GOP Will Meet With Obama Over ObamaCare If He Agrees To Start Over

I agree its a sham to get photo-op for Obama to give the “appearance of bipartisanship” one meeting is not how he said , “All of it will be on C-Span” Republicans need to say HELL NO! to this BS, and say we will work in the Senate and forthe Democrats to Open the doors to the back rooms deals that are going on.. these photo-ops are not what the American people what!

As Senator Brown would say, “we can do better”. Simple slogan, include everyone, not just your supporters, Mr. Obama.

look, this talking with obummer is just bs. have a few meetings in private and THEN SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO. LET’S HAVE TOWNHALL MEETINGS ON TV/CSPAN AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. THEN WE BEGIN AGAIN. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.

why spend their time with bo and moderators. huh? this is war and we intend ot win. those who like us will and those who don’t won’t. we are fighting for the hearts and minds of americans and not obummer.

the gop isn’t pressured. it is the dimocrats who are.

Can’t wait to see how the media twists this into an Obama victory.

Jimmy Carter Junior – what a complete disaster!

What’s with the French???

Mata is right: it is a set up. The GOPers will either refuse to attend because Obama will not give into their Hamas-like preconditions, or they will have to attend with their tails between their legs after he calls their bluff. He is treating the GOP like he is treating Iran (or how you deal with a three year old): act solicitously, try to coax them to do the right thing. Then if they don’t, beat the crap out of them, explaining “I tried to reason with them.”

I mean, really, Boehner wants about 1,300 “stakeholders” at the meeting. Why? They will only gum up the works, keep the agenda from focusing on the issues and how to solve them (as each of the 1,300 attendees feels the need to have his/her say on behalf of their constituents). But that is Boehner’s goal — nothing done and no GOPer agenda considered and exposed. Because if we can learn anything from the fiasco of Obama at the GOPer House retreat, it is that he has a unique ability to make merely silly conservative proposals look idiotic. How? By striping off the good con proposals first and making cons stand and fight and lose on their own stupid agenda items. Like opposing the GM bailout that kept who knows how many hundreds of thousands of retirees off the Medicare rolls. Yeah, you are against the “socialism” of a bailout, but your “cure” would send even more people into the socialistic health care welfare system. Duh!

Nope, this is a trap. And you know what? The GOPers asked for it by whining about “the lack of bipartisanship” and how no one was paying attention to them. Well now the world is listening, cons. You have an open mic to spout all kinds of silliness, The God’s punish us by giving us what we want some times

And why don’t the Republicans just say “my constituents don’t want this un-Constitutional government takeover of health care.” …

Rush is right. Hussein is trying to “set up” any republican stupid enough to believe all of the glad hand, bipartisan nonsense. Here’s hoping McCain and Co. do not return to their “sell-out” ways in return for more drooling NY Times puff pieces.

@rich wheeler:

G.O.P. Campaign Slogan 2010-2012. “The Party of No and damn proud of it” May work.

Considering that over half of those polled agree with the GOP’s opposition of ObamaCare, you may be right.

@rich wheeler:

From your mouth to God’s ear!

F.O.C. Onboard We got a movement.Who else is in?

@Flyovercountry, I have no problems with saying “no” to bad legislation. But that’s not the strategic thrust of the political extremists, i.e. as rich wheeler, b-rob have seized upon. Their mentality is quite predictable, and simply stepping into the bear trap isn’t the bright way of waging political debate. The label they are counting on for the 2010 – “the party of NO” – provides the puppet media with the obvious message that the GOP says “no”, and offers up no other solutions. It’s rather like telling a joke without the punchline.

I recognize they have put forth ideas that have either been rejected outright, and not given enough press coverage. However there are ways for a minority party to obtain attention… and a prime example of that would be Newt’s Contract with America in the 90s. It was a brilliant presentation, complete with links to proposed legislation. There has been nothing that extensive thru this GOP leadership, and a deplorable campaign thru the grassroots to spread the message. Let’s face it, the GOP is not the Alinsky devotees the Dems are. They are superior at distraction, spreading mistruths via select talking points, and preying on fears of citizens.

“No” isn’t enough for me either. I’m fully aware that medical services are skyrocketing. My problem with the O’healthcare, as written by Pelosi/Reid, is that there is very little in there that reduces the costs of drugs, equipment and supplies to medical providers. Instead it’s a hodgepodge of increased federal agencies, forced mandates, increased taxes merely so it can keep up with the medical costs inflation. This is self defeating, and no snake oil salesman in the world can sell me that this will prove to be cost cutting. It will end up being benefit cutting, and driving private medical providers… from doctors to hospital facilities… out of the private sector and into the control of the government. This is, after all, the Dem ultimate goal. They are very patient with step by step destruction of capitalistic industries.

The notion that you can force underpayment to medical providers, or cap insurance premiums does zip, nada, nothing for the actual costs. This would be the same if Lexus were selling me a car that had a $40K price tag for the necessary profit structure margin, but they were forced to accept only $29,200 because that’s all Daddy would pay. Enuf “Daddys” like that, and how long would Lexus be around?

The solution is to address the way to reduce the cost of the Lexus manuf bottom line so that the product can be purchased for less. This may entail different regulations and tax structures, streamlining their operations, as well as eliminating their overhead that may result from union demands. Health care is no different.

