What's Contained in the Senate Health-Care Bill - and What It Means
This might not be as bad as I first thought. Now, keeping in mind that this is not the final version, I'm linking to stories about the Senate healthcare bill here, here, here, here, here and here.
News reports state that Howard Dean was working behind the scenes to push the Medicare buy-in as a compromise (just as he suggested when I interviewed him a few months ago).
I do think it's possible to get good, affordable coverage without the public option - under some circumstances. Bill Clinton told us as much when we met with him back in June, pointing out how French and German plans included regulated private insurers.
The Franken amendment setting a mandatory medical loss ratio is about the only thing they could do that would work as well as a public option in creating competition - and it's in there.
And it's certainly a win for our side if it turns out that people aged 55 to 64 can buy into Medicare. Of course, none of us know what those actual premiums look like because Medicare is so heavily subsidized for its current population. Here's the estimated premium. My guess is, once people get into the plan, they'll start lobbying their reps for more subsidies - and to open the plan up even more.
One of the problem areas that's a national disgrace is how the handicapped have to wait a couple of years before they can get Medicare coverage. It would be great if something in this bill fixes that, but we don't have the details yet.
Oh, and the Chamber of Commerce and the GOP will hold a press conference today urging Congress to scrap the entire bill and work on lowering costs. (Not your costs - their costs!) My rule of thumb is, if the Chamber hates it, I'm for it.
Howard Dean is saying good things about it.
As I've said all along - politics is the art of compromise. Until there are other politicians in office we have to deal with the ones we have now.
I think it is going well. I've been hearing the pundits say this is a piece of political jujitsu.
I still think Medicare from prenatal on would be the best but maybe we'll get there.
This isn't the last healthcare bill to be written. Just as Social Security and Medicare were passed without any GOP votes and both bills were also watered down in their original versions this HCR effort might change for the better.
I'm still optimistic.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Von Bismarck said:
He also came up with a national health care plan.
TJ Reid in a most informative speech here
Also see his 5 Myths About Health Care Around the World here
As far as compromise, the entire process should have been about the HEALTH of the citizens, and not the WEALTH of the corporations.
There can be no compromise there, sadly, our politicians are bought off.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/obamafail
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
entire routine is about being OUTRAGED!!!
... especially if it has anything to do with Obama.
She thinks it gives her some kind of super uber liberal creds.
Yeah, he was a crafty old bugger. Creating a national retirement plan that starts at age 65 when the average life expectancy in Germany at the time was only 60. It seemed heartless at the time UNLESS he realized/hoped that the average/median life expectancy would increase over time. So he passed something that was POSSIBLE but useless knowing that it would actually BECOME something useful. So, Bismarck goes down in history as either a great humanitarian or a heartless schemer, depending on what his motivations were.
And at this point I'm wondering the same thing about the Senate bill compromose. ie-you open up Medicare to the 55-65 demographic as an already existing Public Option. This carves off a significant chunk of the Republicans' geriatric voting base. Just enough, in fact, for them to retain control of the House, and then offer to extend it as an option to the 45 to 55 year olds next time. Every time you add a younger demographic to it, it becomes more profitable, and eventually everybody is covered by Medicare.
Dean has advocated Medicare for everyone as the solution to universal healthcare, so if he's behind this idea I think he knows that it can be done this way.
insurers..Congress has been lobbyied into total deregulation by their corporate donors on this as well as financial institutions!!!! I think Dean has some influence but this is a long way from real reform and the HC insurers are celebrating...
Politico's Ben Smith on Health Care Corporate insider's email saying
here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
America lost.....
Cue the Kabuki....
I do think it's possible to get good, affordable coverage without the public option - under some circumstances.
Under some circumstances. Heh. Like telling the Indians that they can have the land west of the Mississippi and we'd never both them again. Giving up leverage with people that have PROVEN they can't be trusted is never a good option. "Good, affordable coverage"...words written by the marketing arm of insurance companies. Harry Reid sold us out. I hope that old codger ends up NEEDING his socialized government medical plan.
Bill Clinton told us as much when we met with him back in June, pointing out how French and German plans included regulated private insurers.
I no longer trust the Clintons.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
"French and German plans included regulated private insurers."
Is demonstrably true?
Both French and German plans are discussed HERE
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
for the intellectual dishonesty Olympics?
Anyone know where I can get that?
Kingdom Tower
"...pointing out how French and German plans included regulated private insurers."
