Expanding Medicare is what is known as Obamacare?
HR 808 and HR 676 also want to ban handguns, but that isnt going to happen. Im talking about the "Obama/Teddycare" that Harvey is pushing.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius :
"...the public option is not the essential element."
"What's important is choice and competition..."
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
And your post is the equivalent of the Bushwhackos failure to heed the warnings that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were planning it and their even more inept, criminal invasion of Iraq, where they weren't. :roll:
SINGLE PAYER HEALTH, NOW! Pass Teddy-Care! :light: :thumbsup:
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
My problem Harvey is that one may get political hay out of using Kennedy, but to what end? You are interested in single payer system. Show me the details FIRST and then I'll consider the legislation based on it's own merits, not on someone's name. Back in the '60's the death of another Kennedy was used to promote another well intentioned endeavor, the VN War. You already know what I think of that.
Let the Dems come up with a good plan, not something cobbled together by politicians in order to get anything through, call it Obamalama care if you want
If you respect Kennedy, then you would not want his name used for just anything, would you? I know the answer is no.
Let the Dems come up with a good plan, not something cobbled together by politicians in order to get anything through, call it Obamalama care if you want
If you respect Kennedy, then you would not want his name used for just anything, would you? I know the answer is no.
And for the most part CC I think it will continue to be a moving target until the Senate and House sit down in conference.
As far as funding Medicare Advantage is gone (or seriously neutered) for $177 billion over the next ten years. The is also a 'menu' of savings to the tune of $320 billion.
There is a lot on the table including means testing for Medicare premiums.
I think what has been lost in the rhetoric, at least from my point of view, is any public option must be self-funded for it to be legitimate.
20 million people X an average annual premium of $3,600 is $720 billion per year. With means testing some folks may pay $2,400/yr and others $4,800/yr.
My issues generally revolve around the false assumptions by some that health care reform = free health care.
It does not, plain and simple. Even the least among us must pay something.
edit: LOL - that's $72 billion a year :laugh:
What am I? The CBO?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
My problem Harvey is that one may get political hay out of using Kennedy, but to what end? You are interested in single payer system. Show me the details FIRST and then I'll consider the legislation based on it's own merits, not on someone's name. Back in the '60's the death of another Kennedy was used to promote another well intentioned endeavor, the VN War. You already know what I think of that.
Let the Dems come up with a good plan, not something cobbled together by politicians in order to get anything through, call it Obamalama care if you want
If you respect Kennedy, then you would not want his name used for just anything, would you? I know the answer is no.
Well.... I'd think Kennedy would be thrilled to have his name attached to any Health Care Bill that was signed into law at this point.. or when he was alive..
HR 676 makes sense to me... It does... more so than HR3200 which reads like well another 26 volume thingi...
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Remember that Clinton did not respond to that information either.
It was not a 7 month project in the works to accomplish 9/11.
Both administrations may have dropped the ball - part was the barrier that was put up to intelligence sharing and the inability to connect the dots which were visible in 20/20 hindsight.
Also, Afghanistan and Iraq were rubber stamped by Congress without serious evaluation until 20/20 hindsight again..
Can we afford for something that will affect many more Americans of all stripes to be implemented with proper consideration of the consequences and ensure that it is handled properly and efficiently.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The problem with with the means test is that I will already be paying (using your examples) $4800. This is as much as I am already paying while self-employed. I do not know the amount of coverage that the government system will provide and/or what deductibles. this is an open issue that they have not addressed, but want me to sign on.
People that have employer provided insurance probably pay between $100 and $300/month for better coverage than the government will provide.
So you end up with a subsidy again and possibly a lower level of care at a higher cost.
unless they are going to address that cost of healthcare from all angles, the taxpayer will have to subsidize the have nots and the bill will not be revenue neutral.
Revenue neutral is a slogan, not a actual achievable fact.
This is exactly what we need:
* Every resident of the US will be covered from birth to death.
* No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.
* No more expensive deductibles or co-pays.
* All prescription medications will be covered.
* All dental and eye care will be included.
* Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.(1)
* Long term and nursing home services will be included.
* You will always choose your own doctors and hospitals.
* Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis.
* Tremendously simplified system of medical administration.
* Total portability ? your coverage not tied to any job or location.
* Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will be vastly improved.
