| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
....health care insurance reform, from David Frum:
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. .... And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks. -- If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher) then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk
wrote: We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... Even if it were true that the "we" followed the most radical voices, would a few Republican votes for the health-care legislation have reversed the defeat? |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On 3/22/10 11:00 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:22:00 -0400, wrote: On 3/22/10 10:12 AM, wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, wrote: We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... Even if it were true that the "we" followed the most radical voices, would a few Republican votes for the health-care legislation have reversed the defeat? Had the Republicans actually been engaged in a process to improve health care insurance and health care reform, there might have been a truly bipartisan bill and a lot less rancor. The GOP paid lip service to reform, but the reality is, the GOP leadership is doing everything it can to obstruct and to make sure it does what it can to stymie Obama. Is that a problem if the GOP and its respective constituency consider the bill to be an Über-Leviathon? I personally consider an aspect of it to be an infringement of my personal liberty. Too, I've read of several GOP submissions for health-care reform. The lack of tort reform, which the GOP sorta pushed for, is not driving health insurance premiums up by 30-50 a year, nor is it keeping tens of millions of Americans from having health insurance, nor is it preventing millions of Americans from obtaining health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, nor is it a factor in the donut hole for prescriptions for seniors. And much more. The GOP also pushed for insurers to be able to sell across state lines. Many insurers do that through the federal employee program, but the GOP was against extending that program to everyone. What it boils down to is that the GOP solution was to do nothing, but to pay lip service to the idea of health insurance/care reform. You only have to see how the GOP leaders directed their fellow congresscritters to understand that. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk
wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks. Welcome to the modern Republian Party. It's a big, stupid tent. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:22:00 -0400, hk wrote: On 3/22/10 10:12 AM, wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, wrote: We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... Even if it were true that the "we" followed the most radical voices, would a few Republican votes for the health-care legislation have reversed the defeat? Had the Republicans actually been engaged in a process to improve health care insurance and health care reform, there might have been a truly bipartisan bill and a lot less rancor. The GOP paid lip service to reform, but the reality is, the GOP leadership is doing everything it can to obstruct and to make sure it does what it can to stymie Obama. Is that a problem if the GOP and its respective constituency consider the bill to be an Über-Leviathon? I personally consider an aspect of it to be an infringement of my personal liberty. Too, I've read of several GOP submissions for health-care reform. But, I bet you have no problem with the Republicans trying to bad abortions, because it isn't your "personal liberty." -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the 2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have insurance. That will be what drives the election. There are several parts that need to be fixed. That's how things are done in Congress. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:53:18 -0400, hk wrote: My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the 2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have insurance. That will be what drives the election. Premium controls will be added. In fact, I suspect a number of items will individually be added. It'll be interesting to see the Republicans vote down all the individual measures to help Americans obtain and retain insurance at good prices. I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion dollar lobbyists. That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like cutting a half trillion out of Medicare. Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government programs always get bigger, not smaller. Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the system as they want. The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:53:18 -0400, hk wrote: My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the 2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have insurance. That will be what drives the election. Premium controls will be added. In fact, I suspect a number of items will individually be added. It'll be interesting to see the Republicans vote down all the individual measures to help Americans obtain and retain insurance at good prices. I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion dollar lobbyists. That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like cutting a half trillion out of Medicare. Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government programs always get bigger, not smaller. Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the system as they want. The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. I love the teabagger poster that read: "Don't steal money from Medicare to fund Health Care Socialism" Average IQ of a Teabagger? I'm betting they're on the lower end of the bell curve. Maybe the way lower end. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
