Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
1DugsBooks
This topic was touched on in the "disappointed in Obama" thread but in an effort to educate myself I would like to address the issue individually.
I am extremely disappointed in the democrats not being able to actualize a health care policy offering a federal option as was the mandate given by Obama's election. They have squandered a great opportunity given by the Bush Administration's horrid performance resulting in most any non republican running being elected.
My states {North Carolina} own democratic representatives voted against several of the bills for various reasons such as "home health care" and "Medicaid/Medicare" possible reductions {which I just heard have over 4 billion in fraudulent claims a year}.
I thought they could come up with something that would address the problems of:
>40 million? not insured and rising with unemployment
>"pre existing conditions" not covered whenever you do get insurance
> "holes" in coverage for drugs, medical care, and income levels.
I have a personal stake in this and find it disgusting that my tax money is being used to subsidize research and development of drugs and medical techniques that will never be available to myself or millions of people, just wealthier employees of "corporate welfare" companies with gold plated health care plans.
Meanwhile, idiots at arranged for media events are yelling "socialism" when most of their medicare and Medicaid are already dependent on the government - its "socialism" if federal care helps someone other than themselves.
"How to pay" for better insurance is a problem left over from the Bush admin.s lie based invasion of Iraq, to solve a problem in Afghanistan. A competent congress could fashion a long term plan to do this, all other civilized countries in the world have.
I am extremely disappointed in the democrats not being able to actualize a health care policy offering a federal option as was the mandate given by Obama's election. They have squandered a great opportunity given by the Bush Administration's horrid performance resulting in most any non republican running being elected.
My states {North Carolina} own democratic representatives voted against several of the bills for various reasons such as "home health care" and "Medicaid/Medicare" possible reductions {which I just heard have over 4 billion in fraudulent claims a year}.
I thought they could come up with something that would address the problems of:
>40 million? not insured and rising with unemployment
>"pre existing conditions" not covered whenever you do get insurance
> "holes" in coverage for drugs, medical care, and income levels.
I have a personal stake in this and find it disgusting that my tax money is being used to subsidize research and development of drugs and medical techniques that will never be available to myself or millions of people, just wealthier employees of "corporate welfare" companies with gold plated health care plans.
Meanwhile, idiots at arranged for media events are yelling "socialism" when most of their medicare and Medicaid are already dependent on the government - its "socialism" if federal care helps someone other than themselves.
"How to pay" for better insurance is a problem left over from the Bush admin.s lie based invasion of Iraq, to solve a problem in Afghanistan. A competent congress could fashion a long term plan to do this, all other civilized countries in the world have.
2Illiniguy71
I believe all the things you do, but we seem to be a minority in this country.
3jjwilson61
Some Mass. idiot said on NPR that he was usually a Democratic sort of guy but he felt it was time for a change. It was all I could do to keep from throwing the computer out the door. We've had one year of Obama and a Democratic majority after 8 very long years of Bush incompetence and the Mass. voters have decided that that's all we get? Idiot.
4JNagarya
The MA "independents" who swarmed the voting booths for Brown are FOX/Limbaugh drones. Teaparty loons. (It's interesting that one Boston TeeVee statiton -- at which Brown's wife apparently works -- referred to the third party candidate Kennedy as the "tea party candidate" (well, yeah, in that he's a "Libertarian" loon).
But at the same time the station was running a pro-Brown ad that was proudly and louded paid for by the teaparty faction of loons.
Brown has 100 per cent approval from the NRA on his voting record, which has been 96 per cent Republican. That's how far to the far-right lunatic fringe he actually is behind his fake moderation. And he represents the anti-health care insurance reform "movement," NOT change toward more substantial needed reform.
But at the same time the station was running a pro-Brown ad that was proudly and louded paid for by the teaparty faction of loons.
Brown has 100 per cent approval from the NRA on his voting record, which has been 96 per cent Republican. That's how far to the far-right lunatic fringe he actually is behind his fake moderation. And he represents the anti-health care insurance reform "movement," NOT change toward more substantial needed reform.
5JNagarya
#2 --
We aren't a minority; we are the vast majority. The difference is that the insurance monopoly, which receives billions per year in gov't -- taxpayer -- subsidies it clearly does not need -- owns the microphone and the volume control.
We aren't a minority; we are the vast majority. The difference is that the insurance monopoly, which receives billions per year in gov't -- taxpayer -- subsidies it clearly does not need -- owns the microphone and the volume control.
6Lunar
#5: The difference is that the insurance monopoly, which receives billions per year in gov't -- taxpayer -- subsidies it clearly does not need -- owns the microphone and the volume control.
Of course they need those subsidies. How else would these corporate dinosaurs maintain that monopoly (actually, an oligopoly) which you speak of? Just look at what happened in Massachusetts with the RomneyCare fiasco. The left-wing wet dream ended up screwing over healthcare royally by, among other things, rewarding the oligopolists that progressives pretend to despise.
Of course they need those subsidies. How else would these corporate dinosaurs maintain that monopoly (actually, an oligopoly) which you speak of? Just look at what happened in Massachusetts with the RomneyCare fiasco. The left-wing wet dream ended up screwing over healthcare royally by, among other things, rewarding the oligopolists that progressives pretend to despise.
7JNagarya
#6 --
From the "Globe" article:
"Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable."
That's how Republicans deliberately work to show that gov't "doesn't work": they deliberately make it dysfunctional -- then say, "See!? We told you gov't doesn't work!"
As for "MassHealth": the most it did was "HMO" the system. During the campaign someone named "Bill Binnie" in an ad for Brown claimed that the current HRC would eliminate one's right to choose one's own doctor. Despite the rhetoric on that issue, that "right" disappeared during the 1980s, and hasn't been restored by RomneyCare.