That caught my eye too. Regulated-- Like they regulate Wall St.?
I'm sure the French and Germans actually do regulate.
far left loon >.<
Crooks and Liars has gone from supporting of the single-payer option to supporting of the public option to "well, whatever they give us is good enough."
"It Could Have Been Worse" should become the Democratic Party's motto.
Not me. You don't speak for me and neither does C&L. The only person who speaks for me is me.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
see me speaking for you?
Even with a majority in Congress, the best Obama and the Democratic Party's corporate lapdogs could come up with was total handover to the insurance industry.
outcome?
I'm not even following it (health care) that closely (Canadian) and it looks awful to me.
far left loon >.<
Well, possibly because Republicans actually write:
CORPORATE WHORE FOR RENT
Will undercut any price the Democrats offer
Call: 1800-I-AM-GOPER
On their business cards, and they mean it. The Democrats could never match the Republicans for lobby and PAC money, and if they were smart, they'd realize that their only chance of escaping the fate of being a one-cycle wonder (and Obama becoming Carter v2.0) is for them to actually do something that will make life better for the average American.
Republicans have demonstrated that if you have enough election campaign money, you can serve the corporate agenda exclusively, and make the lives of the average citizen a living hell, but STILL manage to hood-wink them with message crafting into voting against their own interests. If Republicans have mastered that game, the Democrats have no choice but to try and win re-election the old fashioned way. By serving the public interest.
The fact that they've obviously chosen to be Republican lite, and keep as much of their corporate election campaign money AT THE EXPENSE of good policy only proves that they're really a lot more short sighted and stupid than anybody ever gave them credit for.
and please sign Jane Hamsher's petition.
I did. And I wrote President Obama a letter asking him what happened to the vow he made several years ago before he became a presidential candidate: "As soon as we have a Democrat in The White House and a Democratic House and Senate, we will be able to go for a Single Payer Health Care System".
What a sell-out the Democrats are.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Signed it already.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
what he said.
... but don't let mere facts slow you down.
taxpayer dollars will make up the difference between what can be wrung out of the working poor, and what insurance corporations can demand and get because they have a throat lock on both of the other parties involved. Doctors and the patients.
One does see now that the people who decided they hated the bill before it was ever written actually do hate the bill now as comes out.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Amazingly accurate and always exact!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
The CBO projected that by doing nothing/status quo, the US would be paying over $4 trillion in health care costs in 10 years. On the other hand, the bill that's in the Senate would only be around $1 trillion for 10 years. Which # is smaller?!
what we have come to expect from the Yale/Harvard MBA crowd. Getting rich by going broke. Then getting even richer by sticking up the US government and the entire American public. Doesn't matter if it's health care or anything else.
That's all I see.
Bernie Sanders on the need to curb high pharmaceutical prices.
Somebody Explain This To Me! Senator Bernie Sanders pt.1
Somebody Explain This To Me! Senator Bernie Sanders pt.2
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
It seems if people like Howard Dean and Rep. Anthony Weiner seem to be on board and the Chamber of comerce and GOP hate it then it should work for me
...he uses big words like 'particularly' and 'delicatessen.' -- Jack
60 members of Congress pledged that they will oppose any final bill that does not contain a "robust public option". We must hold them to their promise.
I am not 55 years old. I still have to pay high insurance premiums to protect my family. If they pander to AARP and throw my family under the bus, they will lose my support.
Louisville Lawyer
Quite often, it is... just that simple!
"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a critical endorsement to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions."
Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Study the symptoms not the virus...
The problem is, abortion would still be legal, just not covered by the plan.
And the Catholic church, like any corporation, has the legal person qualifications as per Santa Ana County v Southern Pacific Railroad.
It's up to supporters for the bill to cover abortions to make their voices heard, before you can blame favortism.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Is the "Catholic church, like any corporation," taxed accordingly?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
That's where the religious distinction kicks in.
I believe it's seen in the tax code as a charitable non-profit institution, so any changes to affect the churches taxes would in effect change the taxes of all charitable and non-profit groups.
However, the XVI amendment doesn't seem to preclude taxing churches. In fact, it's my understanding that clergymen salaries are taxed. But starting with them, and culminating with televangelists are mansions and fleets of limousines called non-taxable church property, which seem to be only for the clergymen's use.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Among Rev. Rodgers' claim was that the government could not represent his interests adequately because the IRS and California Franchise Tax board stand to gain "a staggering windfall" of tax revenues if the statutes are struck down.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I bookmarked it.