jps wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:53:18 -0400, hk wrote: My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the 2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have insurance. That will be what drives the election. Premium controls will be added. In fact, I suspect a number of items will individually be added. It'll be interesting to see the Republicans vote down all the individual measures to help Americans obtain and retain insurance at good prices. I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion dollar lobbyists. That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like cutting a half trillion out of Medicare. Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government programs always get bigger, not smaller. Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the system as they want. The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. I love the teabagger poster that read: "Don't steal money from Medicare to fund Health Care Socialism" Average IQ of a Teabagger? I'm betting they're on the lower end of the bell curve. Maybe the way lower end. 10 sigma? |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion dollar lobbyists. That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like cutting a half trillion out of Medicare. Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government programs always get bigger, not smaller. Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the system as they want. The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. -- The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by eliminating the cuts. Umm... I don't think Congress sends them numbers. They send them policy/law statements. The CBO interprets the statements and makes a judgement about numbers. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. -- The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by eliminating the cuts. Umm... I don't think Congress sends them numbers. They send them policy/law statements. The CBO interprets the statements and makes a judgement about numbers. True but Congress knows what number will come out of CBO when they frame the question and CBO is not allowed to question the scenario congress sends them. ?? They "frame" the question by using the language of the law. The CBO can't question the scenario because it's not within their purview to do so. As I said earlier, based on what congress said about the cost of Medicare and what actually happened. In 1964 the estimate was Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990. It was really $107 billion. When you are off by almost an order of magnitude that is not really an estimate, it is a fantasy or being less generous a lie. Yet, times change. No entity could possibly know the future in that much detail. It's been nearly 50 years since 1964. Let's see how this actually works out. To start with there are already at least 6 states suing over constitutional issues so this bill as passed. Then you still have the reconciliation vote coming. Who knows what deals have to be made to pass that. I am as much worried about the back room deals and the pork that will show up on other bills to get these votes as I am the bill itself. Those are the ones you really have to be a "thomas junkie" to even find. This is true for just about any contentious legislation. Nothing new. That requires a different effort to clean up. There will be a bill to rename a post office in Fumbuck Mississippi with a $300,000,000 bridge to nowhere in it so that congressman would vote for this. Multiply that by the three dozen votes they had to wring out and you are talking about some money. That is just how the process works. I agree. Better still, it looks like some in the press are actually looking. It'll get easier as time passes. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mar 22, 12:08*pm, jps wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: * *Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. * * It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: * * (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. * * (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. * * So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: * * A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. * * I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. * * No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? * * We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks. Welcome to the modern Republian Party. *It's a big, stupid tent. You know, the more I read of your BS liberal posts, the more I get a mental image of a Keith Olbermann wannabe. Makes me want to puke. You're a blowhard, yuppie, liberal snob, idiot. Plain and simple. Do us all a favor and try to be a real, down-to-earth person for a change. Believe it or not, you'll actually feel better about yourself. The majority of Americans *did or do not* support the recent health care reform legislation. They passed it anyway through back-room deals. Are you so "enlightened" that you know better than than the majority of Americans? Mike |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Mike
wrote: On Mar 22, 12:08*pm, jps wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: * *Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. * * It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: * * (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. * * (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. * * So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: * * A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. * * I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. * * No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? * * We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks. Welcome to the modern Republian Party. *It's a big, stupid tent. You know, the more I read of your BS liberal posts, the more I get a mental image of a Keith Olbermann wannabe. Makes me want to puke. You're a blowhard, yuppie, liberal snob, idiot. Plain and simple. Do us all a favor and try to be a real, down-to-earth person for a change. Believe it or not, you'll actually feel better about yourself. The majority of Americans *did or do not* support the recent health care reform legislation. They passed it anyway through back-room deals. Are you so "enlightened" that you know better than than the majority of Americans? Mike You listen to and take in too much ****, ****-for-brains. Most Americans favor health care reform, always did and will. Read whatever drivel you want, don't bother reading mine. Silly ass. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:54:20 -0700 (PDT), Mike
wrote: On Mar 22, 12:08*pm, jps wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: * *Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. * * It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: * * (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. * * (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. * * So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: * * A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. * * I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. * * No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? * * We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks. Welcome to the modern Republian Party. *It's a big, stupid tent. You know, the more I read of your BS liberal posts, the more I get a mental image of a Keith Olbermann wannabe. Makes me want to puke. You're a blowhard, yuppie, liberal snob, idiot. Plain and simple. Do us all a favor and try to be a real, down-to-earth person for a change. Believe it or not, you'll actually feel better about yourself. The majority of Americans *did or do not* support the recent health care reform legislation. They passed it anyway through back-room deals. Are you so "enlightened" that you know better than than the majority of Americans? Mike Sore loser. Obama and the rest of the country are rolling right over your pasty white ass. Read it and weep, little man. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mar 22, 1:17*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:22:00 -0400, hk wrote: On 3/22/10 10:12 AM, wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, wrote: * * *We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... Even if it were true that the "we" followed the most radical voices, would a few Republican votes for the health-care legislation have reversed the defeat? Had the Republicans actually been engaged in a process to improve health care insurance and health care reform, there might have been a truly bipartisan bill and a lot less rancor. The GOP paid lip service to reform, but the reality is, the GOP leadership is doing everything it can to obstruct and to make sure it does what it can to stymie Obama. Is that a problem if the GOP and its respective constituency consider the bill to be an Über-Leviathon? *I personally consider an aspect of it to be an infringement of my personal liberty. *Too, I've read of several GOP submissions for health-care reform. But, I bet you have no problem with the Republicans trying to bad abortions, because it isn't your "personal liberty." -- Nom=de=Plume Excellent structure, D'Plume. Maybe you should stop eating your own cookies. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Mar 22, 1:18*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the 2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have insurance. That will be what drives the election. There are several parts that need to be fixed. That's how things are done in Congress. -- Nom=de=Plume Brilliant thought, D'Plume. Again you prove yourself not to be average. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
... On Mar 22, 1:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:22:00 -0400, hk wrote: On 3/22/10 10:12 AM, wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, wrote: We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... Even if it were true that the "we" followed the most radical voices, would a few Republican votes for the health-care legislation have reversed the defeat? Had the Republicans actually been engaged in a process to improve health care insurance and health care reform, there might have been a truly bipartisan bill and a lot less rancor. The GOP paid lip service to reform, but the reality is, the GOP leadership is doing everything it can to obstruct and to make sure it does what it can to stymie Obama. Is that a problem if the GOP and its respective constituency consider the bill to be an Über-Leviathon? I personally consider an aspect of it to be an infringement of my personal liberty. Too, I've read of several GOP submissions for health-care reform. But, I bet you have no problem with the Republicans trying to bad abortions, because it isn't your "personal liberty." -- Nom=de=Plume Excellent structure, D'Plume. Maybe you should stop eating your own cookies. Structure? You mean the typo? Wow. I'm not perfect. Thanks for the reminder! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
"Mike" wrote in message
... On Mar 22, 12:08 pm, jps wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs. (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson: A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds. No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal? We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. ... And the frosting on the cake? The incredibly horrid behavior of the teabagging Republicans the last couple of weeks. Welcome to the modern Republian Party. It's a big, stupid tent. You know, the more I read of your BS liberal posts, the more I get a mental image of a Keith Olbermann wannabe. Makes me want to puke. You're a blowhard, yuppie, liberal snob, idiot. Plain and simple. Do us all a favor and try to be a real, down-to-earth person for a change. Believe it or not, you'll actually feel better about yourself. The majority of Americans *did or do not* support the recent health care reform legislation. They passed it anyway through back-room deals. Are you so "enlightened" that you know better than than the majority of Americans? Mike Reply: The poll you're referring to said that the a percentage didn't like the bill because it went too far... something like 45%. The rest either liked it or thought it didn't go far enough. So much for your enlightenment. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:43:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. -- The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by eliminating the cuts. Umm... I don't think Congress sends them numbers. They send them policy/law statements. The CBO interprets the statements and makes a judgement about numbers. True but Congress knows what number will come out of CBO when they frame the question and CBO is not allowed to question the scenario congress sends them. ?? They "frame" the question by using the language of the law. The CBO can't question the scenario because it's not within their purview to do so. The problem is "the law" can easily change and make the projection wildly wrong. That is what happened to Medicare. Once they got the framework in place it became a Christmas tree that everyone could hang ornaments on. That is the fear with this bill. The congress is already saying they are going to "fix all the problems" that were created to get it passed in the first place. I am sure all of the cost saving devices will be the first things to go, like the Medicare cuts, the tax increases and the limits on what they grant the states. Well, true, but by that logic, the costs could be a whole lot better too. There's always fear. That's what the right plays on. Read what the bill (and reconcilliation) will do. It's pretty good. Not perfect, things need to be speeded up, but it's not bad. As I said earlier, based on what congress said about the cost of Medicare and what actually happened. In 1964 the estimate was Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990. It was really $107 billion. When you are off by almost an order of magnitude that is not really an estimate, it is a fantasy or being less generous a lie. Yet, times change. No entity could possibly know the future in that much detail. It's been nearly 50 years since 1964. ... and the plan is broke. It's not unfixable. I think that's the point. It's not broken in the sense that people want to give it up. It's broken in the sense that it needs to be financed properly. Let's see how this actually works out. To start with there are already at least 6 states suing over constitutional issues so this bill as passed. Then you still have the reconciliation vote coming. Who knows what deals have to be made to pass that. I am as much worried about the back room deals and the pork that will show up on other bills to get these votes as I am the bill itself. Those are the ones you really have to be a "thomas junkie" to even find. This is true for just about any contentious legislation. Nothing new. That requires a different effort to clean up. There will be a bill to rename a post office in Fumbuck Mississippi with a $300,000,000 bridge to nowhere in it so that congressman would vote for this. Multiply that by the three dozen votes they had to wring out and you are talking about some money. That is just how the process works. I agree. Better still, it looks like some in the press are actually looking. It'll get easier as time passes. Wanna bet? Entitlements are already bankrupting the country and they just added a huge new one. There's nothing wrong with most entitlements other than financial issues, and those can be resolved. I was talking about the press actually doing its job. I wish they would. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
... On Mar 22, 1:18 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:33:46 -0400, hk wrote: ...health care insurance reform, from David Frum: My big problem with this legislation is it doesn't limit insurance premiums at all and I bet your "october surprise" will be what the 2011 rates are going to be for those 300 million that do have insurance. That will be what drives the election. There are several parts that need to be fixed. That's how things are done in Congress. -- Nom=de=Plume Brilliant thought, D'Plume. Again you prove yourself not to be average. So you deny that this is how it works? If so, please point to a major bill that came out of Congress that didn't require changes... -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion dollar lobbyists. That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like cutting a half trillion out of Medicare. Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government programs always get bigger, not smaller. Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the system as they want. The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. -- The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by eliminating the cuts. How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs? |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m... wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:21:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I don't think anyone actually trusts congress to do all the things they promise. After all the process is actually driven by billion dollar lobbyists. That is why thinking people dismiss all of those CBO projections. They are based on fantasy scenarios that are unlikely to happen, like cutting a half trillion out of Medicare. Bear in mind, Medicare ended up costing almost 10 times what the original CBO estimate had it at, out at the 10 year mark. Government programs always get bigger, not smaller. Yet, the corporations are legally allowed to pump as much money into the system as they want. The CBO is non-partisan and both sides of the isle refer to it. Medicare is fixable, and it's been amended several times. Republicans called that program communism also, but I don't see too many of the Teabaggers willing to give up the benefits. -- The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by eliminating the cuts. How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs? It's more about cutting fraud/abuse than cutting benefits, although for the rich that should certainly happen. I believe Sen. Coburn rightly pointed this out (reducing fraud/abuse), during the Healthcare summit with Obama. Fixing the donut hole will probably help in the long run, since lots of people in that situation stop buying the meds they need, they get sick, and end up having more expensive procedures. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:56:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Wanna bet? Entitlements are already bankrupting the country and they just added a huge new one. There's nothing wrong with most entitlements other than financial issues, and those can be resolved. I was talking about the press actually doing its job. I wish they would. That is really the main problem and raising the necessary taxes to pay for them is politically impossible. We have plenty of politicians who will give away government money but getting one with the courage to actually pay for it is virtually impossible. I'm glad you added "virtually," since nothing is impossible in politics. :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:44:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/03/2010 9:33 PM, wrote: The problem is "the law" can easily change and make the projection wildly wrong. That is what happened to Medicare. Once they got the framework in place it became a Christmas tree that everyone could hang ornaments on. That is the fear with this bill. The congress is already saying they are going to "fix all the problems" that were created to get it passed in the first place. I am sure all of the cost saving devices will be the first things to go, like the Medicare cuts, the tax increases and the limits on what they grant the states. Good annology. And he reason they don't want it in a seperate fund is so they can hide the skiming as they ask for more, and more taxes. Foot is now in the door, going to be hard now to stop. of course, this idea is testable. has this been done with social security? nope. medicare? nope so he's full of ****. They will. When the tax bill arrives people will be ****ed to no end. actually it's going to reduce healthcare costs over the next decade. this moron knows zip about economics It will not be just income tax, sin taxes, utilities, gas and like EVERY other nation with a statism government VAT, a national sales tax. At some point government will go for a national sales tax. as if we 're not already payin for healthcare...twice what other countries pay more proof the moron knows nothing except what he hears on talk radio |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:08:59 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote: How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs? incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill... the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5 weeks. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
wrote in message
... On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:18:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The problem is they can only project the effect on the budget based on the fantasy numbers the congress sends them. Things like saying they will actually cut Medicare by a half trillion. That will be "fixed" by eliminating the cuts. How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs? It's more about cutting fraud/abuse than cutting benefits, although for the rich that should certainly happen. I believe Sen. Coburn rightly pointed this out (reducing fraud/abuse), during the Healthcare summit with Obama. They have been trying to cut fraud and abuse in government since George Washington and the scammers always manage to stay one step ahead of the cops. So that justifies giving up on the problem? There will always be crime. In the case of Medicare, in the 80s Medicare did tighten up on fraud and doctors stopped taking Medicare patients because the paperwork was too cumbersome and Medicare was "slow pay". When they streamlined the payments, fraud soared again. Right now they call Medicare "pay and chase". They pay out questionable claims and chase the guy after it is proven to be fraud. By then the crook is long gone. And, it can be addressed, but there's no absolute cure. Doesn't mean we should sit on our hands. Fixing the donut hole will probably help in the long run, since lots of people in that situation stop buying the meds they need, they get sick, and end up having more expensive procedures. Personally I think most seniors are over medicated in the first place. Fortunately, you're not the one prescribing in the dr. office. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
"bpuharic" wrote in message
... On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:08:59 -0700, "CalifBill" wrote: How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs? incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill... the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5 weeks. That doesn't count. He's a Marxist. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
|
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
In article ,
says... On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:50:37 -0400, bpuharic wrote: incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill... the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5 weeks. Yup the insurance company stocks are up 50% since they passed the Senate bill. United HC and Aetna both went from the low 20s to the mid 30s. We really got even with those *******s huh? This will go down as the insurance, hospital and pharmaceutical conglomerate stimulus package of 2010. That pretty much says it all right there. **** Obama, **** Pelosi, and the rest of the bought and paid for administration... Scotty -- For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On 23/03/2010 6:35 PM, bpuharic wrote:
actually it's going to reduce healthcare costs over the next decade. this moron knows zip about economics You liberals are so naive. And Obama is spending $1.7 trillion more than he has to spend for the second year in a row but WTF he is saving money... ya right. In reality he will overspend America into bankruptcy even more next year. Until America is broke. Even the IMF can't bailout the USA. You idiots have to stop watching big mouth Obama's lips and watches how he walks. You are too easy to lead down the garden path. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
Conservative Comment on Passage of...
On 23/03/2010 6:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:08:59 -0700, "CalifBill" wrote: How are they going to cut Medicare? Medicare people vote at a higher percentage than others. And they already said they are going to fix the drug donut hole. How is that going to reduce costs? incidentally, on this, the day obama signed the bill... the stock market jumped more than 100 points to its highest point in 5 weeks. Market always moves in advance. Look at last Friday. But you know squat of investing, so quite the liberal BS. Go back to you naitivity and Obama worship. Debt, who would have thought America would be at war from within with debt mongers. -- -------------- Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com