ObamaCare…coming soon

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]Furthermore, does our socialist military force stifle innovation in the military-industrial complex? If anything it’s made that industry even stronger.[/quote]

Afx: Here, I think you have a very valid point, but one that also works the other way, too. The corporations that are part of that military-industrial complex are for-profit corporations (think Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, L3, etc) and the innovations you speak of are part of a very competitive system, designed to push innovation and creativity, but to do so for a profit.

While I agree that the US healthcare system needs work and needs change, I don’t agree that the solutions being offered under Obamacare are necessarily the right ones. I also believe that the ham-handed way this is being handled (Obama foisting responsibility for the bill onto Congress, which results in multiple versions of significant size and complexity) has resulted in a lot of blowback and Obama needs to get out there and “sell” this thing. In so doing, he needs to harness that considerable intelligence and oratorical skill and really explain what his plan is and how it will work.

Lastly, I would ask, relative to those life expectancy numbers from Europe: How big is the difference for American life expectancy versus European? If I remember correctly, we’re talking fairly minute differences, aren’t we?

[sdgrrl]

Hi Allan,

I always look forward to your post even if sometimes we disagree. I can be a hot headed jerk, but I do appreciate the finesse you have in making your points.

In regards to the first article- I think if we get a public option we will see a profit loss from insurance companies as they lower their premiums. Also, as people-like the folks in Mass can shop for the best/cheapest coverage of course profits will decrease. Please tell me and I know you will if I am wrong;)

I would never put price caps on insurance- I do believe though that with a public option it can regulate its self.

In regards to the Cato Institute article its hard for me to read it without my own bias stacked against it. The CI is a libertarian think tank so of course the notion of socialized care would horrify them!

Here is a paragraph from the article:

“In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more.”

I don’t like the word “can” in the last sentence only because it is a speculation. Its an educated guess, but its not fact.

Another paragraph

“One way insurers can avoid the $50,000 patients is to drop benefits those customers find attractive. Shelby Rogers is a 12-year-old girl with spinal muscular atrophy, whose parents chose an Aetna plan through the price-controlled health insurance exchange for federal workers. Last year, Aetna announced it would drop coverage for Shelby’s 12-hour-a-day nurse, who, among other things, helps Shelby avoid bedsores by turning her over at night. An Aetna spokesman explained the reason was to avoid offering a benefit that causes the sickest patients to flock to the plan.”

Shelby’s parents can shop for another plan. Also, this is already happening in other states without any public option whatsoever. Honestly Allan, 12 hour a day nursing care. My plan is Blue Cross HMO after i spend a million dollars that’s it no more and many insurers are the same. This girl is 12…when she’s my age she would have exhausted her health benefits and no one else would want to insure her. She would/will eventually be on Medicaid regardless, because her parents cannot work forever.

Also, Aetna must have hated the bad press because they reinstated her current care for 2009 though won’t promise for 2010.

I’m not suprised that was said by Aetna, because they are still in it for profit.

The article is a good one, but it cuts off the rest of Merrit Hawkins findings about long waits that have increased “Phil Miller, vice president of public relations for Merritt Hawkins and Associates, sees one clear solution to long wait times:

“We need to be training more physicians, particularly primary care physicians,” he says. “We have been training the same number of doctors for the past 25 years, but a lot has changed in the last quarter-century”.

I am also wary of statements like these “Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane. A recent poll found that more Massachusetts voters say the law has made health insurance less affordable (27 percent) than believe it has made coverage more affordable (21 percent). Voters who believe the reforms have been a failure outnumber those who believe the reforms have been a success by 37 percent to 26 percent”.

“May be on the wane”. Is it or isn’t it? Who did this poll? When was it taken? How many people participated?

Here’s an article by the Harvard School of Health with a poll saying the complete opposite its a year old, but taken two years after the laws implementation:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/hsph-bcbs-poll-strong-support-for-ma-health-reform-law.html

One thing I noticed in the third article right away is that it states Mass already had the longest waits before 2006. Now they are longer, but they use Merrit Hawkins in the previous article and their findings show (which didn’t make it into the article) that all cities have seen an increase in wait times. So it seems natural that Mass still has the highest with or with out the health laws.

Allan, I get that it’s not without flaws I do. Its ill funded in 2009, but it wasn’t so bad in 2006. The recession has got to play a part in that.