@billy bob describes his ideal scenario… either the GOP refusing to participate (a perceived Dem win), or performing badly before the cameras (another perceived Dem win). The former is not an option. Politically they cannot afford to reject even a sham “summit”. The latter is the best option, and can prove beneficial…. provided they handle it correctly.

Since the majority of the nation is not happy with what is structured now, the wind is at the backs of a “start over” mentality. The script for the summit talking points is already out… it will be Obama and the Dems pushing an unpopular agenda, using the same ol’ fuzzy math and BS misrepresentation done for months now. It should be simple to counter with some facts… ala “pre’existing conditions” is solved by allowing more creation of group insurance, thereby rendering the more expensive and restrictive individual policies obsolete. The CBO estimates are also useful when presented well… the collection of spending before providing the product, the dependence on higher business taxes and premium taxes. Combine that with a struggling, and slow recovering economy, and their projected revenue levels are based on pipe dreams. What’s going on in the US economy, which often piggy backs on whether the EU economy is worse, plays heavily into the “figures lie, and liars figure” game Obama seeks to play.

In this vein, one of the best places to start for compromise… depending upon how it’s structured… is the Health Insurance Exchange portal concept, and the possibility it creates a one stop comparison site for policy shopping. Individual state riders can do the same thru a State portal, showing the companies that offer state specific riders. All companies should be private… no government single payer “public option”. It worked for Lending Tree and several on line loan portals, and it can work for premium competiton. It can also reduce the costs to the insurer.

But even this doesn’t work if someone doesn’t rein in “how much it costs to build a Lexus”, so to speak. This is the most glaring flaw in the O’healthcare, and a large part of the reason that the costs will become so mammoth over the years as to be fiscally unsustainable…. whether government or private controlled.

Therefore, what should be done first is reducing costs of the “Lexus”, while simultaneously opening the marketplace intrastate/interstate – still preserving state’s rights. Tort reform. Even competition with the portal itself by having even more discount group policies. With federal laws in place that do not allow for denial of pre’existing conditions for more than a 12 month period, there is no reason anyone should have to get an individual policy. It’s a simple cure…. and it takes away one of their biggest talking point lies.

Yes, the GOP should participate… and they’d better get their presentation chops down before they do. If they want power returned to them, they need to earn it by showing they are capable of handling the opposition and providing better ideas.

Well now, Flyover… that’s a huge cache of topics there. But, INRE health care, I’d say I was addressing that by saying they needed to reduce the costs to manuf a Lexus… I repeat, that would entail regulations, taxation and union overhead. It would also mean taking a close look at patents, R&D costs and a middle ground for the original company with the breakthru to make it worthwhile, but not holding back so long that competitors can’t also help lower the cost.

I believe the pharma latest deal was 12 years iron grip. I know they were trying to negotiate for 7-8 years. That’s still a long time for hefty prices. So perhaps there is a better way to make up for the R&D expenses lost if you introduce shorter patents and competition sooner than that.

I see that Mr. ParaLegal² dropped by for the morning drool session.

Let’s look through his latest guttural utterances and see what we can find shall we?

Obama will not give into their Hamas-like preconditions

Hmmmm….comparing political opponents to terror organizations. How classy.

He is treating the GOP like he is treating Iran (or how you deal with a three year old)…beat the crap out of them.

Nothing quite so classy as speaking favorably of violence against a three year old.

Like opposing the GM bailout that kept who knows how many hundreds of thousands of retirees off the Medicare rolls.

Er…..Considering that if a person wishes to receive their Social Security they are required to enroll in Medicare, how, precisely, would opposition to a GM bailout add more people to the enrollment lists?

Oh, that’s right, that wouldn’t happen because the entire mythical influx of people you’ve got your panties in a twist over are already going to be enrolling except, of course, for the very, very few that plan to forego the Social Security they have been compelled to pay into.

Straw man torched.

Yeah, you are against the “socialism” of a bailout, but your “cure” would send even more people into the socialistic health care welfare system. Duh!

Er….Again, reality doesn’t match your premise. The alternative to bailing out GM and Chrysler would have been for them to go through the normal bankruptcy proceedings, restructure, and emerge stronger on the other side.

Few workers would have been displaced through that process and, given their skills, they would have no problems finding alternative employment.

You silly, silly little man.

Next you’ll be telling us that there were “no US citizens in harms way” when the earthquake struck Haiti.

Oh…wait!

The beautiful thing about all of this is that Obie is playing right into the hands of the GOP.

The GOP has been trying since last March to get some sort of display of bi-partisanship on this, and other issues, only to be rebuffed by locked doors and proclamations of “I won”.

The GOP responded to the White House yesterday by saying that they want a commitment from the Precedent to start over. Considering that the American People have resoundingly rejected the plans presented by House and Senate Dims on this issue it is only reasonable that a clean slate be the starting point.

Obie and the Dim Congress had the votes to pass this thing. They dilly-dallied and dawdled around. They didn’t need any votes from the opposition. They didn’t need any support from the opposition.

They wanted to hurry this thing through and get it done before the American People became aware of what was in it and what those 2,000 plus pages meant.

They had the votes all by themselves.

Yet, they dawdled about.

Then Kennedy died and things began to go downhill because the election in MA held the potential to be a game changing event.

Yet, even with 60 votes in the Senate, a solid majority in the House, and the looming possibility of a game changer from MA, the Dims could not get their act together.

Obie, Harry, and Nancy couldn’t herd their cats in the right direction.

The American People are now awake and aware of what ObieCare means and they have resoundingly rejected it.

Independent voters, the people who put Obie in the White House, are now abandoning him.

Obies’ approval numbers are now in the mid 40’s in every poll.

The super-majority in the Senate is but a fleeting memory.

Dilly-dallying and squandered opportunities.

November 2010 is right around the corner and the Dims seem to have no clue as to what is about to happen to them.

If the G.O.P. are to avoid any form of “trap” that consists of a C-SPAN debate with Obama and Democrat Congress members over Healthcare then the G.O.P. should carry forth the various demands and suggestions from Tea Party groups (now over 4 million strong) and Independent groups in the debate and give full credit of these ideas from the orginal sources. The Democrats, much to Bob’s chagrin, are acting out of pure arrogance and on their own personal agendas instead of following what the people from their districts are physicaly yelling at them to do and if the Democratic group at the C-SPAN session dismisses and tosses away The People’s suggestions then it will seal their defeats in the upcoming Nov elections this year. Most polls have Democratic Encumbent Democrats losing against their Tea Party/Conservative Republican canidate by at least 30 points minimal, and by dismissing the People’s suggestions will only widen this gap further.

Maybe the best choice for the GOP is for one member to show up with his/her grandchild. When Obama is done with his oration. the GOP member introduce his grandchild as someone to aid Obama in understanding the big words in the February 8th letter.

1. It fits Mata’s argument that the GOP get their act in order.
2. It should force the MSM to actually report the contents of the February 8th letter.
3. It is a slap in the face for the Dem leadership.

Mike No mas.Without your support the movement is dead.When you’re really ready to support your gal let me know.I did real well betting BHO against Hillary and then against Mac. The Saints won for me and so will Obama.I’ve enjoyed F.A. and if you’re ever in San Clemente I’ll buy you a beer by the Marine Corps Monument.

@Neo:

Obie should take some of his own advice.

Roll the tape:

Mata –

I know that the preferred conservative approach to Iran, per your leader Sarah Palin, would be to go to war with Iran. But the reality is that, due to the dumb Iraq war, we simply are not in a position to invade a country with a population in the range of 70 million people (more than twice the population of California) in search of nuclear weapons labs that could be 500 feet under ground for all we know. In addition, I remember you geniuses were claiming that Obama should have gotten more involved in the Green Revolution. Again, the big brain prevailed and, because we stayed the hell out of it, it is still going on. Like I said, you treat the GOPers like the Iranian government: give them the rope they ask for, then just let them hang themselves.

The GOP, after whining about being ignored, simply cannot set ridiculous conditions and not show up when they are invited to share their approach to solving the problems with the health care system. But this is what I see happening: Obama says to the GOPers

“You oppose any mandate and you also don’t want government to provide stopgap safety net coverage. OK. Gotcha. So what is your plan on the pre-existing conditions problem, which makes in very difficult for people to buy health insurance coverage on the open market?”

Boehner: “A cut in the capital gains tax rate.”

O: “Not sure how that answers the question, John.” At which point it all becomes very clear: the “anti-socialized medicine but also against any cuts in Medicare” GOPers simply are not serious about dealing with the problems. Why? Because they just don’t think there IS a problem. My proof? During the six years of total GOPer control, the only thing they did was to make matters WORSE by passing a not-paid-for Medicare drug bill. As if the Magic Tax Cut Revenue Fairie was going to fly out of a cave and make the drug bill costs disappear using magic dust.

Chihuahua –

You realize, of course, that a failed GM would have meant that the only source of health insurance coverage for retirees would be Medicare, right? No private plan paying for their hip replacements, bypass surgeries, doctors visits, etc. You understand that, don’t you? And use of the Medicare drug plan and not the private UAW negotiated drug plan. So why is it that you cons who opposed the bailout had no plan to deal with the ADDED COST TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM of retirees with no private insurance coverage all of a sudden having Medicare as the only alternative? Did you just think they were going to disappear or something? No, genius, they would have become users of the system.

And I was not talking about Social Security payments to retireees; I was talking about the added Medicare expenses that would have come. But now that you mentioned Social Security, what would have happened to Social Security revenues if GM disappeared? That’s right: they would have decreased, since both the company paying in and the employees paying in (who pay for today’s retirees). And property tax payments; think they would have gone up or down? What ripple effect on the localities who do not receive those payments? Unemployment insurance payments: think they would have added more stress to the already taxed state coffers or less?

Oh, by the way. The parts suppliers who would not get paid their debts and would lose future business, the other businesses that are farther down the food chain, like the diners, etc.: think they would have more business or less business if GM disappeared? Think they will layoff people, close shops, and drop health insurance? Yeah. And their people will move to Medicaid, or maybe just lose benefits altogether and ride butt naked, hoping they don’t need any health care. More food stamps, more unemployment insurance payments, too. All because we listened to the conservatives and let GM implode.

Think there might be some layoffs in the health insurance industry as that source of premiums disappeared and those former customers’ employees moved on the dole?

