Tea party holding the US as hostage ?

[Gene Steinberg]

The topic having wandered far from the TEA Party's courageous refusal to give in to anti-freedom and anti-morality forces, I find little to say that has not already been said. Except that it was the Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while the Democrats were busy blockading schools... and it wasn't a Republican who shot a black man in the back for daring to try and vote, one of the acts that prompted The Battle of Athens.
It's fun to pretend that the racists all magically, and without reason, joined up with their avowed enemies somewhere around 1968- but we're all adults here, aren't we? There is nothing more hateful than creating special laws to discourage an entire class against striving to succeed, like everyone else did who succeeded. And projecting hatred of the poor on the people who would *like* to be able to hire them, is ludicrous. It takes money to hire people- and if you can't hire here, on account of ridiculous taxes and labor laws, the hiring gets done elsewhere. Imagine what the USA would be like today, if, aside from *real* charity to the *really* needy, you worked (or created a job for yourself; every job was created by *someone*) or went hungry until your bout of laziness was past. And yet not so long ago this was the normal state of society...

And finally- since the Republicans *can't* bring the Democrats to the negotiation table, how, exactly, is the lack of action the fault of the GOP?

Point of order. The continuing resolution is at the sequester levels. In other words, in accordance with what the Republicans already won. Obama did win the election.

 

[Ezechiel]

IMHO a country that doesn't want a universal health care system in an environment where the costs of medication is skyrocketing is like a Jehovah witness refusing a blood transplant

 

[Pygar2]

But the GOP are trying to negotiate in order to get some of the services up and running. To the Democrats, "negotiate" seems to mean, "we get all we demand, or we don't come to the table- now let's see how much *more* we can get on top of that!" No agreement, no "negotiations"- and everyone but FOX reports the GOP is being obstructionist again... sigh...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That's the death of a thousand cuts. The fact is that, if allowed to put the Senate resolution to a vote, it would pass the House with a small number of Republicans and all Democrats. Period. So it's the Speaker covering his behind that is holding this up.

 

[Ezechiel]

But the GOP are trying to negotiate in order to get some of the services up and running. To the Democrats, "negotiate" seems to mean, "we get all we demand, or we don't come to the table- now let's see how much *more* we can get on top of that!" No agreement, no "negotiations"- and everyone but FOX reports the GOP is being obstructionist again... sigh...

The ACA is a law.... Nothing to negotiate here. To repeal it you have to get elected with that mandate... Sigh

 

[mike]

I find it hard to understand myself

As i said on the previous page Universal health care is a component of a welfare system. Its important to see it as a component and not tar it with the "welfare" brush as a generalisation.

Down here we have a welfare system, unemployment and disability payments, rental assistance and basic health care including dental.

Do unemployment and rental assistance get abused, yes they do. But the health care component doesnt seem to be as susceptible to the fraud as the other branches of welfare are.
Of all the components of a welfare system its the least likely to be abused for obvious reasons.
Its easy to pretend you are a single mother and get the benefits (while your defacto lives with you on the sly and earns a wage), its harder to fake a rotton tooth or cancer........

 

[Ezechiel]

That's the death of a thousand cuts. The fact is that, if allowed to put the Senate resolution to a vote, it would pass the House with a small number of Republicans and all Democrats. Period. So it's the Speaker covering his behind that is holding this up.

Heard some good news.
Boehner is actually going to table a bill to raise the debt ceiling thus avoiding default.

He'll lose his position as speaker but the financial markets will be saved... Finally we have proof that he was also hostage to the tea party.

 

[Pygar2]

IMHO a country that doesn't want a universal health care system in an environment where the costs of medication is skyrocketing is like a Jehovah witness refusing a blood transplant

The Obamacare train wreck having finally started, soon it should become apparent what the problem is. Adding costs of government will lower (real) prices about as much as (remember this old scam?) HMOs did. Remember, HMO's weren't supposed to cost anything or slow up the process either- everyone else would magically be willing to take a smaller piece of the pie (the everyone else being those who actually *worked*) and the paperwork would magically fill itself in, too...