Thank you for the articles I will read them again. I’m not trying to discredit the Cato Institute and they have been bipartisan in a number of issues and openly opposed Bush Jr. so they are immediately in my favor! They are Libertarian though and I can see and empathize how Obama and any notion of socialized care could rattle them to their bones.

[sdgrrl]

Hi Allan,

I always look forward to your post even if sometimes we disagree. I can be a hot headed jerk, but I do appreciate the finesse you have in making your points.

In regards to the first article- I think if we get a public option we will see a profit loss from insurance companies as they lower their premiums. Also, as people-like the folks in Mass can shop for the best/cheapest coverage of course profits will decrease. Please tell me and I know you will if I am wrong;)

I would never put price caps on insurance- I do believe though that with a public option it can regulate its self.

In regards to the Cato Institute article its hard for me to read it without my own bias stacked against it. The CI is a libertarian think tank so of course the notion of socialized care would horrify them!

Here is a paragraph from the article:

“In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more.”

I don’t like the word “can” in the last sentence only because it is a speculation. Its an educated guess, but its not fact.

Another paragraph

“One way insurers can avoid the $50,000 patients is to drop benefits those customers find attractive. Shelby Rogers is a 12-year-old girl with spinal muscular atrophy, whose parents chose an Aetna plan through the price-controlled health insurance exchange for federal workers. Last year, Aetna announced it would drop coverage for Shelby’s 12-hour-a-day nurse, who, among other things, helps Shelby avoid bedsores by turning her over at night. An Aetna spokesman explained the reason was to avoid offering a benefit that causes the sickest patients to flock to the plan.”

Shelby’s parents can shop for another plan. Also, this is already happening in other states without any public option whatsoever. Honestly Allan, 12 hour a day nursing care. My plan is Blue Cross HMO after i spend a million dollars that’s it no more and many insurers are the same. This girl is 12…when she’s my age she would have exhausted her health benefits and no one else would want to insure her. She would/will eventually be on Medicaid regardless, because her parents cannot work forever.

Also, Aetna must have hated the bad press because they reinstated her current care for 2009 though won’t promise for 2010.

I’m not suprised that was said by Aetna, because they are still in it for profit.

The article is a good one, but it cuts off the rest of Merrit Hawkins findings about long waits that have increased “Phil Miller, vice president of public relations for Merritt Hawkins and Associates, sees one clear solution to long wait times:

“We need to be training more physicians, particularly primary care physicians,” he says. “We have been training the same number of doctors for the past 25 years, but a lot has changed in the last quarter-century”.

I am also wary of statements like these “Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane. A recent poll found that more Massachusetts voters say the law has made health insurance less affordable (27 percent) than believe it has made coverage more affordable (21 percent). Voters who believe the reforms have been a failure outnumber those who believe the reforms have been a success by 37 percent to 26 percent”.

“May be on the wane”. Is it or isn’t it? Who did this poll? When was it taken? How many people participated?

Here’s an article by the Harvard School of Health with a poll saying the complete opposite its a year old, but taken two years after the laws implementation:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/hsph-bcbs-poll-strong-support-for-ma-health-reform-law.html

One thing I noticed in the third article right away is that it states Mass already had the longest waits before 2006. Now they are longer, but they use Merrit Hawkins in the previous article and their findings show (which didn’t make it into the article) that all cities have seen an increase in wait times. So it seems natural that Mass still has the highest with or with out the health laws.

Allan, I get that it’s not without flaws I do. Its ill funded in 2009, but it wasn’t so bad in 2006. The recession has got to play a part in that.

Thank you for the articles I will read them again. I’m not trying to discredit the Cato Institute and they have been bipartisan in a number of issues and openly opposed Bush Jr. so they are immediately in my favor! They are Libertarian though and I can see and empathize how Obama and any notion of socialized care could rattle them to their bones.

[sdgrrl]

Hi Allan,

I always look forward to your post even if sometimes we disagree. I can be a hot headed jerk, but I do appreciate the finesse you have in making your points.

In regards to the first article- I think if we get a public option we will see a profit loss from insurance companies as they lower their premiums. Also, as people-like the folks in Mass can shop for the best/cheapest coverage of course profits will decrease. Please tell me and I know you will if I am wrong;)

I would never put price caps on insurance- I do believe though that with a public option it can regulate its self.

