Obama Care - An Atrocity!

[Mark@Sea]

Ralph, you couldn't reinforce your argument with a 4x4 and a roll of duct tape. If by some chance you come up with intelligent debate, you really should let us know. It would be a refreshing change from your usual mixture of insult, stale communist slogans, and debunked BS. The casual insult of TGO'ers was pretty much the last straw for me. Quit wasting my time, troll.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[Guest redbarron06]

Go easy on Ralph, guys. He's just a bass player; he's loster than Janet March...

I am not trying to be hard on the guy but as a person with 20+ years of dealing with the federal health care system, I can tell you that the last people that you want running you "get well" is the government. When I was active duty military I would have gone to a civilan doctor if I had the choice. I have also been to some of these other contries were they have gov health care. People that only have 3 months to live without a specific treatment have a 14 month wait for that treatment. That is why they come here to get it done. Like I said before I can not tell you what the perfect answer is, I doubt there is one, but getting the government involved is not even a step in the right direction. And the very first argument against it is in the Constitution. The federal govt has absolutly NO authority to start this. None. There is a reason why.

[Steelharp]

I know. There's just no changing his mind. He was a Reagan republican; I don't know when or why he snapped. It was total, though, obviously. Well, not total; he does love his guns.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Betsey McCaughey is a tool the healthcare industry. She's one of the kooks promoting the lie that Obama wants to use healthcare to kill off old people.

Fred Thompson's just trying to get rich like Rush....he'll put anybody on the air to entertain his audience.

What do you think we should do to fix our broken healthcare system?

cquote]

There are more than a couple of issues that are not adequately addressed by the talking-heads/sound bite world nor have I heard any plan presented by the communicator in chief; only admonitions to pass the bill - which I would be a hundred dollars to a dog poop the man has not read.

First, the total number of uninsured is overstated. The popular number of 47 million that is tossed around includes approximately 16 million who are eligible for insurance but opt not to use it (thru their employer). Many are young (and healthy) and are thus waiting to get more established and willing to roll the dice, i.e. not having a serious injury/illness.

Second, the whole idea that insurance companies equal automatic evil, government programs automatic better. This plays well, because we like to believe in villians and heros (look at popular entertainment). But it obscures the real issues. Markets will drive it and if people want better rates, take some health responsibility; can't fix genetics or accidents, but we can dang sure not eat that triple bacon cheeseburger, followed by a six pack and 10 smokes.

The solution that would be most tenable for "fixing" healthcare will be found somewhere in the middle I think, but anyone who wants to rely on yet another unfunded government program is, in my humble opinion, looking up the wrong avenue and drinking something more than kool aid.

There are some states, Utah among them I believe, who have made huge progress in reforming healthcare, while saving money and making good choices for all parties; we would be well served to look to those programs for any national initiatives.

Last thing I will say and this ties back into what I stated about choice - the State of Tennessee is one of, if not the most, medicated state in the U.S.

I know several people with diabetes - Type I and II - who, rather than managing their disease (and I am not a doctor, but danged sure think diabetes is nothing to mess with) thru diet, exercise, and smart life style choices - think they can eat pretty much what they want, make little to no effort to lose weight, and just say (and I have heard it with my own ears), Oh, I'll just up my meds!!! Simply stunning.

And think of cigarette smokers - no way anyone with a lick of sense can not think that is not good for a person. I smoked for over 25 years and quit cold turkey so I know it is very very hard to quit; but after I quit, my Dad was still smoking and COPD got him.

We as a country need to slow this mad rush to make so many changes in this effort to feel good and i guess be able to say, "oh, look at us, we are SAVING THE WORLD"...but it's at the cost of growing deficits...and this crazy deficit spending started years ago, but the current bunch in control sure seems to want to set a record.

Oh - sorry, one more thing: it would be nice to think someone voting has actually read the plan.

Edited August 1, 2009 by 3pugguy

[Mark@Sea]

I don't care what he plays with - but if he's going to do it in public, I for one have no interest in watching.

[Guest ScottD]

A quick internet search reveals he enjoys trolling internet forums. If I was you dumb TGOers (in the thoughts of Ralphie), I'd ignore his liberal ass and move along.

[Oh Shoot]

... but we can dang sure not eat that triple bacon cheeseburger,...

There's really nothing wrong with a triple bacon cheeseburger, if you leave off the empty carbs of the bun and fries, the whatever flour/sugar tart for dessert, and the sugared drink.

