We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, August 10. 2009
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 32% of voters favor the government providing single-payer health care, and 57% are opposed. The 32% in favor is primarily Democrats, 62% of whom are in favor, while 87% of Republicans and 63% of Independents are opposed.
That 32% in favor of a government-run health care scheme aren’t too convincing, as only 13% believe care would improve and only 24% think lower costs would result.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Simply put, one of the best ideas concerning universal healthcare I've ever heard. After this system flies for less than an year and then crashes and burns they will come to learn how foolish of an idea this is. They need to learn to stay out of other people's business and let us live.
Yes! Great idea. Harry Reid has to go on it first for a trial run.
Its a good thing that a single-payer plan is not being proposed then! If it was this poll would be relevant. Notice how the ignorant fearmongers translate "single-payer" into "government-run health care scheme" without skipping a beat. By far, this healthcare debate, has brought out and highlighted probably the dumbest people I have ever seen. Yes, TeaBaggers, Birthers, Deathers and Sarah Palin, I am talking about you.
Yes, give us Democrats the public option and we will take it. You GOP idiots can keep your current plan. That is what we are asking for: more choice, not less.
They'd complain that there weren't enough people enrolled in the plan and still campaign for universal coverage. A case of, we are only losing $1000 per member but we'll make it up on volume once everyone has joined. It is incredibly tough to get the brainblind to see.
Another way of saying that is it will not work until Democrats have complete control
You can believe in unicorns all you want, but Obama has been quite clear that his ultimate goal is a single-payer plan.
I am neither a leftard or GOP. Who’s gonna pay for MY health?
Y’all sound like a bunch of selfish pricks.
If the goal is choice, I want all my medical forms to be printed on rainbow paper and written with quill pens. That’s choice that employs both papermakers and scribes. It’s a win-win-win.
Or are you only for choice that suits YOUR desires. Fascist…
GOP idiots? Ha! Palooza, are you in college yet? Or do you spend all of your time in an echo chamber?
HR 3200 grandfathers in our insurance, until we change our insurance then we are forced into the government "option" by default IIRC. This would eliminate private insurance by attrition.
Obama has a long history of extolling the virtues of single-payer healthcare, and Barney Frank just got splattered all over the internet barking about how the government option is the only viable path to single-payer coverage.
This is a naked incrementalism, and the only people who do not see this are hard-core Kool-aid drinkers. This is not about options; it's about the elites looking down on citizens and trying to wrest control of 1/6th of the economy from us.
Again, not a single person has disputed that the plan on the table leaves private health insurance intact, even with a public option. That is simply a fact.
The rest is the stuff of small-minded, extremely ignorant and fearful people (I have never encountered a group more cowardly, more scared of change).
I too would love a single payor system, like many other industrialized (CAPITALIST) countries, since it is by far the most efficient and effective choice. In fact, unlike most of the ill-informed people on this board I have actually dealt with a single payor system (in Canada where my mom a grew up) and it works fine. People talk about deficits, well a single payor system would eliminate deficits. Nonetheless, I realize that it is not politically feasible, and am fine with a compromise.
That is what this plan is. It LITERALLY provides for more choice not less (another undisputed fact). Yet again, really ignorant people are saying it does not.
You people need to wise up and start acting based on logic, facts and intelligence as opposed to unmitigated fear. God forbid we ever get into a truly bad situation, you people would be running away in terror at even the slightest provocation.
"not a single person has disputed that the plan on the table leaves private health insurance intact, even with a public option. That is simply a fact. "
Palooza, you are a liar.
Barney Frank is on tape saying that the public option is the way to kill off private insurance: "I think the best way we’re going to get single payer – the only way – is to have a public option demonstrate its strength and power."
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) admitted as much, Obama's said as much in the past, and other "experts" have too.
Now that you have been exposed as a blatant liar, will you apologize?
So, here’s the solution to the debate: Let all who register as Democrats be automatically enrolled in a government-run health care plan, which must be fully supported by its members, and please leave the rest of us be to live.
While the sentiment of this thought is attractive, the practical outcome of this idea would be a debacle.
Can you say Trojan Horse?
The program would have heavy losses because (i) the government can't run anything profitably, (ii) premiums would be at below market rates, placing it in direct competition with private insurance that has to be cash flow positive to survive, (iii) employers would stop providing health benefits, driving more people into the program, (iv) fraud would increase, and (v) there would be no tort reform leaving lawyers to sue the ultimate deep pocket - the taxpayers. Of course, there are other reasons too.
Given that government is all about transfer payments, I see no way for this to a financially independent program. There are just too many rat holes with government. In the end, it would be just like every other government program. The losses would be funded by debt and higher taxes, perpetuating a system that could not nor should survive in the private sector. Non-participants would eventually pay for this ill-conceived adventure.
Democrats would continue to say that more people are needed to make the system workable.
Unfortunately, folks like Palooza have deluded themselves into thinking that there will be more choice. He must have missed the rationing part of socialized medicine. He certainly flunked economics.
"...highlighted probably the dumbest people I have ever seen. Yes, TeaBaggers, Birthers, Deathers and Sarah Palin, I am talking about you."
"The rest is the stuff of small-minded, extremely ignorant and fearful people (I have never encountered a group more cowardly, more scared of change"
"Yet again, really ignorant people are saying it does not."
"God forbid we ever get into a truly bad situation, you people would be running away in terror at even the slightest provocation."
Perfect. Nothing like winning over those you seek to enlighten with your vastly superior intelligence and understanding than by insulting them right off the bat. Way to go Palooza. What an idiot you are. You don't care about the issues, you just want to spew your hate and contempt for those who don't think exactly as you. Because, after all, you, like Obama, know what's best for all of us, right? Your interest, like Obama's, isn't the issue of health care. It's about power and control and the furtherance of the Fascist/Socialist dream. An elite few guiding the world to Utopian oblivion.
Efficient and effective, eh? Scroll down the blog a bit until you see those ugly cavity ridden teeth staring you in the face. There's your single payer system. There's your government run health care system.
Take a clue. I don't want government involved in my health care any more than it already is. Period.
You are misguided in virtually all that you say. You need to think versus regurgitate talking points.
The only reason government health care anywhere can exist is because it has the ability to tax its citizens to death. Losses drive out incompetent businesses in a capitalistic economy. Government programs never die because there is never a need to make a profit, surviving on the public teat.
I am not afraid of change. I want change. I want you and the government out of my life. I want a consumer directed health care system where there is price transparency and disclosure of measureable quality. I want HSAs. I want insurance across state lines.
Half of the problems in health care can be traced to government interference.
I think there are many who agree with me.
Signed by your afraid of change fellow American,
Luther, but did you hear what she said, "You people need to wise up and start acting based on logic, facts and intelligence..." Ah-hahahaha! Oh my God! This is how this kid thinks of herself...acting on logic. Hahaha.
The only thinking being applied by this one is Alinsky's rules for radicals. She lies and distorts and distracts and demonizes. That's the logic. This is about ideology, not function to Palooza. She doesn't care what we say...what she cares about is that we're ideological enemies.
Palooser! Hey sweetie. Every word that drips from your mouth is a joke. Don't worry though, mommy and daddy will rush to your aid if you scrape your knee playing revolutionary. Neo-marxists playing Che, the butcher of La Cabaña...it's cute really until the grown-ups have to step in and clean up your mess.
Check. Check. Not a single factual dispute of anything I wrote. Thanks for proving my point. Now if you would just stop spitting and drooling like a madman talking about "socialism" all would be well.
Again, not a single factual dispute. Just another general anti-government rant. Go live on an island if you don't want government. Hopefully you will find some unicorns there as well!
Again, not a single fact disputed. The plan leaves private insurance intact. Despite what the (typically out of context) Democrat boogeyman of the day man have said. The plan is the plan. Facts please, not fearmongering.
Last, has Medicare and Medicaid eliminated private insurance. Last I check those were government run plans. And in fact, the people that use them really like them. In fact my parents are using it now (my dad a big GOPer) after their health insurance was cut by the GM bankruptcy situation. It is funny to watch a GOPer embrace government insurance when all of a sudden they actually need it. Funny how that works.
This is like teasing a monkey with a cookie; it's kind of mean but it's wicked funny.
Yeah, facts...what were your facts again? Because I think you got them all wrong and ignored a whole bunch that we put out there.
Luther...watch this: Obama is a socialist, Palooser.
Hey Palooza, why do you talk just like a religious convert?
Perhaps when you actually present a fact it will be disputed. All I've seen so far is your biased rhetoric on what you say is fact. Did you scroll down and look at those rotten teeth as I suggested? Did you follow the link therein and see what the issue is with single point control of health care? I suspect not. As you're not interested in true facts, you're interested only in lies and deceit to further your political goals.
You're an ideologue pure and simple, just as Jephnol suggests. A not so bright one in point of fact.
"She lies and distorts and distracts and demonizes."
Yep, Jephnol. And we're all wasting our breath, or keystrokes, in discussing anything with her. But as you say, fun to tease the monkey on occasion.
Let's look at some "facts" you present:
"I too would love a single payor system, like many other industrialized (CAPITALIST) countries"
OK, now this is picky but industrialized does not = CAPITALIST. Picky, but relevant to your understanding of Venn diagrams and such. Now let's put this with
"Notice how the ignorant fearmongers translate "single-payer" into "government-run health care scheme" without skipping a beat"
Single-payer is "government-run". I take the following from Wiki (which is becoming overrun with leftist slant, but wth) on single-payer health care...
"The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law."
Notice "could be run by the government" (hint-hint) "but could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law". Well who do you suppose controls the "law"? It ain't the people funding the fund.
Please address these "undisputed" facts. Snowballs in Hell before apologies for the "need to wise up and start acting based on logic, facts and intelligence " comment, I'm sure. And we could open up a whole new topic on who the fear-mongers are (cough-algore-cough-cough).
Private insurance companies don't ration healthcare? Yes or No.
Very simple question. Let's see if you can answer it.
P.S. In fact, don't private health insurers have a profit incentive to ration care and deny coverage. In fact they have a duty to their shareholders to make the most money possible. Which part of these two sentences do you disagree with?
Rhetoric? The health care bill being debated does not create a single payor system. That is a fact. It does not eliminate private health care. That is a fact. It does not have "death panels" that is a fact. It does not euthanize old people. That is a fact.
Really it is not that hard.
The only people speaking from faith are those who insist that the health care plan is "single payor" and who insist (based on no concrete facts) that the health care plan eliminates private insurance. Neither of which are factually true. So, Jephnol who is engaging in religion here?
Yeah, thought so.
The health care plan does not create a single payor system, it does create a government run public option, but leaves private insurance intact. Again, undisputed. People have the CHOICE to use private insurers or the government run program. Whatever is best-suited for them.
You did not answer my question. YOU stated "fearmongers translate "single-payer" into "government-run health care scheme". I stated "Single-payer is "government-run". "
I did not address what is or is not in this 1000000000 page bill. I did not ask if the plan does or does not create a single payor/payer (whatever) system. Your point about CHOICE is a matter of now vs. later. I have a Social Security card that reads "Not to be used for identification purposes". Understand my point or must I connect the dots. And if you wish to dispute my dispution of your obfuscation, REPLY TO MY QUESTION.
Heard this earlier:
Today in the town hall meeting, Obama compared the government care plan to FedEx and UPS vs. the USPS. He said that FedEx and UPS (private) seem to be the better option and that it is USPS (govt) that is struggling, while the private option is succeeding.
I realize he was telling us we could "choose" the better option, but what does that say about how he thinks Obamacare will fare? And how our govt will continue to pour money into a system that is not succeeding?
I read a proverb this week.....do not try to instruct a mocker, for you will be insulted.
I don't believe that the paid trolls can collect their commissions if they admit logical minds prevail. So they keep the fight alive by insulting and repeating the email list of bullet points they received by Organizing for Whatever. Maggie's is a place where very intelligent minds discuss and even argue the virtues of their (often differing) positions. Trolls just come here to be fed and to log their hours.
Freedom trumps this health care bill. I'll take an early death before I trust governments ability to manage it, or participate in it.
I think we should tax unicorns to pay for this disaster.
Here are your fellow travellers Paloser:
“And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
“I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single-payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.”
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
“They have a sneaky strategy, the point of which is to put in place something that over time the natural incentives within its own market will move it to single-payer.”
Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein
“[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer.”
Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman
“Here’s the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system…But we’re not designing a system from scratch…And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered…I don’t want to wait for that perfect system…"
Duh, little monkey. Where did you think this is going?
You asked one question (one was a rhetorical question), which was in the form of a demand: "Please address these "undisputed" facts."
I addressed those "facts," indicating they were not facts, but rather patent untruths.
On the question of who controls "the law." Ultimlately it is the people -- they can vote out lawmakers they don't like. So, again the fearmongering is overblown and cowardly.
Again, you present not a single fact. Just an unrealized fear based on utter speculation, which is not reflected IN THE ACTUAL BILL or otherwise. The bill and its content are the FACTS. What you present is absolutely made up in your little head.
Hear, hear! I'm guilty of troll baiting, but I would like to say in my defense it's kind of a hobbie.
Didn't Obama community organize use Craigslist to hire agitators for Obamacare. That's my theory with little monkey Palozer.
Mental midget. Just because some people want a single payer system does not mean any of the following: (1) that this bill has one; or (2) that this bill will lead to one. When/if a Single Payer bill is moving through congress, then you can shout from the rough tops until you turn purple in the face. Until then, you are making crap up.
Deal with facts people. Keep your eye on the ball. Don't act like such scared, ignorant cowards.
What "unrealized fear" did I present? All that I have done is refute YOUR statement that single-payer is not government run.
As for "the people control the law", well, we'll just get into a symantical debate which you are incapable of understanding (see industrialized == CAPITALIST), but let me try to put this through your little head...The law applies to ALL of the people. The people who do not like the law still have to live with it (and more importantly, pay for it) anyway. This is the problem with any government-run "business". They become nearly impossible to stop and they suck up money with little-to-no responsibility for working efficiently. When private enterprise fails, it just goes away. The only people who suffer are those who CHOSE that option. The only people who pay for that failure are those that CHOSE (or voluntarily chose others who chose for them) to involve themselves financially with that enterprise. This is the root of the "Government is best which governs least" principle.
Deal with the facts yourself. Stop calling people who disagree with you stupid scared ignorant spitting drooling small-minded mental midget idiot cowards.
Deal with this fact, Paloser. Our National Debt is going to become a crippling factor for the future of our country. This bill will ADD $1 Trillion to that debt. Our nation is in danger of losing control of its own future.
This bill is about CONTROL.
I never said this bill specifies single-payer. It lends itself to single-payer by the attrition of individual insurance plans.
You are way too dense to get it that these major players on your side of the fence are saying this is what Obama is doing...setting the stage for single-payer. Take it up with them, Ploser.
Meanwhile, I'm believing the elite of your party who say this is what Obama is doing, setting the stage for single-payer.
Look, I'm sorry...who are you in the Democratic Party again? I don't see your logic in denying facts and histories. So, what are your inside credentials? Do you have more of the inside than Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Washington Post journalist Ezra Klein, or Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman?
Dance monkey boy, dance!
"Deal with facts people. Keep your eye on the ball. Don't act like such scared, ignorant cowards."
Pelosi, oops, I mean Palooza.
For a person who is continually bringing up 'facts' I find it interesting that you have yet to present a single one. All you've managed so far is assertion and insult.
Here, I'll help you out. You assert that...
"The health care bill being debated does not create a single payor system. That is a fact."
Now, if we were indeed debating facts instead of having to deal with your political ideology here's what you might have done; you would have gone to the HR bill itself, found the relevant portions by page and line numbers that support your contention and then presented that information in a comment. We could then have had a discussion based on the actual wording of the bill itself rather than taking on face value (which with your insults you have none) that your interpretation is the correct interpretation. See how that works?
Instead we receive insults from you. You're not worth it.
It's far from a fact. In fact, it's totally untrue. What in the world can you mean, Palooza, by "intact"?
Palooza, when Medicare was instituted, the government did not pass regulations requiring all future insurance to seniors to be issued through a public exchange on strictly limited terms, such that no new policies could be issued in existing pools. If they had, we'd have been objecting then, too.
"Intact" doesn't mean to me that all existing policies will be allowed to limp along for a few years, but no new policies can be written on those terms. That will drive the issuers out of business. What part of this do you disagree with? I can't understand where we're talking past each other. Can you offer us an explanation instead of a stubborn repetition of your belief that the bill leaves existing insurance "intact"?
From the level of vitriol on display, I suspect the only scared coward here is Paloser. Very scared, very cowardly. Very effing brain-dead.
Is that you Mrs. Pelosi?
I too would love a single payor system, like many other industrialized (CAPITALIST) countries, since it is by far the most efficient and effective choice. In fact, unlike most of the ill-informed people on this board I have actually dealt with a single payor system (in Canada where my mom a grew up) and it works fine.
Maybe the Canadian system does work fine, but when the NYT’s Paul Krugman conducted an informal poll of Canadians in the audience, he got a response he didn’t expect: most Canadians in the audience thought the Canadian health care system was terrible.
The Palooza's of the world are so lost and so unable to think for themselves. It's tragic for them - and for us.
If only they couldn't vote. That would help immensely.
And yes, that Krugman video was very funny.