Not to mention the underlying lunacy of adding a few million people to the unemployment rolls during a bad recession when you did not absolutely have to.

Nope, son, those who opposed the GM bailout simply did not think things through. Whatever you claim you are, the past of least destruction was to do the bailout and BUY SOME TIME.

On the health care debate now, those who want no bill are basically saying things should stay the way they are for another five years. Well a California insurance company just raised rates 39%. You think that might get mentioned during the President’s meeting with the GOPers? Think he might ask them

“Congressman Cantor, Congressman Boehner, do you have a problem with health insurance premiums increasing more than a third in one year? Any ideas from the GOP what we should do about that?”

Cantor: “I think a capital gains tax cut is the way to deal with that issue, don’t you agree, John?”

Boehner: “Yep.”

billy bob… once again: You realize, of course, that a failed GM would have meant that the only source of health insurance coverage for retirees would be Medicare, right? No private plan paying for their hip replacements, bypass surgeries, doctors visits, etc. You understand that, don’t you?

The fact you practice in any court of law is terrifying, billy bob.

EVERYONE is mandated to enroll in Medicare at the age of 65. Period. If you do not wish to be a Medicare patient, and you wish private insurance instead, you must forfeit your Social Security retirement fund. And oh, BTW, Medicare is the primary pay…. primary means “first”, BTW. So your private insurance will NOT cover a treatment that is superior to Medicare if Medicare offers an inferior treatment.

Yo… big time lawyer. If you stopped running your keyboard mouth long enough, and clicked on the link Aye gave you which referenced my post about Hall vs Sebelius, you might not appear the doofus legal loser you are.

Read up… get back to us someday when you catch up.

@BRob:

Boy, we can obviously add business to the long list of things that you don’t understand.

A General Motors reorganization under bankruptcy is not in any way equivalent to a GM disappearance. Nor would the reorganization of GM lead to the sudden demise and unemployment of every portion of their supply chain.

The rest of your dribbling is based on that same straw man premise. Thus, it is not worthy of being addressed.

I will note that you failed to address the basic point that I was making about these supposed throngs of people going on Medicare….they’re gonna be there anyway.

They’re required to enroll in order to collect their Social Security. Are you foolish enough to attempt to make the argument that people who are required to be on the Medicare rolls won’t take advantage of what they are forced to pay for and participate in?

You silly, silly little man.

billy bob: Mata, not sure if you knew this, but the entire “Iran and nukes” thingy is fairly new. No, what I was talking about is the total morons on the right (and there are none on the left) who think it would be a good idea to start a war with Iran over their nuke program when when we remain tied down in Iraq, with more than 100,000 men in that desert.

The only morons who were claiming we’d go to war was your side, billy bob. They were doing a political fear mongering campaign for the presidential elections. Bush had no intentions of bombing Iran.

Iran’s been an enemy since the 80s. And only a military strategy moron, such as yourself, can consider an ally in Iraq… ensconced smack dab in the middle of Iran and Syria… as a strategic error. We don’t need to go into Iraq. Iran/Iraq denizens have relations that cross borders, trade that crosses borders, and with Iraq being an Arab democracy, and Iran being a majority youth craving an Arab democracy, there was never a need for US military force.

Which rather makes your ASSumption of… And I know you agree with Palin that we should go to war with Iran, don’t you? embarrassingly stupid. Really, billy bob… do you have paralegals come into the court to translate their research for you? Because you are unbelievably reading challenged. Must be that Chicago education you got…

Is if you can manage to stumble thru a bit more O’bonics, I’d say you might have a clue on what I believe with Iran. or not…. that you enter the “having a clue” status isn’t high on my life’s priorities. I would just be happy as a clam to see you as the attorney on the other side of the aisle. Can you say slam dunk?

And now… after all this “skip trod” shit, you have the balls to say:

But back to the subject at hand: health care. You tried to change the subject from the GOPs whining to the Dems supposedly having problems managing.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

I swear, billy bob… put that mirror down because that big “L” your looking at is creating a a permament scar, dude.

You say GOP is obstructionist. I point out they are powerless to be obstructionist. But of course, this has nothing to do with the health care subject at hand. uh huh…

And BTW… don’t you dare be crediting anyone else for the eunuch-in-chief title. To my knowledge, that’s mine, and I lay claim for an apt description of a POTUS paralyzed to do anything effective militarily, or diplomatically on the foreign front. This “you con”… speaking of catchy phrases that supposedly affect credibility… is unanimous in that.

Mata, I did not think this was possible, but you are even less intelligent than I feared.

“Group insurance cannot deny pre’existing conditions but for a 12 month exemption period max. Don’t want pre’existing as an issue? Go for group policies. Therefore, form more ‘groups’ and eliminate the need for individual insurance.”

Ok, here is the problem (besides you not being smart) — You mention the 12 month exclusion under “group policies.” Do I really have to go any further? A lot can happen in 12 months! Which is why the pre-existing condition thing is such a big friggin deal! But let’s continue:

Say you had insurance through your job,. but lost it because . . . oh, the GOPers were successful at blocking the auto bailout and GM went under. You don’t have the $1,200 a month to buy COBRA (because the GOPers were successful in blocking the Obama stimulus package and the COBRA subsidy did not happen). So you try to find health insurance, but you have a touch of diabetes, or you are just fat.

