Now Democrats can negotiate health care reform
Cheers for Sen. Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who spent months keeping his “Gang of Six” together, negotiating with Republican senators over health care reform, no matter how insincere, cowardly or irritating they were. Even when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) caved in to the lie about “death panels,” giving it credence in a town hall forum, Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, kept Grassley and the others at the table.
The result is a health care reform bill that is hardly perfect — it needs several refinements — but which can jump-start the debate over final legislation among Democrats in the House and Senate. And, after a long summer of circuses and freak shows, Democrats are the only members whose views ought to matter. Republicans have chosen to sit on the sidelines.
For all of Baucus’ efforts to compromise with his GOP colleagues, not a single one of the three Republicans in the Gang of Six stood with him Wednesday when he announced his plan. Even the usually thoughtful Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has, for the moment, caved in to intense pressure from her party not to help the passage of health care reform.
But therein lies the brilliance of the Baucus strategy: There cannot be a doubt in the reality-based universe that the Obama administration and Senate Democrats reached out in the spirit of bipartisan compromise but found their outreach greeted with incoming mortar rounds. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) revealed the GOP strategy in July, when he said that killing health care would be President Obama’s “Waterloo. It will break him.”
Never mind the millions of Americans who desperately need a health care system that doesn’t bankrupt them but actually provides treatment when they get sick: All that the GOP is interested in is ruining Obama’s presidency.
Because Baucus was keen to compromise with fiscal conservatives, including many in his own party, his bill would meet the president’s test of fiscal responsibility: It does not “add one dime” to the deficit. Indeed, it goes further. The widely-respected, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Baucus proposal is likely to cut the deficit by nearly $50 billion over the next decade and even more after that.
Still, there are problems aplenty with the stingy approach, as Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and other Democrats made clear. For one thing, it still leaves health care unaffordable for many, even though they will be (rightfully) forced to purchase it. That’s especially true for low-earning younger adults.
About 10 million Americans between the ages of 19 and 26 lack health insurance, according to the Urban Institute. Some simply don’t purchase it because they’re young and healthy and feel invincible. Others don’t buy it because they can’t afford it. Several experts have said, according to The Washington Post, that even the least expensive plan available under the Baucus plan would cost more than $100 a month.
There are many avenues of compromise available that wouldn’t bankrupt young adults or fatten the deficit. So now it’s time to get down to business and find those compromises. Subsidies, for example, could be a bit more generous. Baucus and his colleagues kept the total ten-year cost of the Finance Committee’s plan under a trillion because, apparently, that’s a psychological dealbreaker. But since the plan comes in at about $774 billion, they’ve got a bit of wiggle room.
For all the August invective, polls show half of Americans still want health care reform. But there is a sharp generational divide: Sixty percent of Americans between 18 and 34 support health care reform, while 60 percent of those over 65 oppose it. Why are seniors so opposed to allowing others to enjoy a sliver of the benefits they do? (Medicare is a government-run, single-payer program; its clients receive far more benefits, on average, than they and their employers paid in.) When did the Greatest Generation become the Greediest Generation?
Younger adults deserve a health care system that works, too. The nation depends on their good health to keep the economy rolling — which pays for the health care that the seniors enjoy. So let the serious negotiations begin.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
349 comments Add your comment
FredGSanford
September 17th, 2009
10:38 pm
What the hell is this dribble?
Scott
September 18th, 2009
6:35 pm
“Democrats are the only members whose views ought to matter.” Boy, sounds real American, doesn’t it? Sounds like just the sentiment Thomas Jefferson would have approved of.
“Republicans have chosen to sit on the sidelines.”
Yep, that’s what we were doing all summer at the town hall meetings, and at all the tea parties, and during all those phone calls and e-mails and faxes: “Sitting on the sidelines.”
These kinds of comments bear no relation whatsoever to reality.
Scott
September 18th, 2009
6:48 pm
“Polls show half of Americans still want health care reform.” Actually, Rasmussen Reports indicate that 56% are opposed to it–44% are strongly opposed, and only 43% favor health care reform. Last I checked, 43% is not “half,” but then I wasn’t a math major. Perhaps this is the New Math.
You need to be careful to look at how the poll frames the question. If the question is “Do you favor health care reform?” you’ll get one result, if the question is “Do you favor the current health care reform plan?” you’ll get a different result.
Rasmussen Reports frames the question specifically to Obama’s health care reform proposal–the one currently under consideration in Congress.
jconservative
September 18th, 2009
7:01 pm
Here is the CBO report. IF these numbers stand up in the next few weeks there will be a health care reform bill passed & signed by the president.
“Estimated Budgetary Impact of the Chairman’s Proposal
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s
proposal would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of
$49 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1). The estimate includes a projected net cost of $500 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $774 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges,increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $215 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium
insurance plans and $59 billion in revenues from other sources. The net
cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the
combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save
$409 billion over the 10 years and other tax provisions that JCT and CBO
estimate would increase federal revenues by $139 billion over the same
period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits.”
IF these figures hold up. CBO has not examined the Chairman’s Mark that Baucus released Wednesday. So lets wait on the “IF”.
“…a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $49 billion over the 2010–2019 period…” IF, there’s that word again, proponents of health care reform can say ” hey, we are providing health care and reducing the deficit” they have a powerful argument. After all, who is opposed to reducing the deficit?
For us political junkies this October is going to be in-ter-rest-ting.
Scott
September 18th, 2009
7:06 pm
Since when did children become so snotty as to refer to their parents’ generation as “greedy” merely for being concerned about what a massive government health insurance program will mean for their own well-being while they suffer the ailments and diseases of their final years?
Class of '98
September 18th, 2009
7:11 pm
Fred, the word you are looking for is “drivel”.
Anyway, nice of Cynthia to call conservatives “cowardly”. Her next column will, no doubt, be yet another attempt to chastise the right for being “uncivil” in it’s discourse.
And the irony will be completely lost on her.
College Professor
September 18th, 2009
7:12 pm
Enter your comments here Cynthia: You assert that the least expensive health insurance plan under the Baucus plan is $100.00 per month, and you strongly imply that is too much for many Americans between 19 and 26 years of age. I wonder: How much do these Americans spend on cellphones per month? My guess is that it is at least $100.00 per month, and, for many individuals, it is probably much more. Please explain: If they choose cellphones over health care, why should I or any other middle class taxpayer subsidize their health care?
Scott
September 18th, 2009
7:16 pm
When Obama was asked whether any consideration should be given for joie de vivre when considering whether or not to approve a pacemaker for a 100-year-old heart patient, Obama coldly replied that joie de vivre is too subjective a concept, and maybe the poor woman should just take a pain pill.
