Obama's Health Plan Bars Private Insurance After All

Archive. Enter at your own risk. Unmoderated thread.

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 08-16-2009 02:31 PM

For me, the proof that the "public option" was dead, and should die as an option was when Barack Obama made the (frankly) mistake of comparing the private insurance companies to Fed-Ex and UPS - you could not help but look and compare those two companies to the "public option" when it comes to their big government-run competitor. It was a stark reminder that this "public option" could prove to be very poorly run as compared to the privately operated companies (in fact, the look on his face, the click of the mouth, and the sudden hesitation right before he gets in to the comparison - you see it begin to register that this is about to be a bad choice of words).

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pj73rqEpr1A&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pj73rqEpr1A&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Last edited by Kaztronic on 08-16-2009 02:35 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 08-16-2009 02:34 PM

It was no mistake, he said it again yesterday in Colorado.

User avatar
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 08-16-2009 02:42 PM

It absolutely is a mistake. It is an awful, awful comparison, and a stark reminder of the fact that government does not always run nearly as efficient an operation as private companies do.

Let's see, I want to mail a package - I could go to the UPS store, Fed-Ex/Kinkos, or I could spend the next hour waiting in line at the grimy Post Office and check out the peeling paint on the ceiling to keep myself entertained (only to get up to the head of the line and be shuffled off to some other line - or deal with a numb, un-smiling person hidden behind bullet proof glass, who does not appear to be particularly inspired - much less happy to be there at work). When will my package arrive? "I don't know, what do you think we are? Fed-Ex?. Can you help me pack this? I am not sure what type of packing supplies are best to use to make sure this doesn't break in transit. "No, what do you think we are, UPS? Go to that other line to buy a box, pack it and then get back on this line." BTW, has anyone ever tried to "track" a package with the Post Office? LoL.

Guess which of the three options I am eliminating first?
Last edited by Kaztronic on 08-16-2009 02:52 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

Cherry Kelly
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Cherry Kelly » 08-16-2009 04:30 PM

Kaz -- I have been using Priority Mail through the USPS for well over 16 yrs now - it has changed and upgraded to a simpler tracking system. During that time - and thousands of customers - only two packages were ever "lost" - even though one package finally did show up (in that instance the delivery person had misread the apartment number). I also use FedEx and yes even they "lost" a package - but tracking it - was found - the new delivery person went to wrong address (kind of like a street that has an E and a W type thing). It was recovered and delivered properly.

Both tracking systems work quite well now - but sending a letter across town - egads -- I've sent out two letters - same day, one went out of state and arrived in three days - one went across the metro and took a full week. ?? ehh

However - that is totally aside from the topic - so back to topic...

The current House bill will be changed - we all know that - but will it be changed and posted so people can actually read and discuss it? THAT we don't know. We were promised these things would be posted what was it -- 5 days...ahead... so far that (promise) has been broken. We also should INSIST that every congress person voting should READ it first - and NOT just have some staff member read and summarize.

User avatar
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 08-16-2009 05:30 PM

Here is another thing about UPS & Fed-Ex versus the Post Office.

The game itself is rigged (to protect the government run option, and prevent true competition between the government & private industry) - another reason that this is frankly an awful comparison for Obama to be making (as that is the concern for a great many of, that the game will be rigged to ultimately kill off the competition).

UPS and Fed-Ex are regulated to the point where they are not permitted to compete with the USPS when it comes to regular mail - only special delivery items & packages.

Now, if competition were actually permitted, who would you send your mail with:

C) Fed-Ex

That is of course if you were permitted to make that decision for yourself.
Last edited by Kaztronic on 08-16-2009 05:34 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 08-17-2009 01:45 PM

racehorse wrote:

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'
Now the WH is saying Sebelius misspoke.

Obama needs to pull in the reigns on his administration there are too many people out there say whatever, and its not helping with the communication and adding to the confusion on this very important issue !