- OS

[Guest SUNTZU]

That's why I don't mow the yard anymore. Its a liberal buffet for when this bill passes. MOOOOO!

[Steelharp]

A quick internet search reveals he enjoys trolling internet forums. If I was you dumb TGOers (in the thoughts of Ralphie), I'd ignore his liberal ass and move along.

I googled him, and I only got this board...? What did you find?

[Guest ScottD]

I googled him, and I only got this board...? What did you find?

Found him on THR and GOPUSA, I'm a google ninja .

Edited August 1, 2009 by ScottD

[Guest 3pugguy]

There's really nothing wrong with a triple bacon cheeseburger, if you leave off the empty carbs of the bun and fries, the whatever flour/sugar tart for dessert, and the sugared drink.

- OS

Well, that was (is) the premise of the Atkins Diet, but you know my point; people are digging their graves with a fork and it doesn't matter a tinkers dam what kind of healthcare plan there is for people who take no responsibility for themselves. I am honest with myself and know I need to lose weight, but I am not on a bunch of medicines, either, at 52 (knocking on wood) and all my numbers are great.

But thanks to myself, I am now hungry and sitting here thinking of a cheeseburger!

[Guest SUNTZU]

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform

Reparations By Way Of Health Care Reform

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Legislation: Still believe in post-racial politics? Read the health care bill. It's affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.

President Obama is on the record as being officially opposed to reparations for slavery. But as with other issues, you have to sift through his eloquent rhetoric and go beyond the teleprompter to get at what he really means.

His opposition to reparations is based on the fact they don't go far enough. In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

Never mind there are those who thought we apologized at Gettysburg and that an African-American president is a recognition of the hard work that has been done.

At a press conference with minority journalists last fall, candidate Obama was pressed for more detail on his reparations position. He said he was more interested in taking action to help people who were just getting by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would benefit from reparations.

"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionally affect people of color, because they are disproportionally uninsured," Obama said.

This may be a goal of Obama's health care plan: the redress of health care disparities on the basis of race and the punishment of those believed to be responsible, such as greedy doctors who perform unnecessary tests and procedures and greedy insurance and drug companies lusting for profits.

In his health care plan published during the campaign, it was written that Obama and Biden will "challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated this when she addressed the NAACP this month, saying: "It is a moral issue for our country to reduce health disparities, whether in diabetes, asthma, heart disease, cancer and HIV/AIDS."

The racial grievance industry under health care reform could be calling the shots in the emergency room, the operating room, the medical room, even medical school. As Terence Jeffrey, editor at large of Human Events puts it, not only our wealth, but also our health will be redistributed.

Under the Democrats' plans, if a medical school wants to receive contracts and grants from the federal government, it must operate under a quota system and be able to prove it. On Page 909, the House bill states: "In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the (HHS) secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Jeffrey points out that in the name of eliminating "disparities" in health care, under the House version of the bill, payment to providers under the public option becomes a sort of Pavlovian reward and punishment system.

"The secretary," says Section 224, "shall design and implement the payment mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner that — (1) seeks to . . . reduce health disparities (including racial, ethnic and other disparities)."

Everyone deserves the best health care and doctors. That will not happen under a plan that emphasizes affirmative action and leads to rationing.

As the case of the New Haven, Conn., firefighters shows, reverse discrimination is wrong and dangerous.

Whether it's that firefighter coming up the ladder, or the brain surgeon about to remove that tumor in your head, everybody wants that person to be the best regardless of race or ethnicity — and not admitted by quotas and promoted by political correctness.

That's what all Americans are owed.

[Guest redbarron06]

Intresting angle.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Ralph, you couldn't reinforce your argument with a 4x4 and a roll of duct tape. If by some chance you come up with intelligent debate, you really should let us know. It would be a refreshing change from your usual mixture of insult, stale communist slogans, and debunked BS. The casual insult of TGO'ers was pretty much the last straw for me. Quit wasting my time, troll.

"Most of us associate with people who agree with us on many issues. Birds of

a feather do, empirically, tend to flock together. But this is especially important to

authoritarians, who have not usually thought things out, explored possibilities,

considered alternate points of view, and so on, but acquired their beliefs from the

authorities in their lives. They then maintain their beliefs against new threats by

seeking out those authorities, and by rubbing elbows as much as possible with people

who have the same beliefs." from "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer (available free online as a pdf.--interesting reading about the biggest threat to our nation)

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

I know. There's just no changing his mind. He was a Reagan republican; I don't know when or why he snapped. It was total, though, obviously. Well, not total; he does love his guns.

