Reply With Quote
Listen? Are you kidding? He's going to do all he can to make Americans dependent on the elitist class for direction. He's going to destroy the heart and soul of America.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20...thcare20090302
WILL HE LISTEN OR NOT
Listen? Are you kidding? He's going to do all he can to make Americans dependent on the elitist class for direction. He's going to destroy the heart and soul of America.
Do you really have to ask that question ducks? Obama's got an agenda to make the people of this country dependent on the elite liberal left for everything.
49% don't realize he is going to diminish medicare/medicaid and inject that money into a national health-care plan.
costing everyone just about nothing.
wild cobra=dumbass lemming.
A much higher percentage of those polled are completely opposed to universal child healthcare.
the cost asshole.
What about the quality? It will be like going to the DMV; and I can't wait till most Americans finally have the epiphany that they have ed themselves out of what used to be.
Last edited by LockBeard; 03-03-2009 at 09:43 AM.
Me either. The I told you so's are going to be sweet!
My Grandmother (Tough old bird; 87 - still bowls a 140 avg.) Just had to have her chest opened up on Monday to address some fibrillation issues. With the new "Health Czar" doing his cost/benefit analysis on everything going forward, have to wonder if situations like THAT might be where some of the "savings" come in.
The media hasn't picked up on the "rationing" aspects of the healthcare industry contained in the stimulus package; but it's in there.
You're familiar with this? Please share yer links, Sir. I am not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Ironically, from a media outlet.
Nuts :
IMO it is a cost problem and demography dictates the growth. If you're serious about fiscal outcomes you've got to control the costs.The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry.
Proposing a universal system now seems radical, but more or less conforms to the campaign promise. The electronic filing aspect was laboriously explained during the campaign, but the provisions about possible bureaucratic participation in treatment decisions are creepy.
The Bloomberg article gets more mileage out of the Tom Daschle book than the actual legislation IMO. Can we really assume the two are identical?
I find this, but no Senate Bill as yet.
Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius is the new Health and Human Services chief.
Did Bush listen to the 49% who voted against him? Or was he sticking to those 'principles' who always talked about when making half the country mad?
You ladies sure do have short memories..
Because there's no law yet, dummy.
Big bang theory:
Critical: What we can do....
Surprised that the percentage was that high considering how this issue has been demonized for some time. Though I think Obama will go full steam ahead with his plans on this issue regardless of that percentile. With the election he can claim, and rightfully so regardless of whether you believe it or not, that he has a mandate from the people to do so. He can use this to do anything he chooses to do. All he has to do is just insert whatever cause he champions and state that the people have spoken by electing him.
To the victor go the spoils.
Andy Jackson was pretty adamant about that.
Sounds to me like 49% of the people just don't realize the economy is doing great. Things are so good we've got $634 billion just lying around that we can set aside for a universal healthcare plan that doesn't even exist yet.
Who has said the economy is doing great?
Next to the multi-trillion $$$ bailout of our defunct financial sector, a figure in the mere hundreds of billions seems almost modest nowadays. But it isn't.
All exerpted from the review of Critical upstream:
But the actual coverage solution Daschle proposes is to essentially expand the insurance program that covers federal government workers (something called the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program) with some improvements made by states like Massachusetts and to impose a pay (the government) or play (by providing insurance) option on employers. Daschle would also expand Medicaid and the current insurance for poor children - and then add an individual mandate with subsidies to those who can't afford to buy-in to FEBHP.
This package is tied together, sort of, by a Federal Health Board.The main role of the Federal Health Board would be as a cost-effectiveness review organization with teeth since that Medicare, Medicaid and the (newly expanded) federal employees benefit plan would all be bound to follow its guidelines. So essentially he's advocating the creation of a national health insurance benefits package with federal supervision on rates and practices.So the problem with Daschle's proposals as outlined in Critical come down to two things.
One; most of the uninsured are working poor and their employers are small employers who are all for health reform until they figure out that it means they have to pay for it. My guess is that only a puny Massachusetts-type "pay" fine ($200 or so) will be little enough to get them to willingly back a public and compulsory plan for their employees. At that point more of those small employers who offer coverage will ditch it too, meaning that the public subsidy to insure the working poor will have to be much greater than Daschle thinks
Second, the Federal Health Board will be fought tooth and nail by the health care industry.Second verse, same as the first.So my guess is that the Federal Health Board, if it gets established, will get defanged immediately and a mish-mash "expand what we got now" system will cover a few more people at a lot more cost (as has been the Massachusetts experience). That's OK because suddenly we're rich (or at least suddenly the government is pretending it is!). But like a lot of recent wealth, this is transitory. Once President Obama's stimulus plans fade away, we'll be back where we are with too few really sick people able to get insurance for a variety of reasons creating a burden on those who can pay - ever increasing - premiums for the decreasing coverage they do get.
No one. It was an attempt at sarcasm on my part. Evidently not a very good one.
People do not know about the economy. Fact of the matter is that 1 out of 6 dollars spent in this economy is spent on health care. The fact that people try and seperate health care and the economy when health care costs are probably the single biggest drag on the economy is hilarious. It drives wages and profits down while it drives up the costs of goods and services.
True, but beside the point.
That doesn't make the Obama plan a good idea necessarily.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