Interesting windfall profits would be the issue, as this case could lay a precedent against insurers as well as corporations dependent, of course, upon whether the case goes all the way through court, and the wording and focus of the decision.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
issues such as this one is they've discovered a new, more profitable way to screw (that is: FUCK) us and need new legislation to make it legal...
Can ANYONE think of ANY legislation passed by Congress in the past 20 years that did NOT fuck "the people?" I can't.
in that time is insuring the last act of American strong-arm capitalism would be a massive gunpoint redistribution of wealth from the public to the owning class through the private financial sector which the owning class happens to own.
!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
"I do think it's possible to get good, affordable coverage without the public option - under some circumstances. Bill Clinton told us as much when we met with him back in June, pointing out how French and German plans included regulated private insurers."
Both French and German plans are completely public. The only reason there are private insurance companies is for Uber rich people who want eye glasses, dentistry and private hospital care. That is not even close to what is being proposed in the US.
Imagine if about 10% of the population paid extra for private health insurance and 90% of the public just paid their taxes and minimal co-pay amounts when they went to the doctor or hospital. That is the French and German systems. There is 0% chance of that ever happening in this country.
Nothing even remotely resembling the standard for health care for the rest of the "developed" world will EVER be part of the US system.
Because nobody will EVER "have the votes" to take "profit" out of the equation.
NAGAHAPUN!!!
Yep, pretty much. The problem is that all the other developed countries had adopted socialized health care in the early 70s or earlier, before health care insurance providers became a major political force. At the same time the remainder of the other countries opted for universal health care the U.S. went in the opposite direction, making the HMO industry a huge business.
Now it's impossible to put that genie back in the bottle, and we just have to find a way to tame it a little.
n/t
HMO = Healthcare Meted Out
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
The doctor told me I had to cut back on meat.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
But what about your slow heart? I don't get the connection between meat and a slow pulse. I do get the connection between meat and a build-up of plaque on your coronary arteries etc., but that would cause general heart disease not bradycardia.
I'm dying to know what your EKG analysis is!!! Is there a pacemaker in your future??
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
My pancreas doesn't process protein well anymore without help.
Basically every other beat cycle, I flat-line, and then my heart tries to make up the difference by reversing the order of what should open up first.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
A pacemaker plus the diet change might make you feel like a new man.
Getting that extra blood pumped to your brain might make for some really interesting YouTube links.
Ha!!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Right now it's all going to my penis.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
the conversation always goes back there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4iiyRv_NrQ&NR=1
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Brains are overrated.
far left loon >.<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSAkm3_kI84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSAkm3_kI84
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It's impossible for mere mortals like us to kill a genie. The only way to do it is to get ANOTHER genie to kill the genie. (ie-get one powerful business lobby to kill another one.) That's basically what they were trying to do when they cut the backroom deal with the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA. Unfortunately, the HMO industry reminded those two other genies that ALL THREE of them could get rich if they play this correctly, and there's no need to fight each other.
I figured that's also what they were trying to do when they offered to put a public option in the National Health Care Exchange knowing it would be cheaper than the for-profit HMOs, and then give employers the option of transferring their employees to it. Thus, the majority of businesses should go for it. But I think the HMO genie fought that one indirectly, by threatening and bribing a few Senators behind the scenes. Otherwise it makes no sense. Why would big business be AGAINST the idea of transferring their employees to a cheaper plan?
... having lived in Europe a few years back, the misrepresentation of other health care systems I have read during this whole debacle (even including Democrats) were so dishonest as to be borderline criminal.
The interesting this is, what I perceive as the deliberate attempt at muddling the lines between health insurance and the providing of health care. For example, most of the industrialized world does not deal with "insurance" as the model for their health care funding. Because, we are humans not cars or objects, so health care should not be an edge bet on whether or not you will get sick... because it is more a question of WHEN you are going to get sick.
If we can find an anecdote about a Canadian or Brit who had an unhappy medical experience, that means we shouldn't reform our own system.
Cue the Kabuki....
... however it is funny how they were never able to find a person with a bad experience in this system. Heck not even any of the 30+ million of uninsured people we got going with our wonderful system...
John Boehner said he's never had a complaint made to him. Of course, given where he spends his time (gated golf courses), he's probably right.
As for foreign health care systems, take note that there has never been a single fact finding trip by any Republican to any of these countries. Never.
But when it's Limbaugh and Beck who furnish Republicans with their "facts", why should they?
