Did he pull it off?
Did Obama pull it off with his big speech? We won't know for days, even months. Failure can only be finally declared if he hasn't got a healthcare bill through by 1 January 2010. In part, this is what he is good at: a stirring, rousing speech full of high-minded phrases like "we came to build a future", "now is the season for action" and "we did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it".
He attempted to reclaim the flag for the Democrats, against critics who say he is not only wrong but unpatriotic in his plans. He said that "we lose something essential about ourselves" when helping those in need is attacked as un-American, and said that "large-heartedness, concern for others is not Democrat or Republican but part of the American character." As is, he said, more controversially, "an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in".
So far, so good. Conservatives had been calling for more substance. There was perhaps nothing new here but his list of promises did give me a clearer idea of what he wanted, and I've been hearing and reading about it for months and months. It is now there, in black and white within a 10-page speech:
• Insurance will be compulsory
• Those who have health care won't have to change what they have
• Those who don't have it, above a certain income, and big companies that don't provide it, will be fined
• Insurance companies will have to take on people with pre-existing conditions and won't be allowed to drop them when they get sick
• It won't add a dime to the deficit or be paid for out of the Medicare trust fund. The money will come from eliminating wasteful spending and taxing drug and insurance companies
There's a lot of devilish detail behind that outline, still to be pored over and defined, but the aims are clearer than before.
Most intriguing is one area that is still very cloudy. The president said he wouldn't "back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."
He says the public option, a government scheme funded by the premiums it collects but non-profit making, and hated by the right as socialism would be "an additional step we can take" to put pressure on insurance companies to provide a good, and cheaper service. But it is "a means to that end" and "we should remain open to other ideas". To me, that sounds like it's a negotiating position he is willing to sacrifice.
Has he pulled it off? Not by a long chalk, not yet. But if he persuades the public and makes deals on the hill, it could be over by Christmas.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ref the public option, I think it's more subtle than just a negotiating position he's ready to drop. He's saying: make it unnecessary, then fine we'll drop it. Ie, play ball, cut the nonsense, show me how you can get everyone in the private insurance system, make the public option redundant, then we can talk. Seems entirely reasonable from this side of the atlantic ....
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the bullets. Hear's a thought; how about some of those policies here in the UK for private healthcare? Specifically the 4th;
• "Insurance companies will have to take on people with pre-existing conditions and won't be allowed to drop them when they get sick"
In the UK, that is exactly how private insurance operates. In fact, I've just had to cancel mine because they refuse to do anything more about a specific recurring knee ailment. The first clause is probably impossible in the UK- but the 2nd would be workable (in your bullet). Sickness is not like a car-crash- over and fixed in weeks- illness can go on for years, decades. And Yet insurers only in effect offer short term care. I am sure that keeps prices down- but means private insurance can only ever be a backup to NHS- as quick, short term care in the UK. Strikes me that if the Tories want to bolster private sector then they've got to encourage private insurance to do 'what's written on the tin' and not hide away in the small print about 'chronic illness'; particularly once they've taken you on.
Complain about this comment
what he wanted
But how much does that matter? The Democrats have a large majority in the House, enough for both extremes to try to hold the bill hostage; in the Senate (probably the more important chamber for this), getting past a filibuster requires placating the self-important like Ben Nelson, or the Republican left, like Olympia Snowe.
The centrist Democrats in the Senate, in particular, seem to have a penchant for putting irrational provisions into legislation simply so as to tell their electorates "I did that! Lookit me! I'm inportant!"
Obama can offer leadership, and maybe his team can offer mediation or technical advice, but his actual policy priorities only matter insofar as the Democrats want to look coherent and successful - never a priority for them in the past.
Complain about this comment
Nope. No specifics. No explanations how Obama's scheme would be more efficient and cost effective than other government-run programs, such as Medicare&Medicaid which have put us $30 TRILLION in the red over 40 years period.
And most importantly, HOW MUCH would his scheme i cost, and WHERE WOULD THE MONEY COME FROM.
Coming from yet another rich laywer Obama is (just like those US Congress is stuffed with) I don't think the money would materialize as a result of a TORT reform. ;-)
Complain about this comment
A fine speech. Let's hope that he can achieve something that should be a basic human right, especially in a country like the USA, namely...access to high quality healthcare on the basis of need.
The nature of the US healthcare system is, in the end, the prerogative of the US people and I've always been fairly ambivalent about it. The attacks however by republicans on the "communist" National Health Service in the UK left me astonished at both their inaccuracy and their venom. Like many in this country I liberally criticize the NHS and wish that we could have a sensible debate about how the system and its sclerotic culture can be modernised, to make it affordable while maintaining its key ethos of fundamental social justice. However, when the chips are down, I recognise that the NHS has been there for me over the years, with no questions asked, and that is a benefit beyond price. Suddenly, I found myself rallying to its defence in the face of such amazing bile and ignorance.
The US system (even more massively expensive) notionally achieves better clinical results, although whether this is purely down to superior treatment or simply that the genuinely sick and/or the working poor don't get treated in the first place (and thus drop conveniently out of the statistics) is a moot point. I find it puzzling however that a country, founded on the very principle of the equality of the individual in the eyes of the State, that created such an elegant statement of the freedoms for which it stands, has such a blind spot on this issue. If all are equal, why should their access to healthcare be dictated by the amount of money in their pocket? There is nothing "free" about being sick!
I'm right of centre...an advocate of free and open markets, but treating peoples' health as a tradeable commodity in such a market, just like pork bellies or widgets just ain't right. If the belief that the State, in a democracy, has a fundamental role in ensuring that equal treatment is available to all on the basis of need alone somehow, strangely, makes me a "communist" in the eyes of the Republican Right, then..."Power to the People Comrades!"
Complain about this comment
Mark:
I saw the speech on Wednesday Night; And, I think that President Obama has a long road ahead of him....
=D=
Complain about this comment
President Obama gave a compelling speech to a joint session of the US Congress last night, calling them to respond to the moral crisis our country endures by not providing health care coverage for our working class citizens. To work in American means you may not have health care coverage! It's morally wrong and he pointed this out to Congress, while many Republicans looked like ghouls at a Halloween Party by not responding, as though health is not about them but about political positioning. Congratulations to President Obama for pointing out the hypocricy of the Republicans who reacted so pugnaciously to his clarion speech.
Complain about this comment
One of the most interesting facets of the ongoing debate involves the efforts to accomodate the desires of the minority party, which suggests that even though Democrats won a clear majority last November their victory may have been more of a rejection of Bush Administration policies than an actual shift to the left. The USA remains a very conservative nation on social and economic issues, sees government initiatives with suspicion, is reluctant to endorse dramatic changes in direction, and understands that our fiscal irresponsibility has placed a tremendous burden on our ability to continue to grow or maintain our standard of living and our privileged position on the global economy.
Healthcare reform is inevitable, what remains to be seen is its depth and scope. I think it is fair to assume that draconian practices such as pre-existing conditions, lack of portability, exhorbitant co-pays, and arbitrary rulings by insurance company clerks focused on cost containment and high profits will soon become a thing of the past. Thank Goodness! What is not clear at all is whether or not a public system will be implemented. At best, we will end up with an incremental approach leading to a public system if the insurance companies fail to clean up their act, provide access to all Americans, and limit premium increases.
Complain about this comment
.#5.."Power to the People Comrades!"
I won't work. Why? Because, when you were not watching COMRADES LOST.
Big time. And there don't seem to be any real takers for their places,
unless you mean such clowns as keeling over Castro Bros., dying North Korean Gulag runner from Kim Dynasty and Comical Hugo [Chavez].
And on a more serious note... Mark reports:
"The money will come from eliminating wasteful spending..."
Mark, your naivete may be forgiven considering you're a newcomer to these shores. I have yet to see a single government program from which wasteful spending has been eliminated. And any money saved by curtaling one wasteful scheme has always been quickly spent on even more wasteful one.
[plus additional money allocated by yet another "tax&spend" US Congress.]
Please stand by for more "irrational exuberance" (to use Allan Greenspan's parlance) emanating from the current Administration.
Complain about this comment
BBC editorialized that this is Obama's first real test and will be seen by many as an indicator of how effective he will be as a president. Weak or strong, a leader or not. They had agreement from at least one interviewee in India. If this is so, then Obama gives every indication that he is an unmitigated disaster. Despite the high importance he placed on this problem, he's shown no leadership whatsoever. He has no coherent plan even now and hasn't had one since day one. He speaks in generalities. He left the details where the devil is to others. Despite a majority for his party in both houses, it is unlikely there will be a plan that will pass. Whatever stance he takes to satisfy one faction he will alienate enough of another that they will vote against it in sufficient numbers to defeat it. At best he will get a highly watered down plan. He has all but ignored the reality of the Republicans, choosing not to work with them but to challenge them yet because of divisions in his own party, he cannot pass a bill without the support of at least some of them. In short, he is in a losing position. This is indicative of all of the other areas he is responsible for. The economy shows no signs of strengthening despite what some economists and the stock market say. Go to any large shopping mall on a weekend when it should be croweded with shoppers and you will see the stores mostly empty with few people carrying packages of merchandise they've purchased. Large department stores remain almost empty despite well advertised sales of 70% off and more on some merchandise. Our economy is two thirds driven by consumer spending. Housing may be recovering in some places but even there it is anemic and only just started. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going well. Just recently, his top general said the current strategy in Afghanistan isn't working. The election there is of highly dubious legitimacy. No progress has been made on stopping Iran's or North Korea's nuclear program. Israel thumbs its nose at him on settlements and now even Scotland and the UK's government has too on Megrahi, breaking the UK's promise to the US without consequence for them. These are supposed to be America's allies. Anti Americanism continues unabated in South America particularly in Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador. The war being waged by the drug lords in Mexico continues to heat up and is spilling over into the US. The budget deficit is out of control and unemployment continues to rise. China and India show no sign of cooperation on global warming yet without them, all measures will be ineffective but Obama continues to press for a carbon tax that will further weaken the American economy. And we are only 16% into his term of office. He won't be able to pull off Tony Blair's trick of blaming "the party opposite" for all his own shortcomings for ten years, I think he owns all of the problems of the American government himself now. It's as I feared, once you get past the facts that President Obama is very intelligent, charismatic, and likable, he's also totally inexperienced, naive, lacking in the skills to exercise power in Washington or the larger world, in short he is utterly incompetent at a time when we need a president who is exactly the opposite. The election is over, time for heads to clear, and for many buyer's remorse to firmly set in. His election was one small step for improved race relations, one giant leap into the abyss.
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat, government programs may be wasteful; however, in the case of healthcare in the US, it's private spending that's especially wasteful. Medicare and the VA are the (relatively) efficient parts of your system.
And we know, of course, looking round the rest of the world, that government programs can be efficient.
Complain about this comment
For americans who want to pay for other peoples healtcare/insurace there is nothing stopping them just writing a cheque right now.
Obama is asking for a law that will take away that choice and force some people to pay for other peoples healthcare (which may even be at the expense of their own).
Its morally wrong.
I was amused to hear that the reason for UK healthcare generally being paid by employers (not employees) and so being relatively expensive is because at the time, the US had introduced wage controls (a lefty policy if ever there was one), so companies gave perks instead - healthcare being the main one! -- The whole situation is one of the left interfering and the associated unintended consequences - just like the UK and NHS really...
Complain about this comment
Having lived in the USA and having gained a number of middle-class friends there, I find myself a little confused by today's right-wing, white polemic regarding Obama and the health care improvements he proposes. It doesn't fit with the discussions we had with US friends and neighbours in the mid-80's.
It seems to me that part of the (now) minority of US citizens who have roots here in North West Europe are using this apparently emotional issue to attack him.
It is a fact that millions of US citizens have no or grossly inadequate health care provision ... something which in North West Europe today, in spite of financial restrictions and several shortcomings, is unthinkable. A vast number of these unfortunate people belong to the majority of citizens in the USA, that is, those citizens who are black, hispanic or asian!
It would be great, Mark, if you could do an analytical piece on this topic and deal with the wider question of: "Is the provision of "the basics for all" seen as a threat related to a demographic change and change in political/cultural power-base by those who are no longer are in the majority?"
Complain about this comment
Mark, I've already commented on Have Your Say, that pharmaceutical and hospital corporations are fighting hard to keep Americans from having a public alternative to their healthcare; they say they are winning that fight.
The pharmaceutical and hospital corporate sector makes a great deal of money out of the way it is and has been plowing that back into further political influence.
Only goes to show corporate America's (almost) complete control of the nation's elected officials, especially Congress, through lobbying and campaign donations.
It's the vacuum that's left by private even secretive dealings in America's corprate boardrooms and halls of government that speaks volumes about why such sensitivities abound and reverberate around this issue.
Yet it's nothing new either. Consider for a moment relative current affairs issues, such as coal-fired utilities having so watered down impending legislation concerning global warming that they have now come out in favor of it in the House vote.
Or take the economic crisis itself, in which at the outset TARP money went to the banking friends of Hank Paulson, although 97 percent of congressional correspondence from the American people was against it.
Now here they are again, the Republicans who heckled Mr Obama during his speech, sold on the ideology years ago peddled out to them by corporate America's lobbyists and campaign donors, and trickled down, on out to the Republican rump so sore still about losing the election that they've got to find some way to try and derail the Obama train.
The gridlock is all about the political, the ideological, and the greed if not the future viability of corporate America's entanglement in American government. It's got nothing to do with the greatest good to the greatest number anymore.
Democratic action is being called for, and Americans themselves are going to have to take politics back in hand once again if values are, or aren't, going to shift as they need to now.
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat
Oh dear oh dear! Do try to read the whole thing. I go to the States often and don't usually subscribe to the idea that Americans have no sense of irony. It is precisely because "the Comrades lost" as you put it, and that State Communism is in steep decline that I find the sight of people denouncing another Western market economy as "communist" so funny. Most seemed to be displaying symptoms of disturbance rather than a coherent political point of view.
Like I said...I'm right of centre politically and believe that we are responsible for our own destiny in life. But a system that leaves 40+ million people without any healthcare provision whatsoever and leaves many more at the mercy of "for profit" healthcare companies does not look or sound like the pinnacle of civilised achievement in what purports to be a christian country!
Complain about this comment
10 Marcus Aurelius II
Marcus...calm down! I've just checked under the bed and there wasn't a single social democrat there! I have always shared the concern that Obama's heady populism would founder on the rocks of reality. It was nice while it lasted but I agree that his election had as much to with the calamitous failures of President Bush than with people suddenly becoming less selfish, less blinkered, and less dumb.
I actually think that the US has probably passed the nadir of its unpopularity...it will always be a bit unpopular (we can provide some lessons in self-help here;-)) but the stock is definitely rising. The fact that everyone in the world does not toe the US line 100% of the time is, in fact quite healthy...and probably worth getting used to!
Complain about this comment
wow with all those issues (many - not all - obviously inherited from Mr Bush) you still always call America such a fancy place whenever comparisons between Europe and America happen to start in random topics.
About leadership I was taught at a university that it is not about details but about delegating them right. I admit not to know enough about the American system but is there nobody to be responsible for the health care like there is a secretary of state for the military? That person has the job to come along with the details.
Actually it is even sad that the president has to spend so much time on this issue just to remove arguements non-Americans would find pathetic in the first place. On the other hand he should have (if didn't) seen this battle coming and being the dirty one it is as it is not the first time someone tries to steal the cash cows of the shareholders of insurance companies. Still as you mention there are enough other problems he could spend his time better on than this one.
Complain about this comment
No, he didn't pull it off. See "Show Me The Money" at www.crosssection.wordpress.com.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
I think that with some more polishing, he may have pulled it off....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
12 The Real Truth
That's a wierd morality. Surely, the moral position is that nobody is left without basic healthcare? If that means that the majority have to pay a little more then that's acceptable. What you call "morality" is in fact "reality" in which people have a justifiable unease about bankrolling other people. I share this concern when it comes to many of the numerous publicly funded schemes here in the UK, except when it comes to healthcare. There's absolutely nothing "moral" about living or dying, health or chronic disability on the basis of the ability to pay.
As an aside, I note your amusement on the provision of private health insurance in the UK. Obviously we get a terribly editorialised version of events here, but I got the impression that GM's recent problems stemmed from a) lacklustre products and b) excessive costs...the latter stemming from the cost of providing private medical insurance for employees?
Complain about this comment
I think Obama had a little bit for everyone in his speech. Conservatives got mention of tort reform, old folks got guarantees over Medicare, currently employed and satisfied got promises of no change, pro-lifers got conscience protection and no public funding of abortion, and so on. The only people who did not get anything were our illegal immigrants. And that was the only bit of the speech that disappointed me. Now, were Obama to grant a general amnesty then I could live with that provision. And I think he should.
The time for BS, obfuscation, lies, red-herrings, fear-mongering and vitriol are over. The unconscionable state of health care in america must end. And I hope Obama succeeds and nay-saying politicans get chucked out of office. Amen.
Complain about this comment
I did lose my insurance in the US because of a medical condition. I did not make enough to pay the new supersized monthly premiums. You could make health care mandatory but that means I will be forced to pay what I do not have to keep what I can not afford. I t is illegal to drive without car insurance too but more than one third of our people are finding ways to get around that law. Making it the law to have certain coverages is just making the lower third of the economic scale fair game for "reform" in the sense of fines and punishment for being yourself.
Complain about this comment
The worst job in the circus, I'm told, is cleaning up after the elephants.
So, poor Barack Obama! Coming into the White House after the Bush-Cheney circus means he's the custodian-in-chief who has to try tidying up the huge messes that were left by that herd of pathetic pachyderms. So many piles, so little time.
Contrary to the "contrived wisdom" of the Powers That Be, providing health care for everyone is not an economic or even a health issue – it's a moral issue.
The insurance corporations that suck out one-third of American healthcare dollars to pay for their corporate bureaucracies, executive salaries, marble palaces, and advertising have been (and are) decidedly unhealthy for the nation. We've known for some time that this system, which puts profit above care, is morally bankrupt – but now we learn that it is literally bankrupting hundreds of thousands of American families. In fact, the system's exorbitant medical bills have become the number one cause of personal bankruptcies in the USA.
What a disgrace for the richest country in the history of the world. Indeed, America's deplorable connection between physical illness and fiscal disaster does not occur in other highly-developed countries, because they provide national health insurance for all of their citizens. Yet, too many of our congress members in Washington don't really want to change our current system of health care profiteering. Instead, they merely want to tinker with reform by extending our corporatized system to more people that will neither improve health care nor prevent more of those financial catastrophes. We need a complete overhaul of the system by adopting a single-payer method of insurance coverage for everyone.
You don't clean up a nasty mess like health care profiteering by just stirring the pile to rearrange it. -- It has to be removed completely!
Complain about this comment
Many Americans do not believe that the government really is that helpful in the area of health care. Some not only do not have heatkth care but do not want it. They prefer to live debt free and to pay for what they use. Therefore, they would be more interested in some kind of catastrophic insurance that they could choose to purchase for major problems. We would like the right to choose to buy it or not to. When some of us hear "It is time for the government to step in," we read that as "step on" meaning that they have some grand scheme they want our money for so we must give it.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Mark, President Obama "pulled it off." In American parlance, he hit a home run. A speech before a joint session of Congress is the most formal and most important venue a President has for rallying the country around policy and he did it brilliantly last night. The rest is up to the committee chairmen, Presidential staff, the Speaker, the Majority Leader in the Senate and we, the People...who are supposed to get busy and let our representatives know how to represent us.
One more item of note, which the Britons online seem to have overlooked but which offends most Americans, whatever their political stripe: calling the President a liar to his face in the middle of his speech to Congress. Representative Joe Williams of South Carolina ignored the rules of decorum for joint sessions and deserves all the opprobrium heaped upon his head. He ought to resign immediately. Americans ARE rude, but we do not behave like hyenas when the President is speaking.
Complain about this comment
If Obama and the democrat's proposed (whatever that is) health care reform bill gets passed, will the US score above or below Scotland?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html
Complain about this comment
By god, he is a gifted public speaker but I don't think he changed anyone's mind. He can say whatever soothing words he wants to, but what counts is the legislatin that comes out of the conference committee. When they negoitiate the final bill for a vote, they're not going to be thinking "we need to remember what Obama promised in his speech".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Did last nights speech change anyone mind about this issue? Are any skeptics now backing Obama on this?
Complain about this comment
20 Anglophone
"I got the impression that GM's recent problems stemmed from a) lacklustre products and b) excessive costs...the latter stemming from the cost of providing private medical insurance for employees?"
A)Yes
B) No. GM (and the rest of the US auto industry) has been downsizing for years (eliminating workers and associated health care costs). However they can't "downsize" pension benefits that were gained by the unions long ago. The excessive labor cost are not associated with present employees health cost but with past employees pensions. Bankruptcy fixes that by allowing the "new GM" to move those costs to "old GM" and make them the federal government's problem.
Complain about this comment
12. At 12:40pm on 10 Sep 2009, the-real-truth wrote:
For americans who want to pay for other peoples healtcare/insurace there is nothing stopping them just writing a cheque right now.
Obama is asking for a law that will take away that choice and force some people to pay for other peoples healthcare (which may even be at the expense of their own).
Its morally wrong.
-----------------------------------
First Amrk you asked earlier what the differences in the language are.
Here is a clear case of a difference for the same word.
Morality in the UK means having some sense of right and wrong.
In america I'm still trying to figure out what it means.I think it means."protecting ones' self"
I think it is morally wrong to give tax breaks to the oil companies and take away bankruptcy protection while health care costs were sky rocketing at an artificial rate in order to pay for the few that can afford the deductibles to have Excellent care for their kids after a fall at the skate park, or off the ATV.Or for the diabetes they get from their latchkey two income families.
How many families have two workers and kids without parents at home because one works for food the other for health care.
families that in the american dream could afford to leave one or other at home to do the child care.
I think it morally wrong for you to carry on with your utter pointless selfish postings.
But we all get disappointed.
But most important I think someone that doesn't seem to have a basic grasp of Morals should not attempt to comment on morals.
In the UK the DOCTOR makes the descision.
Here in the states the patient is trying to make the decision. and to look at Jackson it can be seen that some get more than their fair share of the drugs.
Over prescription of drugs in america is hugely expensive and wasteful. Alphmiguel pointed that out in the previous thread.
American doctors PAMPER some patients to death.
PS an extra 2 days at the end of a 90 year life or protect a baby born a couple of weeks premature.
You tell me.
I'd say if I were the 90 . Let me go.
but I assume you would say "hell no I want to live every last second.
Now you'll call it a death panel.
Complain about this comment
21 Mastershogu yes, Obama threw conservatives a few bones but they were just scraps to make him look bipartisan. Why is it with all of the things they want to put in this bill, they can't put in tort reform. A few demonstration projects are just noise to distract people. Abortion and free care for illegals are other goodies that Democrats want to throw in too, but the public doesn't support that. The Democrats have legislative majorities in both houses of Congress and have the White House and the Republicans are just a legislative speed bump; why don't the democrats just ram down a bill they want? Because of the 2010 elections. A lot of these guys and gals want to keep their jobs past 2010.
Complain about this comment
It's Morally wrong to take my money and spend it on fantasy moon flights without my concent.
it's morally wrong to take my money and subsidise cars that are less efficient.
It's moraly wrong to take my money to subsidise the Israeli defence budget
It's morally wrong to take my money to fund wars of choice
It's morally wrong to spend millions persecuting prosecuting and declaring war on some for taking a slightly different substance than you because you are ignorant.
It is morally wrong to deny patients with life threatening problems to have access to a medicine called "marijuana" allowing them to suffer because your bias.
It's morally wrong to say that a person has access to health care when they don't.
It's morally wrong to say that British health care has death panels.When they don't.
It's morally wrong to say that patients are restricted from procedures in the UK and Canada because of costs when underlying health conditions were the factor that was at issue.
But it is not morally wrong to 'Protect the weak the hungry and the sick" which is why there were so many hospitals set up as charities.
It is morally wrong for you to be allowed to engage in a debate when you lie.
because lies are morally wrong.
"do not bear false witness"
I
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What Obama pulled off was telling people what they wanted to hear while also telling them something that they didn't want to hear (ex., the public option won't fly).
Unfortunately, every time Obama speaks, Americans get scared, then mad and start yelling at their Congressmen. Then Obama has to make another speech.
More cowbell, as someone said somewhere on the net.
Complain about this comment
25 Carolinalady Obama hit a home run if you were already on his side. I wonder how many people changed their minds as a result of his speech.... probably very few. Rep Williams conduct was indeed rude last night, and he apologized, but it may not hurt him in his district; it may even help. Maybe he took a deliberate step toward his reelection next fall.
By the way, Americans are not rude. I have traveled internationally and Americans are no better or worse than any one else. Now how we dress when travelling abroad is another issue.....
Complain about this comment
Since when did the wasteful spending get taken out of the health care industry.
Last time I checked prescribing millions with inappropriate drugs was pretty wasteful.
Spending more time processing claims than dealing with the patient seems pretty wasteful.
What if all those with coverage at work etc that feel they want a NHS stop paying contributions and started adding to the emergency room walk ins.
the "system" (ie hospitals) could be driven into bankruptcy.
Left to the industry that's where it is heading anyway.
the health care bubble will burst.
Then are we the tax payers going to be asked to foot the bill because they cannot be allowed to fail.
If so we (the people) will own hospitals.
So i say if you fell healthy etc just hold out refuse bankrupt the industry.
this whole bill is a life line to the industry because if there is not something they will burst their bubble.
How nice of the industry to say no to the bail out they are getting In time to save their asses. they must just want failure.
Complain about this comment
Obama simply repeated the same lies he's been telling all along, promising the moon & stars, and proposing to pay for it by taxing the bejeesus out of the young (18-30 y/o) set and small business, as well as yanking $500B of supposed 'waste' from MediCare.
If $500B of Medicare is currently 'waste', why should this new government boondoggle be any LESS wasteful?
Complain about this comment
25 look carefully to cecils buddy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v9A2D1QBe4
As you mention america is not like the UK.
here is what seems to be the theme movie for the GOP these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGEBLcKD3Ec&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoTIvSZpdFA&feature=related
Complain about this comment
The spitting image above mentions why the people of the UK got so fed up with americas hero. thatcher.
Notice they mention lack of doctors etc.
Bethpa.
I'm I like your list of improvements on an earlier thread but getting more doctors to the states by offering better wages than the country that paid for the training( or subsidised it) is not really that fair to those countries. Indeed that is already a problem. Them real greedy Docs that move from the UK to the states for better wages that were trained for free( used to have pretty much free education before the afore mentioned Maggie said NO more.)
BRAIN DRAIN.
Not to be encouraged.
Predatory.
Complain about this comment
Facts on the President's speech:
http://crosssection.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/show-me-the-money/
Complain about this comment
What has been obvious is that the GOP will not do anything if they can get away with it.
The shouting of "lies" is a slander.
How many stood up and told GW he was a lier?
Screw all that lying about the GOP being reasonable engaged concerned human.
they show no decency.
NO morality.
"Cruel and Unusual punishment"
They say Medicare.
well that kicks in once you are bankrupt right.
Them same GOPPERS were the ones that inherited land etc from their parents. the number of bootstrap stories while they had the family farm given to them is a joke.