We know what Obama would propose to solve this problem: a mandate on coverage for all in exchange for insurance companies dropping the pre-existing condition, with some subsidies for those who can’t afford the premiums.

What is the GOPer approach to solving this? You told me what you are against, now tell me how you would solve the problem.

billy bob: What is the GOPer approach to solving this? You told me what you are against, now tell me how you would solve the problem.

Well there’s the first sane question you’ve asked. Tho you are still exhibiting those reading comprehension problems…..

If you will refer back to @my previous comment about the Health Insurance Exchange concept etal, you’ll see that what we’re looking for is an intra/interstate portal from private competitive insurers for basic coverage common to all states… rather like a Lending Tree was to loans. The States provide a similar portal for those that offer individual state riders for the state mandated extra coverage.

For the 12 month exemption period, one can either rely on the existing state coverage, or create a temporary waiting pool for any claims that come in during that period.

And to cap it off, there needs to be 24/7 inexpensive clinics so that ERs, with their high overhead costs, are not the mainstain for miscellaneous injuries that drive costs up unnecessarily. As an example of the insanity of costs… none of which this idiotic legislation is addressing… read a recent experience of mine with a local urgent care clinic because you couldn’t get either doc appointments, or clinics were closed for a simple cat bite. The fact I wanted to pay cash didn’t dissuade their pricing whatsoever. Absurd when you think of the admin costs I was saving them.

There is a very real problem with costs, but as I’ve pointed out in this thread, this legislation doesn’t affect the cost of supplies sold to medical providers, who then pass their costs on to the patient (via the insurer in most cases). And, in fact, most patients don’t *ask* what the cost is because they perceive it to be “free” via their insurance.

But it is not free… and instead of an individual absorbing the cost of their treatment, they are placing that burden on the taxpayer at large as a “cure”.

Horse manure.

@BRob: If all you have to offer the discussion here is a tiresome string of insults I hardly see the reason to permit you to continue commenting here.

You might want to retract the statement above and apologize to Mata.

Or aren’t man enough?

@Mike’s America, in all fairness, it’s not like I haven’t called billy bob out for what he is as well…. LOL Not that I don’t appreciate the gentleman in you, having my back. But I assure you, I’m just as direct with billy bob as he is with me. And I do my mea culpa in that.

Like I said… be sooooo very happy to see him as the attorney on the opposite side of any case of mine.

billy bob=fish in a barrel

Headed on to a new moving target now, eh billy bob? No… it’s not that I don’t make sense… except to the reading impaired, of course. And most especially those that pull a sarcastic sentence out as an excerpt in which to refer….duh wuh

But I’ve actually covered this subject in some prior posts that I shall reiterate briefly here for you. (since you’ve already demonstrated you have no interest in reading links…. perhaps you’ll provide your paralegal’s e’addy for us so she/he can do it for you?)

The health care mandate is a *requirement* for the current plans. Need some business help here? Try Gillian Hubble’s article in Health Care.change or MSNBC’s “every one in the risk pool!” article. Both of these should be progressive enough for you to figure out the fiscal realities. They have to rape the young to pay for their single payer plans, which include huge federal government admin expansion.

So now you’re on record, demanding that the young get insurance for the “accidents”…. slipping on ice, breaking ankles, football, etc. Well, how do you know they aren’t already on a family group plan for these events?

duh….

And for the over age, non-dependents who are no longer on their parents policies, yes…. I agree they should have options. THAT THEY PAY FOR and AFFORDABLE! However you and I disagree that we should mandate what, and how much they get covered.

I have suggested tier insurance levels.

1: Base tier: tax credit medical account, to cover basic visits
2: Secondary minor events: broken bones, etal, as you describe
3: Catastrophic coverage: cancers, heart conditions, etc.
4: Specialty riders: diabetics, i.e.

Level one should be a tax credit account, used for medical purposes only. Level two is what most of the younger health types would go for… that skiing or skateboard accident (post high school or college graduation, and off family policies). This would be somewhat affordable for them via a competitive portal.

Level one offers the ability for primary care doctors to accept reasonable cash agreements for regular check ups, sans middle man costs.

Level two is one the young could afford, and is most likely to obtain. Most will not need the catastrophic coverage. And yes, there are exceptions. In which case they obtain these after diagnosis. Then they would most likely fall into the MAX 12 month exemption, pre’existing, as we have now. There can either be a temporary pool, as I mentioned above, until their group coverage kicks in.

The specialty riders would be much the same as the catastrophic, but less in cost. Diabetes is common, costs should be predictable and managable (if we actually got drug costs and availability more managable… none of which is apparent in O’health care). Drugs like penicillin, insulin, tetanus…. no reason for their prices these days. They weren’t discovered yesterday.

This allows for all to choose a level of insurance that suits their health and their lifestyle. The period of uncertainly can be a year of a temporary pool until regular insurance kicks back in.

And every bit of this is contrary to what Obama/Pelosi/Reid want. Because they are busy trying to make up for decades of collecting Medicare/Social Security from every working citizen, and spending it on anything BUT Medicare and Social Security. THerefore they want everyone covered to the maximum in order to collect the maximum, so they have a “trust fund” to rob for the future.