I'd refuse a transfusion, too, if it were given by a bureaucrat and as wholesome as government work usually is. That's why I prefer to let *health care workers* do their job. Otherwise you could be getting homeopathic medicine in your evening years, because water is cheaper than insulin or anticancer meds- and bureaucrats have no reason to *care* if you live long enough to run up more bills. Better for them if you don't...

Oh, and the ACA, like every other law ever passed, is subject to modification and rescheduling.

 

[Burnt State]

YES!!!!!!!!

Sorry but here's Public Enemy's equation:
black man + black woman = black baby
white man + white woman = white baby
black man + white woman = black baby
white man + black woman = black baby

Some may live in fear of a black planet but the facts are the facts. The racialization of people happens because of the way they are treated based on their appearance and Obama is black, and can never be called white. For others race is about what they call themselves. Reading Black Like Me, or living with people who are not white is another way to better understand why Obama can never be called white.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The Obamacare train wreck having finally started, soon it should become apparent what the problem is. Adding costs of government will lower (real) prices about as much as (remember this old scam?) HMOs did. Remember, HMO's weren't supposed to cost anything or slow up the process either- everyone else would magically be willing to take a smaller piece of the pie (the everyone else being those who actually *worked*) and the paperwork would magically fill itself in, too...

I'd refuse a transfusion, too, if it were given by a bureaucrat and as wholesome as government work usually is. That's why I prefer to let *health care workers* do their job. Otherwise you could be getting homeopathic medicine in your evening years, because water is cheaper than insulin or anticancer meds- and bureaucrats have no reason to *care* if you live long enough to run up more bills. Better for them if you don't...

There is no train wreck other than clogged servers. Having suffered from a DDOS attack on our server this week, I could say that maybe some of that traffic is bogus, designed to bring down those servers. Political dirty tricks and all. Just sayin'.

 

[Pygar2]

I'm pretty sure you know that is is the train wreck of the act itself, to which I was referring. Hackers being equal-opportunity idiots, I can't see blaming one party over the other.

 

[Ezechiel]

Poor IT guys probably got blasted... Wouldn't want be in their shoes.

Hope they tracked the attack and wouldn't be surprised if the source was you know who lol

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm pretty sure you know that is is the train wreck of the act itself, to which I was referring. Hackers being equal-opportunity idiots, I can't see blaming one party over the other.

What about the very similar law in Massachusetts?

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Jeff, we hear stories down here (dont know if they are true)
Of US ambulance drivers asking people if they have insurance, and that if they dont they leave them where they lie
Down here they dont ask any questions, they take you to hospital where you are treated.

I know which system i prefer to live in

Nothing is ever black or white, its usually various shades of gray.

A social safety net aka welfare is no different.

A case can be made that a safety net allows those on the tightrope above to be careless, knowing they can fall with no worries.

Not having a safety net forces you to be more careful, a fall is not an option

But the reality is we will fall, its a statistical fact that no matter how careful you are, a stray gust of wind might arrive at the wrong place and the wrong time

And imo its that one small data point that justifys the safety net

I'm unaware of ambulances that have refused to take people because they were uninsured (yet). We did have the famous case almost two years ago when firefighters in a rural area watched a house burn - with the person's pets and belongings inside - because they said he hadn't paid a fee for their services. This action was widely applauded on the right because they felt he was a "freeloader." So, it wouldn't be too hard for me to imagine a similar scenario, at some point, involving an ambulance. This is why some of us insist that emergency services and healthcare are included as part of the infrastructure.

From my own experiences, the problems haven't involved an ambulance but there have been problems when I've been seriously ill and ended up in the E.R.