There is no more inheriting through a family. The healthcare has ripped that money right out of circulation and the people that would have inherited something to run as a business for their family don't and it goes to a bank.
Trash the basic ideals of millennia for the sake of the healthcare industry.
or are you someone who says the kids can build it on their own while you sit in daddies house
That passing something on to your kids should be illegal.
In one hand they fight death duties and taxes on estates. then they say that it cxan all go instead to the health care providers so they can charge what hey like with the BLACKMAIL of "You'll die if you don't do what we say"
"Cruel and unusual punishment "
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell,
Have you read Reason Magazine? A very interesting Libertarian take on things. The comments are great, too.
www.reason.com
Complain about this comment
#13 Trotzalledem: FYI: white people of non-Hispanic origin still make up 75% of the US population (source: census.gov).
#22 johnlotz: what is the "punishment for being yourself"? I have no problem with free-spirited people who reject the 9-5 grind, but why should their lifestyle choices be subsidized by the rest of us? If you want to live like a bohemian, don't expect middle-class security.
Obama's speech will be a wake-up call to the hope-and-change generation of under 30s who voted for him. They will now find that they will be required by law to purchase insurance or face a tax penalty, when what they really thought was that they'd get a bunch of free stuff funded by taxing "the rich."
Complain about this comment
Obama was put in the difficult position of having to win votes from far-left progressives who vowed never to support a bill without a public option as well as from centrists who found the public option too stigmatized to use in any practical compromise. I think he did about as well as possible given those nearly exclusive goals.
One interesting way forward would be the public option 'trigger' that would create a government-run insurance policy if and only if the private sector failed to meet some benchmarks for improved performance. I've only heard about it from pundits, though, and haven't seen it in any proposed legislation.
On a side note, plaudits to the BBC blog commenters for being a far more levelheaded and informed audience then I've seen on US sites (e.g. cnn.com).
Jonathan, Chicago
Complain about this comment
I believe Wilson was out of line, but I see that many on the net believe that it was Obama who was "called out" by Wilson.
Why do so many people believe it is Obama who is the "liar"? I am surprised at the number of people who feel he is a "liar". I believe he has some serious limitations but a "liar"? Not, in my opinion.
Perhaps it is he who should refrain from implying others are lying.
Complain about this comment
I don't see why January 1 should be a deadline for success. I will be satisfied if a bill is passed by this congress, which runs through 2010.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone (#15) " ... in what purports to be a christian country!"
The US purports to be a country which accepts all religious beliefs equally, with "establishment" of none.
Complain about this comment
10. At 12:07pm on 10 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
BBC editorialized that this is Obama's first real test and will be seen by many as an indicator of how effective he will be as a president. Weak or strong, a leader or not. They had agreement from at least one interviewee in India. If this is so, then Obama gives every indication that he is an unmitigated disaster."
Hardly since many Americans go to India for cheap operations. India has an interst in the US health system - its continued failure
" In short, he is in a losing position. "
Hardly he is running rings around his oppenents. You don'rt seem able to distinguish failure from success.
As for the rest of your blather - its is as meanigless as your confident predictions he would lose the election.
Didn't get that right did you.
Until the Republicans can get a sensible spokesperson who can purge the party of its lunatic fringe and can come up with viable alternatives Obama has no problem.
No one would trust the current crop of right wing loony tunes with charge of a chip shop much less the whole country.
Complain about this comment
Where do we find the money to pay for health care?
TAX the WEALTHY
"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States
and the distribution of wealth has only become more lopsided since 2001.
There is more than one Bernie Madoff in the American system.
These people are psychopaths who have no concern for other human beings and are clever enough to use the system to achieve their goals of money and power.
They are manipulating the American system with their wealth and have bought influence by paying money to politicians and through control of advertising on the medias.
Every other western nation is giving health care to all their citizens through one method or another
What has this not happened in America?
My answer is that we have psychopaths in positions of power.
These people do not have normal human emotions for others. They will do what they need to do to get what they want...without concern for others and without any sense of guilt or real remorse. They are very good actors and mimics.
The only way to control these people is with government laws and regulations. The problem for America is that they have infiltrated the American political system with their obscene wealth.
Complain about this comment
The fact that the president felt he had to make this speech at all is an indication that he is on the defensive. I don't believe he will get all that he wants by making an eloquent speech. We will wait and see if he gets something.
Complain about this comment
Obama didn't mention where we were going to get all the health care providers to take care of the newly insured. We have across the board shortages as it is. A wonderful oratory but really a crock of you know what when it comes to substance.
Complain about this comment
Adrienny
Unfortunately, every time Obama speaks, Americans get scared,
Are the ones getting scared just the racists or is it all the GOP?
Complain about this comment
This whole argument isn't boring. It is sad. America, grow up! Stop throwing toddler tantrums and behave yourselves. Please.
BBC, I understand it is a source of fun and great amusement to watch just how silly and moronic a minority of Americans can be. But the joke is long past being fun.
They sound and look like extremists, just as crazed, inhumane, intolerant and idiotic as fundamentalists from the middle east.
Stone a woman to death for being raped in one country, or withdraw insurance from a cancer victim.
Whip a woman for wearing trousers or deprive a poor kid of antibiotics in another. One is just as bad as the other.
The view I am getting here makes me think I don't want that bunch to be our 'special friend'.
How about what spending the time on Greenpeace?
Complain about this comment
44 NJReader You are absolutely right. all of the under 30s who are now going to have to buy insurance to subsidize it for older and unhealthy people. Hope and Change isn't cheap!
Complain about this comment
This is part of an email to me from a Canadian.
"Our American neighbours are struggling to meet their health care needs
and are fighting for change right now. Canada’s hard won universal
system can be a model to others but has been subject to unfounded
attack in the U.S. Instead, it is being demonized by the political right and health corporations in order to frighten people away from a public system.
rabble.ca is responding to the slanders and we need your help – your testimonials.
*Can you share with Americans why you support the Canadian system? *
rabble is about to launch a special U.S. health care section that presents some simple facts about Canadian health care, links to resources on single-payer/public option for Americans and testimonials from Canadians from all walks of life."
P.S. Remember...some of the myths being promoted, and needing debunking,
include:
1) We can’t choose our own doctor
2) There are long waiting lists even for things like broken hips
3) Government “bureaucrats” intervene and deny services.
4) Canada has a “socialist” system. (Note: In socialized medical systems,the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US.)
.......................
We Americans need all the help we can get to combat the lies.
And I know a 76 year old woman who broke her hip in Ontario and was immediately hospitalized with a successful operation and after discharge receives weekly help with cleaning and shopping.
Complain about this comment
52. At 4:37pm on 10 Sep 2009, mischievousdoug wrote:
Obama didn't mention where we were going to get all the health care providers to take care of the newly insured. We have across the board shortages as it is."
So people should be allowed to die so that other people, "nice" people, can use the health care providers?
Sounds pretty barbaric.
Obama isn't increasing the number of Americans, only the number who get access to healthcare.
Complain about this comment
#12. the-real-truth: "Obama is asking for a law that will take away that choice and force some people to pay for other peoples healthcare (which may even be at the expense of their own)."
Who do you think pays for children's basic education? Or the care Veterans receive? Or the military, the space programme, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? The taxpayer of course, that's where all of government funds originate. I don't have children, so I might well ask why should I pay for the education of any of them. I don't, because education is a basic necessity. Parents can pay for private schools and, under any universal care system, patients may pay directly or through a complementary insurance policy: they have the choice. Contrary to the lie his opponents promulgate, the President is not taking away that choice for anyone. Lying about the issue is immoral, not paying for healthcare.
Complain about this comment
53 Fluffytale
It is easy to label Americans who are scared (or asking tough questions - god forbid)about this to label them as GOPers or racists. He works for us not vice versa. We just haven't drank the same kool-aid as you have. We also get to vote again next year!
Complain about this comment
53. fluffytale:
Adrienny
Unfortunately, every time Obama speaks, Americans get scared,
Are the ones getting scared just the racists or is it all the GOP?
***************
Yes, yes, of course. It's the "racists" who are causing all the problems for Obama, Foofy. Those "racist" Independents, unfortunately for Obama.
Complain about this comment
No, didn't pull it off. Ducked how he was going to pay for it, Congressional Budget Office doesn't agree that it won't cost a dime.
No tort reform, no competition among insurance companies in states, creates another government medical department when it's not needed.
Complain about this comment
Re#15 Anglophone wrote: Like I said...I'm right of centre politically and believe that we are responsible for our own destiny in life. But a system that leaves 40+ million people without any healthcare provision whatsoever and leaves many more at the mercy of "for profit" healthcare companies does not look or sound like the pinnacle of civilised achievement in what purports to be a christian country!
My comment re commies was also meant as a joke.
But on a serious note.
1. Do you know how many of those 40 million without health insurance (not without health care!) are illegal aliens? Roughly half (at least).
2. I am not in business of defending insurance companies.
However I do know that high insurance premiums have been casued to a large extent by LAWYERS, who take a significate percentage of damages awarded to plaintiffs ,whom they therefore encourager to sue, countersue and sue again and not settle short of megabacks.
Do you know how much doctors (especially pediatricians and anesthesiologists) have to pay for malpractice insurance in large metropolitan areas, such as L.A., NYC or Washington? And how much they have to hike up their fees to cover those exorbitant premiums and then still make a decent living? [Same goes for hospitals and clinics]
Health insurence premiums will not come down unless there is a meaningful TORT reform in this country first.
But don't hold your breath: Obama is a rich lawyer, majority of US Congressmen and senators are rich laywers, and last but not least, rich lawyers (and their PAC) were the biggest contributors to Obama's election campaign and put more money in Democratic Party's coffers than any other special interest group. [NRA eat your heart out!]
So perhaps we should follow the advice of certain English bard:
"First, let's kill all the lawyers!"
Complain about this comment
ref 57 simon 21
Don't put words in my mouth and do some math. His proposal will require providers for an additional 30-50 million people on top of the 250 to 270 million who currently have insurance. Who is going to provide medical care to the newly insured? The caregivers who currently service the insured. Those with existing insurance will have longer wait times for everything from primary care to specialist care; a fact he conviently fails to mention. The fact is significant segments of the non-wealthy American population will pay either financially or in other ways to provide care for the uninsured. It may or may not be the right thing to do. Obama is just showing us the happy side of this; and not the whole truth.
Complain about this comment
Who would have thought that one way to reduce the cost of health care is to tax drug & insurance companies more. When they raise prices to the customer to pay for these taxes, how is that going to keep costs down?
Complain about this comment
Where are we going to get all the health care providers to take care of the newly insured?
Allow doctors to immigrate from other nations into America.
Give people with medical degrees priority in immigration.
And for a long term solution pay for the education of doctors in the US and increase medical school enrollment.
There are answers but they are being being blocked by special interest groups like the AMA
Complain about this comment
There has never been any question, that his rhetoric is very persuasive. However, when you do the fact check......his rhetoric becomes.....just that....rhetoric.
His claims are simply not feasible to accomplish, his "cost cutting" isn't possible, because he is not removing the profiteering from health care, and the truth is, a high percentage of those he would cover with a public option, would absolutely be illegal immigrants......on the backs of the middle class taxpayers. (That has been the case with the child coverage that was passed by Clinton......and that is widely known.)
This isn't really about insensitivity to the plight of others, at all. It is about factual information, and not emotional behavior. The fact is, everyone has to earn their own way in the world. Those that cannot, must be paid for by someone else. That someone else, is ALWAYS the middle class taxpayer, who is unable, like the rich, to avail themselves of various tax shelters and tax free investments, to avoid taxes. The RICH will not bear this burden. (For one thing, they are far too few in number, to generate the funds, even if they did pay the taxes.....which they don't.)
The only way to reduce costs in health care, is to remove the profit from health care. That can only be done, through a national health care for EVERYONE, system, which will be socialistic, and which the GOP will fight, tooth and nail. Obama's proposal does not remove the profit from health care, therefor, there can be no cost savings achieved.
The facts simply outweigh the rhetoric. There again, the general public, who are not blind political party followers, can see the truth. It is indeed the CITIZENS, who are opposing this plan, because they can see the truth, and it is not just the GOP, in congress.
In the end, I am fairly convinced, that anything that the Dems DO pass, may be change.....but not necessarily change for the better.
Personally, I believe that Europeans, who have compared, realistically I might add, Obama to Jimmy Carter, do grasp the situation very well. This is a well-intentioned, individual, who can literally bankrupt the country, with social programs.
Given the political condition of the world, today, and the wide spread conflicts around the world, it is entirely possible that Obama could bankrupt us to the point of being taken over by a foreign power. I see that as a very real threat to the security of the US.
The bottom line is......neither political party, has the interest of its citizens at heart, neither is doing the things that would be good for the country, but rather, both are simply self-serving, as the "wealthy and powerful" in the country, and both parties pass legislation designed more for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful, than for the people.
Complain about this comment
When the Republican Wilson during the speech last night shouted out lier he was projecting his own reality (he lies) onto Obama. That and not Obama is the problem. Republicans lie and they think it is morally acceptable if it gets their way.
But lying is not facing up to the truth. It was lies that got the USA into its mess. Lying to us, lying to ourselves and lying to constituents.
Republicans have pulled our their big demogogery lies and propaganda and think they are going to do the impossible ...LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE.
We will be run by liers and do nothings and military hardware, not compassion, truth, service or inspiration if we give in to the Republicans.
Politically, they are hateful. But when I have a republican friend we avoid the subject and I have friends who love guns, hate (ignorantly) the idea of kind of socialism whatsoever. and they are not shy in their prejudice..they just dont trust a...
But, when it comes to ideology I do not trust a person who believes liers. I will vote Democrat (even when they are against free trade..most are For), but Republicans have "birthers," secessionists, and Rush Limbaugh supporters to deal with so they use them and then take the money for their own policies.
Democrats have a big flaw...we think we should not sink to the level of a Republican to get what we want. :)
Complain about this comment
fluffytale
There was once a question about why in India they continued the caste system when it was hurting so many people.
The answer was that the people in the middle of the caste system were afraid that they would land at the bottom of the pecking order if the system were changed.
Its probably the same thing in America. People know the system is bad..but they are afraid they could end up worse if there is a change.
So Obama assures them that they can continue with the health care they have..but some are afraid and do not believe him. The Republicans fan that fear with their outlandish claims.
Imo many people will lose what health care they have if there is no change.
Is America so incompetent that it can not keep up with other western nations?
Is the American system so bankrupt that there is no room for providing health care for Americans?
(Just some rhetorical questions..you and I agree on most things : ) )
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
68 bethpa
It is not about fear. It is about trust; Obama and the democrats in Congress are not trusted by a significant percentage of the population. We never drank the kool-aid. He/They don't answer important questions and negatively label people who disagree. It makes one feel smug and smarter than the other, but the other side digs in its heels.
There are also honest philosophical disagreements (drinking a different kool-aid) that are not shown any respect. Another way to ensure the other side digs in its heels. The President will get something out of this, but this will poison the country. I can't wait for the 2010 mid-terms....
Complain about this comment
#65 bethpa:
Why would doctors want to immigrate to the US anymore if we end up with the lower salaries for medical personnel that universal healthcare will demand? The US attracts educated talent because we reward these people better for their expertise than their own countries do. If doctors start to be treated like mid-level government functionaries with an accompanying mediocre salary and poor working conditions, when we'll lose talented immigrants. And not just doctors; for example, the hospitals in Florida are full of British and German nurses who emigrated for better pay.
Complain about this comment
64. wesside01:
"Who would have thought that one way to reduce the cost of health care is to tax drug & insurance companies more. When they raise prices to the customer to pay for these taxes, how is that going to keep costs down?"
********************
It's also convoluted to tax the insurer for generous health care benefits. Why? So union members receiving generous benefits won't be penalized. It's obscene for executives to get generous benefits but okay for union members to receive them?
It's getting harder to make sure the right people are punished.
Complain about this comment
wow you can tell america is awake now by the number of stupid comments going up.
"55. At 4:50pm on 10 Sep 2009, mischievousdoug wrote:
44 NJReader You are absolutely right. all of the under 30s who are now going to have to buy insurance to subsidize it for older and unhealthy people. Hope and Change isn't cheap!"
WHAT A BIG LIE>
A lie because they already pay for all the oldies. where do you think the medicare budget comes from?
They pay taxes to keep the oldies alive.
Today.
but will get none when they reach that age because the halfwitts that think americans are just so peachy keen.
NINNY> well you don't think there is any racism in america probably.
The Birthers are not at all racist.
MARK shame the fruits found out about your blog.
Complain about this comment
THOSE UNINSURED PAY THE HIGHEST COSTS FOR THE SAME TREATMENT .
UP TO 7 TIMES THE COST YOU 'COVERED' PEOPLE.
Complain about this comment
powermeercat:
"So perhaps we should follow the advice of certain English bard:
"First, let's kill all the lawyers!""
It sounds like a promising idea. The difficulty would be organizing the affair.
Without guidance from those versed in the art of judgement, there is little doubt that the lessor professions would mess up their paperwork and fall to bitter and prolonged argument over trivial details. Then the lawyers would escape.
Remember, lawyers don't create problems. We feed off of them, sure. But they are other people's problems.
If you don;t want lawyers getting rich, don;t make problems. Are you listening, Mardell?
Complain about this comment
"There's a lot of devilish detail behind that outline, still to be pored over and defined, but the aims are clearer than before."
It took four years between the Beveridge Report and the enactment of the NHS Act, and two further years to implement it. Does anyone expect all the detail to be expressed in one speech or even in one bill? If it took the British so long to hammer out the minutiae of the healthcare system for a country with far less people and geographic size, why should America be any different? The President would have been far better off by delaying his proposals than by attempting to rush into something headlong. The American phrase has a lot to say: "Haste makes waste."
Complain about this comment
Sounds like Brits should take another leaf out of the yankie book.
Everyone should have medical insurance.
If you want complete cover you pay accordingly. If you want cover only for certain things or up to a certain value, then you pay accordingly.
That way the tax payer does not pay for gender change operations, chronic liver failure because of alcohol abuse, or lung cancer ops for heavy smokers.
Everyone lives their lives while taking the consequences for their actions.
Only then will the NHS be able to cut its spending in these times of UK financial stringency.
Complain about this comment
from bethpa: "And I know a 76 year old woman who broke her hip in Ontario and was immediately hospitalized with a successful operation and after discharge receives weekly help with cleaning and shopping."
I have an Aunt who was in a car accident and she had to wait 6 months to get a CAT scan to discover she had injuries in the head. During that wait, she had constant headaches; but the doctors wouldn't treat it till after the CAT scan.
Basically, you gave one example how good Canadian healthcare system is; and I give you one example of how bad the Canadian healthcare system can be.
At least I know, as an American, if I get in an accident and my head hurt from it... I can get a CAT scan without wait because I have good healthcare coverage.
Complain about this comment
"Did he pull it off?"
No.
But now we at least know what he's trying to pull.
Complain about this comment
#73. fluffytale: "MARK shame the fruits found out about your blog."
It's not the fruits but the nuts I worry about.
Complain about this comment
Owch - right in at the deep end Mr Mardell! Starting off with health care - right on the fault line on US society.
It will be interesting to observe how you navigate the minefield of reporting some of the clear untruths being spoutted about the NHS by the fearful right - whilst doing your best to retain 'BBC impatiality' (I guess you won't be able to flatly point out that someone is a liar).
Still, nothing new there I suppose. Unfortunately, you are going to find that certain posters in this forum (no names no Latin grammer test) consider anything that doesn't 100% confirm their pre-existing views of the universe is evidence that you are a pinko commie / rightwing loony (delete as inexplicable) - but I guess you are used to that from the Eurblog.
Incidentally, you might want to get the BBC Website designers to change the name of the link to this blog from the Editors Blog page - it's a tad out of date.
Complain about this comment
#77
Thanks absolutely fine, as long as I have sufficient income to being able to make a decision on the level of cover I want to pay for.
But if I don't earn that much money, then I don't have the luxury of that decision - and my lifestyle is irrelevant.
As it happens, I do have a sufficient level of income, I could afford decent insurance for myself, but I would be disgusted with myself if I was so selfish as to only think of myself. So, in lieu of a better alternative, I'm happy to pay in my taxes to ensure all of my countrymen (and women) have access to decent healthcare when they need it.
If I didn't, I don't think I could continue to call myself a human being.
Complain about this comment
67.
A country built on deceit,will die by deceit.
Complain about this comment
Hey: leave fruits and nuts out of this. Peaches and pecans are people too!
On a side note, rumor has it that El Presidente is going to be in Minneapolis this weekend to speak about healthcare reform at a large sporting arena. The Mayo Clinic is nearby and perhaps they have some efficiencies he wants to highlight in his new program.
I live in Minneapolis (yeah, I know, the winters are cold and long and always just around the corner....*sigh*....) and besides the inevitable freeway closures when the Pres is in town it will be nice to see if us humble Minnesotans have something to offer the nation.
Complain about this comment
As an American first, and a Republican second, I am tired of MY government taking MY paycheck and giving it to others, Paycheck - Healthcare - welfare- aid to foreign countries - social security - un-necessary wars - illiegal immigrants support - -. He is what I vote for, I vote for a return to a system where every man and woman was responsible for their own actions, including work, feeding their own families, negotiating with the doctor for their health care, etc;. If I have to make a choice and determine where I am willing to spend my tax dollars then I say spend it on Education (birth to death), so that every American is equipped to face the problems that confront them and this country, so that we can make the best choices including who we vote to represent us and how they perform. I do not believe that Health care is a Moral obligation or right, I have not found any document from our Constitution to your Magna Carta that GUARANTEES health care.Just because we are a rich nation should not be the basis of just needlessly and carelessly throwing around more money. I say we need to get our current "financial crisis" fixed before we take on ANY additional debt. Then and only then should we examine and debate a Health care system that is fair and equitable for all....and since under my system EVERYONE would be working, ALL of us AMERICANS would be paying for it.
Complain about this comment
Hey Mark, Your public demands that the BBC organize some tickets for you to go to the US open, to report on the interesting way US sporting events differ from the European standard, and what that might tell us about US culture.
I think you've given health care a solid work out. Surely it's time to lighten the mood, and to approach the American enigma from a new angle. And after all, what could be more American than midnight matches at the US Open, where folks get paid millions of dollars to play games?
Hint for scoop: Corner Federer, and ask him his view on the US healthcare debate, and what it means for a society to have universal health care. You could also investigate Djoker's policy of giving children of 9/11 victims his allocated seats. Djoker is serbian, and very anti war.
Complain about this comment
I am American married to a Brit. We have friends living in about 20 countries, and we have made this a topic of conversation with many of them. Listen, I am the first to admit we need reform. I am curious why Congress instead of medical professionals are working this. I skimmed the original bill back in July, which I am sure I read more than most of Congress.
I have done a lot of volunteer work with the homeless and less fortunate in this country, so I totally get that we need to provide healthcare for this segment of our society. But, I agree with your observation "the devil is in the details" and there are still none...including the fact that we aren't going to raise the deficit or increase taxes?
And finally, I have worked for 25 years to get to the income level that I enjoy now. I WORKED for it..no one gave it to me. I am tired of hearing the socialist comments that I should be paying more taxes because I am successful. Obama's plans to hurt the very rich because THEY DO NOT WORK. His plans hit the Upper Middle Class who actually drive the economy. So, I find his plans for funding his healthcare plan "very light".
Complain about this comment
#71 NJreader
"Why would doctors want to immigrate to the US anymore if we end up with the lower salaries for medical personnel that universal healthcare will demand?"
NJreader quote
Because even if the US had universal health care doctors would still get higher incomes than in some other nations. In some nations doctors make only $80,000/year. and in some places there are safety issues..such as Pakistan..so someone would want to immigrate for personal safety..
My husband has a PhD from Princeton and an undergraduate degree from Yale in physics and he makes about $125,000 a year, and we have a good lifestyle. Do you think a typical doctor should make more than $150,000? Imo some of the people becoming doctors don't really like their patients. They are in medicine for the money. I question the selection process for choosing who should become a doctor. (My ex brother in law is a doctor).
Complain about this comment
#78 washuotaku
Which province was that in? and what was the city? Why did she not see another primary care physician?
The woman I wrote about is in Welland Ontario and went to the hospital in Welland
There is an ongoing debate on the Niagara peninsula about which cities will have hospitals. Decisions are being made by a board that was appointed by political leaders and they have decided to close down some hospitals.
No system is perfect and there is going to be a strain on all the health care systems..
Complain about this comment
Mr. Obama is doing what he promised when he was elected. He said he would redistribute wealth and privilege, taking from the Haves and giving to the Have-nots, no matter how these assets had originally been acquired. We've seen this redistribution in some of the financial rescues, even down to which auto dealerships would remain open and which are to be closed under the dictate of the Federal Government. This again proves that when dealing with the Government, the adage that "All are equal, but some are more equal than others (if they have friends in D.C.)".
We still have the redistribution of wealth through taxation to look forward to. As predicted, the increased taxation of the Middle and Upper Classes Tax Payers is clearly signaled (but is yet to be disclosed) by Obama and is certain to favor the Lower Class Tax non-payers. Additionally, the commitment of Trillions under the guise of pork-ladened Recovery spending is going to result in the overall pauperization of the U.S. Middle Class. Of course, the Poor will do well with their increased entitlements (with still little or no taxes to pay) and the Wealthy, seeing the future, have already placed much of their own wealth beyond the taxman's reach through clever tax shelters, off-shore investments and other devices. Who does that leave to do the heavy lifting?
Let's see now. His policies have divided the Red states from the Blue, the Patriots from the "One Worlders" and the Young versus the Old. Take a look next time to see how this last division, Young versus Old is playing out in the world we find ourselves in today.
Complain about this comment
#89 bethpa,
Toronto, Ontario. I am not sure why my Aunt didn't see another primary care physician; or if she did why she didn't mention it.
I agree no system is perfect, there is always snags.
I pesonally am against Universal Healthcare simply by a cost standpoint alone; people should take responsibility in there own health. I think its a more of an idiology issue because most Americans (myself included) believe its the individual choice to make decisions, while in other societies its more of a group decision; which is akin to socialism.
Complain about this comment
ref. 68, bethpa:
"Is America so incompetent that it can not keep up with other western nations?"
That's not the issue. Read the thread. It serves as a remarkably good cross-section of American opinion. In it you'll find many posts in which the author clearly doesn't recognize universal health care as a desirable goal (in one case going so far as to say it is immoral), so they're not going to see the lack of it as incompetence, rather superiority.
I find it very , er, original thinking?
Also, to all of you who are lining up to defend your country's health care systems: all politics is local. None of this campaign is intended for your consumption. It's internally targeted alarmist propaganda, and I believe the majority of Americans recognize it as such. Probably best to ignore it, I think.
Complain about this comment
#79 mischievousdoug
The founding fathers set up a system where there was a balance of powers between powerful groups. But that system of government has been overwhelmed by the money from corporations and their lobbyists. They have interfered with the systems that should be regulating the corporations.
Be careful who you trust. I would not trust people whose primary motivation is money...or whose only interests are making money. Look for some moral basis for a point of view. Christians, following Christ's example, would want to help the sick whether they have money or not.
Why do other nations give universal health care but the US can not?