I have lived all over Europe and when I first got here I was terrified of going into a doctor's office or hospital. I was so brainwashed that anything but corporate-care was a death sentence that I continued to self medicate and avoid the system.
When my daughter was born I had no choice and my eyes were opened so wide it took me a week to deal with the reality. There are no waiting lines for urgent care. There are no charts to say who is deserving of what kind of care. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is treated as a human in need of medical care. We pay about the same amount in taxes as most Americans and we don't need health insurance.
I don't know if anyone has checked lately, but the Euro is going crazy and our recovery from the crisis is far ahead of the rest of the western world. Don't believe the lies and scare tactics. America could be a great country again, if only the people would fight the global corporations working so hard to steal every penny from your pockets.
And stayed at home with a midwife.
Abbybwood, R.N.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Although I am no fan of "capitalism" my argument has always been that it is fine to put a profit motive into the equation if you are selling a product/service/widget that is not necessary for life, but when it comes to health care the profit motive must be removed.
Health care is not something we "want" such as a new 46" Bravia HDTV. It is something we "need" to survive.
Plus, we already have enough of our hard-earned incomes TAKEN by the federal government for the MIC and other programs. My point is that we have ALREADY paid for a great non-profit single payer health care system for all Americans. We're just not GETTING it because our Congress has decided to give the money to the MIC for more war-related procurements.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
by the attitude of the Chamber of Commerce. Up here in Canada our Chamber of Commerce would be horrified by any significant weakening of universal health care since those are costs they are likely to assume.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
recognize the U.S. anymore. I don't either so don't feel bad.
Think it's bad now? Just wait till Republicans are back in power again.
... for employers. It decreases job mobility and therefore labor costs.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Watch for the clawback on Social Security.
Retirement ages will be going up SIGNIFICANTLY.
There will be higher premiums on Medicare. More privatization of Medicare.
MARK MY WORDS.
This is a SELLOUT. Harry Reid isn't qualified to be Director of Public Services in Tomaine, Kansas.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
n/t
What's that got to do with the Health Care Bill?
Where do you think the compromise with the Blue Dogs will come in.
They'll change Social Security eligibility in order to pay for this bill...and the money gets funnelled to the corporations.
I guess you also accept that JFK removing missiles from Turkey was not part of a negotiated settlement with the Soviet Union regarding the missiles in Cuba.
The key to understanding is being able to connect the dots.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
--i.e., big PhRMA, Big Hospitals, big insurance, etc--ARE NOT SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER, to that extent, precisely, will proposed any legislation FUCK YOU AND YOURS.
The corellation is exactly 1!
Here is an email from Sellout Central, I keep getting these because I never asked for my money back, that I donated last year before FISA:
I will give the homeless guy on the freeway ramp $25 long before I give these bastards another red cent.
In seriousness I regularly give panhandlers money, there are loads in Southeast Michigan and they are not kidding about being in distress.
We have a full blown depression here.
Plus it is getting seriously cold.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I like this direction. A lot. But why do we have to give a mandate to the insurance monopoly to expand Medicare?
And aside from expansions to Medicare and Medicaid, this bill still seems like a corporate giveaway.
Additionally, where is the Liberal hissy-fit? They've yet to seriously throw one. We should have enough votes to throw one.
Maybe knock that age barrier down to 45 or 50.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
there shouldn't be a mandate. It doesn't appear to be a public option for those under 55 so they shouldn't be required to purchase insurance.
Without a viable public choice the mandate is an invitation for massive fraud.
But without the mandate the carriers will argue that they simply can't not rescind contracts, and so on and so on.
So expand Medicare and Medicaid and ditch the rest till we get a version not written by corporations it is supposed to regulate.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Hear! Hear!
Round of applause for ron!!!
"If they don't qualify there shouldn't be a mandate. It doesn't appear to be a public option for those under 55 so they shouldn't be required to purchase insurance." - ron
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
if they don't have a public option to where they have a choice, it shouldn't be mandated. I would think there would be some Supreme court challenges.
People forget that when Social Security passed, liberals threw a real hissy-fit because it only covered at the outset about 1/3 of seniors. The remainder were added over a 4 year period.
It might take longer, but expanding Medicare coverage by age can happen. Or, better yet, we might even be able to get a German or Swiss model. But we won't if this time around once again any attempts at reform are defeated. And every time someone here throws a hissy fit because the Bill doesn't have everything, or "the thing" they're attached to, well, it just plays right into the hands of those who don't want any real changes.