* No corporate bureaucrat will ever come between you and your Doctor to deny your care.
HR676!
* Every resident of the US will be covered from birth to death.
* No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.
* No more expensive deductibles or co-pays.
* All prescription medications will be covered.
* All dental and eye care will be included.
* Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.(1)
* Long term and nursing home services will be included.
* You will always choose your own doctors and hospitals.
* Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis.
* Tremendously simplified system of medical administration.
* Total portability ? your coverage not tied to any job or location.
* Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will be vastly improved.
* No corporate bureaucrat will ever come between you and your Doctor to deny your care.
HR676!
That depends on whether you're too drunk or stoned to figure out that you need to call for help. The ATPS (Advanced Telepathic Patient Sensing) system will have to wait for awhile.
I have a better idea. Let's call you a Chappaquid DICK for being such an off topic prick.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Thanks for the reminder Harvey, I'm going to write both my senators and my house rep to remind them that any support for the massive government healthcare disaster will cause them to lose my vote and cause me to contribute to the campaign of whoever is running against them in the next election.
Prove that, but you might want to know, CNN begs to differ, citing sources more authoritative than you. :Q
Then, there's this small conflict of interest where insurance execs' bonuses are tied to how many claims they can deny from paying policy holders. :roll:
That's mostly wrong. The civil rights bill was somewhat passed in honor of Kennedy - and a lot of work by Johnson obviously - but not the Vietnam war for the most part.
The first thing to note is that JFK made great efforts to keep us out of a broader war in Vietnam when there were great pressures to get in.
The one way that Kennedy's name played a role worth noting is that some of Kennedy's advisors - who Kennedy was sometimes at odds with - told LBJ wrongly that Kennedy was more in favor of war in Vietnam than he was, possibly becasue in part kennedy had kept his cards pretty close to his chest given the politics, and the aides may have wanted to believe that.
Johnson was alrwady close to Diem, who had been assassinated shortly before JFK, and LBJ was upset and wanted to do more for South Vietnam.
He also had insecurities about JFK, and the idea that he'd 'lose' Vietnam when Kennedy had not did not sit well with him.
While LBJ privately said he didn't think we could win a war, he made the choice to get in anyway. It's on his shoulders, not Kennedy's.
LBJ didn't go to the nation and sell the war on the basis that it was to honor JFK, and he was right not to.
Let the Dems come up with a good plan, not something cobbled together by politicians in order to get anything through, call it Obamalama care if you want
If you respect Kennedy, then you would not want his name used for just anything, would you? I know the answer is no.
I agree with not putting Kennedy's name on a weak healthcare bill that is more insult than honor to his views, like the way Bush gutted the No Child Left Behind deal they made.
You know the reaction when disgust overwhelms the desire to respond? I do.
Edit: thanks to Harvey for taking one for the team.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: Craig234
That's mostly wrong. The civil rights bill was somewhat passed in honor of Kennedy - and a lot of work by Johnson obviously - but not the Vietnam war for the most part.
The first thing to note is that JFK made great efforts to keep us out of a broader war in Vietnam when there were great pressures to get in.
The one way that Kennedy's name played a role worth noting is that some of Kennedy's advisors - who Kennedy was sometimes at odds with - told LBJ wrongly that Kennedy was more in favor of war in Vietnam than he was, possibly becasue in part kennedy had kept his cards pretty close to his chest given the politics, and the aides may have wanted to believe that.
Johnson was alrwady close to Diem, who had been assassinated shortly before JFK, and LBJ was upset and wanted to do more for South Vietnam.
He also had insecurities about JFK, and the idea that he'd 'lose' Vietnam when Kennedy had not did not sit well with him.
While LBJ privately said he didn't think we could win a war, he made the choice to get in anyway. It's on his shoulders, not Kennedy's.
LBJ didn't go to the nation and sell the war on the basis that it was to honor JFK, and he was right not to.
Let the Dems come up with a good plan, not something cobbled together by politicians in order to get anything through, call it Obamalama care if you want
If you respect Kennedy, then you would not want his name used for just anything, would you? I know the answer is no.
I agree with not putting Kennedy's name on a weak healthcare bill that is more insult than honor to his views, like the way Bush gutted the No Child Left Behind deal they made.