Does that make any sense? There are many systems in different nations...but the US stands out as not having health care for all its citizens.
Anyway this might interest you:
Canadian Council of Churches comments on U.S. health care debate
http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2009/08/20/canadian-council-of-churches-comments-on-us-health-care/
Complain about this comment
As universally despised as the notion is, insurance companies cannot survive without their preexisting clauses. Nobody would get health insurance until they became sick, then would drop it when well again. Taken to the most absurd example, you could break a leg, crawl to the phone, take out a policy, get $20,000.00 of treatment over the next three months, then drop the policy.
They can't do it. They'll all go broke.
Compulsory participation will ease that burden but the consequences of opting out will not be stiff enough to make it effective. It would only work if compulsory participation included a jail sentence for refusal. That'll never happen, of course.
With the ever-present government option with no burden of concerns about a balance sheet, the private insurance companies will go under. They can't stay in business accumulating endless debt like Uncle Sam.
They'll all be gone within two years.
U.S. medicine will be 100% government funded and managed.
Complain about this comment
Most people think the homily "all politics is local" (used by AndyPost at #92) was originated by former Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill, but here's some interesting background on its origin:
http://www.geekbooks.com/all_politics_is_local_6.html
Complain about this comment
Failure can already be declared, since there isn't going to be a single-payer universal coverage plan. Any other alternative is simply too little, too late. Obama Copacabana cravenly capitulated to the corporate class long before he was ever stage-managed into the White House. Any plan crafted by either wing of the Duopoly Party, Republicrats or Democans, is going to cater to business interests first. That's what Obama really "is good at". If he had a shred of political integrity he would try and reclaim the flag from corporate interests. At least he was half right, "large-heartedness, concern for others is not Democrat or Republican"...which is exactly why we can expect any rump insurance plan to be as miserly as possible. "As is, he said, more controversially, 'an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in'"...which, of course is not at all "controversial" when government "steps in" to succor corporate interests as it so often does. It's not at all controversial for government to lavish hundreds of billions on the financial crooks, but try and spend a few quid on the working class and it's a national scandal. In the end we'll probably be stuck with something like the Massachusetts plan which does far more for insurance companies - who always come first - than it does for the needy. All fork-tongued Barack has to do now is "persuade the public" to give up the most popular and most sensible plan - single-payer universal coverage - so that he and his Republican cronies can go on "making deals on the Hill" to serve their corporate masters. So far, so bad!
Complain about this comment
As a Brit in the USA for the last 7.5 yrs, I find the healthcare debate extremely useful in understanding the American psyche. Doing business in the USA, the American psyche is something you have to know. One thing is crystal clear to me. The British and Americans do not think a like or even use the same logic evaluating an issue. Do not be fooled because the languages are similar, because the interpretation can be very different for an American compared to a Brit. You can see this in one very significant issue. No American has a right to healthcare. They have a right to free-speech, a right to bear arms but not to healthcare. It seems there is large proportion of Americans who want to keep it this way. Why? I have yet to really find out. The reason, I am sure, is in what they believe it means to be an American. Because to be an American seems to imply to many that you do not need help from anyone. That you should be free to do whatever you please to do..........As as one intelligent engineer said to me "I am not having the government telling me what I can and cannot do for my healthcare....."
Complain about this comment
From comment #96: "...so that he [President Obama] and his Republican cronies can go on 'making deals on the Hill...'."
No, I think he's just being realistic, and he's trying to get something through, almost anything at this point.
There will be no deals on the Hill, not with Republicans anyway. Republicans care not a whit about health care reform. They care only about making Obama fail. Health care reform is Obama's signature issue, and he must fail. He could propose the most conservative plan imaginable, and Republicans would still say NO, because Obama must fail. The simple reason is Power. Republicans lost Power big time last fall, and they stand to regain it in Congressional elections next year if Obama falls flat on his face.
Republicans have to get Power back, and if millions of Americans have to go uninsured to get it, so be it.
Complain about this comment
ref. 94,
"Compulsory participation will ease that burden but the consequences of opting out will not be stiff enough to make it effective. It would only work if compulsory participation included a jail sentence for refusal."
Works pretty well for car insurance and not having required coverage doesn't carry a jail sentence.
The cops demand proof of insurance when they pull you over, and that happens before you have been involved in an accident for which you need insurance.
I wonder what event would trigger a proof of health insurance demand. It can't be a visit to the doctor. You're already sick (already had your accident, so to speak) at that point.
Complain about this comment
Clever epithets (#96) add no weight to an argument, and they cease to be clever after repeated use.
Complain about this comment
justmeintheUSA (#97), you make an interesting observation. However, if your business in the US causes you to interact with persons in a particular type of business, and primarily with engineers, you might encounter a greater proportion of libertarians than you would encounter in the general population.
Complain about this comment
97 justme
What is bothersome about the entire "debate" is that supposedly intelligent people, like your engineer friend, are jumping on the bandwagon, and latching onto other people's explanations, of what the various plans propose, instead of doing a half hour of reading to find out for themselves.
I honestly don't get it, either- as an American I find it shameful that some people prefer to be told what to think. Nowhere in the proposed legislation does it indicate that the government is going to tell people what they can and can't do with their healthcare... and yet the distortions continue.
I was extremely disturbed earlier this week when a woman involved with me in my son's Cub Scout pack proudly proclaimed that she and her husband were going to DC this weekend for the "tea party." She's unemployed and has medical issues, and her husband works as a roofer, so I doubt they have health coverage- and yet they've bought the spiel without trying to find out for themselves, and are convinced that they're fighting to save truth, justice, and the American Way.
Someone earlier on this post stated that this is an indictment of the American educational system. I'd say this is 100% accurate- far too many don't want to be bothered to think for themselves.
Complain about this comment
ref. 98, Douglas:
That's a 2.2 trillion dollar industry you're talking about dismantling there. The U.S. can't afford the millions of heath care jobs that would be lost. Our economy depends on that industry. With the auto sector on its knees, voluntarily taking down a larger sector is completely unrealistic.
The single-payer system has a lot of things going for it, no doubt, but that ship sailed over 100 years ago as far as the U.S. is concerned.
Complain about this comment
NPR's Fresh Air has an interesting interview today. The author posits that much of the voice of the Republican Party and of the Right is a direct result of the takeover of the party by the Christian Right, esp. since the election:www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112683449
Interesting perspective, and disturbing if true; the party as described only stands to become more and more radicalized.
Complain about this comment
While health care is not, as noted by justmeintheUSA (#97), an explicit right under the US Constitution, there is the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the powers of the Leglative Branch under Article I:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ...
The Congress clearly has the power to enact universal health care under its charter to "promote the general welfare." We have more than 200 years of legislative history built on the foundation of the Constitution. It is not necessary that every act of the Congress to improve the lot of our citizens have an explicit Constitutional basis.
Complain about this comment
ref. 102, via-media:
"Someone earlier on this post stated that this is an indictment of the American educational system. I'd say this is 100% accurate- far too many don't want to be bothered to think for themselves."
And yet American history is full of examples of the founding fathers expressing distrust and fear of a powerful central government. They wrote their concerns into the Constitution. They wanted self-sufficiency to be the rule. They felt the People are only strong if they don't depend on the government for their basic needs. Seen in that light, universal health care weakens the power of the People to control the government.
But are the People really stronger unhealthy than healthy? That seems contradictory to me.
Complain about this comment
ViaMedia (#104) "Interesting perspective, and disturbing if true; the party as described only stands to become more and more radicalized."
Perhaps so, but the more radical they become, the more their fortunes will decline. And the more their fortunes decline, the more likely that moderates, such as those represented by the Republican Leadership Council, will be able to regain control.
The RNC proposal for health care legislation is published in the linked site.
Complain about this comment
97. justmeintheUSA: "Because to be an American seems to imply to many that you do not need help from anyone. That you should be free to do whatever you please to do..........As as one intelligent engineer said to me 'I am not having the government telling me what I can and cannot do for my healthcare.....'"
*************
Or that you make decisions based on your own judgment and not a bureaucrat's. Our bureaucrats may not be as capable as yours. In fact, they are not known for their competence. Just the opposite.
102. Via-MediaNot: Not sure why you would assume that the above engineer friend is "latching onto other people's explanations". It seems the opposite is true. It's the interpretation of the details in the bills that has created the angst about them.
It is not a strong argument that anyone who doesn't support a government-run option isn't smart or is somehow incapable of reaching this conclusion on his/her own.
This is the mistake Obama keeps making. As if only he could get them to understand what he wants, they'd somehow change their views. What if they get it and just don't like it?
Complain about this comment
That should have been "RLC," of course, not "RNC."
Complain about this comment
#97 justlittleoldeUK;
"One thing is crystal clear to me. The British and Americans do not think a like or even use the same logic evaluating an issue."
That is correct, we do not see the world through the same eyes in most ways in life. In the UK like the rest of Europe, the government is the first place people turn to for help. Often Europeans are suspicious and jealous of their neighbors. In the US it's the other way around. Americans are generally suspicious of government, don't trust it, and it's the last place we turn to for help. Even the term "government job" has derogatory connotations here. We know our neighbors best and we turn to them and trust them when we need help. We do not regard government officials with elitist awe but with an eye somewhere between incompetent and corrupt. We do our best to limit their power and the amount of our money they can get their hands on. It is already far far far too much. The "L Word" liberal has come to represent the worst of our society, people who have endless plans to tax and spend our money, their Robin Hood mentality has no limits.
"No American has a right to healthcare. They have a right to free-speech, a right to bear arms but not to healthcare. It seems there is large proportion of Americans who want to keep it this way. Why?"
You can go out and shoot your mouth off about whatever you like and it costs me nothing. You can go out an buy all the hunting rifles you want and it costs me nothing. But when you tell me that everyone has a right to medical care, that is license to steal as much of my money as you feel you can get away with to pay for it. The government already spends far too much, does too much, intrudes too much into our lives. This is one more area they want to get involved in. Many of us say no, that is going too far. And for the most part, we don't really care what foreigners think. They can run their country however they like. We here alone will decide what we will do. Getting to the truth about what other nations do is hard enough. We may learn from their successes but more likely than not we'll learn from their mistakes instead. They have a long track record for making big ones.
Complain about this comment
Obama is an executive, not a legislator. Congress has already watered down his health plan. As it stands there will be higher costs for those already paying, with no advantages. As long as a corrupt Congress continues to take money from health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, there is little hope for us.
Complain about this comment
103. AndyPost:
ref. 98, Douglas:
That's a 2.2 trillion dollar industry you're talking about dismantling there. The U.S. can't afford the millions of heath care jobs that would be lost. Our economy depends on that industry. With the auto sector on its knees, voluntarily taking down a larger sector is completely unrealistic.
************************
I find it interesting that Obama rarely talks about health care as an industry. Larry Kudlow discussed this on Bloomberg Radio this past weekend. He referred to an economist he had interviewed who said health care could be a growth industry that raises all other industries along with it. It was very encouraging.
My own conclusion is that Obama sees health care in very personal, humane terms, which is a good thing, but errs in also seeing it through the liberal prism of helpless victim vs. aggressor. He has made it a battle between haves and have nots. Unfortunately, he now has a raging battle on his hands that he's largely created.
Complain about this comment
Did he pull it off? Absolutely not. In fact, for the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows, it was business as usual in this country. President Obama was booed by Republicans, including one Congressman Wilson, who called him a liar, when the President said that there was no truth behind Republican statements that the undocumented community would be covered by this plan. They booed and jeered because they don't think its true, and they don't believe they should be covered. On the other hand, the President Obama was cheered and supported by his party when he made the statement that they would not be. So, 12 million people, many of whom contribute greatly to this country, many of whom are in America because America's foreign policy has crippled the economies in their countries, are getting second-class treatment again.
So, did the President deliver? I guess if you're a racist, anti-immigrant, imperialist and power-hungry, and your goal was to discriminate and punish a community that has done nothing but contribute to the fabric of America, then yes, he sure did. But I wouldn't be too happy about it. In fact, that 20 second blurb marked a dark history in America for it proved openly how these politicians view an entire community.
Complain about this comment
Mark, the idea of a public option for health insurance seems less like socialism than the idea of making it compulsory to purchase health insurance. That is effectively a big brand new tax to pay for health care, just one that would go to the pockets of the insurance companies. Compulsory purchase of health care seems more radical to me, i bet you that will be the concession when the final bill passes as opposed to the public option side of it.
Complain about this comment
108 Andrea in NY
My apologies if I was unclear- I was not intending all opponents of health care reform, only the mindless ones who do not take the time to read the proposed legislation for themselves, and parrot what they've been told to think. As far as the engineer in justme's example, the choice of language- "I am not having the government telling me what I can and cannot do for my healthcare....."- is a catchphrase of many of those who follow this mindless state, because if they'd read the proposals, nowhere do they state that the government will be telling people what they can and cannot do.
For the record, I am just as opposed to those on the Far Left who likewise fail to think for themselves. Conversely, I will not ever state that those who Do read for themselves and still oppose the legislation are unthinking drones- there are several valid arguments that can and are being made (i.e. the cost) but these are being drowned in the hysteria.
Factcheck.org has several good rundowns of the facts of the discussions, if people don't have the time to digest the entire legislation themselves.
And, I have never insulted and disparaged you, so please don't stoop to such tactics. It cheapens valid discussions of the facts.
Complain about this comment
I'm an Expat Brit who after 15 years finally, in Feb 2009 achieved US citizenship, I lived in UK for 40 years and was conditioned to waiting for doctors appointments and delays in treatment, mediocre service,dirty unhygienic facilities and dismissive attitudes from the admin staff, we have an ageing parent back in the UK who is still experiencing this level of service and is almost certainly suffering as a result of a underfunded,demotivated,overstreched Public Health service
The quality and level of service we receive in USA is fantastic, immediate attention at both GP and consultant level,superb medical facilities and highly motivated admin and professional medical personnel
Obama is a great orator but with no realistic or pragmatic content, he dismisses any criticism or questions with platitudes and sound bite type replies. He thinks he can convince the American people to accept his fiscally bankrupt proposals without question and dismisses questioners like a naughty school child who doesn't understand.
As a very new US citizen, I believe his self opinionated and patronizing attitude does a great disservice to the USA general public, he displays an obvious lack of understanding and distain of the real strength of Americans,their commitment to freedom of choice, self help and compassion towards their fellow citizens.
Things do need to change,there is no argument, but not as the result of an idialistically naive and inexperienced collection of vote catching sound bites that have been cobbled together to satisfy his ego and to secure his historic presidential record.
During his election campaign Obama placed great store on bringing the nation together but in my 15 years in USA I have never experienced such distrust and disunity with the government of the country from my US friends and fellow citizens.
I believe his fiscal policies and cynically dismissive attitude of any alternative ideas make him completely incapable of successfully uniting the greatest democracy in the world. The USA is fundamentally capitalist and despite the world wide economic setbacks of the last year, failure to harness this inherant national strength demonstrates Obama's basic lack of understanding of "America and Americans"
Complain about this comment
Too early to tell. Some sort of reform is needed. We are venturing into uncharted waters, no matter what, and some sort of change is needed.
Can the President get the legislation passed? That remains to be seen.
Complain about this comment
Ref.112, Andreain:
"I find it interesting that Obama rarely talks about health care as an industry."
I'd be surprised if either side went there. No one wants to talk about health (and lives) in terms of money. Whatever reality is, that's just too cold for Americans, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
The U.S. government has yet to demonstrate that it can run anything efficiently or within budget. It is absolutely silly for our new president to suggest otherwise. He said we will eliminate fraud and waste. Aside from the fact that the elimination of fraud and waste is promised by just about everyone running for office, if the government is so good at running things, HOW DID ALL OF THIS FRAUD AND WASTE HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The U.S. government is very good at waging war. Is our president suggesting a war on the sick? I understand the dead require little health care.
Complain about this comment
The truth about Obama.
Now it can be told.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3Ax8UQ9ac&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fandrewsullivan.theatlantic.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
Complain about this comment
The outburst of Representative Joseph Wilson during President Obama's speech last night was shocking and reprehensible to most Americans. It was behavior completely unacceptable no matter what Wilson felt. He clearly was not in control of himself and later apologized to the President who accepted his apology. He also owes the American People an apology for disgracing the Congress and demeaning the dignity of the Office of the President.
It may come as a shock to many Americans that there are societies where people have so little dignity, so little self respect let alone respect for other people that this kind of outburst is not only routine throughout their proceedings, it is expected and accepted. They even try to rationalize it by claiming that it is part of their public "debate." Clearly such a society can hardly call itself a democracy when people are routinely shouted down and not given a chance to speak unless they can speak over those whose catcalls perpetually interrupt them and would drown them out. Such a body resembles a zoo of braying jackasses far more than a deliberative body performing the work of an elected government. It is therefore not surprising that when these people travel abroad, they bring this cultural baggage with them and feel they have every right to impose it wherever they go and on whomever they please. They seem surprised and offended when others react to their boorishness with outrage at the offense to their sensibilities. That is their problem. Little do they understand why some local people elsewhere don't like them and wish they would leave if they can't learn to behave themselves like civilized men and women.
Complain about this comment
# 116 Tenbrit wrote:
"During his election campaign Obama placed great store on bringing the nation together but in my 15 years in USA I have never experienced such distrust and disunity with the government of the country from my US friends and fellow citizens."
Really? Not even during the recent presidency of GWB, who, as I recall, left office with record levels of unpopularity?
Perhaps this says more about your friends than it does about the US.
"I believe his fiscal policies and cynically dismissive attitude of any alternative ideas make him completely incapable of successfully uniting the greatest democracy in the world."
Once again, see under Bush [G.W.] and Cheney [R.].
Strange how deficits never seem to be a problem when there's a Rep in the White House.....
Complain about this comment
106 AndyPost
While I agree with you to a limited extent, the founders had to face early on the consequences of a too-weak central government; the Articles of Confederation were quickly scrapped for the more powerful model of the Constitution. Which was agreed upon unanimously...
I think what the founders feared most wasn't the government- back then there really wasn't that much need for government. The microscopic standing army and navy, the postal service were paid for by very small import and excise taxes. But the country grew up, and grew more complex and the population boomed. We would be no country at all now if the government hadn't adapted, and grown with it.
I think what is the biggest danger is the power of the executive branch. But the idea that the "government" is something separate and apart from the people that vote in this republic, something to distrust, is I think a mistake. Mistrust perhaps the executive power- but the majority of government employees are just trying to do their jobs, to serve. If we separate ourselves from them, it is a step on the road to anarchy.
Complain about this comment
119 Mrbowtie
Well run, efficient government agencies? How about:
U.S. Coast Guard
FBI
Public Health Service
National Park Service
Graduate School, USDA
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Management and Budget
Government Accountability Office
And what about the VA? Despite being a favorite punching bag, trying to close a regional medical facility sets off storms of protest from vets and their families... but it's socialized medicine...
Complain about this comment
120 John-in-Dublin
Brilliant! But it neglected the obvious references to Hitler and Stalin...
Complain about this comment
I agree with #98 and I do believe that Republicans want Obama to fail more than they care about health care ...anything.
Just a few rabid people can actually take democracy out of the hands of the majority. Does anyone remember the ERA failing because
Too many people thought we'd have unisex bathrooms and that women would be raped and pillaged if it passed?
People are duhhhhhh ...not smart at all. Its a fact....look it up.
Think about it, the average IQ is 100 so that means 50 percent of all people's IQ is under 100. I will not judge them, but if this means no one reads the newspapers and are only able to watch TV...
WELL UHHHH OHHHHH...watch out world.
Complain about this comment
80 DC yes nuts that was it. I was thinking chocolate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8H4IC9ttIU&feature=related
Complain about this comment
All that "people should keep healthy etc" RUBBISH
People work . Work kills.
there are all sorts of poisons. Why should we pay for your self induced cancers from weeding your garden every week with some toxic spray.
the perfume you bought for cheap.
Or the bad choice in construction used in the rental.
the fumes at the job that no one can be bothered to fix the vents on. the people that get RSI sitting at chat rooms.
the kid that falls off his bike because some idiot swerved their car in front of them.
The fisherman who eats too many mercury polluted fish
the toxin from your neighbours burn pile .
There are so many other things that kill are you going to allow microscopic inspection of your life style (certain adult entertainment;) have a drink? drive too much?
Will the insurance agencies be able to demand drug tests and tobacco tests and caffeine tests and then carry on until they figure out how to test EXACTLY WHAT YOU EAT.
Because there's the biggie.
Do they ban the dangerous foods, the additives that make hyper kids the vaccines that occasionally turn a possible whooping cough into a life long life support case(it happened).
Did that potato chip exceed your yearly limit. did you forget to go for your walk. ALL regulated by the insurance industry.
The slip on the ice walking home to get your health system mandated exercise.
SHOWERS!!!
Complain about this comment
# 121 MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"It is therefore not surprising that when these people travel abroad, they bring this cultural baggage with them and feel they have every right to impose it wherever they go and on whomever they please. They seem surprised and offended when others react to their boorishness with outrage at the offense to their sensibilities. That is their problem. Little do they understand why some local people elsewhere don't like them and wish they would leave if they can't learn to behave themselves like civilized men and women."
Someone buy this man a mirror.....
Complain about this comment
Sure it is bad form to heckle the President of the United States during his speach to a joint session of congress. Very rude. The Representive from South Carolina looses cool points for his lack of etiquite.
But time for politeness has passed: The president and his party currently in power have shown that they do not want or need Bipartisan support to force more intrusive and expensive goverment programs on Americans. Someone needs to stand up and tell Obama: “You Lie!”
Complain about this comment
Reform of American health care is needed, but Obama and his far left cronies are the wrong people for the job.
The way HMO's abuse patients is criminal, but insurance is only one facet of our health care system.
The American Medical Association, and the FDA, has been in bed with the pharmaceutical companies for so long that it is hard to trust your doctors when they push all kinds of new chemical compounds on you.
I grew up poor without health insurance and rarely ever got sick. I've had full medical coverage for 15 years, & these last two winters I have been sick more than ever before, the medicines I was prescribed made me even more ill. I do like the comfort that I can take my kid to the doctor anytime he needs it, but for myself I still prefer to let nature take it's course.
I don't like being forced into choosing something that is wrong for me & I especially don’t like being forced to choose something that’s wrong for my child.
There are millions of Americans who, like me, prefer the freedom to tell the whole corrupt medical industry: "I don't want your poisons, or the illnesses they cause."
Complain about this comment
Isn’t it ironic that democrats wish to portray their stance on Obama's health care debacle as the morally correct choice?
These are the very people who routinely deny the existence of good or evil as religious constructs. An example of how far the moral compass democratic party has gone to crazy: They recently voted to legalize pedophilia (and other such blights upon humanity), because that is 'sexual preference' & it would be 'hate speech' to condemn it.
Complain about this comment
123 VM; you are mistaken. The Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights which further limited the power of government beyond the body of the Constitution. Fear of government power was the overriding concern of the founding fathers. They wanted only enough government to function and no more. To limit the power of any one individual or group, they devised the ingenious scheme of breaking up power through the division of powers between the state and federal governments and the separation of powers between the three co-equal branches of government. They set what they expected to be three potentially equally corrupt and self serving groups against each other at the federal level and then set the federal government against the states. They've been battling each other at the margins for power ever since. No other government I think is similarly constructed with so much distrust. Then they assured that should the system break down anyway, the press as "the fourth estate" and almost a branch of government would run roughshod over all of them. And they do.
Mistrust of government stems from colonial times when the King of England had absolute power over them. The American government and the society it gave rise to is a nearly complete rejection of all existing philosophies of government and society that prevailed in the 18th century. In many ways little has changed here or there. You can see endless fatal flaws for example in the British system which is neither democratic nor open. The people voted to ratify a trade agreement when they joined the EU and what they got was the complete relinquishing of their national sovereignty with no way to stop it as a result. In fact they are such mewlish sheep, their most vocal protests are barely occasional grumblings that are largely ignored. There was no national debate over it such as we see here now about health care whatsoever. That's just how they are.
Complain about this comment
#92 Andypost
Well I was raised as a Christian so it bothers me to see a wealthy nation ignore the problems of its own citizens when people have done nothing wrong except to get ill.
But perhaps you believe in survival of the fittest and think its better to cull the herd by allowing people to die. Its also called the law of the jungle and its a form of eugenics.
"But are the People really stronger unhealthy than healthy? That seems contradictory to me."
Andypost quote
There you got it..the lack of good health care for all will damage America.
America imo will fail if it continues on its current path. No other western nation is allowing large numbers of its people to go without health care and the number without health care is growing.
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." - Catherine Aird quote
Complain about this comment
Doubled over in Dublin;
"Someone buy this man a mirror....."
I've been in over 40 countries and I've been well behaved every minute I was in every one of them. I was aware that I was a guest in a foreign nation where the social norms and laws I'm accostomed to at home didn't necessarily apply and breaking them could have serious consequences.
I'm in my own country now having my say. You don't like people disagreeing with you. You are a European with a European mentality....tyrannical and intolerent of dissent. Hypocritical to the nth degree. That's good because it makes you entirely predictable. You don't like what I post? Don't read it.
Complain about this comment
#91 washhuotaku
Should car insurance be up to the individual? And should people have to wear safety belts? How about children..should they be protected? Is it all right for a child to ride in the back open part of a pick up truck? Should a child wear a safety belt and sit only in the back seat of a car?
At some point dividing lines have to be made about when the law will step in and make decisions for people who are not responsible in their actions, especially when those irresponsible actions affect the well being of the group.
I also tend to be an individualist and I don't like authority ..but I also recognize that we need to have a population that is in good health. and that there are people who are irresponsible about health care issues.
Doctors are NOT giving good advice to their patients. They prescribe too many drugs and are not helping people to make the life style choices that they really need.
I believe America is in the process of failing because of the punitive way we treat one another when one of us has a problem. When people do not follow the law or regulations I think it is better to correct in a positive way than to punish.
If someone has been found not to have paid in for health insurance then they should be required to help those who are ill. No jail time..jails are expensive and counter productive...Jails make people worse citizens.
Complain about this comment
ref. 123, Via-Media:
You miss my point... largely because I realize now I didn't make it.
Our host asked a few threads back where the passion against universal health care comes from. I've been struggling to answer that question ever since.
The point I intended to make was that there is indeed an educated argument against universal health care. I learned about this stuff in high-school history after all.
I personally don't think it wins the day because I am, like you, somewhat progressive. I think the founding fathers were, too. They purposely left parts of the Constitution vague, precisely because they knew times would change. In so doing, they left interpretation of the Constitution up to the people of the day. I'd argue that if we pass a universal health care bill, it is indeed the will of the People and therefore in line with what the framers had in mind.
Reading the posts in this thread, don't you get the impression that the opposition feels this is an assault on their personal liberties? The only way I can make sense of that is to guess that it's a cultural memory from the very earliest days of the country.
Otherwise, it's just plain mystifying.
Complain about this comment
ref. 134, bethpa:
"...it bothers me to see a wealthy nation ignore the problems of its own citizens when people have done nothing wrong except to get ill."
Yes, me, too.
"But perhaps you believe in survival of the fittest and think its better to cull the herd by allowing people to die. Its also called the law of the jungle and its a form of eugenics."
No, I don't believe in any of that. Neither side believes that. After all, opponents to the bill object to it on just those grounds, that the government will treat people like animals, to be killed off when they've served their purpose to the government. I think you're setting up a straw man there.
Complain about this comment
# 103. At 9:55pm on 10 Sep 2009, AndyPost wrote:
ref. 98, Douglas:
"That's a 2.2 trillion dollar industry you're talking about dismantling there. The U.S. can't afford the millions of heath care jobs that would be lost. "
Um - there will be plenty of job opportunities providing actual health care to the new enrollees.
Can you say 'job training program'?
KScurmudgeon
it was unavoidable
Complain about this comment
Sorry guys the bottom line it's illegal,all health is the states job to do.And even if you talk nice but use a baseball bat it's wrong.And until you can pay for it you do not save money, IE I have money cause I have checks can not work here.his speech should be withdrawn and come back with more input next year.I have ins. and pay for it,and I do think we all can have it but it takes time.So Don't Tread On Me .
Complain about this comment
116. Tenbrit: I would say you've nailed it. Perfectly.
115. Via-Media: Apologies. No offense intended.
118. AndyPost: "No one wants to talk about health (and lives) in terms of money. Whatever reality is, that's just too cold for Americans, don't you think?"
True, even discussing costs appears heartless. It's just odd that Obama has so little interest in our economy except as it affects people personally. Again, that's noble, but it makes for a very big blind spot. I wonder how much he really knows about economics and capitalism. My guess is not much and not interested.
Complain about this comment
136. bethpa: "Doctors are NOT giving good advice to their patients. They prescribe too many drugs and are not helping people to make the life style choices that they really need."
Yes, however, patients are making their own decisions. All the advice in the world will not affect certain people's behavior. This is the part that's largely ignored when discussing improved outcomes.
Complain about this comment
138 AndyPost
Both sides of the debate are complex and with some hidden agendas.
I do believe that there are people in the US who would like other Americans to die because they are not thought strong enough to survive.. They do believe in survival of the fittest but ashamed to use those words. They prefer to say they support Ayn Rand's philosophies. These people are social Darwinists and often racists.
Complain about this comment
138. AndyPost: "Reading the posts in this thread, don't you get the impression that the opposition feels this is an assault on their personal liberties? The only way I can make sense of that is to guess that it's a cultural memory from the very earliest days of the country.
Otherwise, it's just plain mystifying"
***************
It's not the health care public option in a vacuum. It's the bank bailouts, GM bankruptcy, etc. You do have to admit that our government's role has grown substantially under Obama. It's too much, too fast for people who have different ideas about what the role and size of government should be.
It's as if Obama greatly expanded government and is now trying to make the case for expanding it further -- using the need for health care reform as his justification. The problem is that health care, alone, is not now even enough to justify all the government expansion to date -- and health care is a big issue to every American so you can imagine just how unhappy they really are.
Obama used up whatever tolerance these people had for big government a few interventions ago.
Complain about this comment
137. At 02:53am on 11 Sep 2009, AndyPost wrote:
'Reading the posts in this thread, don't you get the impression that the opposition feels this is an assault on their personal liberties? The only way I can make sense of that is to guess that it's a cultural memory from the very earliest days of the country.'
You're close, my friend, but you must not have lived among them.
1. They firmly believe that the responsibility for oneself is one's own, and no one elses. Freedom is derived from holding responsibility : surrendering responsibility gives power over one's self to some one else. Self respect derives from keeping this in balance.
2. Like the founding fathers, they do not trust a remote government that they can not observe and have a say in, i.e. the central government. Power abstracted, concentrated, and remote is too strong an opportunity for corruption.
3. Taxation should be firmly under the control of those who would be taxed, that is it should be voluntary, decided by a consensus of the taxpayers. Any other decision to tax is oppression and theft. (In todays' process, a near majority of recipients of government largess are in or near to a position to seize the property of the minority who are more affluent through a legal taxation, and direct that it be given to themselves.)
4. If the government has responsibility for your health care costs, they naturally will assume the power to control your behaviors that impact those costs.
Together, these issues and more that are like them protect and define liberty to these people. You will easily recognize them if you have studied our revolutionary period.
KScurmudgeon
patriot
Complain about this comment
I on the other hand subscribe to the above while seeing an even greater evil than taxes in the current structure of the health care marketplace. It blocks the consumer having knowledge of the costs or outcomes of services, isolates most consumers from the decision of which insurance provider will pay for and manage his care since that decision is made by his or her employer, and never permits a pubic comparison of outcomes and costs for any part of the system, doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers, or insurers.
Add to this that the essential principle of an insurance pool, that all risks are shared across the widest possible pool of insured, has been gutted throughout our system by the insurance companies themselves, who cherry pick their customers, reject coverage for pre-existing conditions, and sometimes even refuse to cover or to continue to cover conditions after they look to become expensive. We are not talking about supplying spare parts for a dwindling number of automobiles. We are talking about life or death, and the quality of human lives, a baby, a child, a young person, a parent and worker in their prime, retirees who have earned and paid for sustenance when they no longer can work, our elderly. Insurance companies routinely take these folk's money and then let them down.
Transparency, the right to know and compare quality, cost, and service, and the fulfillment of the contract as written - these are conservative principles, and without them no business should be allowed to continue in a fair market place. If bad businesses do continue to fail to perform and yet prosper, it is likely evidence that the market place has been forcibly skewed to prevent the benefits of true competition.
KScurmudgeon
conservative for change
Complain about this comment
144. At 03:58am on 11 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
a good post -
I agree. We will have to learn to deal with our own complexity.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
121. At 01:11am on 11 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
'The outburst of Representative Joseph Wilson during President Obama's speech last night was shocking and reprehensible to most Americans. It was behavior completely unacceptable no matter what Wilson felt.
It may come as a shock to many Americans that there are societies where people have so little dignity, so little self respect let alone respect for other people that this kind of outburst is not only routine throughout their proceedings, it is expected and accepted. '
Hail and well met for once, golden one
You have forgotten about Jerry Springer.
'nuf said.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
AndreainNY
"All the advice in the world will not affect certain people's behavior."
Doctors are not giving the correct advice at all. Nor are they following up to see the outcomes or whether patients are taking the prescriptions. They do not check to see if the patients are following the recommended dosages and times to take the medications.
Most people do not know how many calories they have to eliminate to lose one pound of weigth (3500). They do not know what is a normal portion of food. They do not know the calorie count of the meals they are eating in restaurants.
People should be encouraged to exercise....either in a gym or with some activities. There is an epidemic in the US now with weight problems that will cost America if no strategies are found to stop it.
Complain about this comment
Well Mr Obama's intentions are right, provide free heathcare to those who need it most. But his timing could not have been worse.
The last eight years under Bush have pushed the centre so far right that anything even slightly left has the Republicans screaming "communist!". Now with all the bank bailouts and the car industry bailouts (which I beleive the Republicans would have been forced to do as well under McCain, had he won) America is moving left of that "centre" line into the unknown. The insurance companies and the right wing media have been playing on that fear of the unkown to whip up near hyterical opposition to any sort of reform.
I might be pointing out the obvious to those who have been following this issue but the point I'm trying to make is this debate is as much about emotion and innate belief as it is about practicalities.
Obama could decend from heaven with a halo around his head a zillon dollars of in cash in each hand to pay for it all and the conservatives of America would still have more faith in their faceless corporations than that "evil socialist" up on capital hill.
Though from a objective point of view one cannot help but be impressed (if not terrifed subjectively) by FOX News for their role in conditioning America against any sort of reform. Their hatcket job on the NHS is propaganda anyone in INGSOC inner circle would be proud of.
Complain about this comment
Shall I try for five posts? It is quiet this late; please forgive me.
Something the President has failed to explain, and that I have not seen explained anywhere, is how the public option would reduce the costs and improve the service among private insurance carriers, if they competed with it in a fair and open, that is transparent, marketplace.
If people can see and compare the quality of outcomes, choice of doctors, hospitals, procedures and care given, including such things as consumer and independent ratings of accuracy of billing procedures, customer service, timeliness, perceived fairness and the fulfullment of expectations, consumers will readily consider more than mere cost. They will shop around if given the opportunity, and if the government run service is as bad as everyone fears, they will go for effective, customer-friendly private care over a troublesome, undependable government service.
If we are given a fair chance to see and compare all the deliverables, we will have better confidence in the choice we make, and the competitors will have a level playing field, maybe for the first time, and be directly accountable to the consumers needs and preferences.
We have all had our own experiences with private insurance company bureaucrats, so we all have a real basis for comparison with the dreaded government bureaucrats. If the government truly delivers better service, and it shouldn't be hard to do at first, the insurance companies who cannot compete in providing services up to the new standard do not deserve a bailout. In an open market if the private system actually does prove it can be better for us, the consumer, I predict the government option will be closed down.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
As far as speeches go it was a mediocre performance compared to the speeches Fidel Castro gave, or Adolf Hitler, Lenin, or Mussolini. They were mesmerizing, but look at the results. All brought endless misery upon their countrymen and the world. American people are used to bumbling, non intellectual politicians, because they reflect the general population. Politicians and talk show hosts deliberately go "uhm" to sound as one of the common folks.
America is going trough a transformation, and it is not for the better. The younger generation is even dumber than the older. History has a tendency to repeat itself. Next repetition will be uglier than WW II.
Complain about this comment
Read about it then at Wikipedia. I seem unable to write about it on my own. This record judgement has been under reported though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer#Record_fine_in_2009_fraudulent_promotion_and_bribery_case
Complain about this comment
#153. shumen52: "As far as speeches go it was a mediocre performance compared to the speeches Fidel Castro gave, or Adolf Hitler, Lenin, or Mussolini. They were mesmerizing, but look at the results. All brought endless misery upon their countrymen and the world."
You've omitted Winston Churchill, who not only has a speech impediment but used notes to make his speeches. He was "mesmerizing" also - but look at his results. Few remember what Mussolini had to say, or Lenin, Castro and Hitler, since the language was not universal, but Churchill will be remembered for the speeches which he wrote himself. Mr Obama my not yet be in Churchill's league, but he is much younger. I have no doubt that in years to come he will be remembered for his oratory as much as his policies.
"The younger generation is even dumber than the older."
I wonder where that puts you?
Complain about this comment
Re#155
Mr. Obawa doesn't write his speeches hismself, either. He's a pretty good teleprompter reader and that's all. And his speeches re 'health care reform' have been adjusted daily depeding on where the wind blows from (cf. for example his early prononuncements re shape of the intended reform with what he's saying right now. Pollsters are even more important in his Admistration than presidential speech writers.
Obama doesn't lead; he follows. [the polls]. And not only in matters related to health care.
[cf. his inaction and passivity regarding North Korea, Iran, embargo-braking Russian arms shipments, even Honduras]
In the meatime close Congress watchers report that there's no chance that body will pass any meaningful health care legislation this year.
Complain about this comment
The poison pouring out of the radios and TVs regarding US healthcare is just not helpful to anyone.
Obama did well, and is doing what he promised. It is high time those who behave like children are scolded like children. Obama the politician didn't scold as strongly as I would have!
However I'm sure no one will be able to talk around those who are against fixing the system. The lobby groups are too rich, and show no signs of backing off.
The US healthcare system will be fixed. Bunkruptcy will force a change.
As my gran always said. You can learn the easy way. Or you can learn the hard way. American will go for the hard wallop - they will ignore Obama and learn through bankruptcy. More large American insurance companies will keel over.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Davaid cunnard wrote:
"Few remember what Mussolini had to say, or Lenin, Castro and Hitler, since the language was not universal, but Churchill will be remembered for the speeches which he wrote himself. "
You what?
What does that mean? Few remember what Lenin wrote since the language was not universal?
Does that mean anything at all, or is it just another slice of complete blather from someone who was educated by hollywood?
Look, you may fool some kids, but it is about as clear as glass that you have never read anything written by Lenin or Hitler. For god's sake, you are suggesting Lenin, Castro and Hitler didn't write their own speeches!!
Anyway, I am a complete idiot for responding, but I miss the old blog. Mardell's Euro blog used to have multiple conversations going on at once, but there was always a sense that people were reading the posts others were posting, and that there was some degree of intellectual shame involved. You couldn't just spew complete nonsense and expect it to fly.
This blog is madness, by comparison. It is crowd of people shouting out half baked ideas without any respect for the substance or the form of their prose. It is a shouting contest, and I am left with the sincere suspicion that the majority of people who are posting on this blog have been conditioned to take part in a world where listening and comprehension skills are superfluous to conversation.
I've encountered some cacophonous nonsense in my time, but this place takes the cake. You people are seriously comparing Obama's health care speech to Lenin and Hitler.
I'm out. I can deal with big stupid, but not when the floor starts to spin and my stomach hurts just trying to work out what is being said. Good luck, Mark.
Complain about this comment
159. At 08:57am on 11 Sep 2009, democracythreat
Unfortunately, it appears that if you try to satirise or make fun of them -- as so many richly deserve, because it is near-impossible to engage them with rational alternative arguments or confutation--it's deemed against the House Rules.
(Squirrel, aka soon-to-be- U-something-or-other by the look of it.)
Complain about this comment
@135 MAII @ 196 president’s back to school message
Marcus, I apologise to post here. You just disappeared from the previous session (or maybe the moderators did intervene somehow).
You wrote on @196: *I don’t deny the genocide but I don't see that it was any more compelling for the US to intervene than the genocides we didn't intervene in in Sudan, Ruwanda, Cambodia, Uganda, and lots of other places*.
You see Markus, it is very difficult to be an international policeman in any part of the globe, any time, and in time. There must be some priorities. In Europe many people think that the US always applies its own double standard when things seem to be very complicated, of pressing character and requiring a military action. Logically, there are many interpretations about the mere reasons that would motivate the American authorities to intervene or not in some distant, European, Asian or, say, African country.
I agree that most of us, European folks, especially in the eastern part of the old continent, still believe that the mere existence of our (Christian) civilization largely depends on the American economic and military presence. At the same time, what is now evident as a new reality, is the slow but irreversible process of shaping of a definitely pro-European mentalities when it comes to consider all those issues of important character such as the common defence, the antiterrorist action, the energy supply (Europe is very, very poor of natural resources), the health, the education, etc. To that matter, many people here think that the US is not much enthusiastic to see the Europeans united under the same constitution, flag and anthem, especially if they improve and develop very close partnership with countries like Russia, Ukraine, China and India. And, if I go on this way, I should avow that I heard many unpleasant, even sarcastic jokes about Uncle Sam who is often presented here as a smiling, riding, good intended cow-boy who would not hesitate to make use of his Smith & Wesson in order to eliminate some tiny obstacle. Maybe the said jokes have got their historic foundations. But times have changed and we need to reconsider all those new challenges we are facing now after the sudden but logical collapse of Communism.
My firm believe is that we, the Europeans are still very, very weak to make our own way in this fragile world. We still need an ally.
Complain about this comment
152 KScurmudgeon and others:
You make some good points, KScurmudgeon, but your prediction at the end is not really realistic. Any new government run healthcare program like the current one being discussed is unlikely to ever go away once it has been passed even if the private sector survives.
..Exhibit A: Social Security-created as an unemployment relief measure in 1935 and still operating and growing in the number of recipients despite fewer working age contributors and decades long deficits.
The cost saving measures discussed are a bad joke and nothing more; it would be better if the President told fewer half truths such as this and was honest about what it will take to make his and Congress's healthcare plan fiscally sound. Maybe then, people would be more trusting of what the President had to say. After all, the devil is always in the details, and they are well hidden.
As for the "You Lie!" outburst, sure it was rude, but I wasn't shocked or appalled by it. It goes with the territory of being a politician and it comes from both sides of the aisle. I would like to clear one other thing up about this outburst; this was an emotional response from one Congressional Republican who was rightly upset with the President for touting that the bill would not include illegals when there is no mechanism for proving citizenship in the bill. In fact, Democrats enthusiastically voted down Republican amendments in committee to enforce the President's own words with the routinely used e-verify system.
And lastly, I don't think y'all should get all bent out of shape over the critical comments about the European style healthcare systems because it's causing a noticeable chip on many European shoulders. Being American, I understand the whole, "I can talk bad about my nation's healthcare system, but I'm not going to allow you get away with it" thing, I really do. However, please realize at least two things. First, American's want reform, even nasty old Republicans like me, but we do not want European style single-payer programs. And second, give American's more credit where it's due; we're not simpletons who think Europe is lost to the Communists --we won that war, remember-- but you're quite obviously much more influenced by traditional Socialist thinking than the US. As the saying goes, Communism cannot exist outside of Socialism, but Socialism can and does exist outside of Communism.
I could spend more time on these topics, but that'll have to wait for another day. Good bye, for now.
Complain about this comment
Re 140,
I seriously beg to differ. Most of the Health Care Insurence companies operate along interstate lines and therefor the Federal Goverment does have the right to regulate them.
On a side note, the republicans seem to be rallying around Representative Joe Wilson, who got up during President Obama's speach and shouted "You Lie.", defending his false claims that the bill currently in the house would provide insurence coverage to undocumented aliens. Unfortunately, the bill says no such thing and infact expressly says that undocumented aliens are not eligable to participate. Its seems that the Republican party is not really interested in reforming the healthcare system in this country.
Complain about this comment
152 KScurmudgeon
Your interpretation of the facts surpasses even your usual high quality postings- thanks! However, I might suggest that you overstate a bit the rationality of the reaction by many of the opponents of health care. Too many people I've met are not interested in a rational discussion, but react only with fear; because they won't (or, sad to say, don't know how) research it themselves, they've relied upon unscrupulous individuals who far too often have not been giving them the truth- and been fed fear and anger until it stokes their own.
There is always good reason to be skeptical of big government trying to solve broad scale societal problems (which for us is typically American- rush in, oversimplify, get frustrated when reality doesn't meet our simplistic expectations, and then ignore or forget about the problem.) And likewise, in a democracy or republic people need to be wary of the concentration of power. But the people who are now screaming the loudest were silent, or on the attack against the previous administration's detractors- even though the provisions of the Patriot Act, domestic spying, Abu Ghraib, torture, and Guantanamo are far more disturbing from a civil liberties standpoint than anything Obama has done.
But where were the protests then? Why the silence then? This is prime evidence that there is more than just concern about civil liberties in the health care debate. Irrational fear, and fear mongering, is quite as dangerous to civil liberty and a free society as big government.
Complain about this comment
AmericanSportFan: Section 152 of the House bill, Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care, would ensure that health care, insurance coverage, and public health activities covered by the bill are "provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services".
Section 246 of the House Bill, No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens, would prevent "Federal payments for affordability credits" (i.e. vouchers for insurance premiums) on behalf of said aliens.
Would you please identify the particular section of the House bill that states that undocumented aliens are ineligible to participate in the health care system that the bill would establish?
Complain about this comment
Selfishness is the basis of civilisation.
Complain about this comment
As luck would have it, the linked story is currently running on BBC;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8242799.stm
It is an example of the nexus of unique American generousity and the possibilities created by profits generated by the American health care establishment. If America had a socialist system like other countries, a hospital such as this would not exist, it would not be possible. This is the flip side of what some angry jealous people refer to as American cultural imperialism. Taxing the American people and the American medical system beyond endurance as will happen under socialized medicine in the US will make future such efforts fewer and more modest in accomplishment. It is stories like this of American doctors voluntarily helping needy people around the world that make the story about the young woman inside the US with arthritis that supposedly went untreated for lack of money so highly implausible.
Complain about this comment
I was referring to Section 246.
It seems that Republicans choose to ignore these facts. The right wing media spin machine has also resorted to misrepresenting the Presidents remarks. On tuesday night, after the Presidents speach, Shaun Hannity said that he was "shocked" that the President had called insurence executives 'bad people' when the President said no such thing. What the President actually said was that insurence companies raised rates and excluded people not because they were bad people, but because it was profitable. He wasn't saying that Insurence company executives were bad people.
Complain about this comment
# 135 MAII
"Doubled over in Dublin"
That's jolly clever Markie. It was hilarious the first time you wrote it and it just keeps getting better. Doubled over in helpless laughter - indeed I am. Is there no beginning to your talents?
"I've been in over 40 countries and I've been well behaved every minute I was in every one of them."
I am strongly inclined to refer you to the comment of the Congressman from S Carolina.
You are on a British [and of course European] blog. You engage in a ceaseless stream of anti-British and anti-European bigotry and name-calling. [In fairness, you don't seem to thing much of most Americans either.]
"You don't like people disagreeing with you. You are a European with a European mentality....tyrannical and intolerent [sic] of dissent. Hypocritical to the nth degree."
Baseless mendacity. [Except for the fact that I am from Europe.] Entirely proving my point.
"That's good because it makes you entirely predictable."
Fetch again the mirror!
"You don't like what I post? Don't read it."
I very rarely do any more - seeing as it is "entirely predictable".
Complain about this comment
I honestly don't see much of a connection between the plane and a system mostly helping already rich shareholders to become even richer Marcus.
It says the plane was paid for and run by United Airlines so the majority of the costs are covered by a company that is not part of the health care system. The staff is probably devoted to it's task which is a nice thing but I highly doubt that they would be any less devoted to such a demanding life if the health care system was different. If you decide for yourself to be that giving you don't care much abot the details. The doctors for sure are to be paid respect for what they are doing to help the less fortunated, but how is what they do much different from Médecins Sans Frontièrs which was founded in a country with a well working (in your eyes "socialist") health care system namely Switzerland?
Complain about this comment
"It is stories like this of American doctors voluntarily helping needy people around the world that make the story about the young woman inside the US with arthritis that supposedly went untreated for lack of money so highly implausible."
Also, what makes you think so?
There are probably ten thousands of bankers who were only doing their daily and had no bad intention after all and yet others were among those most responsible for the financial crisis. But well it is not the first time you significantly fail to see the grey shades between the black and white is it?
Complain about this comment
ref #157
copperDolomite wrote:
The poison pouring out of the radios and TVs regarding US healthcare is just not helpful to anyone.
Obama did well, and is doing what he promised. It is high time those who behave like children are scolded like children. Obama the politician didn't scold as strongly as I would have!
Would you scold both sides, both the people claiming death panels and the thugs from SEIU and Acorn engaged in intimidation?
Complain about this comment
I am actually not as surprised about the pure figures such as having three times as much to pay to get a service of equal quality as I am about how easy it seems to be to manipulaate American citizens and to distract them from these very obvious and very provable numbers.
The only evidence so far that came from those opposing the reform were the figures from that one canadian doctor who was proven to be not the best source after all. All the rest is mostly stories fueled by the fear of communism. Maybe that cartoon in bowling for columbine wasnt that wrong after all.
I also disagree with the fact that governments in Europe are seen more friendly. (But I think the Britons should be the ones telling you how much they love Gordy right now). The parties over here have the additional problem that there are more than just two of them so that they don't get their power back automatically just because the only other party manages to screw it up. Though this offers the voters far more choices to vote for things the stand for a system of 5 or maybe even 6 parties after the next election won't really ease the decision making process.
Complain about this comment
I have read as far as post 150 so far, and am becoming increasingly despondent.
Even among supporters of Obama's approach, there seems to be general sympathy for the basic American tenet of "rugged individualism", ie that you are responsible for yourself and should need no help from anyone - and for the corollary that therefore, since no one else needs your help, you should not give it.
What a harsh and unforgiving country it is! I spent only a fortnight there (CA & AZ) and found it brash but friendly. Now, I am thankful I did not need surgery after developing angina until some years later!
Complain about this comment
As an outsider, this blog is fascinating. Long experience has taught me that whilst the British and Americans use 95% of the same words, those words only convey about 50% of the same meaning.
I do understand the deeply ingrained sense of self-reliance in Americans...it is their greatest virtue. As such it makes the idea of someone else taking responsibility for their healthcare a gross intrusion. By contrast, most Brits, and most Europeans in general regard health as a "public good", something that is the collective responsibility of all and therefore best administered via government. They do not feel any sense of loss of freedom or personal emasculation in this arrangement. To put a few people straight!
It is not correct to suggest that doctors in the UK are government employees. They are free agents who may practice as they chose. The government, via the NHS, contracts with those doctors to provide medical services to the wider public. Most GPs and junior hospital doctors tend to work exclusively for the NHS as a matter of choice and because "frontline" medicine tends to be exclusively NHS managed. Other doctors however work exclusively in private practice whilst most senior consultants mix private work with NHS work (the latter now being regulated). Private medicine is very much alive and well in the UK and I have used it myself on occasion when I have needed treatment to suit my own schedule rather than the NHS's.
It is not correct to state that you cannot choose your own doctor in the UK. Patients apply to register with any local practice where they may choose their doctor from those working there. Most people aren't usually too fussed about this. One may register with an out of town practice, who may enroll you, but the likelihood is that they will not accept you because of the distances should house-calls be required.
It is correct to say that, because it is a public good and therefore its services must be dispensed to all-comers regardless, it has its limitations. This is precisely because of the bottomless funding pit that seems to exercise Republicans so much (though it always seems strange that you can't spend too much on nuclear submarines). Demand for healthcare is open-ended whilst money is finite. As such, if you need NHS treatment for a non-threatening condition you will have to join a queue. If you have a serious condition you can expect to be seen quickly and to receive good quality care regardless of your background or income bracket. If you are in an emergency you will be seen immediately and receive treatment as good as anywhere, without worrying whether you are covered by an insurance company.
It is true that the NHS will not fund a) frivolous treatments b) pay for highly expensive branded drugs of doubtful clinical benefit c) treatments that will give no material benefit to the quality of life of the patient (e.g. the proverbial heart transplant for the 90 year old!). These are hard decisions made by clinicians (not panels of bureaucrats) that always provoke controversy but...there isn't an endless supply of money or resources and the public purse is being protected...something close to heart of Republicans.
We are having our own heated debate as to whether the model, designed after all in 1948, can survive in its present form? Well almost certainly not but it is such an emotive subject that politicians treat it as radioactive...touch it and you're dead! We will almost certainly have to move eventually to mixed public/private insurance based model as seen in other European countries who, precisely by bringing in more private money, are undoubtedly achieving better levels of service. What however is not negotiable is the principle that treatment is provided on the basis of need, not wealth. The alternative is abhorrent!
The concept that those who have worked hard and done well should be able to keep the fruits of their labour is one to which I subscribe (as Margaret Thatcher famously said..."the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of someone else's money!). I do OK, probably considerably better than other people in the village where I live, a place that includes a large quantity of social housing. I feel no obligation to pay for these people to have a better house, a nice car, designer clothes etc etc. But if I felt that I or my children was entitled to a better doctor, or hospital, or drug than them or their children??? Well, I prefer to be able look at myself in the shaving mirror!
In a last little defence of the NHS. My son hurt himself playing rugby yesterday (must be the absence of helmet and full body-armour;-)). He was still in quite some pain this morning so I took him to our local Accident & Emergency walk-in centre. He was seen immediately. The doctors and nurses involved were highly professional, polite and thorough. It was all over in 30 minutes. At no point did anyone ask me how I intended to pay!
Complain about this comment
RE#165.Jan_Keeskop wrote:
AmericanSportFan: Section 152 of the House bill, Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care, would ensure that health care, insurance coverage, and public health activities covered by the bill are "provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services".
