Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone

[Gish08]

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The moment we as a country decided that we can't turn away anybody from the ER, we effectively socialized healthcare.

On one hand yes, on the other hand, no. I'm fine with an ER providing TRUE emergency services - but only TRUE emergencies - and then following up by billing the person for services. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than having to hassle over paperwork before stopping someone's bleeding.

The problem is since this law was passed you have people (in CA many of illegals) who go to the ER for the flu, or a cough.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Gish08

That Lawrence dude actually made him look sympathetic. What a douchebag. The guy goes off about people at town halls who don't treat congressmen with respect and then cuts off and yells down a congressman.

Of course i'm sure you think he's awesome. He's worse than Bill O'Reilly.

[Debaser]

Lawrence O'Donnell has always been like that, I think its a carryover from his McLaughlin Hour days. I agree with him pretty much 90% of the time, but yeah, he sure is pretty insufferable. There is a difference between him and O'Reilly: O'Donnell actually knows what he's talking about. meh.

[Mayfuck]

i could only watch 2 minutes of that.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The problem is since this law was passed you have people (in CA many of illegals) who go to the ER for the flu, or a cough.

source please

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

If sadly this all goes the way it looks to be going the blame lies with the gutless moderate blue dogs and the clueless dem leadership that seemed unprepared for what everyone knew was coming. The crazy town hall bastards are fun to joke about, but they arent why this would fail. Dems still havent learned how to get their side in line.

i certainly blame the blue dogs

what kind of worthless piece of shit is both economically and socially conservative

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

If you expected anything other than politics as usual then you are very naive.



i bet that did a lot of good

i mean you can get on your high horse and say you did something, but you didn't. you just went out with a sign and was ignored. it's just like bitching on the internet except that it takes more effort to be every bit as pointless.

It didn't do much good, but at least I can say I tried. It's better than just sitting around on my ass and doing nothing at all.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

On one hand yes, on the other hand, no. I'm fine with an ER providing TRUE emergency services - but only TRUE emergencies - and then following up by billing the person for services. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than having to hassle over paperwork before stopping someone's bleeding.

The problem is since this law was passed you have people (in CA many of illegals) who go to the ER for the flu, or a cough.

This is true, especially after seeing it myself. When I had no insurance I had no choice but to go to a public health clinic that was free. After waiting all day just to see a doctor, you give up and go to the ER. If no one has ever been to a phc and waited all day, then they don't understand how shitty free care is going to be.
I can also say that when you go to the ER w/o insurance, you are treated badly. You wait up to 8 hours to be seen, even if you are really sick, and when you get back there you are sit in a hallway among many others. That's why I will never go w/o insurance again.... and if this health care passes, I believe many people are going to find out just how shitty free health care can really be. We'll see though.

[Starla]

The talk going on the news about death panels is hilarious. My insurance company IS the fucking death panel. They only cover so much and they tell me to deal with it, and the rest I have to pay out of pocket... but still, I think it's better than what free health care would give me, which is not much at all.

[Gish08]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

That Lawrence dude actually made him look sympathetic. What a douchebag. The guy goes off about people at town halls who don't treat congressmen with respect and then cuts off and yells down a congressman.

Of course i'm sure you think he's awesome. He's worse than Bill O'Reilly.

Except he actually knows what he's talking about and is trying to have a real debate, unlike O'Reilly who's basically a shill.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

That Lawrence dude actually made him look sympathetic. What a douchebag. The guy goes off about people at town halls who don't treat congressmen with respect and then cuts off and yells down a congressman.

As annoying as he is if everyone in the media was as direct, aggressive, and demanding of politicians they would no longer be able to feed the public with bullshit answers. If an interviewer asks a politician a question and the politician tries to sidestep, I think the interviewer is completely justified in demanding a straight answer. The media across the board always plays softball with those in the government and it should not be so.

[Karl Connor]

msnbc and eveybody on it is fucking terrible

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Starla

It didn't do much good, but at least I can say I tried. It's better than just sitting around on my ass and doing nothing at all.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Gish08

Except he actually knows what he's talking about and is trying to have a real debate, unlike O'Reilly who's basically a shill.

He's not trying to have a debate he's trying to scream over every answer and give hardons to the far lefties who watch that show. That's all

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

As annoying as he is if everyone in the media was as direct, aggressive, and demanding of politicians they would no longer be able to feed the public with bullshit answers. If an interviewer asks a politician a question and the politician tries to sidestep, I think the interviewer is completely justified in demanding a straight answer. The media across the board always plays softball with those in the government and it should not be so.

So you'd support Sean Hannity doing the same thing I'm sure

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

So you'd support Sean Hannity doing the same thing I'm sure

I would support any member of the media doing their job, actually Nimrod.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I would support any member of the media doing their job, actually Nimrod.

Listen to his initial question, and when he doesn't get the answer he WANTS, he just starts attacking, berating and cutting off.

That's not doing "his job."

[publius clodius]

IT WAS BISMARCK'S INVENTION, IT IS PURE SOCIALISM

[YSEM]

I'm guessing American media must look real stupid to you right about now.

[publius clodius]

what does it matter anyway, at least it's entertaining

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

That Lawrence dude actually made him look sympathetic. What a douchebag. The guy goes off about people at town halls who don't treat congressmen with respect and then cuts off and yells down a congressman.

Of course i'm sure you think he's awesome. He's worse than Bill O'Reilly.

it wasn't particularly good tv in the same way the appeasement thing was.