Yes, the insurance companies will be happy....but so will the people who will get insurance that don't have it now. And we will have opened the door to future steps. Especially if the insurance companies continue to gouge us.
Quite the opposite. The only interest being compromised with is the insurance lobby. Granted it is extremely powerful, but just how much more powerful do you think it might be after half a decade with a mandate to purchase their lousy product and retain their license to gouge.
This bill further enriches and empowers the insurance monopoly for the next time around.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The insurance corporations need to maintain that profit stream so they can keep their investors happy and still have plenty of moola to influence elections!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Your own post shows the weakness of your argument. The main reason that single payer wasn't on the table was because public opinion wasn't committed to it, and it was correctly foreseen that the right-wing/health care industry would demonize it from the outset.
Now, if you are right, that people will conclude that there's a "lousy product" and "license to gouge" is taking place, and health care costs are not being contained.....then they'll finally be
more receptive to taking the next step. And this step won't require going through all the work that's being done now precisely because the current Bill(s) take major steps in respect to other important aspects of reform.
Medicare for everyone polls great.
Public opinion has never been the problem. The more socialized the program; the better it polls. Truck loads of bribe money is the problem. Who knows, maybe they'll be so tired from counting their extra billions they won't put up a fight next time.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
This is a classic political divide and conquer.
By lowering the age of Medicare enrollment to 55, Harry Reid is trying to suck in baby boomer support with a nice oily handjob, while he shoves it up the ass of the poor and under '40s.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
to finance this "reform"
If that is still the case, it seems almost idiotic to reduce medicare funding while at the same time increasing its patient pool. No?
Any mention of what the premiums are? My step-mother pays over $600 per month for her private policy. She can actually afford it but who the hell else could? You'd think if the companies are making 10 to 20% profits, the medicare option extended to 55-65 would have a market value (or cost, not the same thing these days)of around $500 per month. Who can afford that?
.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
per month per person to start, changing to some unknown in 2014. Plutocrats should be able to afford it, but for the ever struggling middleclass, not so much. Remember, we're waiting for the CBO estimates to come out, and Obama, ever vigilant about balancing the budget when it comes to programs purported to benefit the middle class, is insisting that it "pay for itself" - read, paid for on the backs of the middleclass.
From the standpoint of the Corporations it is not idiotic at all.
It is another sucker punch.
Medicare will be underfunded at the same the rolls are greatly expanded, providers will stop taking it.
The private insurers will be more than happy to step into the breach, which they do with supplemental policies.
Either that or the system will fail and they will have another whack at eliminating it.
None of this is about the health of the citizens, per se.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
supplementals, which to prohibit pre-existing conditions, allow rescission, et al...
You're using the Republican frame when you say "cut funding"....in fact, no cuts to basic Medicare services will occur.
They are projecting a $500 billion cut to Medicare funding.
It is said that the providers are accepting this cut. The truth of that remains to be seen.
If they accept it then the $500 billion does not result in lost services.
If down the road they in fact do not accept the cuts then there is a loss of services.
I said Medicare funding will be cut and predict that providers will stop taking it.
That will be their option. I have much personal experience with Medicare providers and I predict many will bail out.
Because the Republicans say the same thing doesn't mean that it is wrong. They are contrarians based on expediency, I am a contrarian based on facts.
This sometimes happens with those of us who think socialism is perfectly reasonable as in leftist (me) and those who think that expediency is reasonable as in the ultra right (them).
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
and you replied about the wonderful qualities of apple juice.
LOL.
Excellent analogy.
Plus, I didn't know the new bill included those two benefits. Kudos!
I'm 52 and I resent being pandered to by dishonorable, amoral assholes like Harry Reid.
Maybe HE is willing to sell out his principles for a few sheckles, but I'm NOT.
He's a miserable two timing political hack.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
So, what's your advice to Reid so he can find the needed votes? Come on, put up or.....
Put single payer as the ONLY option and keep to the rules.
51 vote majority. MAKE the blue dogs and GOP filibuster.
CALL THEIR BLUFF.
They're a bunch of pussies, just like all bullies.
They'll fold.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Harry Reid is trying to suck in baby boomer support with a nice oily...
Video link?
far left loon >.<
This health reform is moving too fast.
Whatever we do, we shouldn't ruin "the best health-care system in the world."
Reform is all well and good, but we need to make sure it doesn't increase the deficit.
YOUBETCHA!
