What can the democrats learn by the loss of Cockley

[Zebo]

What can the democrats learn by the loss of Cockley:

Throw out the socialists, return the party to its sane roots back when the Bourborn Democrats held the platform.

This augment is unpersuasive to me. Obama is far from socialist and over 70% want a socialist public option which Obama fails to deliver. Add in surge in Afghanistan, a private forced insurance, Bush-era detainee policies reinforced, nixing climate summit, windfalls to bankers, etc it's crazy to claim that the new administration is run by a gang of socialists.

 

[Craig234]

Ok, let me rephrase that, why don't you give any credit to the republicans for paying down that debt? You already stated they were twisting their arm, and that it was a bad thing. We are really arguing as to whether or not the republicans were potent for that time period. If they had power, I don't see how you can not give them some of the credit, congress does pass the budgets.

With the republicans having the congress majority most of clinton's term, how can you give credit for good times to democrats when republicans had congressional power, but blame republicans for bad times when they have a minority? You have stated that 40 republicans have too much power, how can 50+ have less?

Argh I was in the middle of a long reply toyou, after complimenting your questions, and hit the wrong thing and it's lost. I'll try to say something later.

 

[IGBT]

after last nights epic upset it's obvious that every democrat seat is in play.

 

[Carmen813]

after last nights epic upset it's obvious that every incumbent seat is in play.

Fixed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've read through the Republican health care proposal (their final one.) Yes, they are against reform. At least reform that would actually make a difference in rising costs/deficits.

You do understand that the only way to keep medical costs from skyrocketing is to deny giving care to those who need it, right?

No, I'm not supporting that, but there is this naive concept among some that a government run UHC program will significantly alter the facts, which are that we have an aging demographic, and all that goes with it.

That will require more resources and money. Now a prudently managed system would slightly mitigate that, however if you consider government to automatically provide that, I suggest you look at our favorite program, Medicaid, in terms of smooth operation. Yep, you generally don't have a problem as a consumer of the product, but you don't see the dance providers do to make it that way.

If I had some demonstrable grounds for the faith some have in government run health care, I'd feel otherwise, but it's not there from where I sit, which is on the phone with insurance companies far too much, government plans included.

Notwithstanding any of this, there isn't enough profit in health insurance to pay for any of what's coming up.

 

[PJABBER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by IGBT
after last nights epic upset it's obvious that every incumbent seat is in play.

Fixed.

You are right in that. However, the blame game will target those who hold the reins of power most.

As I said before, the Democrats will lose the most offices held, incumbent Republicans will lose in the primaries.

 

[Carmen813]

You do understand that the only way to keep medical costs from skyrocketing is to deny giving care to those who need it, right?

No, I'm not supporting that, but there is this naive concept among some that a government run UHC program will significantly alter the facts, which are that we have an aging demographic, and all that goes with it.

That will require more resources and money. Now a prudently managed system would slightly mitigate that, however if you consider government to automatically provide that, I suggest you look at our favorite program, Medicaid, in terms of smooth operation. Yep, you generally don't have a problem as a consumer of the product, but you don't see the dance providers do to make it that way.

If I had some demonstrable grounds for the faith some have in government run health care, I'd feel otherwise, but it's not there from where I sit, which is on the phone with insurance companies far too much, government plans included.

Notwithstanding any of this, there isn't enough profit in health insurance to pay for any of what's coming up.

I'm not sure, if more people are paying into the pool, shouldn't that offset the cost increases?

Health care is a real mess for me. I'm a 25 year old cancer survivor/grad student. I took a part-time job that pays $1200 a month. It looks like I'm losing Medicaid/FHP. So now my option is to buy HNY Healthcore, since my grad student insurance offering is inadequate. That's $540 a month for me and my wife...who was just laid off. My rents $560 a month.

My point: Why the hell am I even bothering to work...

Frankly, I'd be more than happy to never deal with an insurance company again (but I suspect if will be because I can't afford it, not because of some miraculous reform)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Do people even understand what single payer health care really mean? It basically mean: government will handle all aspect of healthcare but also at the same time, dictate what medicine you can have. If let say for example you are in need of a special medicine to relive pain and the government doesn't approve of it, you are FUCK. Single player mean it would be ILLEGAL to pay fort medic care in US with your own money for things that government doesn't pay for, where is the freedom in that?

You're assuming that private medical care would be outlawed and that having real socialized medicine and available private care for the wealthy are mutually exclusive. I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be able to purchase private care at their own expense if that's what they want.