[Thaniel Buckner]

that video condensed to 34 seconds with no yelling

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Thaniel Buckner

that video condensed to 34 seconds with no yelling

So medicare = good because it is old and the new plan = bad because it is new? That's basically what he said. Both cost way too much, but medicare has been around for awhile so it's a good idea. Fucking conservatism makes no sense.

[Gish08]

White House backs away from public health care option - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

W.H. backs away from public option
By: Carrie Budoff Brown
August 16, 2009 02:02 PM EST

President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they’re prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that’s what’s needed to strike a compromise on Obama’s top legislative priority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was “not the essential element” of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was “just one sliver” of the debate.

He even chided Democratic supporters and Republican critics for becoming “so fixated on this that they forget everything else” – a dig at some liberals in his own party who have made the public option the main rallying cry of the health reform debate.

At the same time, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of six senators involved in bipartisan Finance Committee negotiations, all but declared the public option dead in the Senate.

“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Conrad, who has pushed an alternative proposal to create a network of consumer cooperatives. “There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”

A White House aide said in an emailed statement Sunday afternoon that "nothing has changed" in the administration's approach.

"The President has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market," said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. "He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.

But taken together, the remarks from Obama, Sebelius and Conrad suggest the White House is preparing supporters for a health care compromise that may well exclude the government option – which could help Obama win enough votes for a sweeping overhaul but touch off a nasty battle inside his own party between liberals and more moderate members who have resisted a bigger government role in health care.

It was only in June that Obama said in a letter to Senate Democrats that “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

But in the face of hardening opposition to the idea — even inside his own party — Obama appears ready to retrench. Obama and his aides continue to emphasize having some competitor to private insurers, perhaps non-profit insurance cooperatives, but they are using stronger language to downplay the importance that it be a government plan.

“What's important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said on CNN’s State of the Union. “And I'm convinced at the end of the day, the plan will have both of those. But that is not the essential element.

The reaction in the liberal blogosphere and beyond was swift and negative Sunday.

“Ultimately if the president decides he’s going to go with a reform effort that doesn’t ******* a public option, what he will have done is spent a ton of political capital, riled up an incredibly angry right wing base that’s been told this is a plot to kill grandma, and he will have achieved something that doesn’t change health care very much and that doesn’t save us very much money and won’t do much for the American people,” MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” It’s not a very good thing to spend a lot of political capital on."

One diarist on the Daily Kos said the “public option is in the ICU. … When you call something that once was the central tenet of reform is now a ‘sliver,’ it is very difficult to argue it is not being de-emphasized.” Another diarist wrote this headline: “Told you so: Public Option, Meet Underside of Bus.”

“It would be very, very difficult without the public option,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on whether she could support a bill that dropped the public option. She spoke on CNN's State of the Union.

Liberals say a health care bill without a public option would fail to actually reform the system. They view the public option as the best way to hold insurance companies accountable and provide affordable coverage, and say nonprofit cooperatives are an unproven model.

"Secretary Sebelius made the case for the public option several times in the interview, talking about why we needed competition and choice with private insurers," said Richard Kirsch, campaign manager of Health Care for American Now, a liberal organization pushing the government option. "She also pointed out that reform is more than the public option: it's regulating private insurers and making health care affordable to everyone. It's clear from her statements that the most effective reform will have all these elements - insurance regulations, making health care affordable to all, and a strong, national public health insurance option."

Sebelius, following Obama’s lead Saturday in Colorado, sought to shift the focus of the debate from the public option to more popular reforms such as prohibiting insurers from denying or dropping coverage because of a preexisting condition. It’s a subtle, but potentially telling, window into the White House’s latest strategy on reframing the terms of a legislative victory.

“Those are really essential parts of the program, along with choice and competition, which I think we'll have at the end of the day,” Sebelius said.

Obama first raised eyebrows Saturday in Colorado when he suggested the final package may not ******* a public option.

“All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” he said. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it. And by the way, it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that they forget everything else.”

On CBS's Face the Nation, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the government option had to be included in the final bill. He repeated the standard White House line that the president's wants to "inject some choice competition into the private insurance market."

But then, he appeared to hedge.

"The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done through a public option," Gibbs said.

"Is that a hedge?" asked host Harry Smith, referring to Gibbs' use of "thus far."

"No, no, no, what I am saying is the bottom line for the president is that we ought to have choice and competition in the insurance market," Gibbs responded.

Blue Dogs just gave the whole party Blue Balls when it comes to reform.

As a liberal, I question the need for reform if there's no public option.

This country sucks.

[sppunk]

Obama is really, really shitty when it comes to shaping messages.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

So medicare = good because it is old and the new plan = bad because it is new? That's basically what he said. Both cost way too much, but medicare has been around for awhile so it's a good idea. Fucking conservatism makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Not taking away entitlements that people have counted on for decades (and would throw a fit about losing) = good (or, more accurately, a necessary evil). Creating brand new entitlements on top of the ones that we already have (and can barely afford as it is) = bad.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by sppunk

Obama is really, really shitty when it comes to shaping messages.

so the whole campaign was a fluke huh

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

So medicare = good because it is old and the new plan = bad because it is new? That's basically what he said. Both cost way too much, but medicare has been around for awhile so it's a good idea. Fucking conservatism makes no sense.

No the point is medicare = bad but if you say that the AARP and the old folks who vote in disproportionate numbers will make sure you're not re-elected. It's fucking stupid but you've got the people who are getting the entitlements controlling elections.

[Karl Connor]

unless the white house is throwing up another trial baloon its pretty nuch confirmed there will be no public option. personally i think that's terrible but politically i'm really interested to see how it plays out. kind of a curve ball.