User avatar
Posts: 7148
Joined: 07-07-2007 04:52 PM

Post by Kaztronic » 08-17-2009 03:18 PM

I am beginning to believe that the Public Option is in fact punched out, behind on points, breathing heavily through the mouth, and unable to focus due to a cut above the eye - a cut that the cornerman is having a hard time closing before the next round. To make matters worse, the Public Option is taking on the champ (corporate interests) in their hometown - Vegas.

We are headed in to the 11th round of a championship fight, and the public option was knocked down twice in the 10th. At this point, between rounds the doctor is checking out the public option to see if it can even continue in to the next round (much less the 12th, and final round - the "championship round"). It would take a knockout at this point, the use of the "nuclear option" if you will, and even then - I do not think the Democrats have the votes to pull it off.

I use the boxing (an interesting sport that I am a big fan of actually) comparison very intentionally.

First, because it is a sport - and the arguments on this issue have so lost sight of the middle ground that this is devolving in to a two-sided affair where other considerations are secondary. It feels as if the concept of a political victory / defeat for either side is more important to many people than the legislation itself.

Second, because boxing is a crooked sport - and there is no doubt in my mind that the wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, money being spent on advertising and lobbying efforts, etc..... has completely corrupted this issue on both sides.

There are a whole bunch of Don King like characters standing around the ring waving their American flags, if you know what I mean.

Frankly, the faith being granted to politicians on this issue (regardless of party affiliation) is alarming, not at all logical, and ignorant of history. They are politicians, they have not earned our trust - nor is there much (if any) basis to trust them to craft legislation that puts the peoples interests ahead of corporate interests - especially when 1/6 of the U.S. economy is in play here.

Anyway, read an interesting - and LONG article (5 pages) today on this issue in Business Week. Linking it here & including several interesting snips of info about the money, and people involved:



As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.


UnitedHealth has traveled an unlikely path to becoming a Washington powerhouse. Its last chairman and chief executive, William W. McGuire, cultivated a corporate profile as an industry insurgent little concerned with goings-on in the capital. From its Minnetonka (Minn.) headquarters, the company grew swiftly by acquisition. McGuire absorbed both rival carriers and companies that analyze data and write software. Diversification turned UnitedHealth into the largest U.S. health insurer in terms of revenue. In 2008 it reported operating profit of $5.3 billion on revenue of $81.2 billion. It employs more than 75,000 people.

In 2006, McGuire lost his job after getting caught up in the manipulation, or "backdating," of company stock options. UnitedHealth was forced to restate earnings over a 12-year period to reflect the extra compensation it had granted McGuire and other executives. McGuire's chief lieutenant, Stephen Hemsley, took over as CEO in December 2006. Two independent inquiries concluded that Hemsley wasn't involved with the backdating. Nevertheless he forfeited $190 million in past stock compensation and unrealized gains to resolve the matter.

Hemsley, a former chief financial officer of the now-defunct Arthur Andersen accounting firm, generally shuns the spotlight. But when health reform became a central issue in the runup to the last Presidential election, company executives say they realized UnitedHealth needed to go on the offensive. Hemsley met with White House officials on May 15 and May 22 to promote his company's prescription for cutting federal health spending.

In August 2007, the company hired Sommer, who previously headed global lobbying for Goldman Sachs (GS). He quickly built a new Washington team of former congressional aides and other K Street operatives. One key acquisition: Cory Alexander, former chief of staff for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), an influential moderate Democrat. Alexander had been lobbying for the huge mortgage financier Fannie Mae (FNM). Today, Sommer directs a team of nearly 50 people from UnitedHealth's spacious Washington office on Pennsylvania Avenue, equidistant between the Capitol and White House. The company spent more than $3.4 million on in-house and outside lobbying in the first half of 2009.