Not while I’m alive. Count me as a big NO NO and NO! I will agree to reasonable reforms that reduce the costs of drugs and equipment to providers, tort reform that makes it more feasible to start a practice without losing your shirt to a shyster like you, and different levels of insurance based on your reasonably predicted health. Beyond that, it’s highway robbery of a nation at the point of a gun.

Mata, as usual you have done an excellent job of dismantling the legal arguments and the technical aspect of the issue. Please allow me to put a more bucolic spin on the rebuttal to MrRabidBob.

RBob,
Several times you’ve posed the question, but what would happen to the workers at GM if it were allowed to default. Well Bob, frankly, I don’t give a damn. They are primary causes of the failure. They should damn well drink from the poison cup they poured. The wage rates for union auto workers is insane. You also plead about how it beats their poor bodies up. Well guess who’s fault that would be. Every time that GM tried to automate their assembly lines, which would protect the workers health, guess who stood against it. The workers unions.
And further, to the point of the catastrophic cost of all these poor union workers out on their asses, just how much more would that cost then what we are already on the hook for bailing them out? How much did we sell our collective souls for when we trampled contract law?
Plus I don’t buy your line of crap. Auto plants aren’t any worse on their bodies than any other blue collar job. Sure you may have represented a couple bad cases, but that would be why they hired a lawyer. Because they were exceptional to the norm.
BTW, Obama’s Stimulus plan didn’t do a damn thing for unemployment. And that is the real crime here. The solution to unemployment isn’t extended unemployment. The solution is a damn job.

Having read your tripe, I now know why Rham would call the folks on your side of the isle F-ing tards.

@B-Rob
I can very much relate to the following except I’m not young nor am I uninsured:

If you are young and uninsured and you get injured, you will either be a charge on the general public, or you will be a charity case, and/or you will be stuck with a $35,000 bill for a surgery and hospitalization for a broken ankle.

Today I’m sporting a flaming pink cast on my broken ankle. I wasn’t engaging in any dangerous activity, simply navigating a set of steps when I went down. The cost of my injury is a real eye opener in several ways.

1. Because I’m insured and the insurance company will only pay $12,700 of the hospital bill, which came to just over $26,000 the hospital will “write off” the difference and bill other patients excessively to make up the difference. My 20% co-pay means I get off the hook for a mere $2700. Not a bad price to pay for a debilitating injury.

2. Individuals without insurance, most likely those least able to pay, would be saddled with the entire $26,000 bill.

Most individuals that have health insurance provided by their employer’s have no idea how much that benefit truly costs until they are laid off and confronted with a COBRA payment that runs from $500 to $800 per month, allowing them to keep their current coverage. This cost is often a shock to the individual, especially when their income has been cut drastically and they are trying to make ends meet on an unemployment check. One instance of confronting the cost of a COBRA payment will taint the thinking of most people concerning the cost of health care insurance for a long time into the future.

However….. Insurance does NOT NEED to be so expensive. Catastrophic Health Insurance is relatively inexpensive and can in my state be had for a mere $145 per month. Health insurance used to be a risk management tool, designed to hedge against that major unexpected health crisis. When we buy homeowners insurance, we buy a policy where if the roof leaks, the insurance will pay to repair the damage caused by the leaking roof. The insurance does NOT pay for repairing the roof. Our current health care system seems to have morphed from a risk management tool into something more akin to an extended warranty instrument.

The average American visits the doctor 2.4 times per year (I could look up the reference but I’m lazy). The average doctor visit according to Answers.com… is Family practice: $95 to $265
Specialist: $115 to $325. Now lets do the math for the yearly cost of health care coverage for the average American using middle of the road figures with a Catastrophic Health Care plan.

Premium $145 x 12 = $1740
Family Practice Doctor visits $170 x 2.4 = $408
Total annual cost = $2,148/12 = $179 per month.

There are 173.33 working hours in each month. Cost of health care on an hourly basis = $1.03 for normal non-catastrophic coverage

But… Catastrophic health insurance typically has very high deductibles… yes, this is true, and in my example above the deductible is $5,000. This is a figure that is, for most working class individuals, beyond what their normal day to day, month to month budgets can withstand.

A sensible alternative to trying to provide each and every American with a “extended warranty” type of insurance policy is to ensure that in those trying times when a health care crises emerges within a family, the individual can weather the cash flow issues of a high deductible. To that end I would suggest that it might be time for the Government to extend to the individual similar guarantees that it extends to fat cat bankers and mortgage lenders. A guaranteed credit line for health related emergencies.

No free ride… a loan. A health credit card that where the indiviudal could access up to $5,000 in credit in order to meet their deductibles. Repayment at $17 per $1,000 of credit extended (the most it would cost is under $100 a month in payments). At an interest rate of 1% per month on any unpaid balance. This “credit card” could not be used to make premium payments. As an incentive to participate, unlike “Jail ‘em Pelosi”, I would advocate for a re-write of the bankruptcy laws, exempting those individuals that rack up large medical bills without insurance from being able to claim medical bills in a bankruptcy proceeding.