Section 246 of the House Bill, No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens, would prevent "Federal payments for affordability credits" (i.e. vouchers for insurance premiums) on behalf of said aliens.
Would you please identify the particular section of the House bill that states that undocumented aliens are ineligible to participate in the health care system that the bill would establish?
There's no such section which is more worrying in view of an old American principle that "What is not specifcally forbidden, is allowed".
[not the other way round like in some countries I don't want to mention]
Complain about this comment
In addition it occurs to me that when a story demonizes the NHS it is a valid source of information, if however a story about a young girl with athritis is given then there must be a mistake somewhere or she must have bad parents or at the very least it is a sad exception but nothing that is as comparable in its relevance to the demonizing yet never proven stories about the evil NHS.
Complain about this comment
I believe that the BBC is missing a very valuable and significant news story about the United States today, and that is the sudden downfall of Rep. Joe Wilson, the Republican congressman of South Carolina who called Barack Obama a liar during his joint address to Congress.
First of all, Mr. Wilson's behavior is unprecedented in the history of American politics. Since this country was founded, no Congressman has ever had the termerity to do such a thing in the history of the House of Representatives.
Secondly, there was a major firestorm in the liberal progressive community that may have succeeded (in less than 24 hours) in effectively ending Mr. Wilson's political career. This firestorm was ignited by the internet, which managed to raise more than $600,000 for Mr. Wilson's previously unknown Democratic opponent. The Democrat actually received more money in small internet contributions than Rep. Wilson received in his current term of Congress from insurance and pharmaceutical interests.
This represents a paradigm shift in the very nature of American politics. It is one of the reasons why Barack Obama became President, and it is one of the reasons why all or most of HB 3200 is going to pass through the Congress and be signed into law by President Obama.
This story has legs, and it will continue to unfold as the days go by, mark my words.
Complain about this comment
Marcus:
"It is an example of the nexus of unique American generousity and the possibilities created by profits generated by the American health care establishment."
- the sole reason for a profit making health industry is to provide charity? Is that what you're suggesting? Also it's not unique. There are numerous examples of countries with socialised systems providing help overseas.
"If America had a socialist system like other countries, a hospital such as this would not exist, it would not be possible."
Why? As numerous other posters have demonstrated, socialised medicine is more efficient. With it, Americans would as a nation, be better off. Having socialised medicine would not diminish the American citizens' charitable instincts and desire to help others in the world, would it? I seem to remember that you yourself (mis)used the phrase 'Charity Begins At Home' recently, what's changed?
Your socialised fire brigade and earth quake aid teams are world renowned for providing their excellent service overseas. Last year, I believe they were here in Australia fighting bush fires. If these services were left to private companies, are you saying that the rest of the world would better off because the 'Firefighting' arm of GM was on the case?
"This is the flip side of what some angry jealous people refer to as American cultural imperialism."
Actually it's not, it demonstrates it perfectly. If one was cynical and cruel you could say that this charitable mission is simply PR. I don't believe that, but I'd love to see this kind of story along with ones where American citizens aren't refused the help they need. Oh, and we're not jealous, simply flabergasted!
"Taxing the American people and the American medical system beyond endurance as will happen under socialized medicine in the US will make future such efforts fewer and more modest in accomplishment."
Maybe so. Unfortuanately you're in a position where it's unlikely the Insurance Companies will disappear over night. No government would be brave enough (foolhardy?) to make that happen. At best you'll be saddled with some kind of transitionary system, at worst you'll be stuck with what you have already. I can understand the reluctance of those who have contributed to private med insurance their whole life, only to be faced with the fact that system is broken - it's inefficient, leaves people without cover and refuses treatment even to those who have paid. But maybe now is the time to direct that charitable instinct towards the next generations and give them a fairer system?
Complain about this comment
ref #178
First of all, Mr. Wilson's behavior is unprecedented in the history of American politics. Since this country was founded, no Congressman has ever had the termerity to do such a thing in the history of the House of Representatives.
First it has been done before by Democrats during Bush speechs
Second he was immediatly condemned by Republican leaders that night.
Unlike the silence on Pelosi calling the CIA liars, Charlies Rangel's tax cheating which Democrats are silent on.
It will have legs because there is a double standard. Maxine Waters and Barbara Boxewr can lie about Bush's legimatacy without consequences.
Complain about this comment
I was blocked here several times because I was starting to take a look at the drug companies.
What I wrote was factually correct but probably seemed implausible to the moderator since so little of this has been widely publicized out side of the business sections of the news.
They are afraid of defamation.
Are people afraid of these large corporations and their teams of lawyers?
My reaction was to send emails out with an article about the drug company Pfizer and the 2.3 billion dollar law settlement against them decided Sept 2 2009.
http://www.kimt.com/business/story/Pfizer-to-pay-record-2-3-billion-settlement/127cUKVKGkuChtsx8C-Otg.cspx
Who has heard of this settlement? and why is it not being discussed more widely?
I hope some writers from the progressive movement start looking at this more closely.
People are focusing on the insurers but there are problems elsewhere too in the health care system.
Read the article!
Complain about this comment
ref 178 KarlEysenbach
I disagree with you about Congressman Wilson. There will be no paradigm shift.
President Bush was heckled while giving the SOTU. Poor taste yes, but both sides do it.
Republican President George W. Bush won 60% of the vote here in 2004, and GOP presidential nominee John McCain got 54% in 2008. Republicans have held the seat since 1964. It is a conservative district. Even the Democrats are conservative. Progressive money to help defeat Wilson will be tainted and used to imply big city liberals trying to buy the election. Wilson's stock with many of his constituents will rise because he stood up to the president. If he did this intentionally (maybe?), it may have been a bold stroke.
Wilson aplogized, the White House accepted, and Nancy Pelosi has dropped the matter. The people of his district are not going to vote him out for calling Obama a liar.
Fox News has said that the Senate has changed some of the language of the health care bill to specifically exclude illegal aliens and are linking it to Congressman Wilson. You may not like Fox News, but people do watch it and Wilson can use this in his re-election campaign. You can't buy good coverage like this.
Complain about this comment
Here's another article about what has been going on with the drug manufacturers This article is from Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aD.VdiJDc30o#
Ghostwriting of Medical Journal Articles Is Common, Survey Says
(selected quotes)
"“Why would they be ghosted if they didn’t have an agenda?” said Annette Flanagin, managing deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, in a telephone interview today. “If you have ghost authors, ghost writers, ghost statisticians, ghost anyone, you lose transparency and potentially accountability.”"
"Wyeth, the Madison, New Jersey-based drugmaker being acquired by Pfizer Inc., hired ghostwriters to produce at least 40 articles supporting the use of hormone-replacement drugs by menopausal women, according to files unsealed last month in court cases."
.......
Many of you will remember how touted hormone replacement therapy was to women as a cure all for many ailments.
..............................
"Attitudes towards HRT changed in 2002 following the announcement by the Women's Health Initiative of the National Institutes of Health that those receiving the treatment (Prempro) in the main part of their study had a larger incidence of breast cancer, heart attacks and strokes. The WHI findings were reconfirmed in a larger national study done in the UK, known as the the Million Women Study. As a result of these findings, the number of women taking hormone treatment dropped by almost half. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy_(menopause)
Complain about this comment
152. KScurmudgeon: I believe the fear is that a government-run entity would siphon off customers from private insurers to the point where private insurers would go out of business. Thus, it's the thought of having ONLY a government-run entity that has Americans very concerned.
Obama has interjected government in ways never before thought possible. Why should health care be any different?
And based on Obama's past commentary on a single-payer system, etc., Americans don't believe he does not want to drive private insurers out of business. Add to that his constant demonizing of insurance companies.
We are in agreement on many things. One difference is the boundary for government involvement. Mine is further out. Much further.
I pity Obama. He cannot even speak about real health care issues without taking a beating. For instance, he said something about end-of-life care representing the bulk of health care costs and that we have to address that somehow. Well, that comment combined with the Independent Medicare Advisory Council's (IMAC) having a greater role in Medicare has many elderly people concerned. Ezekiel Emanuel's very thoughtful musings on rationing care also didn't help.
They want to stop Obama before he goes down that path. (Americans often see slippery slopes.) Honestly, I cannot blame them.
My mother just passed away. She was one of the 20% consuming 80% of services. I cannot imagine any single decision I made about her end of life to have been anything other than mine completely (in consultation with her doctors). There is not one thing Obama has done that would lead me to believe he respects that privacy.
Perhaps Obama would be wise to examine his position on abortion and try to employ it in the context of health care -- that is, that this is between a patient and doctor and the government has no business getting involved. Further, any decisions or legislation that could even remotely affect that right should be avoided. In other words, if he were as careful to avoid legislation that could potentially erode a medical patient's right to make his/her own decisions as he is to avoid the erosion of abortion rights, many Americans would feel protected rather than threatened.
Complain about this comment
@ bethpa
May it be that whatever networks decide on broadcasting about this issue they will see a sharp decline in revenues from tv clips of named pharmaceutical companies?
I am not a fan at all of having to pay a monthly fee for owning a tv which enables me to watch independant tv channels - no matter if I really watch them or not. However I am sure that these very news channels wouldn't be afraid of reporting about this case if it happened in our country.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In the US we have a magazine called Consumer Reports which does not accept any commercial advertising and does tests on consumer products to determine the products strengths and weaknesses...but they also discuss other issues like health care...
“There’s so much money in selling pills, that there’s a tremendous temptation to cheat,” said Bill Vaughan, an analyst at Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.
“There’s a kind of mentality in this sector that (settlements) are the cost of doing business and we can cheat. This penalty is so huge I think consumers can have some hope that maybe these guys will tighten up and run a better ship.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32657347/
This quote was about the largest settlement ever paid by a drug company for alleged violations of federal drug rules, and the $1.2 billion criminal fine is the largest ever in any U.S. criminal case. The total includes $1 billion in civil penalties and a $100 million criminal forfeiture..
Nice huh.."consumers can have some hope" Why isn't this being discussed more?
But hey lets talk some more about the guy who yelled "you lie" at the president.(sarcasm)
Complain about this comment
ref. 145, KScurmudgeon:
"You're close, my friend, but you must not have lived among them."
From the rest of your post, I would say that you agree with my analysis completely. I don't understand where you see a difference.
Complain about this comment
I smell a rat.
Why is there no focus on the drug companies in this debate about health care after this court ruling on Sept 9,2009....
The largest settlement ever of 2.3 billion dollars was paid by a drug company for alleged violations of federal drug rules,
and the $1.2 billion criminal fine is the largest ever in any U.S. criminal case.
The total includes $1 billion in civil penalties and a $100 million criminal forfeiture.
Where is that in this debate about money and where do we get money from to finance universal health care for Americans...and Americans pay very high prices for their drugs!!!!
Where is the outrage?
Complain about this comment
ref. 139, KScurmudgeon:
"Um - there will be plenty of job opportunities providing actual health care to the new enrollees."
It depends on your point of view. Many of the jobs in health care at the moment are redundant, i.e., many people performing the same task for different companies. It is one of the areas in which the single payer system is obviously much more efficient. So, is the addition of the tens of millions more people on the roles going to offset this? Somewhat, I think, but I'll argue (for the sake of argument) not significantly. The insurance companies aren't excluding people because they can't handle the extra load, after all.
Of course, there is government bloat to take into account.
Complain about this comment
182. mischievousdoug: When Bush Sr. gave a speech to students in 1991 democrats protested and forced an investigation and hearing by the General Accounting Office.
The Washington Post said the next day, "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props."
The National Education Association said it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."
Same old stuff. Different side.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
Complain about this comment
Apparently the moderators are using the eeny meeny miney moe method of judging comments, since offensive screeds are permitted and perfectly innocuous comments are removed.
Complain about this comment
For once, I find myself agreeing with "democracythreat" (#159). Mr. Mardell's EuroBlog did operate at a higher intellectual level, and at a higher level of civility. If DT were a little more civil himself, I might actually enjoy his contributions.
Complain about this comment
#185 seraphim
How the pharmaceutical companies spend money is part of the debate about how to save money to buy universal health care for ALL Americans.
Yes you are right...this is the biggest pharmaceutical company in the world. And they have power and money ...
If there has been tampering with scientific evidence regarding drug efficacy by using ghost writers in prestigious medical journals like the New England Journal of Medicine you in Britain and people throughout the world will be affected.
The US has a world wide effect...God help us (no sarcasm)
"The wheels of justice grind slow but exceedingly fine"
or "Truth will out"
Obama and others may not be able to bring this to people's attention..but I'll do what I can...I hope you will too.
Complain about this comment
I know that republicans are sometimes seemed to be representative of Americans, but they are less than 50 percent of the population that votes.
And in person, if you ask, there are people I am friends with whom are Republicans.
What I'm saying is political leanings are not monolithic. I HATE to say it but pluralism is the actual reality of the world. It just shows up in America.
Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter Lyndon Johnson, and now Obama have 22 yrs of power during the last 50 years of Republican domination. I may be off math wise, but its true that these four presidents were opposition to Republicans.
Maybe, just maybe, a democratic party majority will have its own dominant opinion. But, we need opposition opinions to keep the one's in office honest and on their toes.
Complain about this comment
81
"(I guess you won't be able to flatly point out that someone is a liar)."
really he can. see the BBC rules say impartial. and part of impartial is saying that a lie is a lie and not allowing one side to spam the issue with lies.
Most of the reports from the likes of Adrienny are straight cut and paste jobs from the Goppres website.
sad but true they are about as original as an american patent.
Complain about this comment
Let's look at a poll to get a more complete picture of who the American public might be blaming for this health care mess in America.
On the news we keep hearing how happy we all are with our insurance...but is that really true?
These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,498 U.S. adults surveyed online between August 10 and 18, 2009 by Harris Interactive
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
"Fully 90%...blame the health insurance industry, and 60% think it deserves a "great deal" of the blame."
"Almost as many 84% ...blame the pharmaceutical industry and 53% thinks it deserves a "great deal" of the blame."
blame Republicans in Congress 74%
blame business 72%
blame hospitals 70%
blame Democrats in Congress 69%
blame President Bush 66%
blame doctors 61%
.................................
My thoughts..people are scared and they know they are not getting the truth...but they don't know where to turn for help...because trust has been eroded.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
85 every man responsible for his own actions. no pay for others.
RIGHT.
You want anarchy. ARE YOU SURE YOU CAN BEAT ME?
Recently little crud town I'm in has had 3 killings of homeless people. So far one confirmed "kill the poor people case"
then last night I hear a little town down the road they found a dead guy. He was known to and liked by many locals but was homeless.
lived under a bridge and someone beat him to death with a hammer.
The blows according to the doc at the big hospital in portland ,were consistent with those of a fall from a two story building not falling over.
But the cops wrote it up as " he fell in an argument and hit his head while drunk."
Like I say Doc says 2 stories not falling over.
bloody hammer found near scene was handed in to the " office of the sheriff" because there was no sheriff on duty till the middle of the week. Why.No murder investigation ensued.He was after all poor and homeless which is a crime to some.
Complain about this comment
193:
Perhaps the reason for the difference between Mardell's Euroblog and this one is that, for the most part, the Euroblog contributors stayed on the Euroblog. Most of us are holdovers from J.W's America.
Complain about this comment
I would ask Mark what is the point in a blog that gets spammed by so many cut and pasters from the DOP hoards.
At least most of the dems make their own comments (with a few noticeable exceptions)
I have found a large number of GOP posters (because your not independent that is on the GOP web site "pretend you are human . infiltrate their system;")
Now here is a mentally and truthfully restricted comment
"131. At 02:25am on 11 Sep 2009, GreySquirrel1867 wrote:
Reform of American health care is needed, but Obama and his far left cronies are the wrong people for the job."
And the right people would be those on the right who say the job is best not done at all?
And you wonder why some think you not smart.
Complain about this comment
159 you mean you would all write mini dissertations of your fantasies. then bandy a few wise cracks at each other and generally say as much as my cat.
.
Yes you are right we are all crazy that post here.
After all the legion of the right have turned up which means we that oppose racism and bigotry get banned more.
Or rather referred to the mods. By no one in particular.
Wow what fun.
Complain about this comment
196 fluffytale:
"...they are about as original as an american patent."
I take exception to that. The American patent office is an agency that has offered world class patent services for hundreds of years.
And without rehashing old arguments, America is not devoid of legitimate and useful patents.
Complain about this comment
137 andy post.. that's a good post.maybe better put. but certainly little to disagree with.
Complain about this comment
BienvenueEnLouisiana (#199), exactly.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
202 LOL yea I know they eventually invented some stuff them selves.
But given it's you that took the bait I won't respond much more.
Others would have certainly got a " what you want to talk about played out arguments".
because we all know that most of the crap from the right is just that.
Another attempt to rehash the same lies repeatedly over and over again in a circle of lies.
One reason this blog will become yet again a blog of right wing wingbats with a few people thinking(from both sides) and a hell of a lot of Cut and pasters from the GOP "guiding bloggers site"
Complain about this comment
This will give an idea of American costs in health care.
A friend from Turkey is in the US as a student. Her vaccination record was in Turkey and is now no longer available, so blood work has to be done to make sure she is vaccinated. The cost to find out is she has the antibodies for Diptheria, Tetanus, Polio, Measles, Mumps and Rubella, Varicella, and Hepatitis B is US$ 2123.82
That all would be free if she had done that in Turkey.
But she is getting a special deal. As a student it will only be US$1486.67 but she has to do it soon and say the name of the person who gave her the quote when she goes in.
She is legally in the US and has health insurance but it won't pay for this blood work.
She also had a very minor physical exam by a nurse that cost $125.
I had a mammography and through an error in the insurance..I was billed $1000 for a mammography. We pay $12,000/year for insurance so I was eventually covered. That is considered a cadillac insurance plan and with that I can go to any doctor or facility I want without a co pay. We pay $400/month and my husband's employer pays $800/month
Complain about this comment
"The outburst of Representative Joseph Wilson during President Obama's speech last night was shocking and reprehensible to most Americans. It was behavior completely unacceptable no matter what Wilson felt."
Doesn't matter. He accomplished his goal. He's now the darling of right wing talk radio. I'll bet his name was on Fox News 500 times yesterday and half that on CNN. He's raised almost a quarter of a million dollars in 36 hours. Did HE pull it off? You bet he did.
Complain about this comment
The comments to this blog certainly prove to me yet again that America loves to verbally flog a horse to death more than actually do anything. In addition, going off-topic is another favorite that is well represented here.
I'm wondering what Mark Mardell is making of all this. I also want to know how long he has been in America, if in fact, he is in America?
Complain about this comment
big to-do over Acorn employees giving advice to two people posing as a protitute and her pimp on how to cheat the IRS including child tax credit for the underage prostitutes in his employ. The Acorn employees were fired...after the story hit the media. Check it out, it's all over the interent. Well, that's what community organizing is about and what community organizers do I guess. That and scheme voter fraud.
crosseyes;
"If America had a socialist system like other countries, a hospital such as this would not exist, it would not be possible."
Why? "
American capitalism is the greatest engine of wealth in the history of the world by far. Without that engine, this generousity couldn't be afforded. Where even in the capitalist world do you see so much charity on an individual voluntary basis. The European liars say the US doesn't donate its fair share to poor nations...because it only looks at what the US government gives. Bill Gates has probably given more personally to the poor than most wealthy nations have in a comparable period. BTW, the US government gave far more financial assistance for treating AIDS in Africa than the rest of the world combined.
Complain about this comment
162, BienvenueEnLouisiana -
First, American's want reform, even nasty old Republicans like me, but we do not want European style single-payer programs.
First, a plural word that is not a possessive does not use an apostrophe.
Second, if you will look into the matter instead of just reading Republican talking points and polls, you will find that many, many Americans do want a European-style single-payer program. Unfortunately we don't seem to be able to scream as loudly and rudely as the teabaggers and our voices are being drowned out.
Please speak for what you want or don't want. You are not in a position to speak for all Americans.
Complain about this comment
211:
I get, I don't speak for you...sheesh.
But my positions on this topic are reflective of a sizeable plurality of people, not some radical ultra-minority.
You just can't accept the fact that the public option is on the rocks because of a public outcry against it, so you call people "teabaggers" and question their ability to think and react for themselves because only democrats can organize true grassroots efforts. Why not stop drinking the cool-aid and go do some research like I did?
And lastly, your name is intellectually dishonest &/or misleading. If you had ever been educated in a university level political science program, you would know that a Socialist-Libertarian cannot exist because their ideologies are philosophically opposed.
Complain about this comment
Marcus #210, as usual you're ignoring most of the questions (maybe it's time for a 1970's anecdote?), but at least you tried to answer one (well done you!). In doing so, you demonstrate a number of your misconceptions that get you in such a pickle on these blogs. So in the interests of your self improvement, here we go:
"American capitalism is the greatest engine of wealth in the history of the world by far. Without that engine, this generousity couldn't be afforded."
No one is suggesting getting rid of capitalism. The point being made is that a basic health care safety net may not be the appropriate place for it.
"The European liars say the US doesn't donate its fair share to poor nations". Anything said by Europeans is not a lie, just because they said it, and just because it runs counter to your own version of reality.
"BTW, the US government gave far more financial assistance for treating AIDS in Africa than the rest of the world combined." Thank you for making my point again. I have never alleged that Americans are not generous. My question was why you think that having socialised medicine would make them less so.
You haven't answered that one. Thank you for providing a further example of a non-private sector, American charitable act. By your own argument, if we scrapped the US Government in favour of a business-run system, donations overseas would surely rise.
Complain about this comment
Crosseyes;
"By your own argument, if we scrapped the US Government in favour of a business-run system, donations overseas would surely rise."
It did. By a lot. The money spent to help Europe under the Marshall Plan was peanuts, mere pocket change compared to the wealth American private capitalism brought to Europe in its investments there paid for on the backs of American taxpayers and American workers. Jobs lost and taxes that should have been collected by the American government deferred or eliminated. We got the same excuse then that we get for spending money on NATO and treatment for AIDS in Africa, it's in America's national security interest. Baloney.
Complain about this comment
214. At 00:04am on 12 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Crosseyes;
"By your own argument, if we scrapped the US Government in favour of a business-run system, donations overseas would surely rise."
It did. By a lot. The money spent to help Europe under the Marshall Plan was peanuts, mere pocket change compared to the wealth American private capitalism brought to Europe in its investments there paid for on the backs of American taxpayers and American workers. Jobs lost and taxes that should have been collected by the American government deferred or eliminated. We got the same excuse then that we get for spending money on NATO and treatment for AIDS in Africa, it's in America's national security interest. Baloney."
Yes Roumania missed out on US money. But don't get bitter, that's what happens when you elect a fascist to power and fight Russia.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I'm laughing out loud, you surpassed yourself. You've reverted to a totally irrelevant 1940s example when I thought you'd only go back to the 1970's. Well done.
So are you in favour of getting rid of all government institutions and living in some kind of Mad Max (make that Mad Marcus) world? Will this make you even more generous than you are currently?
Complain about this comment
196. fluffytale: Stop reading my posts if you can't handle them. Better yet. Remove yourself.
Complain about this comment
210. At 9:13pm on 11 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
big to-do over Acorn employees giving advice to two people posing as a protitute and her pimp on how to cheat the IRS including child tax credit for the underage prostitutes in his employ. The Acorn employees were fired...after the story hit the media. Check it out, it's all over the interent. Well, that's what community organizing is about and what community organizers do I guess. That and scheme voter fraud"
As big a to-do as Enron? Halliburton? The WMD scandal, Wow must have been a very rich and important prostitute.
Is there only one prostitute in the US (is it a role in the COnstitution perhaps- "For the relief of legislators there will henceforth be retained a prostitute....?") She must be a very busy woman.
What colour was she by chance? Let me see if I can guess - you do not get many people of this colour in Roumania.
"American capitalism is the greatest engine of wealth in the history of the world by far."
It is not an engine, it is not even a coherent economic system.
"Without that engine, this generousity couldn't be afforded. Where even in the capitalist world do you see so much charity on an individual voluntary basis. The European liars say the US doesn't donate its fair share to poor nations...because it only looks at what the US government gives. Bill Gates has probably given more personally to the poor than most wealthy nations have in a comparable period. BTW, the US government gave far more financial assistance for treating AIDS in Africa than the rest of the world combined."
Yes but the rest of world does not insist people change their sexual behaviour before saving their lives. Which I suppose brings us rather neatly to your single prostitute scandal again.
But interesting to see you now consider Aids in Africa a worthwhile cause.
Earlier you implied it was wasted money and somehow against American interests.
Is that Caucescu logic or a sudden realisation about the colour of people in Africa?
Complain about this comment
Simple Simon
You can't even read. So much for your taxpayer paid British education. I wrote that she posed as a prostitute, not that she was a prostitute. Do you know the difference?
I think that it's good that American saves the lives of Africans suffering from AIDS. Perhaps some of them will find their way to Europe where they can continue their treatment at European taxpayer expense under their socialist medical policies.
I don't know what your obsession about Roumania is. My grandmother left Transylvania to come to America over a hundred years ago. Of course I fly back there every morning by dawn to sleep in my natie soil in my coffin. I have all the modern conveniences back there. If I wake, I've got a laptop with a cellular modem right inside with me so I can post even when the sun is shining.
Complain about this comment
I have been trying to say that certain people shouldn't presume to speak for all Americans. Is there now some policy at the BBC that only those Americans who do presume to speak for us all are allowed a forum here?
Complain about this comment
190. At 4:11pm on 11 Sep 2009, AndyPost wrote:
ref. 139, KScurmudgeon:
"Um - there will be plenty of job opportunities providing actual health care to the new enrollees."
It depends on your point of view. Many of the jobs in health care at the moment are redundant, i.e., many people performing the same task for different companies. ...
Of course, there is government bloat to take into account.
Here's hoping for a big loss of jobs in both sectors. But my argument was, rather obliquely, that a growing economy will absorb every worker who is able and willing to go out there and try again. ((that is the key - a growing economy)). I have done this at least twice, and found better, more challenging and useful employment both times.
One of the distinct risks, of course, is the very likely loss of your employer based medical insurance in the interim. That's what we are all talking about.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
From 188. At 4:02pm on 11 Sep 2009, AndyPost wrote:
ref. 145, KScurmudgeon:
The only way I can make sense of that is to guess that it's a cultural memory from the very earliest days of the country.'
You're close, my friend, but you must not have lived among them. ...
Together, these issues and more that are like them protect and define liberty to these people. You will easily recognize them if you have studied our revolutionary period.
"From the rest of your post, I would say that you agree with my analysis completely. I don't understand where you see a difference."
The difference between our images of American conservatives, I believe, is that I do not see them or their values to be the smoky ghosts of 200 years ago but as the living and thriving, if embattled, citizens of today. The majority in the United States is just a breath of wind from reverting to those values and convictions.
As someone said, we are a plurality of minorities in our opinions, and every election is determined, not by the steadfast cores, but by the quavering middle.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
184. At 3:34pm on 11 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
"152. KScurmudgeon: I believe the fear is that a government-run entity would siphon off customers from private insurers to the point where private insurers would go out of business. Thus, it's the thought of having ONLY a government-run entity that has Americans very concerned.
Obama has interjected government in ways never before thought possible. Why should health care be any different? "
This appears to be a response to a response to one of my too many posts last night - the lead quote is not mine.
None-the-less, I hear the rustling and raging of a foregone conclusion. Please, Andrea in NY, study the problem and form in your mind (or on word processor) a solution that is equitable and financially plausible, and we can discuss it.
You will find my own opinion to be all over the map. I'm for the free market of capitalism, but reform must happen in several areas including the marketplace or we are doomed.
kindly,
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
181. At 2:24pm on 11 Sep 2009, bethpa wrote:
'I was blocked here several times because I was starting to take a look at the drug companies.
What I wrote was factually correct but probably seemed implausible to the moderator since so little of this has been widely publicized out side of the business sections of the news. ...
My reaction was to send emails out with an article about the drug company Pfizer and the 2.3 billion dollar law settlement against them decided Sept 2 2009.'
I heard about that and was not surprised. Here in Wichita (and in Washington state) the economies have taken significant hits because Boeing was caught manipulating Air Force personnel who were responsible for evaluating their bid for the new tanker. The job was awarded to AirBus, and although the contract was brought back for reevaluation and rebid, work in these communities began a fall that has not ended.
Boeing has had a sweetheart relationship with the Air Force and other military branches for generations. The level of confidence in Boeing's executive offices was beyond arrogance. Competitors have been picked off one by one for the last 30 years. Let's all say it together: "A lack of true competition breeds corruption!"
Of course, the sheer volume of money flowing through the pharmaceuticals hands beggars the style even of a Boeing.
We have an essential conflict, then, between the aims of these capitalist corporations, and the interests of either truth or economic prosperity.
grrrr,grumblegrumble
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
224 kscurmudgeon
glad i read that.
boeing is basically subsidised.
but now to more important things .
I see that a post that I saved from earlier has been removed again.
Now why would that be when it is engaging in the debate as framed by others in a manner with no offensive comment though mentioning or referring to an others post .
KSC or anyone else can you see why this which is as on topic as it gets here really is banned?
it seems that yet again an agenda has been set by some.
" "162, BienvenueEnLouisiana -
First, American's want reform, even nasty old Republicans like me, but we do not want European style single-payer programs.
First, a plural word that is not a possessive does not use an apostrophe.
Second, if you will look into the matter instead of just reading Republican talking points and polls, you will find that many, many Americans do want a European-style single-payer program. Unfortunately we don't seem to be able to scream as loudly and rudely as the teabaggers and our voices are being drowned out.
Please speak for what you want or don't want. You are not in a position to speak for all Americans."
This is on topic. talking about the debate and the reaction.
what is going on?
Complain about this comment
that post was BTW from the commiebookeater.
Complain about this comment
#210. MarcusAureliusII: "the US government gave far more financial assistance for treating AIDS in Africa than the rest of the world combined."
Admirable, of course, but what did it do in the 1980s? The president of the time couldn't bring himself to use the term and it was a Frenchman who discovered what HIV is. With regret, the United States government has little to be proud of in the history of HV and AIDS. The early days were essentially grass roots endeavours - and before Rock Hudson died, even Hollywood had nothing to crow about. Before Elizabeth Taylor's involvement, the only personality of note was the late Vivian Blaine, star of Guys and Dolls and umpteen 20th Century-Fox films. Now both Hollywood and the Federal Government have made up a little for what they ignored initially.
Complain about this comment
#162. BienvenueEnLouisiana: "American's want reform, . . . but we do not want European style single-payer programs."
Who elected you spokesperson for the entire nation? It's typical of much right-wing reaction to invoke "we" as if there is some factual basis for it. Had you said many do not want, some do not want, my friends do not want or any similar variant, that would be acceptable. What is not acceptable is for those like yourself to pretend that you speak for everyone: you do not.
"we're not simpletons who think Europe is lost to the Communists --we won that war, remember"
we won that war. Who we? The USSR imploded, it had nothing to do with US involvement, unless you include the development of photocopying machines. From the latest accounts, the Berlin wall was slated to be removed even before the sainted Ronny spoke his famous words.
Complain about this comment
#159. democracythreat:
Few remember what Mussolini had to say, or Lenin, Castro and Hitler, since the language was not universal, but Churchill will be remembered for the speeches which he wrote himself."
"You what? What does that mean? Few remember what Lenin wrote since the language was not universal?"
No-one said anything about writing; apparently you did not - or cannot - read the post at #153 which concerned itself with the delivery of the speech made by the President. Unless you are fluent in Russian, German or Italian, my guess is that you cannot remember a word - and in any case, you're probably nowhere near old enough to remember them first hand.
"is it just another slice of complete blather from someone who was educated by hollywood?"
You just do not read, do you? On the previous thread (and many others in the last two years) I have made it abundantly clear that I was born and educated in the United Kingdom. Hollywood has an unfortunate record of presenting British and European successes as if they were of American origin - from films one would think D-Day consisted only of American troops or that the naval Enigma machine was captured by American personnel - at a time when the United States had not even become involved in the hostilities! (Film, U-571, 2000.)
"I am a complete idiot for responding"
In this instance you are correct.
"You people are seriously comparing Obama's health care speech to Lenin and Hitler."
Not only can you not read, but your comprehension skills are minimal The poster at #153 commented that "As far as speeches go it was a mediocre performance compared to the speeches Fidel Castro gave, or Adolf Hitler, Lenin, or Mussolini." Note the words "mediocre performance". Wise up, pal!
Complain about this comment
It is unfortunate that my last post #212 was referred to the moderators.
It was a clear and on topic response to socialist libertarian’s response to my post #162. It also would have answered fluffytale's and David_Cunard's questions about my post.
I presume that either the mods did not like the direction the discussion was going or SocialistLiberatarian referred it out of spite because of the number of his own referrals. Regardless, both our posts are now unreadable, so the point is moot. But I will say this...my post was not cut and pasted into another post to save its argument like SocialistLiberatarian's was, so it is clear to me which side is really being censored here tonight.
I do not presume to speak for all Americans, but I do reflect the position of a sizeable plurality of voting individuals that cannot and should not be ignored--not some far right radical fringe. You, SocialistLiberatarian, just can't stand that the public option is on the rocks because of legitimate public concern and outcry over it. I say, instead of calling me and other Republicans "teabaggers" (whatever that means) and constantly questioning our ability to independently research this topic and come to a logical conclusion, you should defend your own arguments.
Complain about this comment
The last point I made in post 212, and likely the reason for my post's referral, was that socialistlibertarian's name is intellectually dishonest &/or misleading. Almost anyone with a university level degree in political science can tell you that Socialist-Libertarians cannot exist; their ideological philosophies are completely opposed.
Finally, I come to the point I made about Communism. Are we honestly arguing about this? The "we" refers to the West. We did in fact win the Cold War. The evidence is literally all around you in written form in your local library and in the physical form of the Soviet relics scattered about eastern and central Europe. The USSR is gone and we are still here, that's a win in my book. Yet the furor over this has made you, David_Cunard, completely miss the point. The point was to debunk the bogus claims that Republicans are calling the European systems Communist. It is absolutely a bold faced lie intended to get Europeans huffing and puffing, and it completely disregards history.
Lastly, the reason for even mentioning the European systems is that they are constantly coming up for debate in the US because of the government option being discussed in Congress. It is completely reasonable to critic another government's programs when they might be wholly or partially a model for my own government's healthcare plan.
Complain about this comment
Canard, as I recall CDC in Atlanta and the French discovered that the HIV virus was responsible for AIDS simultaneously and independently. If America has little to be proud of in the early days of HIV, Europe has nothing to be proud of in that regard (and most other regards) to this day. The big mistake was to not quarrantine the victims early on. It was considered politically incorrect to even discuss it but if it had been done, a worldwide pandemic that has killed tens of millions might have been averted. You see no such hesitancey for quarrantining people with swine flu and in prior decades, those with other deadly communicable diseases from leperosy to measles, to typhoid. But it was politically incorrect in the case of AIDS because among the principal victims were male homosexuals in America.
Several theories have been advanced as to how the virus came into existance and infected humans. One theory among the villify America crowd is that the US government engineered it deliberately. More likely it was first transmitted to humans in Africa when people ate meat from infected monkeys.
Complain about this comment
231. At 08:55am on 12 Sep 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
The last point I made in post 212, and likely the reason for my post's referral, was that socialistlibertarian's name is intellectually dishonest &/or misleading. Almost anyone with a university level degree in political science can tell you that Socialist-Libertarians cannot exist; their ideological philosophies are completely opposed."
MY GOD ARE YOU THAT,,,UMMM, I'm looking for a word that is acceptable to all here,umm FICK.
While you are at it why not complain that there is no roman empire.
or wait you sat back and never complained that some call themselves "truth" something or other and then spout total rubbish.
Dominick though a pretty nice person it seems, never got cannonised.
I . well lucky it's a tale not a tail.
The Doctor called U . He wasn't medically trained.
The angus that wandered was in fact human and had 100% of their faculties .
(which is why it seems strange that they remain on the banned list while our usual suspects(especially the right wing "pedants brigade" are out in force))
PS "WE" didn't win the cold war.
Your enemy is better equipped now than before the fall of the wall.
If what they did was deliberate then the reagan guys should be sued.
they allowed Nuke technology out of the bag to all.
SOLIDARITY
the POLISH resistance UNION was the wall breaker.
Gorby had already gone down the path of perestroika.
He had come asking for help and "WE" all turned them down. leading to the uncontrolled breakup that is the root of so many nuke secret slip ups.(Oh and not to mention Biotech experts looking for work. then there were the missile technology folk without work.
I could go on and on about how there were so many factors other than america.
Then I only lived in a couple of "commie countries".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity
It was the UNIONS that broke the soviet Union.
so get it right.
Despite all you rabid star spangled woppeee do da's opinion Reagan was not a member of Solidarity and did no more to encourage the fall of communism than the UK FRANCE Germany or any other country.
I happened to have watched some of this unfolding. It was liberation time and america was not on the top of everyone's tongues .
Metalica AC/DC might have been.
Complain about this comment
230
I cut and pasted it because for over a year now some like you have remained free of harassment by the mods.
I am glad to see they are getting a bit more even handed.
Shame they let MA through most of the time (though he does good to illustrate how crazy some are)
Socialist did not post it I did. I did because it is a perfect example of how a really innocent post with no rule breakages is banned and yet we read so many spam posters comments and hate.
Why should it have been removed ,I wish to know.Why is it that people who spend their time writing in are throw away for no reason while others that do break the rules are left unhindered?
Why should someone engaged in a conversation of sorts be shut up until the rest have left the room?
Those removals are done it seems to make some seem as if they are radicals or extreme.
I know I have seen what happened to the happylaze and all.To my own posts when they are on the back pages. they start to disappear.
This is a form of slander or defamation of character. It attempts to paint posters as off topic rabids.
There are some posters that were banned out right FOR LIFE because they tried to repeat a message that was true , on topic, and politely phrased.
They were found to be " arguing against the moderators will " it seems.
There was some hope that this situation could be sorted out but it seems that it has not been.
Just as I wish to know what you wrote but because I didn't see it I have no copy (sorry).Sorry I couldn't help you but then. You really don't deserve it .
Those republicans that pretend to be reasonable are faking it to look good in front of the cameras.
reality they are Nay sayers and I think what they say comes from the back end of the horse as well.
Complain about this comment
meerkat 62
"1. Do you know how many of those 40 million without health insurance (not without health care!) are illegal aliens? Roughly half (at least)."
Is this right? I always thought it was roughly 40 million Americans without health insurance. Surely illegals do count as "Americans".
Perhaps a third party can enlighten me.
Secondly, Meerkat, there has not been much of your output with which I agree recently, but here you hit the nail squarely on the head...
"
Health insurence premiums will not come down unless there is a meaningful TORT reform in this country first.
Complain about this comment
Clicked the post button on my last offering too early! Doh!
Anyway, back to the topic, long term readers will know I am usually highly positive about Obama and his ideas, but this has left me very disappointed. We end up debating a mish-mash of ideas with no real substance, or chnge.
Mandatory insurance ... does this mean the govt will fine you if you can't the policy on offer because you have a pre-existing condition.
Sure the Ins Company can't refuse you cover, but they can presumably load it so high as to make it prohibitive.
Does nothing to reduce the offensive profit margins of insurers.
In short it all a bit "blah" and very disappointing.
Complain about this comment
217. At 00:26am on 12 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
196. fluffytale: Stop reading my posts if you can't handle them. Better yet. Remove yourself.
OH ROFLOL
Adreinny since you first post you have never once made one original non GOP website based comment.
I can handle your posts but the fabric of the universe will pull apart if these lies persist much longer.
we are all doomed and I wouldn't want that.
(in other words. it looks like you are having a problem.not my deal, try to engage off the paste site and you might be taken seriously.
Technically just because you all paste as individuals it is not spam. but as one that Never liked spam I'm quite good at spotting it.
Complain about this comment
rome stu . the worry that the industry will take compulsory insurance as an excuse to raise prices is a big worry.
Car insurance here is a pile of (looking for polite word again) crock.
They get my credit rating and count that. not how many time I have crashed.
they fixed it so marroned people can crash all the time and get away with it as long as they have a good credit score.
then one day they kill someone and every one wonders.
Unless they all want to be regulated Very heavily the force to pay option will fail.
I for one just can't afford it.
Simple.
Not until they reduce the cost of that insurance considerably.
I am still of the opinion that we need to agree where we are heading first before we go off plotting course.
Complain about this comment
one more comment to bienvenue
Apparently that means "welcome" but you complain about a name.
Hardly welcoming. should we point out the contradiction in your name?
I suppose so.
Complain about this comment
Re #235 RomeStu wrote: I always thought it was roughly 40 million Americans without health insurance. Surely illegals do count as "Americans".
I'm not sure I understand the 2nd sententce unless you meant to write "don't" instead of "do". Can you clarify?
Complain about this comment
To Mr./Ms. BienvenueEnLouisiana
I never even saw your post that was referred. I don't know where you got the idea that "so many" of my posts have been removed. Only one has, actually, because the second one was a copy of the first one that was never posted at all before it was "removed." (And now is here again thanks to fluffytale. Thanks, fluffy!)
If you look up the definitions of the words "socialist" and "libertarian," lower case, you will find, if you think about it, that it is quite easy for one to have political ideas and beliefs about different things that fall into each of those categories. That is why I use lower case, not the capital letters that would indicate political systems.
I did not realize that if someone disagrees with another poster, it is acceptable to then, in ignorance, attack their screen name. That's just so silly. Thanks to fluffytale for pointing out that hypocrisy to you.
Complain about this comment
This discussion appears to have reached such a level of irrelevance so that it is probably time to let the patient pass on decently. I would have like to see the discussion revert to the U.S. health system rather than dwell continuously on political and often personal invective. A number of crucial points remain that I have hardly seen mentioned that, nevertheless, should be considered by all citizens of the U.S.A., especially in a wider forum.
1. The preamble to the US Constitution (the brilliant basis for the USA) states:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I then looked up the word welfare with the definition taken from the American Heritage Dictionary (to avoid British contamination of possible meaning), to find welfare defined as
“health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being”
I feel that this suggests that the founding fathers would have been quite strongly in favor of universal health care as a right rather than as a privilege. Heath care as privilege rather than as right, is how it appears in the U.S., at least to outsiders, right now. What is more the wording puts the general welfare right up there with the common defence.
2. The US, taken as a whole (i.e. excluding those minorities who have no problem with access to what is undoubtedly some of the best research-based medical care available) performs extremely badly in world comparisons. The WHO (in 2008) rated the US as 37th out of 191 nations in 2000.
“The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18th. Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy”. France was ranked first.
I know of no reasons why this placing should have changed significantly, so if advised where to send a patient, even one with unlimited funds, I know where I would advise them to go, and it’s not the U.S., nor the U.K. either. Rather than trumpeting how good their health system is, I might advise all U.S. citizens to be both quiet and ashamed. Quiet because 37th in the world is pretty poor for any rich nation, ashamed because they have clearly thrown away most of the money they pay (see 3).
3. The U.S. health system (figures from New England Journal of Medicine in 2009), is considerably more expensive than other countries when taking into account per capita GDP and per capita GDP expenditure on health care. Richer countries pay more per head is the expectation with a quite straight line relationship, apart from the U.S., that pays far more per head. Total expenditure in 2006 of $ 2,053M is $ 643M above what would be expected on a world-wide basis (this is 45% higher than the GDP corrected expectation). Outpatient care, at $ 850M is $ 643M above expectation, but there are saving with long-term care, durables and investments in health being $ 122M below expectation. So, for mediocre average health care the U.S. is paying way above the odds – I would expect all right-minded defenders of free markets to be up in arms about this as it is strong evidence that the current system is not working at all well and some radical fixes are needed. A rational discussion, such as I fail to find here, would get down to facts and data rather than opinions.
4. The biggest source of bankruptcies in the U,S, is due to health care costs and the fear of the economic consequences of becoming ill, of losing insurance cover or of having that cover rescinded is acting as a major brake on the U.S. economy. The health care system as currently structured appears to create a situation in which people are afraid to move jobs, reducing the advantages of a free market that free movement of labor supports.
5. There are countries such as the Netherlands with universal private insurance, but with associated minimal benefits for all those who are (mandatorily) enrolled. These countries appear to offer better health care, with better value for money, and provide models so that a public option could be reduced to an insurer of last resort (like the banks?). In fact, pace some discussions here, the Netherlands got rid of its public option and implemented a fully private and economically competitive health care system quite recently. There are some hiccups as the new system settles down, but I know that should I or any of my family members fall ill we will be treated, competently, proportionate to the clinical needs. (This may be one of the hidden issues – should health care be patient driven, i.e. as a privilege for those who can afford it, or clinically driven, but as a right for those who have the clinical need regardless of position or wealth?).
Complain about this comment
237. fluffytale:
"Adreinny since you first post you have never once made one original non GOP website based comment."
**************
Making stuff up again are you? The only non-original post was on the investigation into Bush Sr., for which I provided the source. Or did you think I made up the part about my mother's death?
Has it occurred to you that my comments sound like GOP views because I happen to be a Republican?
Try to not muddle things.
Complain about this comment
223. KScurmudgeon:
"... I hear the rustling and raging of a foregone conclusion. Please, Andrea in NY, study the problem and form in your mind (or on word processor) a solution that is equitable and financially plausible, and we can discuss it. "
*************
Fair point. I have given far greater thought to the "consumer" end of health care because of my caring for my mother these past 2 years. Making end-of-life decisions certainly focuses the mind on what is important.
What I am getting up to speed on now is the insurance model and what must exist in the pool of insureds to make the model work. All must be in it, I believe, to make it work vis-a-vis proposed changes. A size threshold exists as well, which makes the success of co-ops questionable.
Another interesting aspect of reform is the use of a "trigger". I'm unfamiliar with past triggers and whether they've worked. Unintended consequences and changing them later come to mind.
The government vs. private argument is not worth debating. We have our views. Likewise, how to make the insurance companies do the right thing. I'm inclined to take my business elsewhere. In other words, choice.
Appreciate your civility.
Complain about this comment
#230. BienvenueEnLouisiana: "I do not presume to speak for all Americans, but I do reflect the position of a sizeable plurality of voting individuals that cannot and should not be ignored--not some far right radical fringe."
Then why not say so in your original post - you wrote "we do not want European style single-payer programs." We, we, we, got it? It seems to me that you presumed a lot.
#232. MarcusAureliusII: "as I recall CDC in Atlanta and the French discovered that the HIV virus was responsible for AIDS simultaneously and independently."
The Nobel Prize went to the French researchers Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier. The American researcher, Robert Gallo was deemed not have been the first to discover HIV.
"The big mistake was to not quarrantine the victims early on."
One might be the victim of a murder, accident or burglary, but those with medical conditions are sufferers, not "victims". Since HIV/Aids (to use the British acronym) can take as long as a decade to manifest itself, how would you have proposed that American citizens on both coasts be quarantined? Not only would it have been politically incorrect, but unconstitutional and impossible to do. Since the virus arose in Africa, why do you suppose American male homosexuals were responsible for the number of infected persons on that continent? It's more likely that it spread through the population by infection from someone like the one who contaminated the (supposedly) first American patient. Blaming an American gay man for a worldwide pandemic is outrageous. To this day, uneducated male South Africans believe that having intercourse with a virgin will rid them of the disease - but do not realise that it only spreads it - and to the potential resulting foetus.
Complain about this comment
Re #245 According to certain Nobel Peace Prize laureat from Africa HIV has been concocted in Ft. Detrick (Md) with an objective to depopulate sub-Suharan Africa thus making it ready for massive white immigration.
And if you don't believe that such claim could be made in all seriousness, look up the woman's bio and check for yourselves.
Complain about this comment
the biggest cause for the spread of Aids was the attitude that condoms were worthless and bad from the Christians.
All that " every sperm is sacred "rubbish.
Though I wont post the obvious link here because it might offend some.
The aids programs set up by america included in recent years the useful advice of " abstinence" while a virtuous Idea was a little impractical in the face of millions of years of evolution .
How much of that Bush money was pent on sending religious people out to tell rape victims to be abstinent.
Complain about this comment
ALL YOU GOPPERS.
The UK has MORE CHOICE than you get.
They can chose between the NHS and private.
They have a choice.
Americans against a gov run non profit health system are saying NO CHOICE.
They are the ones saying that choice is bad.
I chose the Gov option , you go with your private option.
OH WAIT YOU HAVE STOPPED MY CHOICE.
so get off your choice horse and try to be a little honest in your debate,
Complain about this comment
235. At 1:47pm on 12 Sep 2009, RomeStu:
It seems there is a concerted attempt at misinformation. As I understamd it, the number of "illegal immigrants" to the US has been variously estimated at between 4 and 12 million. Since it is presumed that many, oif not most, do not fill in census forms, do not appear on employer pay rolls and so on, there is no way pf colecting accurate statistics.
For the same reason, one presumes they cannot be included among the numbers of Americans surveyed who do not have health insurance. They're, to all intents and purposes, statistically invisible.
I note that recently "illegal immigrants" have become "illegal aliens" in what is obviously a process of dehumanisation. Of a kind anyone familiar with European history in the 1930's would easily recognise. I believe a Boston phone-in host recently said responding to a caller "calling them 'illegal immigrants is being too kind to them'.
Complain about this comment
243 No because you repeat their lies ad nauseam.
your posts with the incidental " my mum" comments are just more of the same "death panel" lies.
you are so unoriginal and in sincere you might be a Rembrant painting.
And the ever classic adrienny.
lets be civil. while you ignore months worth of discussions and well made points to hide your republican head in the sand and shout "but we are not europe" etc.
again and again.
Complain about this comment
231. At 08:55am on 12 Sep 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana:
People who post on this blog may choose whatever descriptive or other screen name they choose. According to you, it would appear that anyone called "John Smith" who was not a blacksmith, or "Bill Fletcher" who did not make arrows, a Green who was white or brown, would have to change their names by deed poll.
Complain about this comment
I think that Obama will get his health bill passed in a form similar to its current one, using budget reconciliation and receiving no more than two Republican votes in the Senate (I don't see budget reconciliation as much of an issue since it is just another cheap political trick, just like a filibuster). This is because the Republicans will leave him no choice, seeing as a complete refusal to consider the public option (which is supported by the vast majority of Americans, although the current bill is not, I believe due to the Medicare funding issue, which I also find suspicious) is evidence that the Republicans will not make *any* compromise with Democratic policy on health care, seeing as the public option is probably the bare minimum of what Democrats want. Therefore, the minority will learn that they are the minority and that if they want a meaningful role in policy they should accept that.
I also think the Democrats should make it clear to the American people exactly what the Republicans are doing by, instead of backing down when the Republicans and Blue Dogs threaten a filibuster, simply allowing them to read the phone directory from the Senate Floor and seeing how far this gets them with the American people. The Republicans are trying to filibuster virtually every bill they disagree with. Under G.W. it took 50 votes (+ Cheney) to pass legislation through the Senate, whereas now it takes 60. Is that right?
Both parties need to stop pretending that insurance alone will solve the problem. Even if we magically reduce insurance overhead to 5% and make the insurance industry one that pools risk and makes profit by applying the laws of probability (as insurance should be) rather than spending all (OK, 30%) of their customers' money building a massive bureaucracy to deny them care so they can make money off of every customer, we would still be spending more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world. The corruption in our system goes down to its very roots. Once I heard a story that a company made $5 toy to make you sound like Darth Vader which turned out to provide certain people who could not talk with speech. A medical company tried to buy the patent so they could sell it for $80 (The other company was delighted to be helping people and refused). An operation that might cost $200 in Israel at a for profit hospital could cost thousands here. In my own family I know about a surgeon who wanted to charge $150,000 and settled for $65,000 from our insurance. That is corruption, pure and simple. 30% of an average doctors' income goes into billing, and much of the rest into insurance against inflated malpractice suits. Medical school costs hundreds of thousands of dollars when it should be subsidized as a public necessity. The amount of money that goes into bureaucratic waste, profiteering corporations, and frivolous lawsuits at every stage of our health care industry is simply unimaginable, and in the end the insured get health care comparable to what they would get in France or Japan for double to cost and the uninsured get only emergency and charity care.
Personally, I think that although I do not like the idea of public health care providers, what our system really needs is a bill that gives every health care corporation 5 years to clean up their act or face either nationalization or forced sale to a more honest company.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#246. powermeerkat: "According to certain Nobel Peace Prize laureat from Africa HIV has been concocted in Ft. Detrick (Md) . . ."
Since Wangari Maathai is the only Black, female African laureate, you are misinformed about her beliefs. She rejected the notion that Aids was deliberately created, by saying:
I have warned people against false beliefs and misinformation such as attributing this disease to a curse from God or believing that sleeping with a virgin cures the infection. These prevalent beliefs in my region have led to an upsurge in rape and violence against children. It is within this context, also complicated by the cultural and religious perspective, that I often speak. I have therefore been shocked by the ongoing debate generated by what I am purported to have said. It is therefore critical for me to state that I neither say nor believe that the virus was developed by white people or white powers in order to destroy the African people. Such views are wicked and destructive.
Take note of the last sentence. Perhaps you subscribe to Jerry Falwell's observation that “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.” And this from a man who professes to be a Christian!
Complain about this comment
250. fluffytale: "your posts with the incidental " my mum" comments are just more of the same "death panel" lies. "
********************
Yours is a very sick mind.
Complain about this comment
251, squirrellist:
Thank you so much for defending posters' right to screen names of their choice. However, as with a John Smith who happens to be a smith, I do happen to be what my screen name says, although BienvenueEnLouisiana insists that I do not exist. Perhaps he/she needs to get out and meet people who don't fit into the pigeon holes created mostly by the media and pollsters. There are even people who can hold "red/blue" opinions at the same time but on different issues. For instance, those rare birds who are against both abortion and the death penalty. They could use the screen name liberalconservative and be accurate, no matter who says they cannot exist.
Complain about this comment
Re#254. You have somehow forgot to mention that you've quoted a grudging retraction of original statement, made by by Mz. Maathai only when faced with prospect of litigation.
So let me correct that (I'm sure, unintentional) ommission.