My rule of thumb is, if the "reform" is a joke that does not change the status-quo, and is written by the insurance company than it is a joke, and I'm NOT for it....
Cue the Kabuki....
The rip-off is in. We got it all. Now if you don't hand over all the rest of the people's savings and assets, the whole flaming ball of shit you call the services and information economy is gonna come down on everybody's asses like a giant meteor
Well it's official
Just got back from the doctor
And he says I'm having electrical problems.
I said if it's anything like a 70's era Opal GT we could spend a fortune and never find the problem.
He said I might at the extreme need a pacemaker
I said as long as it doesn't include Gerry Marsden
He didn't understand the reference.
Story of my life, people lookin' at me funny.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
it sucks, don't it
good luck ys, hang in there. i had to go thru all that BS two years ago. except i had to get an ICD, not a pacer (fast beat, versus slow). i was the doc's youngest patient ever to go thru that. yay!
They showed it to me, and it looks pretty cool.
It's a couple of bolt like electrodes that fit both sides of my neck, that they occasionally hit with the stray lightening bolt or two.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
yikes, watch out for the villagers!
and, if you aren't seeing one already, you should def go to an electrophysiologist. electricity and the heart is their thing.
my ICD is just a tad smaller than a hockey puck... took awhile to get used to that bastard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Marsden
I didn't understand it either. if your doctor only had google on demand with voice recognition, he would have smiled.
Sorry to hear about your problems ys. Glad tyo know you have a solution. Stay away from microwaves and get one of the new-fangled ones with the auto-defibrillator.
... at least it is not an issue with the piping. I am afraid my expertises on semiconductors and the soldering iron are useless for your problem ;-(
Be prepared to give up some of the vices which make live worth living (ironic ain't it?)... take good care of your bad self, you hear!
It's almost enough to make one join the hallelujah and hosanna club.
But then I always like ho's named anna
And all their holes.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... maybe that is a Texan tradition?
You never heard of John Deere?
He called his Gwendolyn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=285ImXTYdsg
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
wasn't big enough to be zoned as farm land ;-(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loyRYFUYg9g
Take care, ya bad boy!
I think that clip of Gerry Marsden is from a movie the Pacemakers made soon after the Beatles Hard Days Night, but for some reason is never broadcasted.
Even these guys had a movie of this title:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv8k0VI9tBc
I saw recently that the lead singer was picked by the album producer because they thought he looked like a much younger version of JFK, soon after the latter bought the farm.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Back in the day, I had such a crush on Peter Noone!
He actually was a teenager at the time, who was born in 1947.
A more talented precursor to the teeny bopper crap today.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Ouch ybs. Sorry to hear your news from the doctor.
far left loon >.<
.
who sees Neville Chamberlain when they look at
Hairy ReedHarry Reid?I for one don't. But if you want to play that game, I might be seeing the guy who was across the table from Chamberlain in the form of most congressional Republicans.
But I think trying to play the historical analogy game is ridiculous.
They have the same, wishy-washy, spineless personalities. Chamberlain believed in playing nice and compromising with the Nazis just as Reid believes in playing nice and compromising with the Cons. They both believed that if they didn't fight back too much, the bad guys would just stop being bad guys.
... Chamberlain was orders of magnitude better as a politician (truly a testament about how bad Reid really is and has been)
There is quite the difference between an appeaser (what Chamberlain was) and a collaborator (what Reid is). So your analogy is a bit off ;-)
well-taken.
That's the difference between Neville Chamberlain and Marshal Philippe Pétain.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Chamberlain's mistake was essentially the same as Freddy Knuckles, which is the misuse of historical analogies.
France and Germany fought so much over areas like Lorraine and Alsace, and countries like Austria just seemed to be mostly Germanic, that by simply ceding over such properties in the past would've settled difficulties, but this was Hitler he was dealing with.
In the classes I took in Foreign Policy and International Relations, there are other analogies as well, Scientific, Psychological, Sociological, Biological, and Biographical as well. They were all taught as being The False Use of Analogies. We have to learn from our past, but we cannot presume the current situations are identical.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... that being said, I assume that Chamberlain's policies towards appeasing Hitler, were probably fuelled more by the reality that the UK was going bankrupt for all intents and purposes trying to maintain their empire, than any other historical or cultural considerations.
Probably they figured there was a bigger return for their hard earned pounds in confronting 3rd world nations and taking their natural resources, than having to duke it out with a art school reject armed to the teeth and with a massive inferiority complex.