Is it any wonder that senior citizens are scared to death about what may be coming their way?
To recast fear as greed is a cynical thing to do–and by using the word “cynical,” I’m choosing to speak with extraordinary mildness.
Just Say No
September 18th, 2009
7:18 pm
Great point College Professer I believe a lot of these uninsured could afford healthcare if they wanted it.But they would rather spend their money on other things.
jconservative
September 18th, 2009
7:34 pm
“…insincere, cowardly or irritating they were…”
Ms Tucker the word cowardly is unacceptable in a debate & you know it.
This should be a debate over ideas, not a personal attack on any person.
FredGSanford
September 18th, 2009
7:36 pm
Class of ‘98
September 18th, 2009
7:11 pm
No, I meant dribble. Thanks for your concern though.
jt
September 18th, 2009
7:40 pm
If I am forced at gun point to pay an insurance company, I swear that they will lose money.
Mark M
September 18th, 2009
7:56 pm
Investigate, investigate, investigate.
Next, put few hundred CEOs in prison
and reform won’t be needed at all.
Tom
September 18th, 2009
7:57 pm
Hey College Professor, you got a lot of gall…
I work full time, eat rice every other meal, and pay $15.00 for a prepaid phone so I can pay through the nose to have some REAL professor’s teaching assistant lecture me because the overpaid professor’s too lazy to run his own class.
Passing a law that simply delivers a CAPTIVE MARKET to an corrupt health insurance industry is not reform, would force me to drop out of school, and certainly isn’t fair!!!
PS
What barber college are you from anyway?
Michael H. Smith
September 18th, 2009
8:14 pm
Comrade Cynthia (spin, spin, spinning like a top) caves into losing the big government socialist Public Option graciously?
The Baucus “gang of six” plan has no Public Option.
I’ll wait to see how what I’ve supported from the start of this healthcare debate proceeds through the amendment process before giving it a full fledged, Yea; but CONSUMER owned, ran and administered mutual healthcare insurance cooperatives is the only healthcare reform plan I will accept – It is populism not socialism or the unacceptable protectionists status quo.
So far so good no unacceptable government dependency or intrusion and no business based dependency.
Kamchak
September 18th, 2009
8:19 pm
Ms. Tucker the word cowardly is unacceptable in a debate & you know it.
Not really–according to some on this site, the modifier is not to be considered an attack if it is the personal observation of the author.
Be that as it may, it perfectly describes the Republicans on this issue. Scott perfectly described the events of intentionally disruptive town hall meetings and the kvetching and whining at tea-parties and correspondence. Republicans offered nothing substantive other than a continuation of the status-quo. In Mid-May,Mike Allen of politico.com revealed a memo generated by Frank Luntz, spin-meister extraodinaire, with talking points designed to control and forestall any meaningful dialog on this subject
rdhood
September 18th, 2009
8:32 pm
Cynthia is, once again, wrong. Republicans did not “choose” to sit on the sidelines. They were put there by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and not allowed any input unless it echoed the Democrat mantra. Republicans HAVE drawn up healthcare bills, but none are allowed to see the light of day or get out of committee. Don’t blame the Republicans for not speaking if you wont let them speak.
Tax payer funded Public Option, NEVER!
September 18th, 2009
8:33 pm
Cynthia, what world do you live in? Shouldn’t you be worried about the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, the tax payer bailouts and the stimulus that ISN’T? Isn’t there enough on the taxpayer’s plate? Especially since the tax payer funded health care you want so much isn’t going to be functional for at least FOUR years. Why the rush?
John Lewis' probation officer
September 18th, 2009
8:44 pm
A bit off topic, but look for the possible indictment of Rep. John Lewis soon….for meddling with the appointment/nomination of a federal official…care to comment Ms. Tucker?
Mark M
September 18th, 2009
8:49 pm
US Insurances are nothing more than bunch of thugs,crooks, leaches, thieves, and criminals profiting from suffering of people. Denying claims, tons of paper work, small prints, lying, stealing, that’s the name of the game. Some call it market place, but it’s really crime against humanity. We would be better off eliminating them entirely and replacing with NOTHING. It would be much cheaper and more affordable.
Anything or nothing would be better what we have right now.
And all those talking about socialized medicine have to really become sick and than they can talk.
If we spend 2.2 trillion dollars/year and twice as much (per person) as the rest of the civilized world that means that 1.1 trillion is stolen, waisted extorted or all of the above.
We do not need more money, there is enough money in the system to cover all
uninsured plus Mexican and Canadian citizen combine.
All is needed is investigation by DOJ and send a few hundreds psychopathic CEOs to prison just with Bernie Maddoff. System would be cured in no time.
People want health care and they will be able to pay for it if insurers get out of the way.
HMOs and the rest do NOTHING but disturbing services and stealing as much as they can and as quick as they can. That’s not business model it’s mafia structure and nothing more. Let the Wall Street and insurance crooks run the system again. Let them keep buying/corrupt politicians, Let them steal as much money as their psychopathic minds want. Let the good times roll again as nothing happened.
Wall street, insurances and crooked politicians are our future.
How long will we last? Any ideas?
Batboy
September 18th, 2009
8:50 pm
Insincere, cowardly and irritating….Cynthia Tucker. Yep.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
8:50 pm
Let’s get fired up and ready to go understand what the Baucus bill really is, “The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act”
One interesting amendment courtesy of Grandpa Grassley is to forbid illegal immigrants to buy anything. What happens then? You betcha. They get their care at charity hospitals. And so much for the deficit neutral crap. Who funds Grady? The feds in large part. Every doctor at Grady is paid for by the feds in a grant that pays Emory and Morehouse–some of the nurses as well. So when that illegal immigrant that cannot even buy insurance gets sick–the readers here if they’re taxpayers pay for that care. That doesn’t save much money, and it’s not calculated into the Baucus bill although immigrant care is a very small part of the problem.
The best way to show you what the Baucus bill would mean is to use Marcy Wheeler’s analysis. (Cynthia didn’t mention that Rockerfeller, Wyden, and now Seattle’s Maria Cantwell won’t vote for it. That kills the crap bill right there, and of course markup will completely chacinge whatever it becomes. Then there’s the reconciliation of it with the other Senate bill that does have a public option–before the Reconciliation that will pass a public option later.
The Baucus bill conforms to Rahm’s “secret deal” with Big Pharma to preserve the Medicare Part D Donut and not only push Medicare towards insolvency in 8 years but to forbid it from competitive bidding for drugs like Piedmont, or like Georgetown Medical Center in Cynthia’s new home. It’s a gift to pharmaceuticals for whom Baucus and his Senate Finance Six work along with insurance companies. The Bill conforms closely to the deal Rahm and Baucus cut with Pharma.
In accord with the internal memo, the Baucus bill does nothing to change current law regarding drug re-importation from cheaper countries. It does not contain the Medicaid/Medicare dual eligibility rebate promoted by Henry Waxman. It does not allow Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices which was added to House Energy and Commerce committee bill. There also appears to be no change to Medicare Part B in reference to pharmaceuticals.
Baucus pushes coops or exchanges. They are worthless and I’d link a great analysis but Cynthia is allergic to links. CBO said they are worthless.
Most middle class families would be forced to opt out of Baucus Care because they simply could not afford it.
If a middle class family had a significant (but not catastrophic) medical event under MaxTax, it might be left with as little as $7,215 to pay transportation, utilities, school, clothing, and debt.
Bad Max says that he will prevent these people from having to pay more than 13% of their income in health care premiums. For the family of four making $67,000, that’s $8,710. For the family of four making $88,200, that’s $11,466. For the family of four making $90,000, apparently, there are no such limits, so they may be paying much more. For what may well be utter and total junk
That family of four making $67,000 would pay $20,610, or 31% of their income.
That family of four making $88,200 would pay $26,366, or 26% of their income.
Of course, both these families would be in the 25% federal tax bracket. Bad Max is asking middle class families to pay more for health care than they pay in federal taxes.
Aside from the atrocity that Bad Max thinks middle class families should pay more to his donors than they pay for housing or for their Federal taxes, assuming these middle class families come close to hitting the max in a given year (something Bad Max doesn’t do much to prevent), it would leave them just $7,215 for all the rest of their expenses. That’s simply unsustainable and would all but preclude things like college.
Bad Max’s health care “reform” would basically institutionalize a condition in which the middle class continues to fall further and further behind, paying far too much for health care and/or avoiding necessary treatment. It would keep the middle class drowning under debt. It would continue to force the middle class to choose between health care and things like college or fixing the roof on their house.
mike
September 18th, 2009
8:57 pm
Public Option Now –
If you are going to copy other people’s words, you should give them credit.
The “Bad Max” bit is a word for word lifting from a MySpace site.
Pat Phelps
September 18th, 2009
8:59 pm
I hope the voters of Maine, Iowa, and Wyoming get their heads out of their butts and vote these three idiot moderate republicans out of office. Send these people a message.
Del
September 18th, 2009
9:00 pm
I was going to comment at length but others are clearly doing a better job. My question is how can you comment on an op-ed from someone who is so out of touch with the true pulse of America and in so much denial. It is indeed sad. Please for your own piece of mind Cynthia, just retire because you are just not expressing yourself coherently.
Drifter
September 18th, 2009
9:04 pm
Republicans had the power to address the problem and they did nothing. The public got tired of it and gave them the boot. They deserve to be put on the sidelines and that’s what the Democrats should do. If the Democrats can’t address the problem with control of the White House and both houses of Congress, it’s their own fault.
tmike
September 18th, 2009
9:09 pm
Enter your comments here This editorial has to be one of the best. What a rambling collections of words that addressed nothing. Must have been on of those after happy hour deadlines.
TnGelding
September 18th, 2009
9:14 pm
From Saxby:
“I believe all Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care. I am open to any health care reform plan that gives Americans the option to choose the health insurance plan that best fits their needs and does not increase government involvement and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.”
He’s asking for a miracle. We’ve got to take the profit out of the system to reduce costs significantly. Eliminate the insurance companies and advertising, and reduce administratiive costs with a government system already in place; Medicare for everyone, with the entire cost paid for by workers and users over time. Employers would have to pitch in at first, but it would be less than what most of them are now spending on insurance premiums. The insurance companies could compete for the Medigap coverage, which most would want.
Baucus is just grandstanding. His plan is going nowhere. It’s too complicated and only enriches the insurance companies even more. The House will have no part of it.
We need a president with the guts to tell us to stop our self-destructive lifestyles that contribute to much of our illness. That and raising the limits for qualifying for Medicaid would go a long way toward reducing costs and getting more people covered.
We also need to take a serious look at end of life care. Dying in America is too drawn out, painful and expensive.
TnGelding
September 18th, 2009
9:16 pm
tmike
September 18th, 2009
9:09 pm
Totally devoid of reality. I was truly disappointed.
godless heathen
September 18th, 2009
9:27 pm
“There cannot be a doubt in the reality-based universe that the Obama administration and Senate Democrats reached out in the spirit of bipartisan compromise”
Cynthia, where in the world do you get this stuff? That’s about the funniest thing I have ever heard.
my insurance company
September 18th, 2009
9:30 pm
I’m going to start up my own insurance company. Since my goal is to have as low a level of expenses as possible, I plan on only offering coverage to whites, (since black on black crime is such an issue), those with incomes over $75K per year (since the poor and less educated are more likely to smoke and use drugs), people that haven’t been convicted of a violent crime or DUI, and for people that are within 5% of their healthy weight (since the obese are more prone to diabetes and other high priced conditions. Anyone want in?
Keith
September 18th, 2009
9:32 pm
All I can say is “Cynthia is an idiot if she believes what she writes”. How sad. You can’t see through Obama’s lies. Because he is black he can do no wrong. It doesn’t matter what race you are..you can be wrong, and Obama’s plan is wrong. If it is so great why don’t they adopt it for Congress and the President…
hryder
September 18th, 2009
9:35 pm
Yes, the Dems are free to just do what pleases them. That does not mean that doing what pleases them is correct or acceptable. When one, such as Pelosi, claims to desire bipartisianship, and then rejects any and all suggestions by the other side as without merit, that person is not being honest and is unworthy of trust. The persons who can be viewed as trustworthy are those whose deeds match their words. THE PERSONS WHOSE WORDS ARE NOT THEIR DEEDS ARE UNWORTHY OF ANY TRUST.
TnGelding
September 18th, 2009
9:39 pm
We’ve got to stop all this partisan bickering and get this thing right. Our future standard of living depends on it. Not to mention our mortality.
Allen
September 18th, 2009
9:45 pm
Maybe if public healthcare passes they can also take over fast food restaraunts, liquor stores, and groceries while they’re at it. How about if you’re 20 or more pounds overweight, drink, smoke, eat any fast food ever, exercise less than 4 days a week, etc etc, then you can’t get government funded healthcare until you comply with each of those. Possibly do tobacco testing similar to getting life insurance, for example. Seriously, why should I pay for others’ lack of responsibility? I am 10 lbs overweight, drink, and occasionally eat at hamburger, but I also pay for my OWN irresponsibility through the tune of $360/month. I know the system needs some type of tweaking….I am all for allowing coverage if you have a terminal illness for instance. BUT, I sure as hell don’t want to pay for someone out of my pocket when I know they’ll be grabbing that Big Mac value meal with large fries and regular Coke on the way home…no way.
Scott
September 18th, 2009
10:08 pm
Kamchak,
I don’t think I used the words “kvetching” or “whining,” though I will consent to your use of those verbs as an entirely personal observation, mischaracterization aside.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
10:19 pm
@ Mike–
Do you have any substantive health care analysis or ideas?
Bad Max has been used on thousands of sites. Let us know when your space ship arrives on planet earth. And write at the top I gave Marcy Wheeler credit for the outline of the Max Tax.
If you follow political or medical or health care twitters, the term is ubiquitous and I don’t know or care where the hell it started.
Get mommy to help you read. And read my post again.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
10:27 pm
Allen–
Your argument is narrow and short sided and reflects a poor understanding of the health care crisis.
A lot of reform and public option is to protect you from insurance companies gouging you now and in the future and to bring drug costs under control. Preventing illness and treating sick people goes way beyond the scope of whether they took responsiblity for their eating, exercise, smoking and drinking habits. Thousands of diseases have nouthing to do with them.
Right now Medicare has been crippled by the Republicans in 2003 who kept them from competitive bidding on drugs and the pharmaceuticals are giving millions of dollars to Senators and Congresspeople to see that it stays that way. Every private hospital enjoys a great reduction in drug costs to them because they bid in a large group. Medicare is forbidden these price cuts and that was stupid on the part of Bill Frist and the Republicans. That’s just one aspect that needs changing. Baucus protects this because he and the Senate Finance Six are on insurance and drug company payrolls.
I’m not aware that a woman gets breast cancer because she hasn’t taken the responsibility you invoke. But her insurance company will drop her if and when she does often if she needs surgery, chemo, and radiation. We want to stop this and save these women.
Skip Cressman
September 18th, 2009
10:28 pm
What a bunch of crap! Good grief, what a terrible bit of journalism.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
10:31 pm
Nate Silver puts public option’s chances at 50-50 after careful analysis. Many of the MSM have smugly called it dead, and they are incorrect They also have cadillac insurance policies from companies like GE, ABC, and CBS-Viacom so there isn’t a lot of passion in these talking heads for whether there is insurance company competition. They’re also grossly overpaid for analysis on a high school level.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
10:32 pm
Cynthia–
Can you get the Cox wordpress person to allow links on your blog? It’s counter productive not to have them. You use them in your posts.
Kamchak
September 18th, 2009
10:32 pm
Scott—I don’t need your consent to use whatever verbs I want. Ms. Tucker and the filter will decide what gets posted and what gets pulled/moderated.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
10:33 pm
Right now what gets moderated is anything with a link–and it’s consummately stupid to do that.
Kamchak
September 18th, 2009
10:45 pm
Public
The first time I tried to post with a link I got moderated and expressed my frustration just as you have—then I saw where you successfully did a few nights ago. I followed suit and was also successful but I haven’t tried since.
FredGSanford
September 18th, 2009
10:55 pm
Pubic Option Now, even though I believe you are a fraud, you do bring up valid points. The one point you bring up that I disagree with, is the notion that the insurance companies just decide to drop you if you get an illness. I’m sure that it has happened from time to time, but it certainly is not the norm. Please give us something to back up those claims. I’ve known many people with cancer, heart disease and other serious ailments that have not been dropped. In fact, they have faired very well with no negative financial impact.
FredGSanford
September 18th, 2009
10:57 pm
Sinthia likes to be in “control”. HA!
Jon
September 18th, 2009
11:01 pm
May I point a few things out? Some things people seem to ignore is the pure ludicrousness of our health care system; namely the fact that every penny of profit that a health insurance company makes is of a parasitic nature. You are GIVING your money to other people to provide you with what? Peace of mind? A chance that they might help you if you have a health problem? Perhaps you have not been paying attention lately; but the insurance profits are going up, there have been hearings on how insurance companies are dropping their clients unfairly, and doing everything they can to prevent themselves from having to fulfill their part of the bargain.
Why do you want to give these people money? I thought republicans were against handing out money for no reason? Do you just hope someday you will have a chance to have the job and rape people of their money and lives for your own profit and become a millionaire? Do you not see the connections between everyone?
If you make people unable to have good benefits at work (in this case sick days), good education and good health options people will continue to behave in ways which will cause your health risk to grow! Think about it: you don’t give someone good health insurance, they still want to live so they still go to work, now they are in public spreading germs which are getting stronger as the people attempt to ration their medicine so that they can have some money to pay for food and rent. Now occasionally they infect other people, these other people sometimes are able to get over the disease with proper medication, other times they are continuing the cycle, eventually the diseases will be too strong and that creates epidemics which drastically kill off populations (think black plague) .
who would do us harm are a part of our society.
This should be obvious to you all, yet too many people say “hey I make my own way, I’m not going to help anyone else” but you are one person in a chain, stop being a child and insisting everything must be fair and so if he/she’s not going to keep themselves in good condition you are going to go pout in a corner and not help everyone else.
Instead of arguing and throwing accusations around why don’t we all have a CIVIL and CONSTRUCTIVE conversation. So instead of saying ” I don’t want you to socialize health care and make a socialist government” say what actually concerns you about the idea such as “I am concerned that the government will be in charge of who gets medicine and who doesn’t” that way we can come up with solutions such as creating a law which states “No doctor will either force or deprive any person any health procedures required to keep them alive” or something similar. This is constructive and will help further the conversation so it comes out to a conclusion which we all can be at least OK with.
Case in point: Allen, you mentioned you are concerned about people not having social responsibility? How about this, why don’t we talk about the idea that we could enforce everyone to have health insurance, but those who live a healthy lifestyle will have to pay less (by the way the reason you have to pay “$360/month” – if that’s health insurance – is more than just your “OWN irresponsibility” it’s everyone who is in your age range as a whole group which the health insurance company you pay though considers your health risks, likelihood they will have to pay, how much they can make you pay – don’t forget they are FOR PROFIT, not charities, not non-profits – and other variables in order to come up with $360 as something that covers all of them. So you already are paying for others responsibilities as is – both when they are part of your insurance group, and when they go to the emergency room due to not being able to afford health care) I suggest we make one option a large nonprofit organization – government controlled only if necessary – as then a larger pool of the public could be in (lowering the costs as overall health risk goes down) and since it is non profit that means that that “profit” you hear health insurance companies making; that stays in your wallet instead of paying someone else for nothing.
Jon
September 18th, 2009
11:07 pm
Fred, you do recall in previous years we have had hearings and brought health insurance CEOs to questions about their policies of often dropping people from coverage; it’s not going to happen to everyone, but overall the health insurance companies are trying to make a profit, not trying to make you better.
Michael Janney
September 18th, 2009
11:33 pm
Enter your comments here
I’m sure that many millions more Americans want health care that will not bust the budget like the present plans do. Obama and the democrats have wasted so much time and energy trying to fix a problem that probably can’t be fixed all at once. They will probably have to settle for something less than the sweeping reform they talk about, although I’m never sure whether they want to reform health care or the insurance companies or Medicare or Medicaid. Obama has lost this fight and it’s not because of the Republicans who don’t have the votes to stop the health care reform bill that doesn’t even exist. It’s democrats who have killed the bill.
Harold Rock
September 18th, 2009
11:39 pm
Be Alert Undecided Congress members of the United States. (BAUCUS)
A PUBLIC OPTION IS INEVITABLE.
A statement of Mr. Wendell Potter Former Vice President of CIGNA: “AN HEALTH REFORM BILL WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION IS NOT WORTH VOTING FOR”.
Guunny
September 18th, 2009
11:46 pm
Cynthia: I love p_ssing you off.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
11:49 pm
@ Fred. I don’t care what you believe. And it’s amusing that in life, you’ve never walked up to anyone and told them face to face you think they’re a fraud–you don’t know me from Adam.
Why don’t you focus on issues not the commenters. No one is looking to you for validation, and I’m not applying for a job with you. LOL
Concentrate on what you can learn from me or someone else. And no one is going to spend a second of time on an idiot who hallucinates they can tell whether someone is a “fraud” via a comment section someowhere.
You must be delusional 14000 people a day get dropped from insurance companies and 430 in Georgia, and most of them because they get sick. You do the googling yourself. It’s not my job to find info for you. I’ve posted hundreds of links on Bookman’s blogs–and your comment displays your ignorance.
45000 people a year die as a direct result from losing insurance, and that’s from a recent Harvard study.
I probably document my statements more frequently than anyone who posts.
And I just said, you can’t post a link on Cynthia’s blog. She may have the only blog in the world where you can’t post a link in a comment.
It’s damn hard to document anything without a link. Google Harvard Study–45000 die from insurance or use your energy to get the idiot that manages these sites for Cox to fix them.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
11:53 pm
@ Cam–you can’t post links here. You can post two on Bookman’s blog, you can post them on Barr’s and Kyle whatever his name is, is so patently stupid I wouldn’t waste a second on his blog. Tucker doesn’t interact with her blog, and if she doesn’t understand the value of links, it’s probably impossible to teach her.
Cox turned way right when they booted Cynthia, Jay, and Maureen off their editorial board, replacing t hem with Cox suits that know next to nothing about journalism, and they took a hard turn towards high school news coverage. Every international or natioanl article is imported from another news service, often days later. They lean heavily on AP, which is pathetic and superficial. They naively use WaPo which has deteriorated dramatically in the past few weeks.
Public Option Now.
September 18th, 2009
11:55 pm
No present plans “bust the budget.” Stupid spending in Iraq does.
Allen
September 19th, 2009
12:03 am
Public, I appreciate your sincere thoughts. In your example of a breast cancer patient, I did mention that some parts of the statute need tweaking and I would consider cancer as one of the diseases needing some type of amendment. This person obviously could not control her sickness….that is just one of many illnesses that could use some reform w/in the ins industry. But, I would venture to say that a majority of Americans are not stricken with a non “cause and effect” type disease (i.e., cancer, MS, Parkinsons, the list goes on) in his/her lifetime. By cause/effect I refer to those which are typically (I realize, not always) caused by the effects of some type of lifestyle choice (ie., Type II diabetes, heart disease, HIV, obesity, etc). I like the idea of a pay as you need basis. If some uninsured person breaks his finger and runs to the doctor, let the doc bill that individual $500 but make payment plans for that person. If it takes 10 years to pay off, then so be it. I look to pay in at least $200-300k for premiums over my working lifetime (assuming 40 yrs)…pretty much a never ending cycle. Payments won’t end, and honestly if those of us who pay this amount over 40+ year do it, then Joe Busboy making $20k/yr should be made to pay something out of pocket ($500 dr bill over 10 years plus interest is what, around $60/yr, or a measly $5/month) so that those of us like myself aren’t stuck paying $500-700k over our lifetime.
Public Option Now.
September 19th, 2009
12:13 am
@ Fred–
You won’t continue a productive dialogue with people you insult, particularly when you have zero info on them and call them a fraud. You veer into the area of untreated Borderline Personality or psychotic delusion when you do.
I can’t post links here, but get your mom google Blue Cross praised employees who dropped policy holders. Further on a panoply of congressional web sites, including Waxman’s a study that was comissioned by bipartisan congressional committee members found that the 3 largest insurers in California had dropped 20,000 patients and saved $340 million in the last five years.
There is an LA Times article among hundreds on this recission study (recission is the health care term for cut or dropped Fred):
I can’t link here, but it’s from LA Times:
Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says
Workers received high marks on performance reviews after policies were rescinded, documents show. The health insurer denies the practice is a factor in evaluations.
By Lisa Girion LA TIMES
June 17, 2009
Can you read what’s below or get someone to read it to you?
But documents obtained by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and released today show that the company’s employee performance evaluation program did include a review of rescission activity.
The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of “5″ for “exceptional performance” on an evaluation that noted the employee’s role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.
WellPoint’s Blue Cross of California subsidiary and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period, the House committee said.
“When times are good, the insurance company is happy to sign you up and take your money in the form of premiums,” Stupak said. “But when times are bad, and you are afflicted with cancer or some other life-threatening disease, it is supposed to honor its commitments and stand by you in your time of need.
“Instead, some insurance companies use a technicality to justify breaking its promise, at a time when most patients are too weak to fight back,” he said.
Lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats alike — decried the practice of canceling policies of ill policyholders and grilled insurance executives about it.
The hearing began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation’s healthcare system. But any such overhaul would be incomplete without an end to rescission, said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
“It’s shocking. It’s inexcusable. It’s a system we have in place that we have to stop,” Waxman said.
The committee investigation uncovered several rescission practices that one lawmaker called egregious, including targeting every policyholder diagnosed with leukemia, breast cancer and 1,400 other serious illnesses. Such investigations involve scouring the policyholder’s original application and years’ worth of medical and pharmacy records in search of any discrepancies.
I’ve practiced medicine for a number of years, and between myself and hundreds of collegues we’ve seen thousands of people cancelled when they got serious illnesses. You must live one severely sheltered life Fred, and you have a significantly narcissitic idea of your experience as representing the rest of the US. Try reading a little bit, because you’re in left field if you think people are dropped for illness only ocassionaly. That’s just not the case.
Further the NEJM and JAMA alone have published scores of articles on recission and documented it over the years.
Try the web site of the committee invoked in the article and get an education Fredo.
Public Option Now.
September 19th, 2009
12:19 am
The Website Sick for Profit and their twitter page documents hundreds of incidences of recission by insurance companies to take the premium money and run.
Waxman’s website has documented several studies, and testimony under oath.
Wendell Potter testified as to this the other day on the hill, and he used to hold the job of VP for PR for Aetna.
The particular committee who comissioned the study was Henry Waxman’s committee–they have an extensive website; and Fred can get some help to find it.
Try googling House Committe on Energy and Commerce Fred. Then search for “recission.”
Glad to have helped.
Public Option Now.
September 19th, 2009
12:40 am
Allen–
With all respect due, you’re just incorrect. Try going to Emory med bookstore>section on internal med or family practice and leaf through any of the texts. I’ve done clinical medicine primary care for a good while and 8 years as an ER doc prior. I have the concept of preventive medicine down. I have a library of literally hundreds of books that preach preventive medicine and hundreds of others that discuss diseases and treatment. Books were popular before things got digital.
It’s important and we work to get better at prevention and we work like hell at it. For example, as high as 25% of hypertensive people in the US may be untreated and undetected. A high rate of AODM Type II is. As people age, this figure rises exponentially.
It would be a great world if every disease were preventable, but that’s just not the way it works out. We can do a lot better at prevention and detection, and the health care plan that passes (and one will) hopefully will get at this problem dramatically. It’s hard to predict what will happen because there will be five bills including the heavily marked up and amended now terrible Senate Finance Bill, but eventually the Senate will come up with a bill, the House will; and then Conference Committee will report out a bill to be voted on by both.
I have a detailed list of all the contributions to members of Congress this term, and they are astranomical because in crude terms insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies want to be free to price gouge.
You can go to a twitter page of any internal medicine department that’s academic and read literally thousands of articles that back up what I just said.
ken
September 19th, 2009
12:47 am
When I have one flat tire on my car, I do not have to fix all of them. Just fix the flat one. More than 75% of people are happy with their health care.
Zibby
September 19th, 2009
12:59 am
Cynthia – are the drugs in DC better than the ones you can get in Atlanta? Apparently they must be from the level of nonsense you spew on a daily basis.
You remind me of that time when Joe Scarborough was in a heated debate with Zbigneiw Brzezinski over the secret content of President Clinton’s Camp David accords. Brzezinski grew very frustrated with being shouted over by Scarborough and delivered the following riposte:
“You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it’s almost embarrassing to listen to you.”
Or in this case, reading you. Same difference.
If you didn’t work for Cox you wouldn’t have a gig would you?
Public Option Now.
September 19th, 2009
1:27 am
Cynthia Tucker has won one more Pulitzer than you have “Zibby” and she’s regularly on the Sunday morning talk shows on more than one network for a reason. It’s easy to insult people you never have to face like a child from the safety of your keyboard and mouse.
Do you have any substantive analysis of health care? I must have missed it.
Public Option Now.
September 19th, 2009
1:28 am
Ken–
Is there some correlation with your tire analogy and clinical medicine?
Public Option Now.
September 19th, 2009
1:32 am
@ Ken–
In the largest statistical study to date, published in NEJM 63% of doctors aren’t happy with the way health care is being delivered, and they are part of the healthcare equation unless you’re a Christian Scientist.
In the 4 largest polls this month, from approximately 50% to 77% of Americans want not only health care reform but a public option. These included polls from CBS, USA Today, CNN, and the 77% figure was from Survey America. You can’t link on Tucker’s blog for some stupid reason. I’ve linked these studies on Bookman’s about 35 times in the last two weeks.
You don’t mind documenting wh ere you got your figure do you? Are or you a Repubozo from the University of “We just make crap up like Faux Noise morons?”
Public Option Now.
September 19th, 2009
1:57 am
To get an idea of how beat up Baucus’ bill is, right now there are over 540 amendments to it andks if you check out political (Tucker doesn’t allow links) you can see they are divided into 3 subject areas.
They’ll be posted live tomorrow but not here ’cause it’s Tucker.
The amendments will be at
finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legislation.htm which is as close to a link as you can get “Tucker web style.”
ThePlainTruth
September 19th, 2009
6:09 am
Enter your comments here
Obama and the Dems are hell bent on stuffing their “health reform” down the throats of the American people whether we like or not. After all, they are the elite and they know whats best for us–the dumb masses.
JD
September 19th, 2009
6:14 am
Does Cynthia Tucker actually get paid for all the Democratic Party drivel that she constantly spouts. I rarely get past the first paragraph or two of her writings that I can predict exactly what she is going to say. We got her out of Atlanta. Now if we could get her out of the editorial business it would be so nice.
Trudy
September 19th, 2009
6:22 am
Why are the 45,000 Americans who died because they could not afford insurance less important than those who died on 9/11? gop=hypocrisy
Jim
September 19th, 2009
6:24 am
The “dribble” might be a leaking bladder. Hope you have health insurance. P.S. Look up drivel in the dictionary.
Bob
September 19th, 2009
6:45 am
Look at the front page of the AJC and look at the story about all those illegals getting expnsive kidney treatment. Democrats say they want to help with healthcare cost but bendover backword to give healthcare to illegals and it won’t change with reform. The Baucus bill DOES allow them to buy subsidized insurance and the Dems will never drop the law that forces hospitals to treat anyone. The Baucus bill is more welfare.
Bob
September 19th, 2009
6:49 am
Trudy, I don’t know where you got your numbers but the differance is we were attacked on 9/11 and those that died had NO choice. Having been in insurance for many years I can tell you most of what you quote, 45,000 or 4,500 at some time had a choice and made the wrong one. Uninsured illegals get lifesaving treatment in the US so your numbers are wrong.
Steve
September 19th, 2009
6:54 am
Is the “at least $100 a month” cost some sort of revelation? What, did you expect it to be free? Nothing in life is. Let’s not forget that a large number of the “uninsured” population (whatever that number is, after subtracting the illegal aliens included in the total) are simply people who choose not to buy it. Just like they don’t buy other things.
One of the “beauties” of forced insurance is that it will cause a number of people to buy it who don’t want it. That’s what progressive/fascists are generally about-telling the people what they want/need, not letting them decide for themselves.
Constructive Feedback
September 19th, 2009
7:03 am
Ms Tucker – you amaze me.
You show your hand when you lead with the GOP opposition to the bill – labeling it as “obstructionist”. Yet you glance over the strong Democrat opposition to the bill, SUPPORTING their opposition because their opposition, in your view, is to this bill leaving health care unaffordable.
Jack Owens
September 19th, 2009
7:33 am
I wonder how Miss Tucker positivly knows that the republican senators
on the panel were insincere,cowardly,and irritating. She must have
been in on the debate. Or maybe Miss Tucker just leans way to far left.
Call it Like It Is
September 19th, 2009
7:59 am
No Jack, Tucker is what Carter would call a RACIST!
America does not want Socialized Health Care!
Enough Said!
Steve
September 19th, 2009
8:10 am
Cynthia Tucker likes to demonize those who disagree with her. Perhaps in the columnist world that is how you make a living but in the real world where you try to persuade people of your argument that doesn’t work.
I personally believe in health care reform with a public option but would not vote for either the house or senate plan if I were a congressman. I look at the Rep as representing the interest of those who oppose the plans for various reasons. One reason is the current plan will increase the deficit. As a moderate I am oppose to any increase in the deficit except during recession or war. I oppose Bush’s war spending because the war was optional. I oppose the stimulus package because it did not help the recovery and I oppose the various health care plans because they increase the deficit without bringing down any cost for the average person.
Demonizing Rep might make Dem and liberals feel good but only makes you look self righteous to moderates.
Steve
September 19th, 2009
8:21 am
Also, quit bringing up Iraq. This reminds me of when I ask my children about what they did. Well so and so did such and such. Guess what the Rep were kicked out of congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Let that be a lesson for the Dem.
Many Americans are sick of both the Dem and Rep.
FredGSanford
September 19th, 2009
8:40 am
Jim
September 19th, 2009
6:24 am
I know what dribble is and I know what drivel is. I understand the meanings of both words. I wrote dribble and I meant it. Dribble people, Dribble. I wrote it in the context of an image I have of Sinthia writing her piece while saliva drips from her mouth – DRIBBLE. She’s frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog. DRIBBLE.
Is that okay with you people?
FredGSanford
September 19th, 2009
8:42 am
Pubic Option – thanks for the comments. Maybe in your eyes I live a sheltered life. I’d like to think I don’t. I’m just living life like so many others. I have no first hand knowledge of insurance companies dropping because of an illness. For obvious reasons, in your field of profession, you have. I am not disputing that it is not done. I am curious as to the percentage and what the circumstances were surrounding the reasons for dropping. They all can’t be dropped just because of the illness.
Yes, you do provide links on a regular basis and I’m sure most people are appreciative. I would like you to remember when telling someone “You do the googling yourself. It’s not my job to find info for you”, that you are one of the first to scream PROVE IT. Please follow your own advice. You know, you’re right about judging others based on comments on a blog – but you know what? That’s all we have to go on. I don’t disagree with your assessment of me. I do hurl insults, especially at you because of your demeaning nature of your posts. I have a hard time believing that you are a doctor, especially when you demean everyone that has the nerve to speak their mind and has ideas that differ from yours. You lost your credibility with your constant use of “Republitardbozo” and your constant “redneck talk” to describe all conservatives.
Patrick
September 19th, 2009
8:51 am
The only people who comment on editorials are people that are incapable of forming their own opinions. This person’s entire job is to be “controversial” so you people will read her column and argue and fight. This so called “journalist” doesn’t care if you agree or disagree. She only cares that you read her column so she can keep her job. You people are really a very sad group.
And to clarify, I am commenting on the pathetic losers that comment on editorials, not the editorial itself. There is a difference.
johnny
September 19th, 2009
8:54 am
Why are you bad mouthing the republicans, the democrats have the numbers in both house and senate without republican support, the problem is the dems cannot even get all dems to vote for this bill!!!!
so don’t badmouth republicans when we’re not blocking anything, we just don’t agree with this type gov involvement.
Jason
September 19th, 2009
9:02 am
Some great comments here!
“Why are the 45,000 Americans who died because they could not afford insurance less important than those who died on 9/11? gop=hypocrisy”
Why can’t we ever see FACTS and DATA that backs up liberal Democrat claims? 95% of people also were supposed to see a tax break according to Obama. With ObamaCare, that will happen right after Jimmy Carter commands another nuclear submarine.
“Cynthia Tucker likes to demonize those who disagree with her.”
That’s how liberals operate. Oh, and call anyone who disagrees with Democrats “racists” and “nazis.”
“America does not want Socialized Health Care! Enough Said!”
You think those liberal Democrats care what the MAJORITY of Americans want? Come on! 85% of Americans *have* a health care plan and the overwhelming majority of them are HAPPY with their health care plan. Of course, that means that 15% do not have health insurance. You will not ever hear a liberal Democrat break that 15% down (45 million) into categories such as: illegal immigrants, people involved with another government plan, those who can afford insurance but choose not to like 20-somethings who would rather spend that extra hundred bucks a month on bar tabs, and on and on and on. The very fact that you haven’t heard the main stream media (or Democrats for that matter) break down that alleged 45 million with no health insurance says it all.
Jason
September 19th, 2009
9:05 am
“Why are you bad mouthing the republicans, the democrats have the numbers in both house and senate without republican support, the problem is the dems cannot even get all dems to vote for this bill!!!!”
Another great comment. Liberal Democrats like Tucker are just par for the course: blame Republicans for their own short comings. And based upon what I’ve been witnessing lately, the left will have a bigger problem in 2010 and 2012. America’s moderates voted for Obama and shifted the tide, in addition to a lot of Republicans staying home because they didn’t want to vote for McCain. There’s a storm brewing on the horizon…………
NRB
September 19th, 2009
9:10 am
Cynthia, are you playing with the computer again??? Get your fat a$$ downstairs and make breakfast.
NRB
September 19th, 2009
9:13 am
Cynthia Tucker has won one more Pulitzer than you have “Zibby” and she’s regularly on the Sunday morning talk shows on more than one network for a reason.
—————————————-
Yes, and that reason is that she spews anti-american, anti-white, socialist propaganda. Trust me, if you bash whitey and hate on capitalism….you can have all the awards and TV time you want.
jconservative
September 19th, 2009
9:14 am
Please note the following from the CMS 2010 Performance Budget. If you do not know, CMS pays the bills for Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP.
“In FY 2010, benefit costs are expected to total $803.1 billion.”
And the baby boomers do not start going on Medicare until 2011. In a few years that $803.1 billion will be $1.6 trillion. The baby boomers & the 2009 expansion of SCHIP will double the number of people on those programs in 20 years.
This is the problem that must be addressed.
Scott
September 19th, 2009
9:16 am
Kamchak–Wow, touchy. I wasn’t insinuating you needed my consent, I was merely making a humorous comment meant to do no more than tweak. Who’s kvetching now?
Bob
September 19th, 2009
9:23 am
Obama says the cost would be less than what we spent in Iraq. Lets pull our troops from dem wars and save money. We have troops in Japan, Germany and Korea but dems always want to point to Iraq, a war most of them voted for. How about this, lets cancel the rest of the 787 Billion pork bill and use that as a downpayment, only 15% or so has been spent. If heatlhcare is a moral issue, why not use this money to pay for it.
Michael H. Smith
September 19th, 2009
9:27 am
I do applaud the presentation of your comments Steve. Though, I would argue differently in respects to the war on terror being an option and I don’t support another big government entitlement clothed as a Public Option, you correctly identified demonizing, which never gives sound solid arguments of “reasoned support” as you have done in expressing your conclusions: Very admirable Steve.
But Steve, please allow the Democrats to successfully fall on their own sword, as they are doing such a wonderful job at performing that task unaided. For a slightly right of center conservative like me watching this group of new radical extremists on the left commit political suicide it is joy: Please, please, don’t stop them Steve. Though alas sigh, admittedly and regrettably, the Republicans don’t seem to deserve a resurrection yet.
hatin'on the stupid
September 19th, 2009
9:29 am
Steve “Also, quit bringing up Iraq.”
Hilarious how the “personal responsibility” republicans want us to never mention the people and actions that have gotten us into the mess we’re in. Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush doubled the national debt, stuffed oversite agencies with industry lobbists, drove the economy over the cliff, impoverished millions and left Obama huge debt and a collapsed economy. Bush also siezed more governmental powers. I thought republicans were against that.But let’s never mention these things. That would be a “red herring”.
Elections have consequences. Republicans left a mess to be cleaned up and now are whining about the cleaning guy. Choice stuff.
NRB
September 19th, 2009
9:36 am
Hilarious how the “personal responsibility” republicans want us to never mention the people and actions that have gotten us into the mess we’re in.
——————————————-
You mean Barney Frank and the Democrats who controlled congress since ‘06? We mention them all the time.
hatin'on the stupid
September 19th, 2009
9:39 am
NRB: You illustrate my point perfectly…
NRB
September 19th, 2009
9:49 am
Yeah yeah blahda blah.
And so tell me this, how do you feel about Obama extending the Patriot Act this past thursday?
Scott
September 19th, 2009
9:51 am
45,000 uninsured die every year? But according to the CBS News story on the study, “Researchers don’t know how the uninsured died or if they were uninsured the entire time they were being tracked.” Sounds like skewed results from a flawed methodology. Regardless of what the legitimate number would be, however, this kind of statistic begs the question anyway. The question is not between doing something to help the uninsured, and doing nothing to help the uninsured. The question is between doing what Congress and Obama propose to do, and finding some other solution.
Bob
September 19th, 2009
9:52 am
NRB, do you see where Barney plans to extend the Community reinvestment act, even knowing what it helped cause. The housing crash would not have been nearly as bad if Fannie and Freddie had not guaranteed 1 Trillion in bad mortgage debt. NRB google the hearings from 05 where the dems are on video trashing the efforts of repubs wanting to reign in on the fraud. they did not have control of the house but they had enough numbers to stop the abuse. How can anyone watch the hearings and dispute it. Fannie and Freddie were putting poor people in homes which is what liberals like Pelosi and George Bush wanted.
NRB
September 19th, 2009
9:56 am
NRB google the hearings from 05 where the dems are on video trashing the efforts of repubs wanting to reign in on the fraud.
——————————————————-
Oh I’ve seen that video….it’s incredible. Barney was protecting his boyfriend at the time, who was in charge of Freddie Mac.
Michael H. Smith
September 19th, 2009
10:00 am
The financial crisis commission held its’ first meeting. Hopefully when this commission reaches its’ conclusions the hyperbole will be put to rest on what went wrong and what caused the collapse of the economy.
Till then the true “personal responsibility” crowd will defer to the wisdom of silence rather than give further preference to extrapolations drawn from the hearsay of political and news media blather, which may eventually prove unfounded.
ck hall
September 19th, 2009
10:11 am
Your treatise is so absurd it does not merit a response! I have noticed that Ms. Tucker is much more visible(almost daily rants) as her Demo friends have faltered and she tries more left wing lies to distort the oppostion to Obamacare.
Jason
September 19th, 2009
10:12 am
“Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush doubled the national debt, stuffed oversite [sic] agencies with industry lobbists”
1) With a Republican congress.
2) Obama has doubled Bush’s spending in SIX MONTHS. That was when the unemployment was only at 8% and the trillion dollar “stimulus” bill needed to be passed to stop job loss – now at 8 million plus lost since that passage and unemployment now at 10%.
3) As if industry “lobbyists” don’t exist in the Obama administration? How about all those “czars” that unconstitutionally steal power from appointed cabinet members?
You may be hatin’ on stupid, but I’m laughing at insanity.
zeke
September 19th, 2009
10:56 am
What utter stupidity this drivel from C.T. is! If younger people want insurance, let them buy it ans not fancy new cars, big screen tvs or fancy clothes! DO NOT RAISE MY TAXES TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S INSURANCE! Republicans like Demint have great ideas. Ideas that follow the American values if personal responsibility, hard work and perseverance. Medicaid cost 1200 times the projections when it was implemented. Do you think this will be any different? These demogog plans will bankrupt small businesses, individuals and the country!
scott
September 19th, 2009
11:16 am
Enter your comments here..republicans are only concerned as to ruin president obama,s presidency is right on target ..i cannot for the world understand why working class white americans give so much power to republicans and thier poor leadership republicans care about one thing..WEALTHY AMERICANS AND BIG BUSINESS..and want to keep working class blacks and whites just that working class and poor..i was in nicholson ,ga this past week and was shocked by the white poverty in that region and others..america needs health care reform ..as a very wealthy white american i,m ok for life but i cant for the life of me understand why any working class white american wouldnt want health care thats affordable..quit listening to rush limbaugh and sean hannity THEY ARE MULTI MILLIONARES THAT DONT CARE ABOUT YOU!!!!!