"The Standard reported that Maathai had claimed HIV/AIDS was "deliberately created by Western scientists to decimate the African population."[
Maathai denied making the allegations, but The Standard has stood by its reports.
In a 2004 interview with Time Magazine, in response to questions concerning that report, Maathai replied, "I have no idea who created AIDS and whether it is a biological agent or not. But I do know things like that don't come from the moon. I have always thought that it is important to tell people the truth, but I guess there is some truth that must not be too exposed," and when asked what she meant, she continued, "I'm referring to AIDS. I am sure people know where it came from. And I'm quite sure it did not come from the monkeys"
Not bad for a bovine veterinarian. Not bad at all.
Complain about this comment
255 your the sick mind that claims NHS produces death panels or would kill people through not caring.
Your whole attack on others rights to have health care is pretty sick to most europeans.
184" I believe the fear is that a government-run entity would siphon off customers from private insurers to the point where private insurers would go out of business."
So a gov run entity that was better run would stop all the inefficiency and ruin it for the industry.
dear me.
" than mine completely (in consultation with her doctors)"
surely it is her decision. you after all might be looking at getting something out of it.
the Doc would loose a patient. so not so clear on this are you.
your whole 184 post is one long winded attempt to say "death panels" you are too obvious.
after all it is what you are trying to say but not say.
Obama this Obama that.
link to end of life. link to rationing link to whatever .
You never gave a chance to him and are speaking just as uo did before the elections.
Like another right wing star earning blogger.
on Campaign for the next two years.
Complain about this comment
Re #254 cont.
Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, today reiterated her claim that the AIDS virus was a deliberately created biological agent. [...]
"Us black people are dying more than any other people in this planet," Ms Maathai told a press conference in Nairobi a day after winning the prize for her work in human rights and reversing deforestation across Africa. [...]
"In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare," she added."
[ABC News Online, Oct.9, 2004]
Complain about this comment
259
kitty. what has any of this got to do with obama and his healthcare speech or indeed the conversation about it.
sorry I see you have a bee in your hood but . what is the relevance. if not relevance is there some humour we should take into account or is this just another of your pickle like attempts to discredit all blacks by mentioning one that has a problem with the USA.
Many americans believe it was created in a lab /.both black and white.
There is as much proof to it as creationism so I generally discount it.
Complain about this comment
Sorry DC I was assuming he will ignore your quote with his quote but really it is all about his general deal of suggesting that whites keep the world safe from others doing harm to themselves
Complain about this comment
I haven't raised the subject of HIV and its discovery here.
Merely responded.
And for balance, here's my attempt to discredit some whites (for a change ;-):
Jakob Segal, a former biology professor at Humboldt University in communist East Germany, proposed that HIV was engineered at a U.S. military laboratory at Fort Detrick, by splicing together two other viruses, Visna and HTLV-1. According to his theory, the new virus, created between 1977 and 1978, was tested on prison inmates who had volunteered for the experiment in exchange for early release. He further suggested that it was through these prisoners that the virus was spread to the population at large. He has been accused, however, by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin as having been disseminating disinformation on behalf of the Soviet Union.
Yep. As certain national socialist, dr Goebbels, was fond of saying:
"Lay it thick and something will stick".
Complain about this comment
So the words of vested interest traitors to their nation are to be believed as long as they are in favour of america?
But please do explain it's relevance ?
Complain about this comment
251, 256:
I'm sorry, I just can't be mad over comments like this, I just can't.
They imply something so outlandish that I can't help but ROTFlol.
"People who post on this blog may choose whatever descriptive or other screen name they choose. According to you, it would appear that anyone called "John Smith" who was not a blacksmith, or "Bill Fletcher" who did not make arrows, a Green who was white or brown, would have to change their names by deed poll."
lol, according to you, you mean. I would read back the minutes to you if this was a court of law because it would prove I never said nor implied any such thing. You are a clever blogger, and I mean that will all sincerity.
..."although BienvenueEnLouisiana insists that I do not exist."
OMG..I..can't..lol..breath. No, you exist alright, but my critic of your screen name still stands. It sure would be a bummer to find out that I've been debating/arguing with myself or with a make-believe blogger.
lol, and one last thing before I go...Yes, Bienvenue does mean welcome; y'all are always welcome to debate me as I am usually pretty civil, but it doesn't mean that I won't ever get pissed off or try to win the argument. The reality is that yesterday I was angered by #211, not by its content, but by its tone and it set me off.
I think I'm done with this thread, as its topic has been exhausted. Y'all take care now, even you Mr. "I do not exist." lol.
Complain about this comment
219. At 01:12am on 12 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Simple Simon
You can't even read. So much for your taxpayer paid British education. I wrote that she posed as a prostitute, not that she was a prostitute. Do you know the difference?
I think that it's good that American saves the lives of Africans suffering from AIDS. Perhaps some of them will find their way to Europe where they can continue their treatment at European taxpayer expense under their socialist medical policies.
I don't know what your obsession about Roumania is. My grandmother left Transylvania to come to America over a hundred years ago."
Oh Marcus I am just trying to understand your phobic view of the world.
" Of course I fly back there every morning by dawn to sleep in my natie soil in my coffin. I have all the modern conveniences back there. If I wake, I've got a laptop with a cellular modem right inside with me so I can post even when the sun is shining."
Well that is convenient. But do you tell your relatives etc how much you despise them?
Complain about this comment
Ah yes. BienvenueEnLouisiana, you are obviously one of those who can't stand the heat of the kitchen so you make snide remarks and then flee. Your criticism (not "critic," or did you mean "critique"?) of my screen name was that such a person as a socialist libertarian cannot exist, therefore the name is intellectually dishonest. You have conveniently forgotten your own words. Instead of admitting you were in fact wrong, as any mature person would do, you ridicule what is not ridiculous. You want to believe this saves face. It does not. It only shows you in a ridiculous light.
Did your anger at my asking you not to speak for me or other Americans whose views differ from yours cause you to have my comment referred? I did not realize that anger at another's remarks, even if justified, was sufficient reason for a comment to be removed. I have never tried it, nor do I wish to. I find it very interesting that someone who uses such a belittling tone would him/herself take exception to my fairly innocuous comment. It's very unreasonable and, again, makes you look ridiculous. But this is what some of us have come to expect from the teabaggers.
Complain about this comment
262. At 7:19pm on 12 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Yep. As certain national socialist, dr Goebbels, was fond of saying:
"Lay it thick and something will stick".
If this is the same man as Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, he only spoke German. So he is unlikely to have ever said this.
Complain about this comment
If my comment at 266 disappears, we will all know what happened to it.
Complain about this comment
63. At 5:50pm on 10 Sep 2009, mischievousdoug wrote:
ref 57 simon 21
Don't put words in my mouth and do some math. His proposal will require providers for an additional 30-50 million people on top of the 250 to 270 million who currently have insurance. Who is going to provide medical care to the newly insured? The caregivers who currently service the insured. Those with existing insurance will have longer wait times for everything from primary care to specialist care; a fact he conviently fails to mention. The fact is significant segments of the non-wealthy American population will pay either financially or in other ways to provide care for the uninsured. It may or may not be the right thing to do. Obama is just showing us the happy side of this; and not the whole truth."
Maybe he thinks he is dealing with grown ups. When the US army fights it does not distiguish between those who pay the most taxes for its weapons and those without incomes. US police are not supposed to just be concerned with the Middle Classes in terms of law enforcement.
The uninsured are Americans, just as much as the insured. To serve their needs will of course involve resources. The scandal is its taken this long for this obvious fact to sink in.
But as in so many things, civil rights, political reform, etc the US takes an enormous long time to do the obvious
Complain about this comment
244. At 4:54pm on 12 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
223. KScurmudgeon:
"... I hear the rustling and raging of a foregone conclusion. Please, Andrea in NY, study the problem and form in your mind (or on word processor) a solution that is equitable and financially plausible, and we can discuss it. "
*************
Fair point. I have given far greater thought to the "consumer" end of health care because of my caring for my mother these past 2 years. Making end-of-life decisions certainly focuses the mind on what is important."
I agree with everything you have said here. Although this is a complex problem, I believe we can solve it through, as you describe it, civil discussion. But getting that to haen is the difficulty.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
I am a Democrat who voted for Obama, but I did not like his speech for three reasons. 1) He stated insurance would be mandatory and required by the government- that made me angry, as he said we would get fined(His plan calls to fine people who can't afford insurance- Duh! Why do you think we don't have insurance- because we can't afford it!) and the mandatory requirement is the main reason why I am against his health care plan (and I am one of the millions who don't have insurance, due to financial reasons). I feel this is the government taking my freedom away, by making this mandatory. 2) He said that people who can't afford health insurance would be offered an afforable plan through the government. What is considered to be affordable to a Congress who is made up of mostly millionaires? Obama did not offer a price. $35, $50, or $200? ( Personally, I cannot afford $200 insurance. I have a friend with a job at a university who pays $35 a month for insurance. That's great- if you have a job, which is the biggest problem in America right now. Millions are searching for jobs and there are none, hence, no insurance.) Not only that, government insurance may not have the quality doctors that other insurance companies offer. That means we would get cheaper and less quality care. 3) He did not give a definitive answer on how to decrease health care costs. Whether people are insured or uninsured, there is no reason why health care should be thousands of dollars. There needs to be an investigation into why and how it is so expensive for care. Is it the Dr.'s because of malpractice suits or is it the hospital or drug companies? Obama left the cost of health care out and did not offer details. That all being said, Obama had a few really good phrases that I liked and made me happy, optimistic and on his side, until he mentioned the word mandatory health care. That made my heart sink like a weight. Health care should be available at an affordable cost, but not mandatory. That is why, as a Democrat, I do not support Obama's health care plan, because it takes our freedoms away. I hope his health care plan doesn't pass, unless he wakes up to the American people and takes the mandatory requirement out of it.
Complain about this comment
in ref. to 266:
Ah yes, socialistlibertarian, thank you for posting another masterfully typed rebuttal showing how reasonable you deem yourself to be. You are so adept at spinning words and outright lies that at a glance they look as if I had said them myself. But you have weaved those lies and falsehoods so tight that the only hope for them of being accepted is if the readers do not go back and read our earlier posts; they have gone from being reasonable to silly to insidious.
Know that I am aware that you and others intentionally prevented me from describing the healthcare reform I had in mind by making me constantly defend my use of an apostrophe and the word "we", and what I said about Communism and your name because they were convenient distractions from the topic. No, sir, I was not unreasonable; I was under siege. And, I will have you and everyone here know that I have never referred another person's post to the moderators, not even once. The only post I ever referred to the mods was one of my earliest posts which I had mistakenly referred.
It is clear to me now that I must be serious, clear, and concise when dealing with one such as you because your response was no laughing matter.
I will end by doing what I should have done right after typing #162. Listed below are general healthcare reform measures that I support:
>compulsory insurance
>ability to keep the insurance provider & doctor that you have
>elimination of the pre-existing conditions clause
>keeping the deficit from exploding
>prohibiting insurance providers from dropping clients
>tort reform
>ability to purchase insurance across state lines
If I did more research I might could also support a public broker of wholly private insurance companies, but never a public only single-payer system.
So that's it. I'm done.
Good day to y'all.
Complain about this comment
270. At 10:05pm on 12 Sep 2009, you wrote:
I agree with everything you have said here. Although this is a complex problem, I believe we can solve it through, as you describe it, civil discussion. But getting that to haen is the difficulty.
KScurmudgeon
sorry - That should have been 'getting that to happen'...
citizen curmudgeonus
Complain about this comment
Illinoisan #271,
He can't take out the mandatory requirement, that's partly (um, mostly) how he plans to pay for some of this. Besides, most democrats see it for what it is, public option rebranded, and so are in favor of it. It also makes them look like they are compromising, when it's just bait and switch. They got you either way.
----
Fluffytale,
Most Americans see Europe as the poster child for moral decay, so the European moral argument of "we did it, why can't you" just doesn't hold water and falls on deaf ears. So, not following Europe's lead is not a lack of morals on our part, but rather a moral imperative by design.
Complain about this comment
244. At 4:54pm on 12 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
*************
Fair point. I have given far greater thought to the "consumer" end of health care because of my caring for my mother these past 2 years. Making end-of-life decisions certainly focuses the mind on what is important."
And you might consider that the doctors who treated your mother had to be accredited by the state, as did the nurses who also treated her.
The building in which she was treated had to conform to state building regulations.
The equipment used in her treatment would have been licensed by the state.
The drugs would have been regulated by the FDA (a state agency) and if imported the US customs service would have been involved.
So the state was intimately concerned with your mother's medical care.
I could carry on, but that would involve more unavoury references.
Thus statements that a national medical insurance plan involve freakish extensions of state authority, are, as usual, bogus and to a large extent ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
271. At 10:15pm on 12 Sep 2009, Illinoisan wrote:
I am a Democrat who voted for Obama, but I did not like his speech for three reasons. 1) He stated insurance would be mandatory and required by the government- that made me angry, as he said we would get fined(His plan calls to fine people who can't afford insurance- Duh! Why do you think we don't have insurance- because we can't afford it!) and the mandatory requirement is the main reason why I am against his health care plan (and I am one of the millions who don't have insurance, due to financial reasons). I feel this is the government taking my freedom away, by making this mandatory."
You prefer the freedom to die of preventable disease?
Well good luck with that.
As the King of Id once said - some Admin problems are solved easier than others.
"2) He said that people who can't afford health insurance would be offered an afforable plan through the government. What is considered to be affordable to a Congress who is made up of mostly millionaires? Obama did not offer a price. $35, $50, or $200? ( Personally, I cannot afford $200 insurance. I have a friend with a job at a university who pays $35 a month for insurance. That's great- if you have a job,"
MIght not be so great, almost certain to be an excess and how much of his sub goes to provinding the "benefits" the insurance CEOSand their staff enjoy?
"which is the biggest problem in America right now. Millions are searching for jobs and there are none, hence, no insurance.) Not only that, government insurance may not have the quality doctors that other insurance companies offer."
Yes but it will be better than er, nothing. Most people who have not had the chance to see any doctor will accept the opportunity to see one.
"That means we would get cheaper and less quality care."
"We". You are not insured according to you. So you do not get any quality care.
"3) He did not give a definitive answer on how to decrease health care costs. Whether people are insured or uninsured, there is no reason why health ca"re should be thousands of dollars. There needs to be an investigation into why and how it is so expensive for care."
But as long as US healthcare is a rort between well heeled insurance companies and the superbly well paid medical establishment no inquiry is possible.
". That made my heart sink like a weight. Health care should be available at an affordable cost, but not mandatory. That is why, as a Democrat, I do not support Obama's health care plan, because it takes our freedoms away. I hope his health care plan doesn't pass, unless he wakes up to the American people and takes the mandatory requirement out of it."
It needs to be mandatory to be universal. Like going to school
Complain about this comment
"[S]ocialistlibertarian's name is intellectually dishonest &/or misleading. Almost anyone with a university level degree in political science can tell you that Socialist-Libertarians cannot exist; their ideological philosophies are completely opposed." - BienvenueEnLouisiana
I am a socialist libertarian, as my screen name says. This person has said I cannot exist, yet here I am. Then he denies he said it.
Who's telling lies here?
(By the way, I sure would love to have seen the defense of using an apostrophe in a non-possessive plural word!)
Gosh, this has been entertaining, but I see trying to reason with some people is futile and quickly becomes a bore, especially when they resort to playground insults.
Complain about this comment
If 'buying' health care (rather than 'providing' it) is to be made accessible to those who currently cannot fond the means to pay current prices for it, I am at a loss to see how fining anyone would solve that problem. Surely, it would merely remove yet more income from a poor family, this making buying an insurance policy even less affordable.
This seems quite nonsensical. Other countries which rely on private provision subsidise it for those on low incomes or who are out of work, or physically or mentally unable to work.
If 'universal' health care is to be achieved in the USA, I cannot see any plausible alternative to that kind of system.
Fining employers who canprovide insurance cover for their employees, but will not in the mere pursuit of profit, however, seems perfectly sensible. In other countries, employers are taxed for this, and fined for evading it as anyone is for evading any tax.
I agree that an essential issue that was not addressed is how premiums can be made affordable. As things stand, I do not see how a government could provide an alternative in any way. Were it to find some way of providing cheaper premiums, then what would stop 300 milion people abandoning their current provisions?
(So many appear to believe they will never be ill with anything worse than a common cold. How many actively shop around for insurance on the basis of top quality medical provision on the grounds they might end up like Christopher Reeve, for example? Very, very few, I should think.)
Yet, if such a programme were provided according to applicants' means, then how could it possibly pay for itself? It would be patently impossible.
And, if policy providers are to be forced to cover pre-existing conditions, have no annual or lifetime cap on costs. and pay for preventive care, with no cap on their own fees, what on this earth is to prevent them simply doubling the current premiums to maintain their profits with no equally big non-profit sector to provide an alternative to dissuade them?
I can see an obvious unintended consequence: that even more Americans will become uninsured, more 'fined' for it, and the proportion of GDP spent on health in the US rockets up even faster.
It worries me, or would if I were a US citizen (though I have friends there who will be affected by it all too) that either many of the practicalities have not been thought out, or real solutions sought, and especially are virtually never discussed in the US media.
Basically if you try to compromise with two utterly opposing and entrenched political ideologies, satisfying one side with this, another with that, you end up with the worst, not of both political worlds, but of all of them.
Of course, the simplest fix is simply to say "if you can't, or won't, pay, die." Possibly in agony, probably lengthily. As it appears thousands would like to see illegal immigrants do, whatever plan appears over the next couple of months.
We do not choose our diseases or modes of dying. (If I had a choice, do you for one moment imagine I would have chosen how I will be spending the rest of my life now, or how it is likely to end as a result of the disability I developed not that many years ago? Or have been able to tailor it somehow so it was 'affordable' according to my income before it began, before I had any idea it would happen, even?)
Health is not a consumer good.You can't pick the best in the shop, and say "Yes, I'll have that and it'll last forever."
Complain about this comment
Kansas Curmudgeon -- enjoying your posts. Thanks for your thoughts. I am a Canadian liberal, but it's nice to find a reasonable conservative voice from south of the line.
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
258. fluffytale: "255 your the sick mind that claims NHS produces death panels or would kill people through not caring."
*****************
Are we all starting to get jumbled in your mind? Not my claims.
Complain about this comment
277. At 01:10am on 13 Sep 2009, socialistlibertarian wrote:
"By the way, I sure would love to have seen the defense of using an apostrophe in a non-possessive plural word!"
Just for the fun of it, I can manage that. I think. (Though I'm not sure it coincides with the post referred to.)
It was once acceptable that a word or abbreviation not commonly pluralised, would be given an apostrophe-s. "The dinner was attended by forty MP's" for example. Or, at a pinch, "There are two Memphis's in the world." Or, thinking of Mae West's famous remark, "You mean there are two 9'o'clock's in the day?"
However, most style guides (If not all) would now insist on a simple plural s, and no apostrophe, and in the case of the two Memphes (!) the sentence would be rewritten to avoid the problem altogether, since both that example, "two Memphis" and "two Memphiss" would read very oddly.
(Since I'm fond of apostrophes, I'll often use the old rule myself, at least privately, but never professionally.)
Complain about this comment
Re #267. [Simon says...]
If you don't like my "Lay it thick and something will stick"American equivalent and want a literal translation of the above mentioned propagandist's (dr Goebbels') advice for his fellow National Socialists here it goes:
"LIE, LIE AND EVENTUALLY SOME OF IT WILL BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH".
[Sechsundezwanzig Professoren, Vaterland, du bist verloren. :-(]
BTW. At the Saturday, roughly 100 000 strong demonstration in Washington, D.C., against Obama's health plans an immigrant from Ukraine held a sign: "I had enough socialism in USSR"
Now, would you like me to translate literally for you (from Russian) what another socialist, by the name Ulyanov (aka Lenin), said about 'useful idiots' or do you prefer to read it (or re-read it) in the original?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm back in the USSR
you don't know how happy you are, boy
back in the US, back in the US
back in the USSR"
(The Beatles)
Complain about this comment
Re #175 Anglophone wrote:
"It is correct to say that, because it is a public good and therefore its services must be dispensed to all-comers regardless, it has its limitations. This is precisely because of the bottomless funding pit that seems to exercise Republicans so much (though it always seems strange that you can't spend too much on nuclear submarines)."
I've been pleased to have noticed that "Britons [who]never, never, never shall be slaves" have recently decided to cough up a sizeable chunk of dough for Trident (equipped) submarines.[a government funded program]. :)
Although I'm not happy that so many English (British) doctors who prefer to practice medicine in the U.S. have to jump through so many of our Immigration Service's hoops in order to be allowed to live and work here, just because they come from the 'wrong' region of our planet.
Complain about this comment
278. At 02:17am on 13 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
If 'buying' health care (rather than 'providing' it) is to be made accessible to those who currently cannot fond the means to pay current prices for it, I am at a loss to see how fining anyone would solve that problem. Surely, it would merely remove yet more income from a poor family, this making buying an insurance policy even less affordable. This seems quite nonsensical. " And a long and thoughtfully written list of concerns follows,
I hope this thread survives and you look in to read my answer, because you deserve a thoughtful answer.
I am no expert, but I have listened to the President's statements carefully, and used a positive net to catch his intentions. If you will go to his sites and find the speeches and statements the Administration (not congress) has made, I believe my understanding will be borne out.
- President Obama has said many times that those who are truly too poor to afford the minimum insurance policies will be subsidized.
- Likewise, small business owners who cannot afford to buy insurance for their employees and themselves will be allowed to shop in a separate marketplace of several private and probably a public choice where they can join with others to get group coverage at affordable rates. This is similar to the advantage now enjoyed by very large businesses and federal employees including Congress and its employees.
- Non-profits and small businesses who cannot afford even this will likewise be helped.
- Those who are unable to work will also be allowed to shop for coverage in this separate market.
- The plan is to see that all premiums will become more affordable as three or more factors act to contain medical costs:
1) Open competition in the light of independent ratings for deliverables like cost, outcomes, rejection rates, clarity of terms, fulfillment of terms, etc., will force all private insurers to respond to the consumers' interests.
2) Competition with a government run insurer, which gets its cash flow from premiums just as they do and without any subsidy, will set the stage for a competition between federal and private bureaucracies for service, speed, and customer friendliness, as well as cost.
3) In an environment in which their quality of customer service, timeliness and outcomes are all points of competition, they will find ways to reduce the cost of their service (improve efficiency, reduce staff, focus on their customers' interests) while improving their service so they can stay in the game.
4) If everyone is required to buy insurance and be in the insurance pool, by subsidy, employment, or legal requirement, the insurance pool created will be several tens of millions larger, competition for these new clients will be fierce, and the cost per client will be reduced.
- Shopping for medical insurance will be as intense as shopping for a car or a house.
- It is generally agreed that about 30% of current costs are waste, which can only happen when there is no effective competition. If there are 40 million uninsured, that would be 13% more individuals to cover, many of whom are young and low risk. You can see where the numbers lead.
- The Obama team have identified several initiatives to directly improve efficiency. For example, storing all medical data electronically and sharing it among your physicians and specialists to end the practice of repeating the same exam in each office. this will also reduce duplication and transcription errors that lead to treatment errors.
- You have said "It worries me, ... that either many of the practicalities have not been thought out, or real solutions sought, and especially are virtually never discussed in the US media." I believe they have been thought out as well as they can be at the level of planning. The problem is that our media believe no one would listen at that level. This is a critical problem for our civilization as everything we do becomes more complex.
- As I see it, your next two observations really merge together. The political system we have does not, as in Britain, depend on the development of a majority which then forms a government in the expectation that that majority can then legislate effectively. We are always at the mercy of two coalitions, not one, and a simple majority is hardly sufficient to govern most of the time. Compromises are the rule. Intentions are often abandoned as a bill is wrought in the fires. So producing a law that is effective is always a question of leadership. Is there sufficient leadership, and clarity of vision, to produce something that is not a Frankenstein's monster? So although some would think it only human to cover illegals, that will certainly not happen because a powerful portion of the public will not have it - they are not happy with the idea that they will be paying to insure fellow citizens.
- I am in a similar medical position to yours, but I am also now aware that my type II diabetes was largely my own doing, as was my heart disease. The only hope for the future is education, and the slow change of our culture. A parallel change of our medical culture must also happen so we can all continue to enjoy first rate medical care, rather than the inevitable loss of care that is the result of the national extortion practiced our present medical cabal.
I hope this shows you there is reason to hope for us.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Re#263 "So the words of vested interest traitors to their nation are to be believed as long as they are in favour of america?"
Hmm, well, yes, since Mitrokhin, a former KGB archivist, has managed to smuggle to the West quite a few Lubyanka/s documents. :-)
[known collectively as Mitrokhin Archives].
And USSR wasn't a 'nation', but a super STATE. Nations of USSR, "united for hundreds of years" as USSR anthem claimed, went their separate ways the moment that monstrous GULAG was dismantled.
[Not that Mr. Gazputin is no trying to force some of them back into Moscow's loving embrace.:-)]
Complain about this comment
From the BBC report on Saturday (ca 100 000 strong) protest against pres.Obama's health plans:
"Born free, taxed to death," one protester's sign read while another, held up by an immigrant from Ukraine, said: "I had enough of socialism in the USSR."
Somehow I don't think that such imigrants from Eastern Europe will undermine US freedoms and democratic institutions somebody was alluding to earlier.
And re #271...
The comment's author, self-described Democrat from Illinois who voted for Obama, has been criticized for objecting to 'mandatory insurance' part of the president's proposal as taking away his freedoms.
He was told (by Simon21 in #276) that
"It needs to be mandatory to be universal. Like going to school.".
No it doesn't need to. And going to school should't be mandatory, either.
And, thank God, it isn't. As a matter of fact many Americans prefer (and have chosen)to educated their children at home, where they are likely to receive much better education than in many clearly inferior U.S. public schools, reform of which has been effectively blocked for many years by their Teachers Union.
BTW. Mr. Obama's own children go to an exclusive PRIVATE school in D.C.
Although several public schools are located not far from the White House.
Complain about this comment
284. KScurmudgeon: Is there a model for the government being involved in an industry in a purely competitive fashion?
286. powermeerkat: Do you really want to open up that can of worms -- ex., homeschooling? Couldn't agree with you more, by the way.
Complain about this comment
283 meerkat
"I've been pleased to have noticed that "Britons [who]never, never, never shall be slaves" have recently decided to cough up a sizeable chunk of dough for Trident (equipped) submarines.[a government funded program]. :)"
Yes indeed, but as in many countries, the elected government tends to do what it wants once elected .... and I would hope that a majority of British people would be with me in wishing that money could spent on oter things (like health ... or actually buying decent kit for our active soldiers int he field!).
However your sense of irony is appreciated!
Complain about this comment
286 meerkat (again)
"BTW. Mr. Obama's own children go to an exclusive PRIVATE school in D.C."
Obama is a wealthy self-made man. Although wealthy, he still wishes to improve the lot of poorer Americans rather than simply fortify the wealth of the rich. The idea that he should not send his children to private school just because he has some socially liberal (a good thing IMHO) poicies is absurd.
Also there are security implications .... apparantly there are alot of crazies over your side of the pond!