Just before I moved back to Colorado, I ended up in the E.R. in Española, New Mexico, due to a kidney stone that was stuck. I was doubled-over, dry-heaving and in excruciating pain. I had become critically dehydrated from this, but one of the hospital administrators came into my room and asked me why I felt I should go to the hospital if I wasn't insured. *** In this shape *** she tried to get me to hand over a credit card, even though I had only just arrived and procedures hadn't yet started. (I won't hand over a credit card until I get a bill and fully understand the charges.) I should mention, I was fully employed at that time, but my company didn't offer insurance to the majority of us. Because of my pre-existings, I was unable to get health insurance under my own name. Even when I had insurance, I was often denied coverage because of the same pre-existings. I was sent home in much the same condition which I arrived, only being given some pain and anti-nausea meds to take home. In comparison, my older brother recently had a problem with a stuck kidney stone, but his insurance allowed him to have a procedure to break up the kidney stone. He was also allowed to stay in the hospital for observation.

My story isn't unique and there are many stories which are far worse. Harvard and Cambridge conducted a study that found 45,000 Americans die prematurely each year due to a lack of health insurance:

Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by theAmerican Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.

And

Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease. An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths, as the uninsured are more likely to go without needed care. Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who do not is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.

The researchers analyzed U.S. adults under age 65 who participated in the annual National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1986 and 1994. Respondents first answered detailed questions about their socioeconomic status and health and were then examined by physicians. The CDC tracked study participants to see who died by 2000.

The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured. As expected, death rates were also higher for males (37 percent increase), current or former smokers (102 percent and 42 percent increases), people who said that their health was fair or poor (126 percent increase), and those who examining physicians said were in fair or poor health (222 percent increase).

A separate study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center found that 17,000 American children have died over the past two decades due to a lack of insurance. The study specifically found that uninsured children were 60% more likely to die in the hospital than those children who had insurance. If you factor in the children who never made it to a hospital, or were discharged and died outside of the hospital, the number could be much higher:

Using more than 23 million hospital records from 37 states between 1988 and 2005, the Johns Hopkins investigators compared the risk of death in children with insurance and in those without. Other factors being equal, researchers found that uninsured children in the study were 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance. When comparing death rates by underlying disease, the uninsured appeared to have increased risk of dying independent regardless of their medical condition, the study found. The findings only capture deaths during hospitalization and do not reflect deaths after discharge from the hospital, nor do they count children who died without ever being hospitalized, the researchers say, which means the real death toll of non-insurance could be even higher.

This should be a national disgrace. The sadder truth is that we can't even have a dialog about this. The Republicans chose to shut down the government (which ironically also means the CDC is closed), showing the same unwillingness to even look at the other side's arguments as we've seen on this thread. Here we are, arguing about whether or not we can save 45,000 American lives per year, while the agencies that track flu outbreaks, contagions and possible pandemics is shut down. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

[Michael Allen]

Certainly Koch Industries would love for the ACA to turn into a train wreck--and they have just the resources to make it happen.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff, we hear stories down here (dont know if they are true)
Of US ambulance drivers asking people if they have insurance, and that if they dont they leave them where they lie
Down here they dont ask any questions, they take you to hospital where you are treated.

I know which system i prefer to live in

Nothing is ever black or white, its usually various shades of gray.

A social safety net aka welfare is no different.

A case can be made that a safety net allows those on the tightrope above to be careless, knowing they can fall with no worries.

Not having a safety net forces you to be more careful, a fall is not an option

But the reality is we will fall, its a statistical fact that no matter how careful you are, a stray gust of wind might arrive at the wrong place and the wrong time

And imo its that one small data point that justifys the safety net

Mike,
The ambulance story is utterly untrue. Just urban legend.

Are you beginning to understand, right here and now, how we are all herded via the deception of projected imagery? And I do mean, ALL OF US. (as in not just me )

This thing the old fogies called the idiot box is more or less like, "here, read this book, it has many pictures." They could give a shit what we think. It's how we think that matters. Imagery accomplishes that with nearly 100% efficiency. I call it linear subjective cognitive process. We are routinely taught the process of reason in the manner we assimilate projected imagery.

Mike, the statement that, "nothing is ever black or white" applies to subjective reasoning, and not matters of absolute process. Within the context of sheer reason, some things are most assuredly black and white. Provably so. That's why we have science and big mean guys like Lance Moody to keep us all in check.

A social safety net that has already let a lot more than just the water hit the floor, one that has resulted in an absolutely verifiable failed condition, is not a good thing. By nature of it's intentional value, Welfare should have a redemptive value. Can you demonstrate that for me?

The issue that I most commonly observe as being absent, these basic discussions, is experience.

Care to look up precisely how many families that were on welfare 30 years ago, who's basic lineage, has never left the welfare system generationally? Do you honestly think that a career in Welfare is a good thing? Behavior and basic cognitive skills are inherently learned. We do so most naturally and efficiently via our parents. I have sat with children many times, on my own lap, that were DOOMED to a life of subjective misery due to the negligence and irresponsibility of their drug addict parents, ON WELFARE, every frickin' time, whom they just grow up to copy. Sounds like a very spiritual and wisely charitable plan to me.

I know a little something about this failed condition of which I speak.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with coming to an individual, or a family's rescue, but when you give social degenerates a free ride based on the their sheer "approved based on incompetence" status, what exactly do you expect? How exactly does ANYONE justify not testing welfare recipients for elicit drug use?

Those who disavow nature are doomed to extinction. Ask some ghetto kid whose Mom just ODed.

A lot of people would do well to put their own ass in the situations they so eagerly praise as successful. It seems right from a distance, but, come on down, take a look around. I think it'll take you about 10 minutes to make your mind up. It's just so damn catastrophically obvious.

Love ya man!

Ps. We all (remember, I am talking to me here) gotta get back to that Paranormal stuff. This shit's just getting depressing.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

This is an example of the lies from the conservative media, such as Fox News. The rest of the media is very far from perfect, but this is an example of a blatant lie, based on removing someone's comment and making a statement from Senator Reid convey a false meaning:

Hannity's Latest Lie: "Harry Reid Says He Wouldn't Want To Help One Kid With Cancer" | Blog | Media Matters for America

This story contains a video that demonstrates the Fox News distortion in a particularly obvious fashion:

Conservatives Made It Up: Harry Reid Didn't Dismiss Funding Treatment For Children With Cancer | Blog | Media Matters for America

So, Bill O'Reilly is still perpetrating this lie (I heard it), yet the real segment that Fox deliberately edited shows him for what he and his network are all about.

 

[Ezechiel]

Fox news... LOL, hard to beat on the bias meter !

I'd call it tea party movement propaganda hour, you get to see the world through conservative eyes

 

[mike]

Mike,
The ambulance story is utter bullshit. Our largest business client is one the local tri-county area's largest independent (privately owned & funded) Emergency Medical Transport Companies. They do roughly 300K a year with us. They bill the hospital per run. What do they care if the person they are carting around has insurance or not? It's the hospital's responsibility to bill the individual. That's the way it work's in the real world here bud. Honest. Would be happy to verify factually outside the scope of this awesome forum.

Are you beginning to understand, right here and now, how we are all herded via the deception of projected imagery? And I do mean, ALL OF US. (as in not just me )

This thing the old fogies called the idiot box is more or less like, "here, read this book, it has many pictures." They could give a shit what we think. It's how we think that matters. Imagery accomplishes that with nearly 100% efficiency. I call it linear subjective cognitive process. We are routinely taught the process of reason in the manner we assimilate projected imagery.

Mike, the statement that, "nothing is ever black or white" applies to subjective reasoning, and not matters of absolute process. Within the context of sheer reason, some things are most assuredly black and white. Provably so. That's why we have science and big mean guys like Lance Moody to keep us all in check.

A social safety net that has already let a lot more than just the water hit the floor, one that has resulted in an absolutely verifiable failed condition, is not a good thing. By nature of it's intentional value, Welfare should have a redemptive value. Can you demonstrate that for me?

The issue that I most commonly observe as being absent, these basic discussions, is experience.

Care to look up precisely how many families that were on welfare 30 years ago, who's basic lineage, has never left the welfare system generationally? Do you honestly think that a career in Welfare is a good thing? Behavior and basic cognitive skills are inherently learned. We do so most naturally and efficiently via our parents. I have sat with children many times, on my own lap, that were DOOMED to a life of subjective misery due to the negligence and irresponsibility of their drug addict parents, ON WELFARE, every frickin' time, whom they just grow up to copy. Sounds like a very spiritual and wisely charitable plan to me.

I know a little something about this failed condition of which I speak.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with coming to an individual, or a family's rescue, but when you give social degenerates a free ride based on the their sheer "approved based on incompetence" status, what exactly do you expect? How exactly does ANYONE justify not testing welfare recipients for elicit drug use?

Those who disavow nature are doomed to extinction. Ask some ghetto kid whose Mom just ODed.

A lot of people would do well to put their own ass in the situations they so eagerly praise as successful. It seems right from a distance, but, come on down, take a look around. I think it'll take you about 10 minutes to make your mind up. It's just so damn catastrophically obvious.

Love ya man!

Ps. We all (remember, I am talking to me here) gotta get back to that Paranormal stuff. This shit's just getting depressing.

But Jeff you are trying to pin the obvious and undisputed faults within the welfare system on a universal health care component you dont even have yet...........

Of all the components of a welfare system, health care is the least likely to be prone to fraudulent misuse, while at the same time doing the most easily quantifiable good.

If your answer to the question

"Why dont i support a universal health care programme"

Is, welfare systems are flawed. Its not a good enough answer imo

Sometimes our choices are between greater and lessor evils

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of
all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and
bankruptcy laws have tightened.
METHODS:
We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court
records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated
reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.
RESULTS:

Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
CONCLUSIONS:
Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.

If a universal basic health care system fixed nothing more than this shocking statistic it would imo be well worth it.

How many of those 62 percent ended up on the scrapheap of welfare because they couldnt pay for a service that down here is free ?


Im not disputing other components of welfare can lead to fraud and dependancy, but we dont see that here with our basic free health care system, indeed a case can be made for the reverse.
A poor and sick person cant work and provide for themselves, getting them well should be the first step and it should be free and easy for them to take this step.

I get the dependancy issues you have with other components to welfare
Teach a man to fish and he eats for life, i get this

But its a neat trick to teach a man to operate on his own cancer.

Of all the components of a total welfare system. medical care is the least likely to be abused, and the most likely to do positive good.

I dont understand why anyone would oppose such a thing

 

[Burnt State]

Harvard and Cambridge conducted a study that found 45,000 Americans die prematurely each year due to a lack of health insurance:

And...A separate study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center found that 17,000 American children have died over the past two decades due to a lack of insurance. The study specifically found that uninsured children were 60% more likely to die in the hospital than those children who had insurance. If you factor in the children who never made it to a hospital, or were discharged and died outside of the hospital, the number could be much higher:

This should be a national disgrace. The sadder truth is that we can't even have a dialog about this. The Republicans chose to shut down the government (which ironically also means the CDC is closed), showing the same unwillingness to even look at the other side's arguments as we've seen on this thread. Here we are, arguing about whether or not we can save 45,000 American lives per year, while the agencies that track flu outbreaks, contagions and possible pandemics is shut down. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

These are the things I don't understand about America, well until I remind myself of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. I suppose the T.P.'s capacity for identifying with a propaganda that would just as soon kill you while you are busy cheering for it is quite numbing. I feel like I'm watching scenes from THX1138 but Big Pharma has yet to control people with talking medicine cabinets or Jesus Christ confessionals that work like ABM's. So either it's stupidity or the power of hatred at work as far as i can tell. It really makes no sense at all.

Thanks RL for being a voice of sanity and clarity on this thread. Great research work and great quotes up against nothing but rhetoric.