Sommer has retained such influential outsiders as Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Leader who now works for the large law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird. Daschle, a liberal from South Dakota, dropped out of the running to be Obama's Secretary of Health & Human Services after disclosures that he failed to pay taxes on perks given to him by a private client. He advised UnitedHealth in 2007 and 2008 and resumed that role this year. Daschle personally advocates a government-run competitor to private insurers. But he sells his expertise to UnitedHealth, which opposes any such public insurance plan. Among the services Daschle offers are tips on the personalities and policy proclivities of members of Congress he has known for decades.


Perhaps more than any other insurer, UnitedHealth is poised to profit from health reform. Its decade-long series of acquisitions has made the company a coast-to-coast Leviathan enmeshed in the lives of 70 million Americans.

United's AmeriChoice unit is the largest government contractor administering state Medicaid programs for the poor and federally sponsored plans for children. AmeriChoice's revenue rose 34% last year, to $6 billion, and it has 2.7 million people enrolled. Those numbers should continue rising under reform since congressional Democrats are proposing an expansion of Medicaid to help achieve universal coverage. More of the working poor would qualify for Medicaid, and AmeriChoice can sell itself to states as the leading service provider.

Business Week


The game is rigged folks, it's been rigged from the outset.

Democrats really are not all that different from their Republican counterparts when it comes to corporate / financial influence versus the public good - and they never have been. How have we lost sight of such stark reality? Is our allegiance to either party really worth the risk of furthering corporate agendas / profit margins? Has any allegiance - or even benefit of the doubt - when it comes to matters that involve corporate interests truly been earned in any meaningful way - by either party? I would suggest that the answer to those questions is a resounding "NO".

As I see it, we need to keep that in mind at all times while this legislation is crafted. If you accept this idea as reality, then the potential for a situation even worse than what we face with the status quo becomes all too possible (if not likely). I personally think we need to view any plans being proposed by government - especially as they are modified through negotiation to gain votes - with a critical eye that keeps all of this in mind.
Last edited by Kaztronic on 08-17-2009 03:40 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Image "You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin

Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 08-17-2009 07:32 PM

Democrats really are not all that different from their Republican counterparts when it comes to corporate / financial influence versus the public good - and they never have been.
It's not just that, it's this creepy "sore winner" gloating that's been going on since November. Here we see them with the cap unscrewed and their inhibitions released. It's not a pretty picture, but it's obviously been educational for a lot of people.

Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 08-17-2009 07:55 PM

Here's a blog by University of Montana Constitutional Law Professor Rob Natelson, who asks whether this is all even constitutional:

August 17th

During the Bush administration, many within the dominant culture expressed concern about the constitutionality of detaining several hundred alleged enemy combatants in Guantanamo.

Whenever legal restrictions on abortion are proposed, many express doubt about the constitutionality of interjecting government between patients and their doctors.

But those voices have been mostly silent about the constitutionality of empowering the federal government with decisions over the life, death, and health of three hundred million Americans.

In fact, the constitutional difficulties are profound. This is certainly so for those who believe the Constitution means what our Founders understood it to mean. But it is even true for those interested only in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Following are some of the ways in which current health care proposals potentially clash with our nation’s Basic Law:

Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories.

To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go.

The greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, once wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a “pretext” for assuming an unauthorized power, “it would become the painful duty” of the Court “to say that such an act was not the law of the land.” But health care bills such as the Obama-favored HB 3200 do not even offer a pretext. The only reference to the Constitution in HB 3200 is a severability clause that purports to save the remainder of the bill if part is declared unconstitutional. HB 3200 contains no reference to the Commerce Power or to any other enumerated power.

Excessive Delegation. The Constitution “vests” legislative authority in Congress. Congress is not permitted to delegate that authority to the executive branch. This is another realm in which the modern Supreme Court has been lenient, while affirming that there are limits. Thus, in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), a unanimous court struck down a delegation of authority that looked much like the delegations in some current health care proposals.

Substantive Due Process. The Substantive Due Process doctrine was not contemplated by the Founders, but the courts have engrafted onto constitutional jurisprudence. The courts employ this doctrine to invalidate laws they think are unacceptably intrusive of personal liberty or privacy. The most famous modern Substantive Due Process case is Roe v. Wade, which struck down state abortion laws that intruded into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB 3200. “Global budgeting” and “single-payer” plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme Court’s Substantive Due Process rules.

Tenth Amendment. Technically, the Tenth Amendment is merely a declaration that the federal government has no powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. However, the modern Supreme Court has cited the Tenth Amendment in holding that Congress may not “commandeer” state decision making in the service of federal goals.

It is permissible for Congress to condition grants of funds to the states, if the conditions are related to the funding program and are not “coercive.” Thus, in 1986 the Court ruled that Congress may, because of highway safety issues, reduce highway grants by five percent to states refusing to raise their drinking ages to 21. But the mandates that some health care plans would impose on states certainly could be found “coercive,” both because they are excessive (HB 3200, for instance, would withdraw all Public Health Service Act money from non-cooperating states) and because they are unrelated to the program.

A major goal of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit government power, especially federal power. National health care proposals would increase that power greatly, so it is not surprising that those proposals have constitutional difficulties. Whatever the merits of federal control of health care, moving in that direction is (as former Justice David Souter might say) a change of “constitutional dimension.” The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill. The proper way is by constitutional amendment.


Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 08-21-2009 06:42 PM

And now....Nat Hentoff.

I Am Finally Scared of a White House Administration
By Nat Hentoff

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) - as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill - decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing - which is fundamental to Obamacare goals - "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.

No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs.

This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills.

A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of "advance care planning consultation" every five years - or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.

As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains (Undue influence," Aug. 8): the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of "living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families" on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.

Significantly, Lane adds that, "The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint)."

But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are "purely voluntary." In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:

"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"

But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. "Patients," notes Lane, "may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority."

And who will these doctors be? What criteria will such Obama advisers as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel set for conductors of end-of-life services?

I was alerted to Lanes' crucial cautionary advice - for those of use who may be influenced to attend the Obamacare twilight consultations - by Wesley J. Smith, a continually invaluable reporter and analyst of, as he calls his most recent book, the "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" (Encounter Books).

As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary ... and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction - for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT - the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)

Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives - and what is set into law? To begin with, Charles Lane, Wesley Smith and others whom I'll cite and add to as this chilling climax of the Obama presidency comes closer.

Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy - as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will - as some of the current bills seem to imply - have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the libertarian Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 97969.html

User avatar
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 09-09-2009 01:22 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_ ... care/print

Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

1 hr 52 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.

With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama's overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.

The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.

The poll underscores how the president has struggled to win public support to reshape the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system and to put the brakes on a deep recession.

Forty-nine percent say they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.

People are about evenly split over what lawmakers should do now on health care: About four in 10 say they should keep trying to pass a bill this year while about the same number say they should start over again.

Significantly, though, only about two in 10 say the health care system should be left as is.

There is a clear public desire for a bipartisan approach on the issue. Eight in 10 say it's important that any plan that passes Congress should have the support of both parties, while two-thirds want Obama and Democrats to try winning support from Republicans, who with few exceptions have opposed the Democratic drive.

Obama's marks are also poor on the economy, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he's handled that issue.

A similar number disapprove of his handling of taxes, some of which may rise to help finance his health overhaul. And 56 percent dislike his handling of the budget deficit, which has skyrocketed under the costs of the financial bailouts and a recession that has caused sinking federal revenues.

The survey of 1,001 adults with cell and landline telephones was conducted from Sept. 3-8. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

User avatar
Call Me "Hussein"
Posts: 9916
Joined: 09-05-2003 01:03 AM

Post by Rombaldi » 09-09-2009 02:04 PM

Originally posted by racehorse Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent

Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.

User avatar
Posts: 14976
Joined: 01-04-2003 03:00 AM
Location: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Post by racehorse » 09-09-2009 08:59 PM

HB3 wrote: At this point I think the priority should be simply to stop it.

You may be right, HB3!


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GOP-says- ... l?x=0&.v=1

GOP says Obama needs to start over on health care

Mixing attacks and appeals, Republicans call on Obama to start over on health care overhaul

* By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer

* On Wednesday September 9, 2009, 7:06 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Slow down and start over.

That was the message from top Capitol Hill Republicans in advance of President Barack Obama's address Wednesday night to Congress and the nation on health care.

As Obama seeks to jump start an ambitious health care overhaul despite sliding public opinion poll numbers, Republicans countered with a call for a slimmed-down measure containing a few popular elements such as making sure insurance companies don't deny coverage to people with pre-existing health problems.

"Our view is: Let's scale it back, target the problems and not have the government take over, in effect, all of American health care," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

The alternative GOP message seems to be, "Keep going, and we'll keep kicking your teeth in." For instance, though he's voted for Medicare cuts in the past, McConnell attacked the Medicare cost curbs in the Obama plan as "massive cuts" to start a health care program for the poor and uninsured.

McConnell again called for a bipartisan bill even as the Democratic chairman of a key Senate committee announced Thursday that he was pressing ahead regardless of whether ongoing talks with Republicans were successful.

Not a single Republican has endorsed any of the plans approved so far by four House and Senate committees. House GOP leader John Boehner said Wednesday that he doubted Democrats have enough votes to pass the bill after the political setbacks of August.

"If they think they have the votes, we'll let them bring the bill up," Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters. "Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen."

Republicans chose Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a heart surgeon who was elected to the House after arthritis forced him to close his practice, to give the GOP's televised response after Obama's speech.

"It's clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right," Boustany said in an excerpt released in advance of his address. "It's time to start over on a commonsense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality."

Boustany is a supporter of allowing people to keep their health insurance when they switch jobs, and giving a tax break to self-employed workers purchasing insurance. He also wants to allow people to purchase insurance in a national marketplace rather than being limited to plans offered in their state.

And Republicans want to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, which they say force doctors to practice defensive medicine and order up unnecessary tests.

Despite being badly outnumbered in Congress, Republicans have been riding a wave politically as voters increasingly have turned against Democrats' efforts to provide more coverage to the uninsured and to pay for it through a tax surcharge on the wealthy.

Forty-nine percent say they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared with just 34 percent who favor them, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released Wednesday. Fully 79 percent of respondents said it is important for any health care plan to have support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats counter that Republicans are simply the "Party of 'No,'" saying they're unwilling to work with Obama and have been spreading exaggerations and falsehoods about the Democratic bills.

"Republicans have shown they have no interest in working for a solution to this problem and that they will say and do almost anything to 'break' the president and 'kill' reform," Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Democrats have gotten that all wrong.

"Democrats are trying very, very hard to pretend that their problem is opposition from Republicans when in fact their problem is opposition from the American people," Steel said.

User avatar
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 07-14-2012 02:38 PM

Linnea wrote: I do have an experience with my mother, who was otherwise a very healthly, active woman - being denied a kidney transplant due to her age, primarily (68 yrs old) - and witnessed her decline over years of dialysis and its not inconsiderable problems, including infections and hospitalizations due to the dialysis - and a very painful decline in quality of life. To receive a kidney from a family member was also not an option, as she would have needed at least 0,000 to pay for the procedure, and etc...

*Bump* - altogether great thread

Was Linnea's mother living in Canada? Or Bulgaria?

Related: showthread.php?threadid=46382
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 07-14-2012 03:09 PM

Or the US on an HMO?

Particularly in the early days of the HMO system I have known of such instances.

One thing I have learned you have to get all of the details.

Sad and painful to watch a parent wither away.
A man's character is his fate

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2004-2009”