Complain about this comment
281, Squirrellist -
That use of the apostrophe (in certain abbreviations, etc.) is still accepted here. The use I mentioned, however, was in the plural of the word "American" -- "American's." I'm afraid there is no defense for that, at least not in modern English.
(By the way, I really don't care about anybody's grammar, spelling, or punctuation. The only reason I mentioned that particular error is because the writer was purporting, rather smugly, to speak for all Americans, and if someone is going to cover him/herself with that mantle, he/she at least ought to display impeccable usage in order not to embarrass all those on whose behalf she/he presumes to speak.)
Complain about this comment
Re#289
RomeStu: judging by the outcome of the most recent UK trial of bona fide
UK born terrorists I wouldn't be so sure that you (Britons) have less crazies in you midst than we, Americans, have in ours.
Re#287.
No Andrea, I wouldn't like to open this can of warm [abysmal level of US public schools], particularly that it's been concocted by the liberal left. Let THEM deal with its content.
And, finally, re #288, I whish we could scrap all the weapons and disband all our miliary units.
However, unfortunately, the world is not ruled by boy-scouts wishing us all the best and using boy-scout methods to promulgate their vision of life on this planet.
And as for many hoops British subjects wanting to practice medicine in fascist, backward U.S. have to jump through, unlike immigrants from from other, more favourably looke upon parts of the world, I'm sure you know, as well as I, and many other Americans know, that islam is the fastest growing religion in "the land of the free and the home of the brave". Which at this rate may yet become a Sharia-based caliphate so many European liberal and progressive countries are close to becoming because of the self-induced political-correctness.
But then, hey, from all I've read here, I've been out of KKK by its Grand Wizzard "for right wing extremism". :-)))
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
284. KScurmudgeon:
Thank you. when I realised how long that post was, I assumed it wouldn't be read.
I take all of your points, but--and probably this is the problem with the lack of substantive discussion in the US media--while I know the President has mentioned some form of subsidy, I've not seen exactly how that is to be achieved.
As to cutting costs through savings and competition, for most private individuals, that is, apparently, precisely not what has happened in a market of, say 200 million, so would increasing the size of the market by 13%, including many poor people, really change the situation?
Given the way free markets work, without strict government regulation, surely they are going to get the choice of "take this, it's rubbish, but it's all you'll get from us at that price"?
I've hesitated to mention this before, on the assumption it might just result in a flood of "Well that shows you what 'socialised medicine' costs the taxpayer" posts. But most of our essential medical records here in the UK are held on computer. But they are accessible by anydoctor anywhere in the country. I changed doctors last year (only because mine, who I liked, left) and my new GP could read several years of test results, drug use monitoring, hospital consultants' reports and so on within minutes if it had been necessary. Every visit, anything that arises, any comment I make about my medical condition that's relevant , or may lead to needing some attention later gets typed in usually while I'm there.
It also means that should I end up in hospital anywhere on the country unexpectedly, the hospital should be able to get a fairly quick idea of my medical history if I'm not in a condition to tell them.
Obviously, this certainly makes things more efficient; if one consultant has done an MRI scan, then another knows he might not need to order another one three months later because he doesn't know where the results are. It also allows me to sit beside my GP to look at which hospitals, where, might do a procedure or treatment, who would perform it, what their success rate is, and how long I might have to wait, some of which I can look up myself on the internet. Cost, of course, this being the NHS, doesn't come into it, as it would in the US.
But this cost billions one way and another and proved extraordinarily difficult to get foolproof. More than one software company (including an American one) came to realise they simply didn't have the skills, technology or resources to get it working the way it had to. And that's for a population of 60 million.
Though if you can do it for 60, there's no reason why the same software couldn't handle 300, though I don't see the US Congress allowing it to be bought from a 'foreign' and 'socialist' NHS! But for real efficiency gains, for real spread of choice, that's what is, one day, going to be required.
You see why I say some of this really is not being thought out as comprehensively as it should? Because, obviously, it's been overwhelmed by simplistic political side-taking. As I think fluffytale has been trying to suggest for a long time now, one needs to decide what you want to get to at the end, know exactly where you're starting from, and make a proper map of how to get there, before building half-a-dozen different roads and bridges in the general area in the hope you might.
Still, I hope for the sake of my friends in the US that you're right, and something does work out in the end. Though I find the notion that several million people might well be left altogether bereft of any care at all, even in an emergency, as a part of it, because they are 'illegal aliens', or as has already happened, be deported after treatment because they are assumedto be on no more evidence than their appearance, absolutely appalling.
(Sorry, this ended up longer than I intended, too.)
Complain about this comment
288. At 1:48pm on 13 Sep 2009, RomeStu wrote:
"and I would hope that a majority of British people would be with me in wishing that money could spent on oter things"
Absolutely, but you wonder reading some posters here if one day we might not need Trident so we can fire it back where it came from . . .
Complain about this comment
In 2006 the U.S> Census Bureau reported 46.6mm people without healthcare insurance
- Of those:
(a) 9.6mm were not US citizens
(b) 18 million live in households earning >$50,000 per annum and could purchase healthcase insurance if they wanted to
(c) 19 million of the 46.6 million uninsured are 18 and 34 years old and chose not to purchase healthcare.
'nough said.
Complain about this comment
Re #289.."The idea that he should not send his children to private school just because he [Obama] has some socially liberal (a good thing IMHO) policies is absurd.
Well if one wants to lead by example and not be called a hypocrite one better follows a precept
What's good for the goose, must be good for the gander.
Complain about this comment
295. powermeerkat
Ok, so we can dismiss 1 in 6 of the population as irrelevant, then.
(Though I would like to see the exact source of those figures. I am sorry to say that statistics presented here from some quarters very often turn out not to mean quite what they are said to mean.)
But how many have found their health care insurance, either temporarily or permanently, does not pay for some treatment, some hospitalisation, some medicine? And why can, apparently, many women not get cover for the incidental costs of a pregnancy?
Complain about this comment
Know that I am aware that you and others intentionally prevented me from describing the healthcare reform I had in mind by making me constantly defend my use of an apostrophe and the word "we", and what I said about Communism and your name because they were convenient distractions from the topic. No, sir, I was not unreasonable; I was under siege.
-----------------------------------------
What you describe is the tactics used for over a year now by the right leaning bloggers here on this blog(or rather the JW)
It is the tactics used against any debate on health reform,Obama as an american or just about any issue.
You try to suggest that raeding back wouldn't let people know you are the one you talk about.
SL just wanted to say something.YOU attacked her/his name.
You are a deceiver, always have been, always will.
So really get off your high horse and take the andrew sullivans approach.
Complain about this comment
264 don't let the door hit you.
>compulsory insurance
>ability to keep the insurance provider & doctor that you have
>elimination of the pre-existing conditions clause
>keeping the deficit from exploding
>prohibiting insurance providers from dropping clients
>tort reform
>ability to purchase insurance across state lines
perfect description of the NHS in the UK well done. so what are you complaining about ?
Complain about this comment
293 ARE YOU CRAZY.. Are you trying to suggest I might think.. How dare you:)
KSCurmgudge is one of the only people here I will vilify one day then praise the other.
seems tyo be the only right wing poster who thinks for him/her self.
Not just spouting cut and paste rubbish.
While I disagree about the implementation of much with Ksc I would say ksc is one of the few I see as a possible candidate for heaven.(unlike so many others of the supposed same side.)
A person for peace and welfare.
I know Ksc may use this to defend the wingbats on the right but I won't hold that against him/her.
I do wish that there were more like Ksc but they seem to get scared off as much as most of the middle by the innane rantings . OF THE RIGHT.
;)
Complain about this comment
295 powermeerkat wrote:
"In 2006 the U.S> Census Bureau reported 46.6mm people without healthcare insurance
- Of those:
(a) 9.6mm were not US citizens
(b) 18 million live in households earning >$50,000 per annum and could purchase healthcase insurance if they wanted to
(c) 19 million of the 46.6 million uninsured are 18 and 34 years old and chose not to purchase healthcare.
'nough said."
Or is it?
You suggest that 100% of the people without health insurance are
1) illegals (so presumably "who cares?"
2) rich enough to pay
3) young and made a rational choice not to have insurance.
You must forgive my misgivings, but a number of us were under the impression that a substantial number of Americans were simply too poor to afford the overblown premiums, or else bankrupted by the exclusions to their policy.
I don't believe you.
Complain about this comment
296 meerkat (again)
"Well if one wants to lead by example and not be called a hypocrite one better follows a precept
What's good for the goose, must be good for the gander."
Are you seriously suggesting that Obama is a hypocrit for sending his kids to private school? He is the President of the USA, and he made his own money, not inherited it! How he spends it is his business.
The fact that he cares enough about the poorer members of society to try to improve their lot speaks volumes. Just because a man rises above his parents position does not mean he forgets his roots .... or is he being uppity for just daring to get elected?
Your false logic bemuses me.
Should a politician who supports reducing CO2 emissions only bicycle to Capital Hill or be ridiculed as a hypocrit?
Complain about this comment
275. Simon21: "So the state was intimately concerned with your mother's medical care.
I could carry on, but that would involve more unavoury references.
Thus statements that a national medical insurance plan involve freakish extensions of state authority, are, as usual, bogus and to a large extent ridiculous."
****************
I guess we'll have to disagree on the government's expansion and its involvement in end-of-life decisions.
Like abortion, I want mine kept private and off-limits to government.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu: powermeerkat's total number seems on the mark, but I'm not sure if the breakdown that was posted in post 295 is accurate; for example, an individual person could in theory be simultaneously a non-US citizen (e.g. a "green card" holder), an earner of more than $50,000 per year, and between 18 and 34 years old, so the three categories in post 295 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For anyone who's really interested, visit this link at the US Census Bureau for 2008 health insurance coverage estimates to find out what's true and what's not.
Complain about this comment
293. squirrellist:
"But this cost billions one way and another and proved extraordinarily difficult to get foolproof. More than one software company (including an American one) came to realise they simply didn't have the skills, technology or resources to get it working the way it had to. And that's for a population of 60 million."
******************
Of course it makes sense to automate. Why would we ever, in a perfect world, keep medical records locked up and unavailable to different users of the information? (My mother's surgeon actually did a second CT scan within one month because he wanted the data in his hospital's system so he could access it during her surgery.)
Unfortunately, the US government is not great at implementing large projects. It's not the cost of getting a working system up and running that is the problem. It's the cost of a partially built system that had to be scrapped before completion because it was constantly over-budget and no one knew how or when to kill it.
Our government and elected officials are, in the end, weak project managers. They have their reputation for a reason.
Complain about this comment
302. RomeStu: "Just because a man rises above his parents position does not mean he forgets his roots .... or is he being uppity for just daring to get elected?"
*******************
Why drag race into this?
Complain about this comment
306. At 9:47pm on 13 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
302. RomeStu: "Just because a man rises above his parents position does not mean he forgets his roots .... or is he being uppity for just daring to get elected?"
*******************
Why drag race into this?"
Quite, why can't these people know their place and stop insisting on the same rights as everyone else.
Things were much calmer before 1865.
Complain about this comment
303. At 9:20pm on 13 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
275. Simon21: "So the state was intimately concerned with your mother's medical care.
I could carry on, but that would involve more unavoury references.
Thus statements that a national medical insurance plan involve freakish extensions of state authority, are, as usual, bogus and to a large extent ridiculous."
****************
I guess we'll have to disagree on the government's expansion and its involvement in end-of-life decisions.
Like abortion, I want mine kept private and off-limits to government."
Very nice I suggest you go into the deep amazon or the vast Sahel. Because if you stay in the US or any other country you will find the government is involved all along the way.
The vastly overpaid CEOs of insurance companies expect government to protect their vast wealth and help them prosecute fraud.
Apart from legislating what Doctors may or may not do it also regulates how you wish for your body to be disposed of.
And this has been so for years. In the 19th century Government if anything was even more pervasive in people's private lives - particularly womens.
You need to understand the society in which you live.
Complain about this comment
296. At 5:27pm on 13 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re #289.."The idea that he should not send his children to private school just because he [Obama] has some socially liberal (a good thing IMHO) policies is absurd.
Well if one wants to lead by example and not be called a hypocrite one better follows a precept
What's good for the goose, must be good for the gander."
Good point. Perhaps you can remind us all when Mr Bush and Mr Cheyney, Wolfowitz, Feith etc donned fatigues and went to fight in the wars they were so keen to see other people's families die in?
I may have been misinformed but the only time I heard that Mr Bush ever wore a military uniform was for photo opportunites when the biggest risk he faced consisted of looking stupid.
Sending your children to a school is one thing. Starting wars and sending men and women to die or be mutilated from the safety of a big desk, another.
One is again reminded of OW's famous statement, "nothing exceeded the wonderful courage with which you exposed ME to danger"
Complain about this comment
293. At 4:26pm on 13 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
(Sorry, this ended up longer than I intended,"
In my opinion, we have demonstrated that ideologically different writers can have a substantive, earnest discussion in this medium, and I don't care how long the posts need to be to cover it. This is damn complicated stuff, and the fog, smoke and noise of battle don't make it any easier.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
291. At 3:45pm on 13 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re#289
RomeStu: judging by the outcome of the most recent UK trial of bona fide
UK born terrorists"
This sounds like a gibbering tautology
Did anyone suggest these people were not born in the UK? Was this contested?
No bona fides were required.
"I wouldn't be so sure that you (Britons) have less crazies in you midst than we, Americans, have in ours."
Hmm well we don't have as many schoolkids willing to shoot up their colleges and schools. And neither do we have loonies driving around murdering doctors in churches.
"And, finally, re #288, I whish we could scrap all the weapons and disband all our miliary units.
However, unfortunately, the world is not ruled by boy-scouts wishing us all the best and using boy-scout methods to promulgate their vision of life on this planet."
Neither is it ruled by certifiable lunatics all of who do nothing but think of the US.
In fact it is ruled by people like you and me. And has been since we all walked out of Africa.
Amazing isn't it.
"And as for many hoops British subjects wanting to practice medicine in fascist, backward U.S. have to jump through, unlike immigrants from from other, more favourably looke upon parts of the world, I'm sure you know, as well as I, and many other Americans know, that islam is the fastest growing religion in "the land of the free and the home of the brave"."
In the world actually.
"Which at this rate may yet become a Sharia-based caliphate"
A "sharia based caliphate" wow. What sort of sharia would that be then, what sort of caliphate (there were quite a few).
Bit like saying a "christian government" (what christian - a mormon one?)
so many European liberal and progressive countries are close to becoming because of the self-induced political-correctness."
Sorry how does Polical correctness effect birth rates? Missed that one.
Is it that "politically correct" people have lots of children?
Are er you implying that politcally correctness acts as a form of viagra?
Do let me know, there could be big money in this.
Complain about this comment
re: 300. At 7:59pm on 13 Sep 2009, fluffytale
Fluffy, you make me blush and get all humble.
Please don't take me for a typical red-necked American WASP, I am not. But as you look over your right shoulder, you must try to remember that we are a deuces mix of folks (I believe that is a nicety for devil's mix), of every grade, color, and quality. And the farther we get from you, the more you are seeing us end-wise, as it were, and the more difficult it will be for you to differentiate us.
The same is true, doubtless, to your left.
The hot blood of battle is thrilling, but there comes a time when you meet your enemy face to face, and see that the differences are such as on another day you would brush them off his shoulder, or your own, as a kindness.
KScurmudgeon
living in what was once Europe's golden dream.
Complain about this comment
310. At 10:40pm on 13 Sep 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"This is damn complicated stuff, and the fog, smoke and noise of battle don't make it any easier."
Yes, and I know I'm not the only one to have guessed that the fog of war is obscuring, if not a number of other battles, a lot of serious skirmishes.
Some 'collateral damage' too, especially to us and Canada, which was a bit unexpected. . .
Complain about this comment
306. At 9:47pm on 13 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
302. RomeStu: "Just because a man rises above his parents position does not mean he forgets his roots .... or is he being uppity for just daring to get elected?"
*******************
Why drag race into this?"
Andrea, it has little or nothing to do with race. When my father wanted to go to college, his father and all his family laughed and asked in all seriousness "Why would you do a fool thing like that?" He was being uppety and abandoning the close Scots-Irish blue-collar clan he had grown up in.
When my wife joined the chamber of commerce in her little Oklahoma town, because as director of the Indian museum she needed their help, her mother mocked her for being uppety, asked what she wanted with those people, and would not go to any of her intercultural exhibits, concerning either the white towns past, or the Indian towns past (same town). Her mother and grandmother, and my patrilineal family, had and have a very loose relationship with the law, but a strong loyalty to family and class.
Her son feels the same ostracism 'I'm not one of them anymore' when he goes to high school reunions in eastern Oklahoma. He has the polish of an MBA, a beautiful wife who is also a career professional, and an unlimited future.
Geographically, there are few places where the people you meet are not like this. Most of them who are, are urban and coastal.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
308.Simon21: "You need to understand the society in which you live."
******************
I can assure you I understand it very well. And I've probably had a lot more time to study it, which is why I'm able to say we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Complain about this comment
309. At 10:29pm on 13 Sep 2009, Simon21 wrote:
296. At 5:27pm on 13 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re #289.."The idea that he should not send his children to private school just because he [Obama] has some socially liberal (a good thing IMHO) policies is absurd.
"Well if one wants to lead by example and not be called a hypocrite one better follows a precept...What's good for the goose, must be good for the gander."
Except that the more constructive thing, considering the state of public eduction in most places, is to highlight its inadequacies, and fight to correct the causes. Implying that conditions in American schools are at all acceptable by using them when you can avoid it, would be the wrong message. Avoiding them is a clear call that they are not acceptable, and every parent should be clamoring for a change, and 'voting with their feet' as they can in the mean time, because time is short.
Each year a class is graduated ill prepared to find useful, fulfilling work in our marketplace. Each year third-graders become fourth-graders without having the skills to do fourth grade work. We are dumber than our ancestors were a hundred years ago. We don't even have their basic understanding and skills, and we face the long anticipated 21st century.
Don't give me the song and dance that needs and expectations are different - of course they are, but you don't get to win the point unless you can list the differences our kids will need to master.
What about our public schools do you applaud? That a few are excellent? You make my point. That they employ lots of helpless teachers and more listless bureaucrats? You understand the system's (am I right there?) true purpose as it is structured today. That for the most part they are trying and do care for the children in their care? So do most babysitters, but those are not charged with training and preparing our nation's future.
grrumph.
KSCurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
314. At 00:39am on 14 Sep 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"Geographically, there are few places where the people you meet are not like this. Most of them who are, are urban and coastal."
That will make more sense 'Most of them who are not (like this) are urban and coastal.' ... almost as convoluted as my mind....
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
306. AndreainNY:
302. RomeStu: ".... or is he being uppity for just daring to get elected?"
*******************
Why drag race into this?"
Andrea, it has little or nothing to do with race.
*********************************
Hmmmm.
Complain about this comment
314. KScurmudgeon: The above was for you.
Complain about this comment
304. At 9:40pm on 13 Sep 2009, Jan_Keeskop wrote:
"RomeStu: powermeerkat's total number seems on the mark, but I'm not sure if the breakdown that was posted in post 295 is accurate"
They aren't. What a surprise. Thanks for the link, it's not easy to isolate the right figures, but since I can't sleep tonight, I gave it a try:
2008:
Total uninsured:
46,340,000
Of whom:
34,036,000 born in US;
12,304,000 foreign born; (including 9,511,000 non-US citizens.*
(*Who could, of course, as you point out, be from any country in the world. And must include some at least awaiting naturalisation. It seems a peculiarly high proportion, unless it also includes people with dual nationality. I must admit I can't get the 'non-citizen' figures to work out as parts of other totals.)
Uninsured populations:
White: 35,680,000 (of a total of 245,920,000;
Hispanic: 14,588,000 (of a total of 47,485,000
Black: 7,602,000 (of a total of 40,216,000)
Asian: 2,484,000 (of a total of 14,548,000)
Yes, I know the last set doesn't add up right. I presume that's because, thanks to the US Census categories, some describe themselves as 'Black-Hispanic" or "White-Hispanic" --as an example-- and end up in more than one category in this table. I couldn't find a way to separate them out. Life is too short, I'm not an actuary.
But it is at least obvious that a far higher proportion of US citizens who consider themselves 'Hispanic' are uninsured than any other group, followed by black, asian and white US citizens in that order.
There are no figures for 'illegal immigrants' of anynationality or origin within these, and none can be derived.
What powermeerkat is really asking us to infer can of course be guessed by anyone who thinks for a moment or two about these figures.
Sorry, AndreainNY, but race is involved in the health reform issue, and I don't see how it can be extricated from it when you look at these statistics.
[Source: US Census Bureau "Health Insurance coverage 2008": Detailed Tables, Health Insurance Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics; by Nativity, Citizenship and duration of Residence (Total Universe); by Nativity, Citizenship and duration of Residence (Hispanic Population)]
(Must say the phrase 'Total Universe' took me aback for a moment, but that's probably because I've seen "illegal alien" far too often of late.)
Complain about this comment
320. At 03:12am on 14 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
[Source: US Census Bureau "Health Insurance coverage 2008": Detailed Tables, Health Insurance Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics; by Nativity, Citizenship and duration of Residence (Total Universe); by Nativity, Citizenship and duration of Residence (Hispanic Population)]
(Must say the phrase 'Total Universe' took me aback for a moment, but that's probably because I've seen "illegal alien" far too often of late.)"
Job well done, squirrel - and now we know the real intent of those devious liberals in Congress: the conquest of the Total Universe by means of mandatory health care. Now we've got them.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
305. At 9:44pm on 13 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote: ...
"Unfortunately, the US government is not great at implementing large projects. It's not the cost of getting a working system up and running that is the problem. It's the cost of a partially built system that had to be scrapped before completion because it was constantly over-budget and no one knew how or when to kill it.
Our government and elected officials are, in the end, weak project managers. They have their reputation for a reason."
Reminds me again of my father, who was working on one of our last nuclear power plants (no, really - San Onofre in California). We asked him if it could be built to operate safely. He said that we certainly could design one to be safe. but the orders from Washington kept changing as someone there heard of the latest idea, until the engineers couldn't be so sure any more.
Makes me envious of the French or British governments, who each have their way of stopping debate and just doing it right.
KScurmudgeon
loyal, but no Chauvin
Complain about this comment
KS:
Would like to help further, but getting those figures was hard enough without trying to track down the uninsured Martians, Venusians and Little Green Men generally. I'm off to study Brownian Motion in a nice cup of tea. If the mice call, tell them I think my brain's been diced already, ta.
Complain about this comment
#
Andrea, it has little or nothing to do with race.
*********************************
Hmmmm.
# 319. At 01:52am on 14 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
314. KScurmudgeon: The above was for you.
I understood that. Thanks
Complain about this comment
"Did he pull it off?"
"When I walked in, the banking system, the financial system was under the verge of collapse," Mr Obama said on Sunday in an interview on the 60 Minutes television show. [...]
Some opinion polls have showed that most Americans believe the stimulus plan is having no impact.' [BBC World Service]
Please stand by for White House reports about improvements in precarious condition of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other government-run programs in the last 9 months.
Complain about this comment
Re #316...
KC curmudegon. You don't have to convince me.
Convince the Teachers Union.
Re #320.. "What powermeerkat is really asking us to infer can of course be guessed by anyone"
I'm not asking anybody to infer anything.
Merely that you check for yourselves readily available data from US census Bureau, US Immigration ad Naturalization Service, Governmment Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, US Border Patrol, etc.
BTW. Checking (independently) data re condition of Social Security System, Medicare, Medicaid, and other government-run social programs might also be helpful to those who want to promote here a noble idea of US becoming a full-fledged welfare state.
Complain about this comment
Re#309
I'm not surprised at yet another attempt to slander G.W. Bush.
[a former military pilot in the US National Guard]
Just as I haven't been surprised when learning that 'Bush as Hitler' poster hanged at one time in one of BBC's main newsrooms.
[pertinent material readily available on YouTube]
Complain about this comment
Been thinking about why I don't trust my government and realized I do trust and respect one group of elected officials: governors. They are the most motivated to make programs work.
In fact, I'd trust them to be given dramatically increased block grants for Medicaid and Medicare with provisions to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Increase Medicaid eligibility to, say, $125,000 and let them innovate and find solutions.
Complain about this comment
302
lol stu, not only "Should a politician who supports reducing CO2 emissions only bicycle to Capital Hill or be ridiculed as a hypocrit?",
the theory of global warming should be thrown out because he/she supported it.
That is about the american logic.
(well Not american because it does seem as if most do want health care. they just don't necessarily want it for their cook or their waiter or hospital janitor.
who they would prefer bring them all the diseases they can and infect them so they can use their over-inflated insurance.
funny I had a friend here with a tropical infection received in the peace corp.
they returned to the states and the treatment was too expensive and took too long to get (waiting times for that private stuff) so they ended up in New Zealand and found it in the pharmacy after a quick doc visit for dirt cheap.
So another anecdote on how private isn't always best, because the drug came from.......
drum roll................... the UK.
Complain about this comment
284Ksc
great post.
303 ninny.
Again you try to suggest the deathpanels. there you were saying I had a sick mind while you make up slander against the good workers of the NHS for your own amusement.
"I guess we'll have to disagree on the government's expansion and its involvement in end-of-life decisions.
Like abortion, I want mine kept private and off-limits to government."
The only people that have harped on about end of life decisions are the deceitful lying right wing.
The NHS do all possible to keep people alive and respect them not the revenue they earn.
Why is it you keep mentioning "end of life" when it is not an issue until you try to make it one.
again THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR FANTASIES OF OTHERS HEALTHCARE.
Complain about this comment
312 Ksc .
Thank you. I am not sure if you realise I am living in the states. In Oregon. Where I smite meata;ls until they look better than when they came from the scrap pile.
( It may strike some that Oregon is just chock full of blacksmiths these days.
and as someone else asked why I care so much if it doesn't effect me . I hope they understand that it does.;)
And while I get along with a few republicans( as opposed to plain old Goppers who I have no time for) I am getting bored when they repeat the sort of comments about death panels and NHS not working etc.
if there was some honesty to it then I would have a hard time commenting and would sit back more and just read. but when there are so many lies it is hard to sit on the bench.
Now I hear that governors are impeccable people with their state's interests at the forefront of their minds at all times I am ready to puke.
Not even the dems have maybe half that think of their states at all times;)
Complain about this comment
327. At 12:14pm on 14 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re#309
I'm not surprised at yet another attempt to slander G.W. Bush.
[a former military pilot in the US National Guard]"
Who made sure he never did much more than wear the uniform.
"Just as I haven't been surprised when learning that 'Bush as Hitler' poster hanged at one time in one of BBC's main newsrooms.
[pertinent material readily available on YouTube]"
Apart from enlightening you that people are hanged, pictures are hung I should also warn you that citing "youtube" as an unimpeachable source makes you look ridiculous
Complain about this comment
Hatred kills. The haters. Faster than a six-gun.
The more intensely haters hate, the sooner they die.
Why hate them, then? Relief is in sight. ;-)
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4umBmJHjg
Complain about this comment
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2009/09/sign-that-says-it-all.html
Complain about this comment
BBC must be bias against the USa after all they have said so little positive about it.;)
that may be because there is little to say that is positive.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS