On Oct 12, 3:03*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.


You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...berations.html

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.


You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...berations.html


Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But, some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.


You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...berations.html


You should also take a look at Mr. Roff's previous posts and his current
affiliation. He's got an agenda, which isn't exactly balanced. Not saying
the article was inaccurate, but there's clearly a theme to his writing.

http://politics.usnews.com/topics/author/roff_peter

Can the White House prove that they're not doing anything wrong? - proving a
negative?
The Tea Party is bringing average citizens into elective politics. - right,
sure.
The midterms are a referendum on Barack Obama's first two years in the White
House. - more of a referendum on Congress in general.
John Boehner is a reformer? WHAT??
The existence of the Tea Party is a culture clash to the former
counter-culture activists on the left. - yeah, a bunch of well-off, angry
white guys.
For Obama to get his administration back on track to 2012 he needs to make
some changes in the cabinet. - sure... fire people who can get stuff
done...that makes sense.
The Tea Party movement tells women don't need the help of government. They
need it to get out of their way. - Fine. Stop blocking women's health
legislation would be a good start.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:09:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.


That's not completely accurate...

Perhaps not every "i" is dotted but it's pretty close for a short two
sentence summary.

My point, confirmed by your article, is that this whole notion of
"health coverage" as an entitlement is a recent thing. The jury is
still out on whether or not this can be provided to everyone without
wrecking the US economy even more than it already is.

On Oct 12, 5:05*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But, some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused to
cooperate in good faith. That's the point. They had every opportunity to
contribute in a constructive way, and they refused to do it for purely
political reasons.

The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch. It's lacking in some
respects, but that's typical of most legislation. It can and should be
fixed, but it shouldn't be gutted, which is exactly what the right-wing nuts
want to do, along with ending Social Security and Medicare of course, not to
mention ending unemployment benefits for people.

Insurance rates have gone up and will continue to go up. They would have
done that (and did that) way before the legislation. You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support, something
the Republicans will not do!

So, what's your solution? Vote in Tea Baggers who are barely qualified (and
I'm being generous)?

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:09:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.


That's not completely accurate...

Perhaps not every "i" is dotted but it's pretty close for a short two
sentence summary.

My point, confirmed by your article, is that this whole notion of
"health coverage" as an entitlement is a recent thing. The jury is
still out on whether or not this can be provided to everyone without
wrecking the US economy even more than it already is.


It hasn't wrecked other countries' economies, so why would ours be
different. The same was said of women's suffrage. The same was said of civil
rights legislation. If we wait until the "jury is in" to try and make a
positive change, then we will surely suffer. People complain about
entitlements, as though the are terrible things. They aren't. Ask an average
senior if she's willing to give up her SS or Medicare (or for that matter
anyone even close to collecting it)... I think we both know what they'll
say.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:21:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

People complain about
entitlements, as though the are terrible things. They aren't. Ask an average
senior if she's willing to give up her SS or Medicare (or for that matter
anyone even close to collecting it)... I think we both know what they'll
say.

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:21:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

People complain about
entitlements, as though the are terrible things. They aren't. Ask an
average
senior if she's willing to give up her SS or Medicare (or for that matter
anyone even close to collecting it)... I think we both know what they'll
say.

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.