In regards to the Cato Institute article its hard for me to read it without my own bias stacked against it. The CI is a libertarian think tank so of course the notion of socialized care would horrify them!

Here is a paragraph from the article:

“In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more.”

I don’t like the word “can” in the last sentence only because it is a speculation. Its an educated guess, but its not fact.

Another paragraph

“One way insurers can avoid the $50,000 patients is to drop benefits those customers find attractive. Shelby Rogers is a 12-year-old girl with spinal muscular atrophy, whose parents chose an Aetna plan through the price-controlled health insurance exchange for federal workers. Last year, Aetna announced it would drop coverage for Shelby’s 12-hour-a-day nurse, who, among other things, helps Shelby avoid bedsores by turning her over at night. An Aetna spokesman explained the reason was to avoid offering a benefit that causes the sickest patients to flock to the plan.”

Shelby’s parents can shop for another plan. Also, this is already happening in other states without any public option whatsoever. Honestly Allan, 12 hour a day nursing care. My plan is Blue Cross HMO after i spend a million dollars that’s it no more and many insurers are the same. This girl is 12…when she’s my age she would have exhausted her health benefits and no one else would want to insure her. She would/will eventually be on Medicaid regardless, because her parents cannot work forever.

Also, Aetna must have hated the bad press because they reinstated her current care for 2009 though won’t promise for 2010.

I’m not suprised that was said by Aetna, because they are still in it for profit.

The article is a good one, but it cuts off the rest of Merrit Hawkins findings about long waits that have increased “Phil Miller, vice president of public relations for Merritt Hawkins and Associates, sees one clear solution to long wait times:

“We need to be training more physicians, particularly primary care physicians,” he says. “We have been training the same number of doctors for the past 25 years, but a lot has changed in the last quarter-century”.

I am also wary of statements like these “Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane. A recent poll found that more Massachusetts voters say the law has made health insurance less affordable (27 percent) than believe it has made coverage more affordable (21 percent). Voters who believe the reforms have been a failure outnumber those who believe the reforms have been a success by 37 percent to 26 percent”.

“May be on the wane”. Is it or isn’t it? Who did this poll? When was it taken? How many people participated?

Here’s an article by the Harvard School of Health with a poll saying the complete opposite its a year old, but taken two years after the laws implementation:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/hsph-bcbs-poll-strong-support-for-ma-health-reform-law.html

One thing I noticed in the third article right away is that it states Mass already had the longest waits before 2006. Now they are longer, but they use Merrit Hawkins in the previous article and their findings show (which didn’t make it into the article) that all cities have seen an increase in wait times. So it seems natural that Mass still has the highest with or with out the health laws.

Allan, I get that it’s not without flaws I do. Its ill funded in 2009, but it wasn’t so bad in 2006. The recession has got to play a part in that.

Thank you for the articles I will read them again. I’m not trying to discredit the Cato Institute and they have been bipartisan in a number of issues and openly opposed Bush Jr. so they are immediately in my favor! They are Libertarian though and I can see and empathize how Obama and any notion of socialized care could rattle them to their bones.

[sdgrrl]

Hi Allan,

I always look forward to your post even if sometimes we disagree. I can be a hot headed jerk, but I do appreciate the finesse you have in making your points.

In regards to the first article- I think if we get a public option we will see a profit loss from insurance companies as they lower their premiums. Also, as people-like the folks in Mass can shop for the best/cheapest coverage of course profits will decrease. Please tell me and I know you will if I am wrong;)

I would never put price caps on insurance- I do believe though that with a public option it can regulate its self.

In regards to the Cato Institute article its hard for me to read it without my own bias stacked against it. The CI is a libertarian think tank so of course the notion of socialized care would horrify them!

Here is a paragraph from the article:

“In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more.”

I don’t like the word “can” in the last sentence only because it is a speculation. Its an educated guess, but its not fact.

Another paragraph

“One way insurers can avoid the $50,000 patients is to drop benefits those customers find attractive. Shelby Rogers is a 12-year-old girl with spinal muscular atrophy, whose parents chose an Aetna plan through the price-controlled health insurance exchange for federal workers. Last year, Aetna announced it would drop coverage for Shelby’s 12-hour-a-day nurse, who, among other things, helps Shelby avoid bedsores by turning her over at night. An Aetna spokesman explained the reason was to avoid offering a benefit that causes the sickest patients to flock to the plan.”