And despite all the assertions to the contrary, the "independents" who voted for Brown are FOX/Limbaugh dupes who oppose HRC altogether; they are varying degrees of teabaggers. They are, in a word, stupid.
Brown even accused Coakley -- of all things -- of being "aligned with the HMOs and insurance companies," when in fact he's their poster boy.
But no: "RomneyCare" was not a left-wing project: it was a Republican project initiated by wealthy right-wing Republican Romney.
From the "Globe" article:
"Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable."
That's how Republicans deliberately work to show that gov't "doesn't work": they deliberately make it dysfunctional -- then say, "See!? We told you gov't doesn't work!"
As for "MassHealth": the most it did was "HMO" the system. During the campaign someone named "Bill Binnie" in an ad for Brown claimed that the current HRC would eliminate one's right to choose one's own doctor. Despite the rhetoric on that issue, that "right" disappeared during the 1980s, and hasn't been restored by RomneyCare.
And despite all the assertions to the contrary, the "independents" who voted for Brown are FOX/Limbaugh dupes who oppose HRC altogether; they are varying degrees of teabaggers. They are, in a word, stupid.
Brown even accused Coakley -- of all things -- of being "aligned with the HMOs and insurance companies," when in fact he's their poster boy.
But no: "RomneyCare" was not a left-wing project: it was a Republican project initiated by wealthy right-wing Republican Romney.
8Lunar
#7: That's how Republicans deliberately work to show that gov't "doesn't work": they deliberately make it dysfunctional -- then say, "See!? We told you gov't doesn't work!"
That's how Progressives deliberately work to show that government programs would somehow function correctly if only their own side were in charge. Instead of blaming the bad policies at hand they blame "right-wingers" like... Ted Kennedy?
As for "MassHealth": the most it did was "HMO" the system.
Which is what Ted Kennedy had been doing since the '70s. It's not about party affiliation. It's the policies.
During the campaign someone named "Bill Binnie" in an ad for Brown claimed that the current HRC would eliminate one's right to choose one's own doctor. Despite the rhetoric on that issue, that "right" disappeared during the 1980s, and hasn't been restored by RomneyCare.
Claming you can just tweak the system to run correctly is also another variant of the "if only OUR people were in charge..." argument. Besides, incorporating a "right" to choose your own doctor isn't going to mean squat when the so-called "reforms" are pushing doctors to leave the state or the practice entirely (as they in fact are).
And despite all the assertions to the contrary, the "independents" who voted for Brown are FOX/Limbaugh dupes who oppose HRC altogether; they are varying degrees of teabaggers. They are, in a word, stupid.
Of course they are. And when it comes to healthcare, the Progressives are worse. Character assasination is just a way to avoid the issue. Partisan rancor is not a coherent defense of bad policy.
That's how Progressives deliberately work to show that government programs would somehow function correctly if only their own side were in charge. Instead of blaming the bad policies at hand they blame "right-wingers" like... Ted Kennedy?
As for "MassHealth": the most it did was "HMO" the system.
Which is what Ted Kennedy had been doing since the '70s. It's not about party affiliation. It's the policies.
During the campaign someone named "Bill Binnie" in an ad for Brown claimed that the current HRC would eliminate one's right to choose one's own doctor. Despite the rhetoric on that issue, that "right" disappeared during the 1980s, and hasn't been restored by RomneyCare.
Claming you can just tweak the system to run correctly is also another variant of the "if only OUR people were in charge..." argument. Besides, incorporating a "right" to choose your own doctor isn't going to mean squat when the so-called "reforms" are pushing doctors to leave the state or the practice entirely (as they in fact are).
And despite all the assertions to the contrary, the "independents" who voted for Brown are FOX/Limbaugh dupes who oppose HRC altogether; they are varying degrees of teabaggers. They are, in a word, stupid.
Of course they are. And when it comes to healthcare, the Progressives are worse. Character assasination is just a way to avoid the issue. Partisan rancor is not a coherent defense of bad policy.
9JNagarya
"That's how Progressives deliberately work to show that government programs would somehow function correctly if only their own side were in charge. Instead of blaming the bad policies at hand they blame "right-wingers" like... Ted Kennedy?"
In other words, you oppose all policies and gov't.
And Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with RomneyCare.
And doctors are not leaving the state: they are living off the mega-research dollars pumped into university/research hospitals.
In other words, you oppose all policies and gov't.
And Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with RomneyCare.
And doctors are not leaving the state: they are living off the mega-research dollars pumped into university/research hospitals.
10Lunar
#9: In other words, you oppose all policies and gov't.
I was talking about what kind of rhetoric Progressives use to dodge the issues. If it's at all inaccurate, you may say so.
And Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with RomneyCare.
Yes he did. He lobbied his state's legislature for its passage.
And doctors are not leaving the state: they are living off the mega-research dollars pumped into university/research hospitals.
They are leaving. The Massachusetts Medical Society has been reporting this phenomenon and its resultant doctor shortage for years now. We could probably debate the reasons why they're closing up shop, but it still means that magical legalistic tweaks like a "right" to doctor choice doesn't mean squat.
I was talking about what kind of rhetoric Progressives use to dodge the issues. If it's at all inaccurate, you may say so.
And Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with RomneyCare.
Yes he did. He lobbied his state's legislature for its passage.
And doctors are not leaving the state: they are living off the mega-research dollars pumped into university/research hospitals.
They are leaving. The Massachusetts Medical Society has been reporting this phenomenon and its resultant doctor shortage for years now. We could probably debate the reasons why they're closing up shop, but it still means that magical legalistic tweaks like a "right" to doctor choice doesn't mean squat.
Devenir membre pour poster.