What is wrong at all levels is the current two tiered pricing system that we currently have in place and the furthering of such injustice through government policies that pay a fraction of the true cost of care, thus foisting the cost of making up shortfalls on the uninsured. Not everyone that is uninsured is a deadbeat. I for one have a bill from my wife’s surgery when we were uninsured that will take me 10 plus years to pay off because her unemployment checks at the time, didn’t place her in a status poor enough to get a write-down/off. Yet we are paying double what the hospital would have taken from an insurance company. This two tier pricing is simply wrong on so many levels. One procedure… one price.

Don Bly, I will not try to explain why you are “wrong” because you acvknowlege there is a serious problem and you come up with a solution. Would it work? I have no idea. But let’s try.

The problem I have with the GOP is that, if they succeed in what they are trying to do, there will be no change whatsoever in the system as it is. Not your proposal, not the Obama proposal, nothing at all.

This is delightful! John Boehner, acknowledging that the whining about no public meetings has backfired.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/boehner-how-dare-obama-televise-the-health-care-debate-after-i-demanded-he-televise-the-health-care.php?ref=fpb

@Donald Bly: It’s far easier for BLOB to keep repeating the big lie that the GOP has nothing to offer on health care than it is for Dems to deal with the substance of their ideas.

I’ve already linked the outline the GOP offered Obama at the Baltimore meeting:

http://www.gop.gov/download?folder=misc&file=better-solutions-1-10.pdf

But we already know (well maybe BLOB doesn’t know) about all the GOP ideas that were offered as amendments in both the House and Senate legislative process as Dems steamrollered to get the bill that they now cannot pass even with their huge majorities.

GOP House health care amendments shot down by the REAL PARTY OF NO:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2009/08/cutting-through-disinformation.html

GOP Senate health care amendments shot down by the REAL PARTY OF NO:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2009/09/senate-gop-amendments-show-democrats.html

Even if the GOP were the real party of NO, it would only be because most polls show Americans would prefer congress did nothing instead of screw up health care.

This is simply priceless!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/02/mccaskill-asks-mo-state-legislators-to-put-stimulus-money-where-their-mouths-are.php?page=1

Don Bly –

“33 pieces of GOP proposed legislation dealing with health care is NOT doing NOTHING. ”

C’mon! Of course it is “doing nothing”! It’s just like the newfound horror over running deficits and trying terrorists in federal court: why are you so jazzed about it now, when it was not on your radar when a GOPer presidential administration and a GOPer Congress were doing the same damn thing?

If the GOP actually thought there was a problem with the health care system, they would have done something when they had control of the House, Senate and White House. No, I take that back: they did two things that I recall — health care savings accounts and the drug entitlement for Medicare that they failed to pay for. One being a fart in a windstorm, the other making the entitlement problem even worse.

You can’t sit back and ignore a problem for years, or make it worse, then when the opposition actually tries to address it, throw up 33 proposals that you never ever championed before and claim you were “doing something” constructive all along. That shows a lack of good faith and sincerity.

Indeed, Don — if they had the 33 proposals in hand, why the hell didn’t they ever try to pass any of them?

My guess is you’ve never seen the floor of a edit suite, billy bob. Hey, aren’t you all the queens of complaint when the Big Zero comes on with comments, and you scream “out of context! out of context!”

I don’t know anyone who thinks the stimulus was in the least bit “stimulating”. Can a Rachel MadCow report change my mind? Right about the time I admit I’m the Virgin Mary. Don’t think there’s another MSNBC host that has less credibility save Ed Schultz. Is he going to be your next source now?

And perhaps you should turn your attention on that specific argument (stimulus results) currently being waged with you on the other thread. You’ve run out of “distraction” chits on this one….

Mata, you can spin all you want. But when GOPer congresspeople vote against the stimulus, then turn around and take credit for the individual jobs created in their district by the bill they all opposed, that is little more than lying to your constituents.

You know what this sounds like? The flipside of Sarah Palin claiming she “said thanks, but no thanks” for the Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she was in favor of the project! It is just a flat out lie to imply that you are responsible for a job-creating project in your district when you never supported the thing in the first place. And don’t sit in Washington in front of cameras and say the stimulus did not create any jobs when you then turn around and are talking credit for the jobs it created in your friggin district or state!

And another thing: you have NEVER seen me say anyone is quoted “out of context”. You know why? Because the people who claim they are quoted out of context are usually unwilling to admit that they said the embarassing thing they got caught saying. In my world, something is either a true quote, or it is a lie. If it is true and you can prove that context is important, then provide the explanation.

If you think Maddow quoted someone “out of context”, then why hasn’t anyone run anything showing that Rachel Maddow lied about them taking credit for stimulus projects when they actually opposed those projects? That is the only way that the context of their comments matters. Obama called the House GOPers out on this bullsh*t; more Dems should do the same.

In this case, GOPers are standing at a ribbon cutting, taking credit for projects that are funded by dollars they opposed being spent, applauding and taking credit for jobs being created that, if they had their way, would never have existed. They theyu turn around and castigate the Dems who took the heat and created the jobs the GOPesr are taking credit for. Yeah, I mean you, Mike Pence, Mr. Fiscal Conservative. The GOPers should at least give a shout out to the Dems they blame for overspending when they Bogart the credit for the benefits of that “overspending.”