Note that even today if doctors in the private sector deny you a prescription you cannot obtain the drug you want and your insurance company could always turn you down for a drug or a procedure. (For the record, I believe that people should be able to purchase prescription drugs for themselves without a prescription and that the government should not regulate prescription drugs (other than to approve them for sale).)

People claim that insurance across the state line and tort reform doesn't help with healthcare cost, but does it hurt to test it out to see if there is improvement? I mean, there has to be a reason "why" almost no democrat want to discuss tort reform? I don't see why not... I mean, doctors pays for malpractice insurance and from what I hear, it can get to like 100k a year and where do you think the cost got pass to?

What do you want people who have been legitimately injured through a doctor's negligence to do? Should they be the ones to have to eat the cost? Note that under true socialized medicine the government would have to foot the bill for treating victims of medical malpractice anyway, making it less of an issue.

These two thing I suggest might not mean much individually, but it should be a right step in the direction of lowering healthcare cost, right?

It's like trying to keep water in a bucket with a large hole by taking an eye dropper and adding a drop to the bucket. We can do that all day long without addressing the the fundamental problem.

How many people in the UK, Canada, and France want the American system instead of what they have? Almost zero. Perhaps a couple wealthy people and heavy-duty free market dogmatists would want the American system, but almost no one who is not wealthy would want it.

Real socialized medicine has also proven to be less expensive overall and far more efficient than our current system which is bloated with insurance company, medical billing specialist, insurance broker, and benefits manager middlemen who do not actually provide health care.

Did you know that the U.S. is currently spending about 17% of its GDP on health insurance while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured, with the rest of the people living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance, while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year, and while having businesses and an economy burdened by health insurance costs and concerns?

In contrast, other nations spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care while having 100% coverage, almost zero medical bankruptcies, a more content and secure populace, and businesses and an economy unburdened by medical concerns.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the American system is dysfunctional and broken, but you do need to a free market dogmatist or Tea Party moron to support the current American system and free market medicine.

 

[StageLeft]

"Porkgressives" like you really have no sense of humor whatsoever.

I have no idea what is going on

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Texas passed tort reform under then Governor George W. Bush. Ever since Bush began running for President in 2000, trial lawyers have dumped untold mountains of cash into the campaign chests of Democrats, specifically to prevent Bush from accomplishing any kind form tort reform on a national level.

How did that work out in McAllen, Texas? Sure had a big effect on health care costs, didn't it?

 

[shiner]

I have no idea what is going on

I think he's asking you for butt sex.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Or it could be they said you don't have to fuck the 80% that have health insurance they are happy with to cover those that do not have coverage.

80% of the people are happy? What planet are you living on?

Most of those people are either paying more than they would pay under socialized medicine and/or live in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance coverage.

You think 80% of the American populace is happy with the current system and their health insurance? Are you mad? Except for free market dogmatist wackos, government employees, and the wealthy, most are terrified.

As for that small percentage of people who are happy with their current insurance, they'll be even happier when their bill decreases under real socialized medicine. Perhaps they'll be even happier when the nation's economy improves as a result.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The idea of single payer health care does not seem bad. Rationing care is a good way to control costs. However, knowing the government, they'll hire a bunch of union members, give them high salaries and huge pensions and tax working people to death.

Note that our current system already rations care and that health insurance companies already ration care and that we even have Death Panels at private health insurance companies.

 

[PJABBER]

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the American system is dysfunctional and broken, but you do need to a free market dogmatist or Tea Party moron to support the current American system and free market medicine.

That's me (and at least 60%, 80% if you include those who hold a neutral opinion, of all Americans)!

 

[OutHouse]

yes, President Obama has to decide whether he wants to be a one term president like Jimmy Carter (he stays the course) or to follow the path like Clinton did in 1994 so that he can be a two term president

Clinton DID NOT stay his course. he moved to the middle and that is what got him elected a second term.

 

[Xellos2099]

You're assuming that private medical care would be outlawed and that having real socialized medicine and available private care for the wealthy are mutually exclusive. I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be able to purchase private care at their own expense if that's what they want.

Note that even today if doctors in the private sector deny you a prescription you cannot obtain the drug you want and your insurance company could always turn you down for a drug or a procedure. (For the record, I believe that people should be able to purchase prescription drugs for themselves without a prescription and that the government should not regulate prescription drugs (other than to approve them for sale).)

What do you want people who have been legitimately injured through a doctor's negligence to do? Should they be the ones to have to eat the cost? Note that under true socialized medicine the government would have to foot the bill for treating victims of medical malpractice anyway, making it less of an issue.

It's like trying to keep water in a bucket with a large hole by taking an eye dropper and adding a drop to the bucket. We can do that all day long without addressing the the fundamental problem.

How many people in the UK, Canada, and France want the American system instead of what they have? Almost zero. Perhaps a couple wealthy people and heavy-duty free market dogmatists would want the American system, but almost no one who is not wealthy would want it.

Real socialized medicine has also proven to be less expensive overall and far more efficient than our current system which is bloated with insurance company, medical billing specialist, insurance broker, and benefits manager middlemen who do not actually provide health care.

Did you know that the U.S. is currently spending about 17% of its GDP on health insurance while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured, with the rest of the people living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance, while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year, and while having businesses and an economy burdened by health insurance costs and concerns?

In contrast, other nations spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care while having 100% coverage, almost zero medical bankruptcies, a more content and secure populace, and businesses and an economy unburdened by medical concerns.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the American system is dysfunctional and broken, but you do need to a free market dogmatist or Tea Party moron to support the current American system and free market medicine.

Why should I felt different, as far as I know, There is NO Private Insurance up in Canada and they are Single player system. If there is private insurance, then it is NOT a single payer system.

I said I want some form of tort reform, not outlaw it. The problem is the primitive damage, which has no limit, which is added onto the actual damage to the doctor in question.
If tort reform mean nothing then how come all these lawyer and up in arms against it? Must br doing something right..,

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Hopefully they learned that they need to actually work with Republicans instead of working behind closed doors and trying to bully their way through the legislative process. Just a thought.

What they need to have learned is that they need to advocate policies that are in the rational selfish economic interests of the American people and damn the anti-American Republicans. They then need to go on the offensive and demonize the Republicans and relentlessly blame them for opposing those economic policies.

I'd love to see an election where the Democrat accused his Republican opponent of:

Opposing socialized medicine, thus making you pay for insurance company middle men and live in terror of losing your health insurance and for many people denying them health coverage. "Candidate So-and-So is the reason why you don't have health insurance".

"Republican Candidate" is the reason why foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas are displacing Americans from knowledge-based college-education-requiring middle class jobs. I support ending the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. "Candidate So-and-So" is the reason why businesses will not hire Americans for those jobs and he supports keeping Americans unemployed.

"Republican Candidate" supports mass immigration and illegal immigration. He is the reason why illegals are working formerly middle class jobs and why Americans are no longer working those jobs. He is the reason why our government is spending huge amounts of money to provide welfare and education for illegals.

"Republican Candidate" supports foreign outsourcing. He wants businesses to continue sending your jobs overseas. Vote for me and I'll bring our jobs back home.

"If you want our current health care system, if you want Americans to lose their jobs to foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas, and if you want illegal immigration and mass legal immigration, if you want jobs to be sent overseas, vote for the Republican. If you want pro-American policies, vote for me."

What if the Democrats united and gave that kind of a message to the American people?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure, if more people are paying into the pool, shouldn't that offset the cost increases?

Health care is a real mess for me. I'm a 25 year old cancer survivor/grad student. I took a part-time job that pays $1200 a month. It looks like I'm losing Medicaid/FHP. So now my option is to buy HNY Healthcore, since my grad student insurance offering is inadequate. That's $540 a month for me and my wife...who was just laid off. My rents $560 a month.

My point: Why the hell am I even bothering to work...

Frankly, I'd be more than happy to never deal with an insurance company again (but I suspect if will be because I can't afford it, not because of some miraculous reform)

In my mind we SHOULD be helping you. It's not people in your situation that I object to, but a system which encourages women to have children as a financial reward, making fewer funds available to help those in genuine need while at the same time becoming prohibitively expensive.

The response to this by some is to have those who created and manage this system run a more expansive one.

That's a large part of my discontent. If they can't get the "small" things down, why should I irrevocably surrender control of my health care to them?

If the Dems really want to reform health care, they need to learn what it's about first and go from there.

To borrow a phrase, "It's about the patient/provider relationship, stupid".

 

[werepossum]

I think he's asking you for butt sex.

LOL!

Looks like American just avoided a big dose of butt sex.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You'd probably get a TON of support from both sides of the aisle, if you passed/proposed a law limiting the maximum payout to the lawyer in ANY class-action (of sufficient size, maybe with a "class" of more than 100 plaintiffs and/or a payout of over $25M) case to 5%-10% of the total amount awarded.

Some of those cases can be very expensive to try and if the lawyers don't win the case then they gut stuck footing the bill. Do you think the 5-10% will cover all of the costs plus the costs of meritorious but losing cases?

How do we know that you aren't overpaid for what you do for a living and that your income shouldn't be reduced? Is it possible that the cost of the good/service you provide is too danged high because you are overpaid and receive excellent benefits? If we decrease the compensation in your field, do you think fewer people would train to enter that field?

 

[StageLeft]

Why should I felt different, as far as I know, There is NO Private Insurance up in Canada and they are Single player system. If there is private insurance, then it is NOT a single payer system.

I said I want some form of tort reform, not outlaw it. The problem is the primitive damage, which has no limit, which is added onto the actual damage to the doctor in question.
If tort reform mean nothing then how come all these lawyer and up in arms against it? Must br doing something right..,

Private and/or insurance is mostly outlawed in Canada. Some clinics do some procedures but mostly they are very limited. I think it's unjust and outrageous that anybody tolerates that from their government. Apparently most other social systems don't have that, though--that illegality that is in Canada for private access.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Republican's are NOT against healthcare reform- they are against bullshit policies like universal healthcare. Christ, you really are in your own little world.

You mean the bullshit policy that all of the other first world nations have for a smaller percentage of GDP than what the U.S. has?

The bullshit policy that results in 100% coverage, almost zero medical bankruptcies, a more content and secure populace, and businesses and an economy unburdened by insurance cost and management concerns for a smaller percentage of GDP than what the U.S. has?

That bullshit policy?

I what the U.S. has not bullshit? 17% of GDP that leaves tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year while leaving businesses and the economy burdened by health insurance cost and management concerns.

Don't you think that the United States paying 17% of its GDP to support wealthy insurance executives and to pay insurance company employees, billing specialists, insurance broker, and benefits plan managers to push paper around is bullshit?

Isn't the U.S. spending 17% of its GDP to receive less while other nations spend much smaller fractions of their GDP to receive more bullshit?

Something stinks around here and its not the British or French systems.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

the health care system that extended ted kennedy's life may have been saved by yesterdays epic upset.

Is this also the same health care system where Death Panels at private insurance companies retroactively rescind people's insurance policies on the day of their scheduled cancer surgery?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You mean the bullshit policy that all of the other first world nations have for a smaller percentage of GDP than what the U.S. has?

The bullshit policy that results in 100% coverage, almost zero medical bankruptcies, a more content and secure populace, and businesses and an economy unburdened by insurance cost and management concerns for a smaller percentage of GDP than what the U.S. has?

That bullshit policy?

I what the U.S. has not bullshit? 17% of GDP that leaves tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in sheer terror of losing their jobs and health insurance while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year while leaving businesses and the economy burdened by health insurance cost and management concerns.

Don't you think that the United States paying 17% of its GDP to support wealthy insurance executives and to pay insurance company employees, billing specialists, insurance broker, and benefits plan managers to push paper around is bullshit?

Isn't the U.S. spending 17% of its GDP to receive less while other nations spend much smaller fractions of their GDP to receive more bullshit?

Something stinks around here and its not the British or French systems.

t

Why don't you calm down a minute and think about this. Health care costs roughly 2.2 trillion dollars a year.

What figures do you have in your possession which shows that health care profits account for the difference between what other nations pay and what we do?

When you don't come up with the answer, that might just lead you to wonder just why things are different here than France besides private insurance.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

after last nights epic upset it's obvious that every democrat seat is in play.

Don't worry, if the Republicans take over the entire government in 2012, they will get voted out of office in 2016.

What do you think the Republicans are going to do to help the U.S. economy? Will the Republicans even acknowledge the existence of our nation's economic problems?

Will the Republicans institute tariffs and a zero-dollar trade deficit policy to address the loss of American jobs to foreign outsourcing? No.

Will the Republicans end the H-1B and L-1 visa programs which displace Americans from college-education-requiring, knowledge-based jobs? No.

Will the Republicans end illegal immigration? No, Bush and McCain supported illegal alien amnesty.

Will the Republicans end mass legal immigration and return us to a traditional level of immigration (about 200,000/year)? No. The Republicans are in the pocket of the cheap labor lobby.

Therefore, under treasonous Republican leadership the United States will continue its race to the bottom and its transformation into a third world nation. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans in these regards, but my point is that the Republicans are horrible for the nation and its economy (regardless of the merits of the Democrats).