Shelby’s parents can shop for another plan. Also, this is already happening in other states without any public option whatsoever. Honestly Allan, 12 hour a day nursing care. My plan is Blue Cross HMO after i spend a million dollars that’s it no more and many insurers are the same. This girl is 12…when she’s my age she would have exhausted her health benefits and no one else would want to insure her. She would/will eventually be on Medicaid regardless, because her parents cannot work forever.

Also, Aetna must have hated the bad press because they reinstated her current care for 2009 though won’t promise for 2010.

I’m not suprised that was said by Aetna, because they are still in it for profit.

The article is a good one, but it cuts off the rest of Merrit Hawkins findings about long waits that have increased “Phil Miller, vice president of public relations for Merritt Hawkins and Associates, sees one clear solution to long wait times:

“We need to be training more physicians, particularly primary care physicians,” he says. “We have been training the same number of doctors for the past 25 years, but a lot has changed in the last quarter-century”.

I am also wary of statements like these “Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane. A recent poll found that more Massachusetts voters say the law has made health insurance less affordable (27 percent) than believe it has made coverage more affordable (21 percent). Voters who believe the reforms have been a failure outnumber those who believe the reforms have been a success by 37 percent to 26 percent”.

“May be on the wane”. Is it or isn’t it? Who did this poll? When was it taken? How many people participated?

Here’s an article by the Harvard School of Health with a poll saying the complete opposite its a year old, but taken two years after the laws implementation:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/hsph-bcbs-poll-strong-support-for-ma-health-reform-law.html

One thing I noticed in the third article right away is that it states Mass already had the longest waits before 2006. Now they are longer, but they use Merrit Hawkins in the previous article and their findings show (which didn’t make it into the article) that all cities have seen an increase in wait times. So it seems natural that Mass still has the highest with or with out the health laws.

Allan, I get that it’s not without flaws I do. Its ill funded in 2009, but it wasn’t so bad in 2006. The recession has got to play a part in that.

Thank you for the articles I will read them again. I’m not trying to discredit the Cato Institute and they have been bipartisan in a number of issues and openly opposed Bush Jr. so they are immediately in my favor! They are Libertarian though and I can see and empathize how Obama and any notion of socialized care could rattle them to their bones.

[sdgrrl]

Hi Allan,

I always look forward to your post even if sometimes we disagree. I can be a hot headed jerk, but I do appreciate the finesse you have in making your points.

In regards to the first article- I think if we get a public option we will see a profit loss from insurance companies as they lower their premiums. Also, as people-like the folks in Mass can shop for the best/cheapest coverage of course profits will decrease. Please tell me and I know you will if I am wrong;)

I would never put price caps on insurance- I do believe though that with a public option it can regulate its self.

In regards to the Cato Institute article its hard for me to read it without my own bias stacked against it. The CI is a libertarian think tank so of course the notion of socialized care would horrify them!

Here is a paragraph from the article:

“In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more.”

I don’t like the word “can” in the last sentence only because it is a speculation. Its an educated guess, but its not fact.

Another paragraph

“One way insurers can avoid the $50,000 patients is to drop benefits those customers find attractive. Shelby Rogers is a 12-year-old girl with spinal muscular atrophy, whose parents chose an Aetna plan through the price-controlled health insurance exchange for federal workers. Last year, Aetna announced it would drop coverage for Shelby’s 12-hour-a-day nurse, who, among other things, helps Shelby avoid bedsores by turning her over at night. An Aetna spokesman explained the reason was to avoid offering a benefit that causes the sickest patients to flock to the plan.”

Shelby’s parents can shop for another plan. Also, this is already happening in other states without any public option whatsoever. Honestly Allan, 12 hour a day nursing care. My plan is Blue Cross HMO after i spend a million dollars that’s it no more and many insurers are the same. This girl is 12…when she’s my age she would have exhausted her health benefits and no one else would want to insure her. She would/will eventually be on Medicaid regardless, because her parents cannot work forever.

Also, Aetna must have hated the bad press because they reinstated her current care for 2009 though won’t promise for 2010.

I’m not suprised that was said by Aetna, because they are still in it for profit.

The article is a good one, but it cuts off the rest of Merrit Hawkins findings about long waits that have increased “Phil Miller, vice president of public relations for Merritt Hawkins and Associates, sees one clear solution to long wait times:

“We need to be training more physicians, particularly primary care physicians,” he says. “We have been training the same number of doctors for the past 25 years, but a lot has changed in the last quarter-century”.

I am also wary of statements like these “Though initially popular, enthusiasm for the Massachusetts reforms may be on the wane. A recent poll found that more Massachusetts voters say the law has made health insurance less affordable (27 percent) than believe it has made coverage more affordable (21 percent). Voters who believe the reforms have been a failure outnumber those who believe the reforms have been a success by 37 percent to 26 percent”.

“May be on the wane”. Is it or isn’t it? Who did this poll? When was it taken? How many people participated?

Here’s an article by the Harvard School of Health with a poll saying the complete opposite its a year old, but taken two years after the laws implementation:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/hsph-bcbs-poll-strong-support-for-ma-health-reform-law.html

One thing I noticed in the third article right away is that it states Mass already had the longest waits before 2006. Now they are longer, but they use Merrit Hawkins in the previous article and their findings show (which didn’t make it into the article) that all cities have seen an increase in wait times. So it seems natural that Mass still has the highest with or with out the health laws.

Allan, I get that it’s not without flaws I do. Its ill funded in 2009, but it wasn’t so bad in 2006. The recession has got to play a part in that.

Thank you for the articles I will read them again. I’m not trying to discredit the Cato Institute and they have been bipartisan in a number of issues and openly opposed Bush Jr. so they are immediately in my favor! They are Libertarian though and I can see and empathize how Obama and any notion of socialized care could rattle them to their bones.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: Thank you for the compliment. It underscores the importance of debate, though, doesn’t it? We can disagree and perhaps vehemently so, but we’re not referring to each other as “Nazis” or “un-American”, and therein lies my biggest problem with this entire healthcare debate: It ISN’T a debate at all.

On one hand, we do have genuine fear mongering and obstructionism from the GOP and, on the other, we have high handed arrogance, demagoguery and this self righteous mendacity that is astonishing to me.

I’m not sure that I’m right. Actually, I’m pretty sure, on some of my points, that I’m not. However, I haven’t seen anything that either refutes or rebuts it effectively from the opposition, hence my suggestion that Obama go on the stump for this bill and, through education and explanation, make his case to the American people.

I don’t need some dunderheaded dolt like Nancy Pelosi telling me that I’m un-American simply because I have the temerity to ask questions. She can go fuck herself, along with Waters and Waxman and Feinstein. How dare she?!? I fought for this goddamn country and she has the unbelievable gall to question my patriotism and love of country? I was raised to believe that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I also fervently believe that this issue demands attention and diligence and explanation.

Sorry about that “fuck herself” declamation, but that bitch really chaps my ass and personifies everything that has gone wrong with this country. And, yes, I include Bush and Cheney and their ilk in that mix as well.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: Thank you for the compliment. It underscores the importance of debate, though, doesn’t it? We can disagree and perhaps vehemently so, but we’re not referring to each other as “Nazis” or “un-American”, and therein lies my biggest problem with this entire healthcare debate: It ISN’T a debate at all.

On one hand, we do have genuine fear mongering and obstructionism from the GOP and, on the other, we have high handed arrogance, demagoguery and this self righteous mendacity that is astonishing to me.

I’m not sure that I’m right. Actually, I’m pretty sure, on some of my points, that I’m not. However, I haven’t seen anything that either refutes or rebuts it effectively from the opposition, hence my suggestion that Obama go on the stump for this bill and, through education and explanation, make his case to the American people.

I don’t need some dunderheaded dolt like Nancy Pelosi telling me that I’m un-American simply because I have the temerity to ask questions. She can go fuck herself, along with Waters and Waxman and Feinstein. How dare she?!? I fought for this goddamn country and she has the unbelievable gall to question my patriotism and love of country? I was raised to believe that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I also fervently believe that this issue demands attention and diligence and explanation.

Sorry about that “fuck herself” declamation, but that bitch really chaps my ass and personifies everything that has gone wrong with this country. And, yes, I include Bush and Cheney and their ilk in that mix as well.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: Thank you for the compliment. It underscores the importance of debate, though, doesn’t it? We can disagree and perhaps vehemently so, but we’re not referring to each other as “Nazis” or “un-American”, and therein lies my biggest problem with this entire healthcare debate: It ISN’T a debate at all.

On one hand, we do have genuine fear mongering and obstructionism from the GOP and, on the other, we have high handed arrogance, demagoguery and this self righteous mendacity that is astonishing to me.

I’m not sure that I’m right. Actually, I’m pretty sure, on some of my points, that I’m not. However, I haven’t seen anything that either refutes or rebuts it effectively from the opposition, hence my suggestion that Obama go on the stump for this bill and, through education and explanation, make his case to the American people.

I don’t need some dunderheaded dolt like Nancy Pelosi telling me that I’m un-American simply because I have the temerity to ask questions. She can go fuck herself, along with Waters and Waxman and Feinstein. How dare she?!? I fought for this goddamn country and she has the unbelievable gall to question my patriotism and love of country? I was raised to believe that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I also fervently believe that this issue demands attention and diligence and explanation.

Sorry about that “fuck herself” declamation, but that bitch really chaps my ass and personifies everything that has gone wrong with this country. And, yes, I include Bush and Cheney and their ilk in that mix as well.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: Thank you for the compliment. It underscores the importance of debate, though, doesn’t it? We can disagree and perhaps vehemently so, but we’re not referring to each other as “Nazis” or “un-American”, and therein lies my biggest problem with this entire healthcare debate: It ISN’T a debate at all.

On one hand, we do have genuine fear mongering and obstructionism from the GOP and, on the other, we have high handed arrogance, demagoguery and this self righteous mendacity that is astonishing to me.

I’m not sure that I’m right. Actually, I’m pretty sure, on some of my points, that I’m not. However, I haven’t seen anything that either refutes or rebuts it effectively from the opposition, hence my suggestion that Obama go on the stump for this bill and, through education and explanation, make his case to the American people.

I don’t need some dunderheaded dolt like Nancy Pelosi telling me that I’m un-American simply because I have the temerity to ask questions. She can go fuck herself, along with Waters and Waxman and Feinstein. How dare she?!? I fought for this goddamn country and she has the unbelievable gall to question my patriotism and love of country? I was raised to believe that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I also fervently believe that this issue demands attention and diligence and explanation.

Sorry about that “fuck herself” declamation, but that bitch really chaps my ass and personifies everything that has gone wrong with this country. And, yes, I include Bush and Cheney and their ilk in that mix as well.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sdgrrl: Thank you for the compliment. It underscores the importance of debate, though, doesn’t it? We can disagree and perhaps vehemently so, but we’re not referring to each other as “Nazis” or “un-American”, and therein lies my biggest problem with this entire healthcare debate: It ISN’T a debate at all.

On one hand, we do have genuine fear mongering and obstructionism from the GOP and, on the other, we have high handed arrogance, demagoguery and this self righteous mendacity that is astonishing to me.

I’m not sure that I’m right. Actually, I’m pretty sure, on some of my points, that I’m not. However, I haven’t seen anything that either refutes or rebuts it effectively from the opposition, hence my suggestion that Obama go on the stump for this bill and, through education and explanation, make his case to the American people.

I don’t need some dunderheaded dolt like Nancy Pelosi telling me that I’m un-American simply because I have the temerity to ask questions. She can go fuck herself, along with Waters and Waxman and Feinstein. How dare she?!? I fought for this goddamn country and she has the unbelievable gall to question my patriotism and love of country? I was raised to believe that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I also fervently believe that this issue demands attention and diligence and explanation.

Sorry about that “fuck herself” declamation, but that bitch really chaps my ass and personifies everything that has gone wrong with this country. And, yes, I include Bush and Cheney and their ilk in that mix as well.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]the innovations you speak of are part of a very competitive system, designed to push innovation and creativity, but to do so for a profit.[/quote]

Of course. I have no problem with this — it’s how it should be. The healthcare bill in question has nothing to do with stifling innovation. If you invent a drug that cures AIDS you will be a billionaire with or without this bill. To claim that this bill will somehow prevent someone (whether public or private) from finding cures for diseases is unfounded.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Lastly, I would ask, relative to those life expectancy numbers from Europe: How big is the difference for American life expectancy versus European? If I remember correctly, we’re talking fairly minute differences, aren’t we?[/quote]

Here is a nice chart of overall life-expectancy:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

France is ranked #9 at 80.98 years.
US is ranked #50 at 78.11 years behind such powerhouses as Bermuda, Liechtenstein, and Bosnia.

Sure, for us 2-3 years may be a “minute difference” but if you ask someone who is 78, I have a feeling the difference won’t feel as minute to them.

But those life expectancy numbers are from birth — the real difference makes itself known when you compare life expectancy at 60. The US is even worse at that data point. I’m trying to find some data on these numbers but my Google Fu is failing me at the moment.

Oh, and France is probably cheating with all of their wine drinking and vacation taking.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]the innovations you speak of are part of a very competitive system, designed to push innovation and creativity, but to do so for a profit.[/quote]

Of course. I have no problem with this — it’s how it should be. The healthcare bill in question has nothing to do with stifling innovation. If you invent a drug that cures AIDS you will be a billionaire with or without this bill. To claim that this bill will somehow prevent someone (whether public or private) from finding cures for diseases is unfounded.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Lastly, I would ask, relative to those life expectancy numbers from Europe: How big is the difference for American life expectancy versus European? If I remember correctly, we’re talking fairly minute differences, aren’t we?[/quote]

Here is a nice chart of overall life-expectancy:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

France is ranked #9 at 80.98 years.
US is ranked #50 at 78.11 years behind such powerhouses as Bermuda, Liechtenstein, and Bosnia.

Sure, for us 2-3 years may be a “minute difference” but if you ask someone who is 78, I have a feeling the difference won’t feel as minute to them.

But those life expectancy numbers are from birth — the real difference makes itself known when you compare life expectancy at 60. The US is even worse at that data point. I’m trying to find some data on these numbers but my Google Fu is failing me at the moment.

Oh, and France is probably cheating with all of their wine drinking and vacation taking.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]the innovations you speak of are part of a very competitive system, designed to push innovation and creativity, but to do so for a profit.[/quote]

Of course. I have no problem with this — it’s how it should be. The healthcare bill in question has nothing to do with stifling innovation. If you invent a drug that cures AIDS you will be a billionaire with or without this bill. To claim that this bill will somehow prevent someone (whether public or private) from finding cures for diseases is unfounded.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Lastly, I would ask, relative to those life expectancy numbers from Europe: How big is the difference for American life expectancy versus European? If I remember correctly, we’re talking fairly minute differences, aren’t we?[/quote]

Here is a nice chart of overall life-expectancy:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

France is ranked #9 at 80.98 years.
US is ranked #50 at 78.11 years behind such powerhouses as Bermuda, Liechtenstein, and Bosnia.

Sure, for us 2-3 years may be a “minute difference” but if you ask someone who is 78, I have a feeling the difference won’t feel as minute to them.

But those life expectancy numbers are from birth — the real difference makes itself known when you compare life expectancy at 60. The US is even worse at that data point. I’m trying to find some data on these numbers but my Google Fu is failing me at the moment.

Oh, and France is probably cheating with all of their wine drinking and vacation taking.

[afx114]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]the innovations you speak of are part of a very competitive system, designed to push innovation and creativity, but to do so for a profit.[/quote]

Of course. I have no problem with this — it’s how it should be. The healthcare bill in question has nothing to do with stifling innovation. If you invent a drug that cures AIDS you will be a billionaire with or without this bill. To claim that this bill will somehow prevent someone (whether public or private) from finding cures for diseases is unfounded.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Lastly, I would ask, relative to those life expectancy numbers from Europe: How big is the difference for American life expectancy versus European? If I remember correctly, we’re talking fairly minute differences, aren’t we?[/quote]

Here is a nice chart of overall life-expectancy:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

France is ranked #9 at 80.98 years.
US is ranked #50 at 78.11 years behind such powerhouses as Bermuda, Liechtenstein, and Bosnia.

Sure, for us 2-3 years may be a “minute difference” but if you ask someone who is 78, I have a feeling the difference won’t feel as minute to them.

But those life expectancy numbers are from birth — the real difference makes itself known when you compare life expectancy at 60. The US is even worse at that data point. I’m trying to find some data on these numbers but my Google Fu is failing me at the moment.

Oh, and France is probably cheating with all of their wine drinking and vacation taking.

[Author]

Posts