Carter disappointed and embarrased me almost as much as W--ex.

his faux pas at the '80 Convention referring to Hubert Horatio Humphrey as "Hubert Horatio Hornblower." He didn't know how Washington worked and surrounded him with his Georgia posse who didn't either.

He had some good ideas (reducing dependence on foreign oil) but didn't have a clue how to implement them.

Reagan was articulate, familiar and personally likeable. Having just entered a high tax bracket, I loved the idea that we could cut taxes and actually bring in more revenue. RR promised to elimate the deficit in 3 years....instead it actually tripled. When David Stockman, one of his supply-side gurus announced in the early 80's that it wouldn't work I began to have my doubts. Reagan himself confirmed them by raising taxes in the late 80's...higher than they are now BTW On the foreign policy front, he no doubt helped bankrupt the Soviets and bring about their downfall with his "star wars" proposal--without even having to build it. He also had the good sense to get out of Lebanon rather than go to war after our Marine barracks was bombed, though at the time I wanted revenge. Today I still like Reagan as a person, and I think it's important that our President be persuasive and articulate and have some wit. Obama's the first since RR to come close. Today his support of stemcell research and other fairly moderate positions on social issues would probably preclude him from success in the GOP.

....and I still love my guns, and my friends...

[Mark@Sea]

The more we find out about this bill (atrocity is a good description) the more it sounds like the end of medical care in this country.

Sure going to upset a lot of foreigners, who came to this country for livesaving care because their socialist systems couldn't provide it at all, or couldn't provide it in time.

It might as well be a declaration of war against the citizenry.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[Guest SUNTZU]

How come Chris Dodd isn't going to Canada for surgery to show solidarity with the masses of people clamoring for free health care? Maybe because they suck and he'd have to wait til the cancer is in its later stages and the survivability rate drops.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

How come Chris Dodd isn't going to Canada for surgery to show solidarity with the masses of people clamoring for free health care? Maybe because they suck and he'd have to wait til the cancer is in its later stages and the survivability rate drops.

Chris Dodd already has government (socialist) healthcare as a member of congress courtesy of you and me...kinda like what Obama wants everybody to have.

I've had second thoughts on this issue after reading this article--

Jonathan Alter

What’s Not to Like?

Reform? Why do we need health-care reform? Everything is just fine the way it is.

Jul*31, 2009

*Go ahead, shoot me. I like the status quo on health care in the United States. I've got health insurance and I don't give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don't. Obama and Congress must be stopped. No bill! I'm better off the way things are.

I'm with that woman who wrote the president complaining about "socialized medicine" and added: "Now keep your hands off my Medicare." That's the spirit!

Why should I be entitled to the same insurance that members of Congress get? Blue Dogs need a lot of medical attention to treat their blueness. I'm just a regular guy and definitely deserve less.

I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won't be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners' insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I'd face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs—sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That's what you call a "post-existing condition."

I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today. It meant that my health-insurance plan (one of the better ones, by the way) only covered about 75 percent of the cost of my cutting-edge treatment. That's as it should be—face cancer and shell out huge amounts of money at the same time. Nice.

I like the "lifetime limits" that many policies have today. Missed the fine print on that one, did you? It means that after you exceed a certain amount of reimbursement, you don't get anything more from the insurance company. That's fair.

Speaking of fair, it seems fair to me that cost-cutting bureaucrats at the insurance companies—not doctors—decide what's reimbursable. After all, the insurance companies know best.

Yes, the insurance company status quo rocks. I learned recently about something called the "loading fees" of insurance companies. That's how much of every health-care dollar gets spent by insurance companies on things other than the medical care—paperwork, marketing, profits, etc. According to a University of Minnesota study, up to 47 percent of all the money going into the health-insurance system is consumed in "loading fees." Even good insurance companies spend close to 30 percent on nonmedical stuff. Sweet.

The good news is that the $8,000 a year per family that Americans pay for their employer-based health insurance is heading up! According to the Council of Economic Advisers, it will hit $25,000 per family by 2025. The sourpusses who want health-care reform say that's "unsustainable." Au contraire.

And how could the supporters of these reform bills believe in anything as stupid as a "public option"? Do they really believe that the health-insurance cartel deserves a little competition to keep them honest? Back in the day, they had a word for competition. A bad word. They called it capitalism. FedEx versus the U.S. Postal Service, CNN versus PBS—just because it's government-backed doesn't mean you can't compete against it. If they believed in capitalism, the insurance companies would join the fray and compete.