Well it's no surprise really, that the Brits started granted independence to their Empire States soon after the war, presumably because of war costs.
And although Imperialism had less to do with WWII, it had everything to do with WWI, and the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand merely sparked an already tense situation.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
collapsed when it devolved to the point that the worst thing that could happen was to win the war.
It seems to me the old aristocracy-based power structures, inherited from the old feudal-style times of mirth, were replaced positions filled by capitalist who figured to make money out of war, regardless of outcome.
Capital has been demonstrated to not being bound by ideological or physical boundaries... (funny how socialism bas perceived as a threat due to a similar lack of respect for physical boundaries)
Edit to add: How do we ever get in these tangents YS? LOL
I said something similar on the steele thread, that during our Civil War days, almost concurrently with England we were replacing systems of wealth based on property to one based on capital.
And of course aristocracies, as you put it, were based on Britain's manorial system.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Someone here said Imperialism had less to do with WWII than WWI.
What on earth is imperialism if not sending a million men against peaceful Poland or three million against the Soviet Union (not so peace loving). Or carving up peaceful Czechoslovakia.
Or conquering defenseless Norway or the low countries or invading France.
If that is not imperialism I would like to know what is.
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Right up to WWI they would admit it in so many words, workers weren't paid minimum wage but starvation wages, wars were being fought based on keeping colonies, and they would refer to the mercantile system that was considered a part of.
But Germany was late to the game, because they didn't have a centralized government until the 1890's, although their constitution was written in the 1870's. They were trying to get their own colonies, and particularly in Africa finding resistance from the French and the Belgians.
Most of the reworking of the maps was in the immediate aftermath of WWI, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They then essentially created Iraq and Rwanda, in the latter putting together traditional enemies the Hutus and the Tutsis. Part of that also was the creation of Czechoslovakia by combining the traditional enemies the Czechs and the Slovaks, and in Yugoslavia the traditional enemies of the Croats the Serbs and the Slavs.
After WWII of course the biggest new change was the creation of Israel in 1948 with UN Resolution 181, but they were surrounded by enemies who resented the new comer. The treaties at Yalta and Potsdam in effect did the same thing with the two remaining superpowers at the end of WWII, but it was more about "spheres of influence" and other such vague terminology, and helped create the Warsaw Pact Countries. NATO was more about mutual defense, but allowed for moving armaments and manpower into foreign countries with no need for war, and as long as one of these countries had an interest in the peripheral state goods we would support them, but not if one of the Warsaw Pact countries made that claim, and we would do so based on the "War Against World Communism."
The colonial system was draining money needed from the war effort and industrializing countries, although they still needed primary goods to make their secondary goods from. But instead of foreign governors and administrative boards essentially ruling these peripheral world countries, it became more and more to local leaders who would essentially allow themselves to be bought out.
Of course if the leader spoke of Nationalizing the countries resources like President Mohammad Mosaddeq, they would face something like Project Ajax, but if they were unethical to their own countries interests they could make out like bandits. Saddam Hussein and others before him learned to play the US and Russia off of each other during the Cold War by claiming a threat, or inclining one way or another, encouraging the other to essentially bribe them back into their folds.
That's why in general it was called neo-Imperialism, to distinguish it from Imperialism proper, because it was both something new with something old, with a lot of political buzzwords that no longer said much of anything.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
World history in 474 words.
I like that.
I won't point out all the problems of what is written, of which there are many.
Suffice it to begin, it was a central German government before the fall of Paris in January of 1871 and brief rise of the Paris commune.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I'm aware of the communards, but that was a relatively brief period in 1871 before the split between anarchists and communists, and not relevant to the historical currents surrounding World War I and World War II.
And of course there had to be some organized power to even write the German Constitution, I referred to, to consolidate their own power.
For example, I could've mentioned the French had two emperors and two kings after the execution of Louis XVI, but it wouldn't have been relevant.
And of course a Centralized Germany wasn't much to speak of until after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I should also mention that Germany was after a greater Germany, so those who weren't exterminated would either be among the elites of the workers but a part of Germany proper, not a colony.
Italy was moving toward something similar.
Japan probably would've had a more colonial system.
But of course in any case we're conjecturing since they lost the war.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I should also mention that in 1871 it was really more of a centralized Prussian system as opposed to German as we know it.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
he could to keep from angering the Nazis even once they were at war. They buried a group Nazi airmen who died in a plane crash in England with full a full ceremony. He went so far as to not allow bombing raids on German muntions factories because the ywere privately owned and because he was afraid it make Hitler angry. That is exactly how Reid deals with the Cons. His lack of spine doesn't come from any weakness on the part of the Dems. It comes from a weakness in his heart and soul. Watching him come out and tell us about how well things are going with the Cons day after day is like watching Chamberlain coming out and telling the British people that he's making headway with the Nazis.
"We're going to have to let them have
AustriaCzechoslovakia,Polandthe Low Countriesin order to get what we want" sounds an awful like "we're going to have to give the Cons their way onoversight,the anti-trust exemption, asingle-payer option,public optionand whatever else they demand in order to get what we want." The personalities are the same. Spineless.And not all historic analogies are wrong. Ever notice how much people like Reagan, Quayle, DUHbya and even Palin all seem like the same kind of people? Dumb as rocks and easy to manipulate.
There was still an old school view of warfare. When Manfred von Richthofen was finally shot down during WWI he was given a funeral with military honors, that other pilots competed with to attend.
And there was still the idea of protecting the citizens from war, that eventually was thrown out the window with the Blitzkrieg, Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I don't remember the name of the incident, but a German zeppelin did bomb an English pub during WWI, and the people inside probably never knew what happened since they were already bombed.
Here's some more: "World War I
The first ever aerial bombardment of civilians was on January 19 , 1915, in which two German Zeppelin s dropped 24 fifty-kilogram high-explosive bombs and ineffective three-kilogram incendiaries on Great Yarmouth , Sheringham , Kings Lynn , and the surrounding villages. In all, four people were killed, sixteen injured, and monetary damage was estimated at £7,740, although the public and media reaction were out of proportion to the death toll.
London was accidentally bombed in May, and, in July 1916, the Kaiser allowed directed raids against urban centres. There were 23 airship raids in 1916 in which 125 tons of ordnance were dropped, killing 293 people and injuring 691. Gradually British air defences improved. In 1917 and 1918 there were only eleven Zeppelin raids against England, and the final raid occurred on August 5 1918 , which resulted in the death of KK Peter Strasser , commander of the German Naval Airship Department. By the end of the war, 51 raids had been undertaken, in which 5,806 bombs were dropped, killing 557 people and injuring 1,358. It has been argued that the raids were effective far beyond material damage in diverting and hampering wartime production, and diverting twelve squadrons and over 10,000 men to air defences."
This old school approach is similar to the historical analogy in that they are dependent on earlier modalities, and less on observing current events.
You're actually faulting Chamberlain for trying to avoid war crimes?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I don't even see Richard Chamberlain.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
pun intended!
Susie,
Though I understand your feelings on that something is better than nothing, I am of the mind that this entire endeavor needs to be scrapped and started from anew.
Both the Senate and House bills started from compromise. Neither bill started from Universal Health Care and moved to the middle, they started in the middle and have moved so far right, they are worthless.
Nope, take the lumps and start anew. Do it right this time.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
If you think that in a midterm election year that the Dems will do any better - or be able to do any better - or that the Republicans would be less obstructionist, then you're more optimistic than I am, or any
political experts.
And since the Dems stand to lose seats in the midterm, you can kiss goodbye any really comprehensive or progressive HCR post 2010.
Obama is correct in assuming that if something doesn't happen this time, right now, kiss it goodbye. Or, as I suspect, the Republicans will come forward with their bare bones plan and try to capitalize on it for the 2010 election.
For a second there I thought you said Skirts Askew.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Are nothing but a bunch of gutless cock suckers.....
So, how do you propose we get Snowe, Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu to vote for something they said they never would? Before using the language you do for others, you have the responsibility for proving you have an idea.
Why is it that the mere threat of a filibuster is now equivalent to a successful filibuster?
Call them out. They'll fold.
They are not the reason; they are simply part of a rotating excuse.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I mean, these are the same senators who complain about having to read a bill they have to vote on...
... like sending the country to war.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
because if you think about it, it is just a piece of paper really.
Haven't heard any Democrats make that complaint.
Reid wants a Bill passed, and the sooner the better. And the stronger the better. Believe me, or not, if he thought that going to the wire and calling "bluffs" would work, he would.
And there's no "threat" of a filibuster. There's a de facto filibuster right now. It's called "cloture", and it requires 60 votes or the Bill is DEAD.
So I'm still waiting for a real idea to help Reid get to 60 with a Bill that would make you happy.
Comments are closed on this entry