And Claire McCaskill put it best: if you oppose the stimulus, then don’t take the f-ing money. That’s like someone complaining about your poor taste in wine as they drain the last drop from the bottle. Deserving of a headslap.

bob, there was no stimulus. it was pork for the dims pure and simple. take credit for that? sure, i’ll saddle ole old pelosi with that. she is the pork queen. there is nothing to take credit for bob. the economy is in the frigging tank. got it.

BTW, billy bob… INRE your comment:

If you think Maddow quoted someone “out of context”, then why hasn’t anyone run anything showing that Rachel Maddow lied about them taking credit for stimulus projects when they actually opposed those projects?

Because no one gives a shit about Madcow since she has virtually no viewing audience.

REPEAT for error CHARLIE WILSON

stodghie –

On the stimulus — watch the Maddow clip where the GOPers take credit for the jobs created by the stimulus bill. THEN I would like your comments. Because there are only two possibilities here:

a) either those GOPers are lying when they say the stimulus has created no jobs, or

b) they are lying when they say the stimulus has created those jobs in their district.

Which is it? Were they lying then, or are they lying now? I would accept an “I was mistaken then” or even a “clarification” that they meant “net jobs” or some other b.s. recovery answer. But one of those statements is not true. i think I know which one it is.

Mata –

You post is indecipherable. I can tell you were angry, but you make very little sense there. But I did pick up on this:

“But apparently you and MadCow prefer to see an elected representative trashing anyone receiving cash.. even if they think the cost for giving them that cash to the nation was fiscally damaging.”

No, dearie, I am talking about someone taking CREDIT for a constituent getting cash when, in fact, they did everything to keep them from getting that money. I am talking about opposing the very job-creation mechanism you are claiming was your idea. Mike Pence did that sh*t and his explanation was, shall we say, less than noble.

I like your admission that, in effect, you would accept a night on the town from a friend who got a settlement scamming an insurance company. But you know what it is more like? Celebrating the admission of a person to a sorority when you tried you damndest, but were unsuccessful, in getting them black balled.

In such a situation, good manners would dictate that you say nothing to the person. Or you congratulate them on their good fortune. But your don’t lie and say “I am so glad you made in it to Pi Epsilon Delta” when everyone in the know knows that you did your best to keep that from happening. And you certainly don’t claim the credit for them getting in.

So to apply the analogy, the GOPers who opposed the stimulus should not be championing the projects if they think the damn thing was wrong. Or they can say nothing. But to act as if they were behind the project, or to tout the jobs the project will create (when you spend the rest of your time claiming the exact opposite) — that is just rank hypocrisy bordering on lying.

BRob said; “If the stimulus was so bad, then why did the GOP in Missouri take the f-ing money?”

The GOP is not the only party that holds power in that state. The fact that the state took the money isn’t solely because of their Republicans. Democrats in that state are responsible for using the stimulus money too, even if they criticized it on the campaign trail or in public speeches.

Take for example, representative Paul LeVota of the 52nd district of Missouri, who has publicly stated to constituents that the stimulus bill wasn’t the answer to solving the states economic issues, then he decides to support the use of the funds last year and will continue to use them in the this year and next year. Of course, sometimes he defends using it too, when it serves his interests.

Does this vindicate the stimulus bill in anyway? No it doesn’t, because people are right to say that government hand outs (and they are) like this ought to be limited. And one state that has politicians from both parties trying to “have it both ways” (to quote McCaskill) hardly does anything to make this argument lose veracity.

There’s a fine line defining what’s within our means, and the most recent stimulus bill crossed that line a long time ago. The stimulus didn’t create jobs, it helped facilitate an increase in job loss. Any jobs created in the near future (hopefully) will be done so because of the American people finding solutions to the economic problems.

Deplorably, you tried to pass the fallacy that the good market experienced during the holiday season proves that Obamas leadership and stimulus money were the reasons before you went on hiatus from this blog. That tactic failed overwhelmingly for you back then, and it isn’t working well for you now.

As for us having the gall “to drink Obamas wine, then complain that we don’t like the vintage.” I think the more correct term would be kool aid. And we’re not drinking it, it’s being forced down the throats of Americans even though a vast majority of us from both sides of the aisle were vocal about our distaste for it since the beginning. The stimulus had good intentions, I am not denying that. But a few periods of good market numbers aren’t indicators vindicating the stimulus bills performance in the American economy.

May I mention that the stimulus bill has lost jobs in more places than just our country? Many people from other countries who let us borrow money from them have lost everything from their life savings to their careers and businesses. Sure, one can argue that they chose to take the risks by loaning us money during a global economic crisis. However, that hardly does the trick to make the largest increase in irresponsible spending in American history wrought by Obama look any better than it is.

@Donald Bly: LOL! It would explain the Dickensian rants, as well as the time wasted on them, wouldn’t it?

B-Rob has some problems.

Democrats for years have said paying more in taxes is good yet B-Rob can not point to any of them that have paid one cent more in taxes than they had to.

Is second problem is with the so called clips of republicans taking credit. I did not see dates on them. That being the case the clips could have been from 2 years ago.

Third, he seems to think the Minority Party that can not stop a Democrat bill with the votes of all it’s member can pass a bill when the Majority Leader does not allow the bill a vote on the floor.

Evidently this alleged attorney is not one, he certainly has not made a case.