent Gen remnants, bending over and grabbing their ankles. It's time to kick some ass. I'm glad to see that Obama at least is ready to do that. I hope the other progressives in his party follow suit.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

... I saw a video recently in which Arianna Huffington during a discussion panel with several other people blasted the idea of "bipartisanship" and pointed out that every major reform in U.S. history had occurred at the end of a very partisan struggle, and she was right. The idea that a 4T is a time of national unity and bringing all sides together has no basis in history. Crisis eras are polarizing and involve vicious conflict. We may hope to avoid the levels of violence faced in the last three, but the dynamic is always no-holds-barred struggle in which one side wins and the other loses.

I want my side to win. I want the other side to lose. I am tired of the Democrats, who include far too many Silent Gen remnants, bending over and grabbing their ankles. It's time to kick some ass. I'm glad to see that Obama at least is ready to do that. I hope the other progressives in his party follow suit.

I'm not convinced that this is what's happening. It may be, and I certainly hope it is, but the experience of the past year gives me pause. Typically, Obama doesn't rock the boat. Oil-on-troubled-waters is more his style.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

BR: From http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2358
So far in the 2010 election cycle, the Democrats’ fund-raising advantage has increased. The health sector has sent 59% of its contributions to Democrats and 41% to Republicans; the insurance industry has split its contributions 54% for Democrats and 46% for Republicans.

I'm aware of that. I see it as having had an effect, too, because there were Democrats in Congress who watered down many of the original proposals. However, it's a matter of degree. The Democrats (or some of them) aren't doing enough, but the Republicans don't seem to want to do anything except a few measures that would actually worsen the problem. I see a lot of the contributions made to the Dems by the health-insurance industry as pure damage control. Unfortunately, it was at least partially effective.

If I am allowed to go it alone, you can do whatever you please. If not, there's always Expatriotism(like my Lost brethren). PoC67

Unfortunately, nobody can be allowed to go it alone or the whole thing will collapse. It would be like allowing people to opt out of taxes, except that in that case everyone would do it, while in the case of health care reform only those who aren't in need of medical care would, and that would push the cost up for everyone who does need it. The cost of health care is so high that the only way to deal with it is to socialize it.

Sure, you can leave the country. But I hope you realize that if you do what a lot of the Lost did and go to Paris, you'll enjoy the benefits of a health-care system a good deal more heavily socialized than what is proposed here.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Boomers are in charge of this or are doing it alone. It wasn't Boomer votes that put Obama in the White House and a large Democratic majority in Congress. The Millennials aren't victims here. They're the ones who made the decision. They're also the ones who are, primarily, doing the grass-roots new-media agitating that has recently given the Democrats a backbone. See my most recent blog entry. Also, check out the discussion at Daily KOS. Very Millennial-heavy.

M&L: I understand you skepticism, but this time I don't think you're right. The political maneuvering going on is pretty transparent. Whatever else you can say about Obama, he's good at that kind of thing. The "bipartisanship" here is all for show. After going through the motions, the bill will be passed, almost certainly without a single Republican vote.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

BR: The "only" way to deal with it is to socialize it? That is one "solution" I assume. Would it be more apt to say that it is the solution that some(and you)desire whether it's successful or not?

When I say "socialize" I mean collectivize the cost, spread it around so that everyone bears a small portion of it, including well people. A government-run single-payer system would do that (in my opinion that would be best), but so does universal privately-run health insurance. And yes, that's the only way.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

The free-market solution is failing, that's exactly why we need health care reform.

The fundamental problem is that we have never had a true national health care system. The current system for federal govt workers works reasonably well with Govt oversight and then competition among the providers( including companies and employee associations). The current approach needs improvement, but I would not call it a 'free-market' approach. It has grown since WWII in a random fashion, starting with wage/price controls.

Originally Posted by radind

The fundamental problem is that we have never had a true national health care system. The current system for federal govt workers works reasonably well with Govt oversight and then competition among the providers( including companies and employee associations). The current approach needs improvement, but I would not call it a 'free-market' approach. It has grown since WWII in a random fashion, starting with wage/price controls.

For the worst. When your health-care costs more than your mortgage something is really wrong with free-market solutions that have been happening since Nixon.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

For the worst. When your health-care costs more than your mortgage something is really wrong with free-market solutions that have been happening since Nixon.

We have a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes a free-market.
-I maintain that the current health care monster is not a free -market.