I'm glad they don't. I prefer the status quo, where the for-profit insurance companies suck at the teat of the federal government. Corporate welfare's what we've got, and it's a damn good system. Through a wonderful program called Medicare Advantage, the insurance companies receive hundreds of billions of dollars in fees to administer a program that the government is already running. Don't touch that baby. You'd be messing with the handiwork of some fine lobbyists.

You know what part of the status quo I like best? It's a longstanding system for paying doctors called "fee for service." That's where doctors get paid for each procedure they perform, as if my auto dealer got paid separately for the steering wheel, brakes, and horn instead of for the car. Fee-for-service is why the medical care at that doc-in-a-box at my mall is so superior to the Mayo Clinic or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where the doctors are on salary. Who would want to mess with that?

OK, if you really press me, I'm for one change. It's the one that Republicans trot out to prove they're "reformers," too. We could save our whole system if we just capped malpractice awards. Two of our biggest states—California and Texas—did it a few years ago and nothing has changed there, but who cares? It sounds good.

So tell your congressmen and senators when they're home for the summer recess that it's too soon to address this issue. We've only been debating it for 97 years, since Theodore Roosevelt put national health insurance in the Bull Moose Party platform of 1912. We've only had 745 congressional hearings on the subject (I made that number up, but it's got to be close). That's not enough! Let's study this problem more before we do anything about it.

Did I say "problem"? Who said there was a problem? Not me. I like the status quo.

© 2009

[Guest SUNTZU]

So under the new plan Chris Dodd and the homeless guy down the street get the same treatment? BS, and you know it, Ralph. "He's a Congressman, for Christ's sakes..." One word, triage. The Congressman will get preferential treatment over the "citizens." Deny it if you want, in your heart you know its true.

Also, a good friend of mine survived lung cancer. He also has health insurance. Throw some links up to your articles in the future, if you don't mind.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

So under the new plan Chris Dodd and the homeless guy down the street get the same treatment? BS, and you know it, Ralph. "He's a Congressman, for Christ's sakes..." One word, triage. The Congressman will get preferential treatment over the "citizens." Deny it if you want, in your heart you know its true.

Also, a good friend of mine survived lung cancer. He also has health insurance. Throw some links up to your articles in the future, if you don't mind.

Quite a dark, cynical, view of the world you have there.

Look at it this way--Can you imagine the political fallout if we had universal healthcare and it could be shown that congressmen were getting preferential treatment? That wouldn't last long, nor would the congresspeople who allowed it. That's political reality in the 21st century.

My personal feeling is that congress should not be getting healthcare as part of their pay package. They should have to deal with the insurance companies just like the rest of us do. The problems would get fixed real quick.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Quite a dark, cynical, view of the world you have there.

Look at it this way--Can you imagine the political fallout if we had universal healthcare and it could be shown that congressmen were getting preferential treatment? That wouldn't last long, nor would the congresspeople who allowed it. That's political reality in the 21st century.

My personal feeling is that congress should not be getting healthcare as part of their pay package. They should have to deal with the insurance companies just like the rest of us do. The problems would get fixed real quick.

I prefer realistic view. You don't think it happens? I find that to be quite an happy hippy way of looking at the world. All those lobbyists and NOT A ONE of those congressmen get preferential treatment. I wish I was a "Friend of Angelo." Finally, if that is your personal feeling about congress, why don't you root for changing that instead of cheering for exacerbating the problem?

[Guest redbarron06]

Ralph,

You have still not answered a couple of simple questions

1. Where in the constiution does it give Congress, or POTUS to authority to regulate the healthcare industry?

2. Why should those that have jobs, work hard, sve money, and happen to get sucessfull in life, be required to provide ANYTHING to those that dont?

[Mark@Sea]

Shoot, I'm still trying to figure out where the clause that allows takeover of auto industries, banks, insurance and brokerage companies is hidden. No doubt right next to the clause that gives POTUS the right to choose CEO's over and above stockholders and the board of directors.

[Guest SUNTZU]

You need better reading glasses, Mark.

Hypnosis Goggles Hypnotizing Glasses Hypnosis Sunglasses fro... - Polyvore

[Mark@Sea]

Sorry, SunTzu, when it comes to hysterically funny, Ralph has you beat. And he ain't even tryin'!