You are forgetting something. Jackie was just about the only person that Johnson was afraid of. He didn't even fear Joe Kennedy, who practically picked Johnson to be VP because he wanted to control him.
After JFK died, Jackie spoke with Johnson, and she wanted him to escalate VN and overcome the Communists in SE Asia. She thought it a fitting and lasting tribute for her husband. She had bought into the idea that winning was possible, and Johnson complied.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: Craig234
That's mostly wrong. The civil rights bill was somewhat passed in honor of Kennedy - and a lot of work by Johnson obviously - but not the Vietnam war for the most part.
The first thing to note is that JFK made great efforts to keep us out of a broader war in Vietnam when there were great pressures to get in.
The one way that Kennedy's name played a role worth noting is that some of Kennedy's advisors - who Kennedy was sometimes at odds with - told LBJ wrongly that Kennedy was more in favor of war in Vietnam than he was, possibly becasue in part kennedy had kept his cards pretty close to his chest given the politics, and the aides may have wanted to believe that.
Johnson was alrwady close to Diem, who had been assassinated shortly before JFK, and LBJ was upset and wanted to do more for South Vietnam.
He also had insecurities about JFK, and the idea that he'd 'lose' Vietnam when Kennedy had not did not sit well with him.
While LBJ privately said he didn't think we could win a war, he made the choice to get in anyway. It's on his shoulders, not Kennedy's.
LBJ didn't go to the nation and sell the war on the basis that it was to honor JFK, and he was right not to.
Let the Dems come up with a good plan, not something cobbled together by politicians in order to get anything through, call it Obamalama care if you want
If you respect Kennedy, then you would not want his name used for just anything, would you? I know the answer is no.
I agree with not putting Kennedy's name on a weak healthcare bill that is more insult than honor to his views, like the way Bush gutted the No Child Left Behind deal they made.
w/ Respect to VN - JFK's actions as CIC seem to speak louder than the words spoken by others about him.
w/ respect to the Health Care, if Ted Kennedy is to be labeled with it; make it one that actually is benifical to the complete country, not a select few and the expense of many.
Like Mary Jo Kopechne?
Like protecting Hitler's point man on rockets and a man personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Jews, von Braun?
You can try and argue politics and intentions for that family, but they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, good people.
Edit- Thinking about that last statement, Joe Jr seemed like he was actually a very decent young man, nothing like his father or his younger siblings. I apologize to his memory for lumping him in with the rest of them.
You're distorting history here, but some of it subjective enough that it can be called 'opinion' and is not as easy to prove.
I've listened to some of the private phone calls between Jackie and LBJ never intended to become public, after he became President. They're quite odd - that's another topic - but don't fit your history. LBJ was obsessed (as was Nixon) with JFK and RFK, but Jackie was hardly influencing policy, twisting his arm to go to some war he didn't want to.
Joe Kennedy by that time had had a serious stroke a couple years before, leaving him unable to say any word but "no". There's no issue whether LBJ was 'scared' of him.
I don't know where you are getting the idea it was even a question, or that Joe Kennedy was pushing war in Vietnam if LBJ was listening.
And Joe Kennedy did not pick LBJ - you misunderstand the dynamic. Joe was there influencing and advising his sons at times - he *was* largely responsible for JFK picking RFK as his attorney general, for example - but LBJ was JFK's choice, in a rare disagreement with brother Robert, because of the election demographics, and it turned out he was right on, JFK would probably have lost without LBJ's demographics.
I'm not intimately familiar with everything between Jackie and LBJ, and so there might be some communication that made you reach that conclusion, but I'd like to see it.
I will say it's very out of character for her - and there's no way LBJ made any decision on war based on the information you describe.
Victory in Southeast Asia was not what Jackie - who coined the term 'Camelot' as a name for JFK's administration - saw as his legacy to be valued.
I'd guess any communication was much more likely her simply expressing support for LBJ in whatever policy he chose, out of the nature of their relationship.
Naturally, her acceptance and approval of him as President was pleasing to him. They had warm communications. Her actual opinion of him was not as good.
While JFK was President, she called LBJ "Colonel Corn Pone"; she asked the publishers of a memorial edition of Profiles in Courage not to let President Johnson write the foreword.
When Jackie gave Kennedy Ted Sorensen feedback on his book on Kennedy, she sent him a note:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter