It's not single-payer.

touche'





well played.

That's the biggie. There are many flaws in the program, the result of the compromises necessary to get the big money/power players to not fight it. But these can be fixed, one by one. The problem I see is ever getting those changes made. Look at what Medicare pays for drugs as an example of continuing malfeasance.

While extremists are making war on a good idea from a Conservative think tank; previously callled RomneyCare. We are not advancing mankind by moving on to the next problem: excessive hospital costs and charges.

Their obstruction further exposes why they only naysay. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." It explains why wackos have nothing to replace ObamaCare. That would require intelligent thinking.

Remember intelligent thinking? Same wackos rhetoric surrendered to the Taliban in Afghanistan to invent an unnecessary war called Mission Accomplished.

Even Ted Cruz did a 21 hour filibuster ... to do what? He had no purpose other than to grandstand. To rally wacko extremists to be even more hateful, destructive, and obstructive. His filibuster had no useful purpose other than to naysay.

If Congress had many fewer wackos, then long ago we moved on to the next problem - excessive hospital costs.

What REALLY happened was Senator Cruz said he wanted to tell a good night story to his kids, and read from Dr. Suez, for a few minutes. Then he said goodnight and "Don't worry, Daddy will be home soon".

If it had been Obama, it would have been a touching family scene, perhaps done with a split screen. One screen showing Cruz reading the bed time story, and the other showing the kids listening at home.

But Cruz is a conservative, so instantly this really touching few minutes, were reported by most media, as something crazy or very silly. It was neither. It was a father reading a short bed time story, to his kids, when he couldn't be at home to do it personally.

That's one of the big problems for the Republican party. They have plans to fix our health care system, and a lot of other plans as well, but no one is getting it out to the media. And when they do, it gets minimum, or slanted coverage.

As long as the media treats everyone who disagrees with Obama's policies as a racist, there's no basis for honest reporting. It's all reporting "stories that fit into our framework or theme", as the New York Times editor brazenly put it. When you have a propaganda campaign instead of honest reporting, it's a wonder you have anyone willing to stand up against it. That was the entire purpose of Cruz's over-night, speech. (It wasn't a filibuster, since it did not delay or stop the vote on any bill.)

So I salute Sen. Cruz for a bold stand, along with Senators Lee, Rubio, Rand, and all the rest. It wasn't always pretty, but he did get some media attention for the fact that many Americans are against Obama Care, as it's currently being implemented, and many are concerned about the repeating increases in our debt, caused by the excessive spending of Obama and Congress.

While fighting to stop ObamaCare may be the most popular cause among Conservatives, it would be more productive to force *some* cuts in spending, in return for raising the debt ceiling.

Getting something is a lot better than nothing, and as political leaders, they have to learn that compromise is the name of the game, ultimately. This is politics, not a gun fight at the OK Corral.

I do think Republicans get screwed by the media generally on this kind of stuff. I'm sure Cruz is not a conservative though. Conservatives like a stable environment for business and families. Obamacare seeks compromises with conservatives to promote those things. We don't want a system that ruins individuals with health issues, that is the situation we're coming from. To make conservatives happy, insurance companies were included in the system instead of being destroyed for the greater good. When Tea Partiers shut down government programs they send ripples through the economy in all kinds of unforeseen ways. My non-profit does special education services for a lot less money than the public school alternative, but we're going down the drain because of last years sequester. Cruz is no conservative. His radical policies destroy businesses, jobs, and individuals. Don't hide behind the single-payer fig leaf, Cruz would never support that and you know it.

Geeesh Adak, do you really have to try to re-write everything to fit your own unique worldview.
Maybe the media coverage was a bit more than needed, but try taking a few things in politics with a grain of salt.

What you can not avoid is that Cruz's views were completely rejected by the Senate (100 to 0)
... he even voted against himself !

Like Gerald Ford bumping his head and being wrong about Poland,
Cruz likely will forever be linked to green eggs... and being wrong about them, too.

Was this the same awesome speechifying in which he equated what was happening with healthcare in America to Nazi Germany?

Yes.

Not really. He's already running pretty low to the ground as it is. When it comes to the barking dogs of the Right, he's pretty much a Dachshund.

As to Mr. Cruz, he has successfully leapt to the forefront. Since he was kind enough to open the Godwin Gate in his remarks, I would like to remind everyone what happened to the Nazi Party and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party.


I'm sure that Ted has read Mein Kampf multiple times and probably highlighted what he considers the good parts. So if he succeeds in his personal ambition, how many titles will he have?

Is this the same guy who said entitlements once in place are never removed and that people become 'addicted' to those entitlements?

So...Americans don't like Obamacare, but if they get healthcare entitlements they'll like them so much they'll never want to give them up?

Saw an interview with a Republican congressman who also happens to be a doctor. He stated that his opposition to the law was because it was flawed and that Americans deserved the more perfect, Republican supported approach to affordable and accessible healthcare that he implied was ready to be implemented at a moment's notice.:lol2:

It sounds like the kind of bullshit someone late on their rent would use with their landlord.

"Look, I know that the rent's due and it 750 dollars, but all I have is 695 and I really think that you deserve all of it considering this really great apartment. I couldn't even imagine insulting you with a partial payment, so if you come back in two weeks you will get what you really deserve."

I don't think that there is anyone who believes that the party in the majority in the house had an effective health care proposal they were fully willing to support that they just happened to fail to bring to the floor.

If you saw Cruz reading Dr. Seuss to his kids, all the way through, you would have to agree:

It was a touching family moment. I don't care WHAT your politics are, this rose above it. Of course, Senator Cruz is the "Conservative devil of the month", so he is to be vilified by all the media, and the loyal non-thinkers who honestly believe:

* wealth is made by the gov't.

* and since the gov't prints the money, the more bills we print, the higher our wealth will become.

I nearly fell over when Nancy Pelosi was explaining that food stamps were "an excellent stimulus for the economy".

And not ONE* reporter questioned the madness of that statement, although it was widely covered by the media.

*that I heard about

Today on CBS news I was listening to how the Republicans were trying to "destroy" the government, with their latest resolutions, etc.

Not one word of anything fair or impartial about the Republicans. Nope, they're the devils, and we're going to slander them until the cows come home, and then get up and do it again tomorrow.

Because they know that making one party, hate the other party, makes for great compromises in Washington. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

A politician was wasting everyone's time. Even Cruz could not define what his purpose was. It did not matter. He was promoting himself to the naive who ignored he was filibustering without purpose. He had no strategic objective. And still some foolishly praised him for wasting time reading about green eggs.

Eventually even he voted to do what he said he was trying to stop.

Even the Geico Gecko speaks with a purpose.

Senator Cruz explained EXACTLY what his purpose was. When was the last time you actually HEARD opinions other than your own, expressed?

His objective was strategic, not tactical. Learn the difference!

Good, you listen to animated commercials - well, we all have to start somewhere.

Just so we're clear, Senator Cruz was in Washington, and his kids live in his home state of Texas. When Congress is in session, he sees them very little, like all Congressmen. He was not missing any extra time with his kids because of this particular stunt.

Dr Suez. :lol2:

What a man, what a plan, what a canal! :lol: I'm so touched by Cruz the Suess. *wipes away tear*

He had a purpose, he raised $1.5 million for his campaign chest with that stunt.

ad hominem - the sign of a lost argument.

Today's GOP spiraling bullet point:

Sen Ted Cruz et al. and the GOP are now spinning a deteriorating and spiraling POV
that Obamacare "gives special exemptions to Congress... over the rights of individual citizens"

-----

As posted here earlier, during the 2010 debate over the Affordable Care Act,
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, proposed (a poison pill) amendment requiring members of Congress
and their staffs to purchase health insurance though state exchanges.
Democrats, viewing the amendment as a political stunt,
co-opted the idea as their own and inserted it into the bill.

Congressional members are paid by the US Government.
Some of their congressional staff are paid by the US Government,
but some "staff members" are not employees of the US Government,
such as the member's election committee staff, home district office staff, etc.
Thus, the US Government is the "employer" to all Congress members and some of their staff.

Cutting more directly to the point...

FactCheck.org
9/27/13
No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress

His purpose was to get the most easily brainwashed to give him more money. He successfully rewarded his greed. Extremists say it was good - to screw America.

A patriotic Cruz would have proposed eliminating the paper dollar bill to save a $billion annually. But working for America contradicts his purpose. Extremists work for their agenda - at the expense of America. Same people also massacred 5000 American servicemen in Mission Accomplished. Said that also was good. And got more contributions for doing it.

Wrong again!

Like most Congressmen, he keeps in touch with his family during the time they're in Washington, by using things like Skype, and the telephone, etc.

That includes reading bedtime stories, to his two sons. Man, you guys are a cynical bunch.

And Lamplighter, do you ACTUALLY believe that most employers will be continuing to pay into a medical insurance plan, that isn't required, for their employees?

Because I can assure you, if they're not forced to, most businesses will not be just throwing money into some expense that they don't have to.

Sorry, but I didn't hear about Dr. Suess growing up. My family wasn't one for bedtime stories - ever.

So the Tea Party says bogeymen are now hiding under everyone's bed. Evil witches and liberals now hide around every corner. Why do so many adults read those bedtime stories?

Ahhh.... at least now we have an explanation for the unfortunate Adakian mindset.

Wrong again!


Cruz has two daughters.

*snort*

Yes, I do.

Employers with an annual employee levels of less than 30 FTE (full time equivalents)
remain exempt from Obamacare, and larger businesses (50 FTE) are required to provide health insurance.

Even if some employers change their benefits, it will be a relatively small
part of the economy, and will eventually sort itself out over the years.

But to your point...

The economics of employee benefits does not change just because of Obamacare.
Employers can spend $ on wages or on employee benefits, such as health care... their choice.
But tax benefits to the employer of the costs of health insurance are 35%

So, employers can balance spending 100% more in a salary raise,
against only 65% more in an increase in benefits to the employee... their choice.

That is not even considering the more "emotional" side of maintaining
employer/employee relationships, including such impacts on the business
as employee turn-over, employee illness/absense, positive employee motivations towards the business, etc.

"Continuing" answers your question. It wasn't required before the ACA, and they did it.

I reposted because my post got orphaned and it would be a damn shame if Adak didn't see how unfactual his facts are: even to the widdle childwen we are supposed to get all sentimental about.

Many of our largest companies (in terms of their number of employees), have already been given exemptions!

And the Union officials met with Obama just recently. Oh, they're not saying what deal was reached - but they got one, probably won't kick in until 2015 though, and all the fuss dies down.

I don't know what to say, except that businesses (unlike our stupid fed gov't), will NOT continue to support "Cadillac" health care plans, for the vast majority of their work force.

A few VIP's, sure. The rest - no. Oh, Apple might, because they're VERY flush with $$$ right now. The vast majority will not, however.

Over 12,000 pages of regulations SO FAR for Obama Care, and you say the health care provisions of the past, won't be changed?

I disagree.

"Grandma" disagrees, as well. When said we should "just send her home with a pain pill", (instead of giving her a treatment), I believe every word of it.

They have it in Great Britain, also. You get old, and now you don't qualify for this or that treatment, any more.

Here's your pain pill. That will work wonders to cure your cancer. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I've been working on a computer program for external sorting, and I don't care if Sen. Cruz has sons or daughters. Castigating the man for reading them a bed time story for a few minutes, when the floor of the Senate is virtually empty, is WRONG.

And you're quite uncivil in your doing so, may I say.

Oh, you can say it, but at this point don't expect anything you say to hold much water.

But I did enjoy the 'harumphy' feel of it. :lol:

Today, the GOP got it's way... they did not compromise or miss a beat
in their refusal to do anything but act as bullies, :nadkick:
... leaving others to deal with the consequences of their
obsessive compulsion over Obamacare.

If you are inconvenienced, in even a minor way, by this government shut down,
think back about Adak, and his hero (R) Senator Cruz from Texas, aka "Mister Green Eggs",
and the unsagacious GOP.

(I know, that's not really a word... but neither is the GOP a coherent party)
.

We've had a long series of lies on spending, from the Democrats. Reagan, Bush Sr. Carter, Bush Jr., - all their administrations were promised by the Democrats, that they'd cut spending in a meaningful and timely manner.

All lies.

Obama has TONS of items besides healthcare that he could use to foster a compromise, and stop the shutdown.

But he won't use them. Because he can't stop spending, he can't stop trying to make the upper classes poorer, by "redistributing" their wealth. He can't stop growing the Federal gov't.

And he doesn't HAVE to compromise. All he has to do is convince you that the entire shutdown is being caused by those Republicans - so blame them.

Eventually, those "hostage taking" Republicans, will have to give up, Obama wins, and the Democrats get to keep spending us into oblivion. Businesses and jobs are being lost here, but the Democrats love the poor - so they make more.


Benjamin Franklin said it much better:

Thanks to the shutdown, the NIH stopped accepting new patients this week in their new drug trials, including children with cancer.

Good job, tea party.

Oh Yes! Glatt, what are you thinking here? That's why Obama decided to close the White House for tours to the public, earlier.

That's why the National Parks and monuments are shut down, now.

That why the National Zoo shut off the live cam on the Panda cubs. How much money does it take to keep a live cam turned on? Nothing.

The Democrats idea here is to make you suffer. If they just make you discomforted enough, you will give up a bit more of your liberty, to the Feds. And they don't have to listen to you bitching about it, anymore - because they can make you suffer whenever they want to.

If those pesky Republicans will just get cowed down, life could be SO MUCH easier.

A representative gov't, a gov't that has to respect our stated liberties in the documents that gave our country birth. Who needs that?:rolleyes:

The House has tried several times to meet with the Senate and find a compromise to their differences.

Harry Reed (Senate Majority Leader), flatly refuses to any such meeting, and has advised the President to avoid attending such a meeting, as well.

They have to make us suffer, they have to beat down the Republicans, or they can't take away our liberties.

I wish they could shut YOU down. Or even up.

:zzz:

You actually have that the wrong way round. The Dems have reached out 16/17 times to go to conference in the past 6 months over the budget. Each time the tealiban wing of the party refused to allow any negotiation because it's all or nothing with them, and each fight is yet another conservative purity test.

Not really sure how you can accuse the dems of wanting to take your liberties. Remind me again which president introduced the patriot act?

I'm not sure whether you actually believe this nonsense or whether you're just entrenched in your political idealogies, and spend too much time in front of Faux noise.

'tealiban' Ha! Haven't come across that one before.

Welcome to the Cellar, Jesus!

Hi, and thank you for your very kind welcome.

Continuing in my long tradition of getting most of my US news from the Daily Show, I just saw heard the most outrageous quote from a Republican congressman about the reasons for the shutdown:

Todd Rokita (R. Indiana): 'We just want to help the American people get by and through what is one of the most insidious laws ever created by man; and that is Obamacare'.

Wow. That is some seriously unbalanced perspective.

When poor old white supremacists are being affected by the shut down, then it's gone too far. Republicans harming their base won't do them any favours!

A rational person would think that, but the KKK is just going to blame the shutdown on the Democrats.

cuz that kenyun in the white house running the gubmint when he aint even legally the presdint?

Are people in the US prepared for a government shut down
for more than 2 weeks due to the GOP-obsession with Obamacare ?
That's when "Debt Ceiling" will supersede all the budget disagreements ?

This article starts out talking about the possibility of Obama
circumventing the Congress on the Dept Ceiling by some how invoking
the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.


Politico
Manu Raju, Jake Sherman and Carrie Budoff Brown
10/2/13

Wall Street comes to Washington. Will it matter? — Get ready for 14th amendment talk
But then it also gets into the current stew of yesterday's shut down of the government...

Somehow, and I don't yet understand it, the GOP wants a Conference Committee
because by procedural rules, a vote will require 60% of the Congress (Senate filibuster ?),
not a majority of 51% as it is now.

The GOP wants a conference committee, because they're trying to open negotiations on the things they want. Dems have offered this numerous times in the last 6 months, and each time it's been rejected.

The GOP now want to be seen as the reasonable party, so by suggesting negotiations, it may look to the less informed citizens, as though the Democrats are the real party blocking this, and shutting down the government.

Also, negotiations happen when two opposing sides both have something the other one wants. This definitely isn't the case. Keeping the country open and paying it's already accrued bills used to be a bi-partisan position.

The issues that are they are now left with:

Medical device tax - I'm not sure of both sides of this argument, but it is unpopular on both sides, but I read something the other day explaining how that was how the whole law was helping to be funded, so cutting it, may seem reasonable, but there is a reason most of the GOP wants to do it immediately.

Treat congressmen the same as ordinary Americans - this is just a massive roundabout way of slicing the benefit packages of all of their staffers, and is an appalling thing to do, dressed up in the American flag.

Delay Obamacare for a year - This is purely a way to ensure victory in next years midterms. There is no other reason or justification for it. A fired up right wing base will flip the senate (which it may do regardless), and the gerrymandering in house districts make it already super difficult for the dems to take it back.

Oh yes! The Democrats are MORE than willing to cut expenditures based on official projections, sometime in the future.

Cut! Cut! Cut!!

Just like they did for Bush Sr., (ruining his hopes for re-election), Reagan, Bush Jr., and every other President who wanted to cut spending.

Then they don't ACTUALLY cut the spending when the promised time arrives. We've seen it so many times over the last several administrations, it's quite the norm now.

A lot of the Republicans would like to meet with the Senate Democrats, and work on SOMETHING to get this shutdown shut off, but now, when it's most critical, the Senate won't meet with them.

Their former offer was a sham - they cut next to nothing, and refused to honor most of what they agree to. Now that there is real pressure, and they'd have to REALLY negotiate - probably with the press actually taking notes of what was being done - they want nothing to do with it.

I understand. Obamacare is Obama's signature law, and the Democrats legacy this term. They certainly don't want to delay it.

Boehner by the way, didn't want to fight over Obamacare. He said that many months ago. Unfortunately, Obamacare is so unpopular, the hard line Republicans demanded he take a stand on it.

Several years back, Boehner was demoted from the leadership position he held in the House, because he didn't really listen to the people he was leading. He has (quite remarkably), worked his way now, into the top position in the House. This time, he is listening to those Republican Representatives, when he needs to.

If the Senate Democrats can't agree to negotiate with the House Republicans, we need someone from the Executive Branch to break the deadlock here, and get some negotiating going, once again.

It's hard to negotiate though with Harry Reed. Don't know if you're familiar with the guy, but he's a lot like Nancy ("food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi - everything has to be her/his way, or it's the highway. There's very little innate flexibility in either of them. And their incendiary comments have not helped calm the emotions down, one bit.

Reed is not one of those guys that you want to see get a kick in the butt, he's one of the guys that YOU want to kick in the butt, but you can't - because the altar boy or priest, kicked him first. :D

Why would anyone want to negotiate for something they don't WANT? ;)

Yes, cutting a new tax, especially an arbitrary one like the medical devices tax, is quite popular with the Republicans.

The people want the Congress (all of them), to have the same Obamacare plans that we're going to have - no more, and no less.

So that was passed - but then the Feds got a 75% exemption (which I don't understand HOW that happened to slip by, but it did), which covered SOME of the office staff and Congress members, but not ALL of them are Fed. employees - so they have no 75% exemption.

What a shame, some of them will have to suffer with the same Obamacare plans as all the rest of us. :rolleyes: Where's my sad little violin?

No, we REALLY don't want Obamacare - really. We were sold a bunch of lies about it:

*you can keep your current plan
*you can keep your current doctor
*your premiums will be less
*Grandma will like having a pain pill instead of proper medical treatment, because she's old.

So far, only lower premiums are true, and only for those with either low income, or pre existing conditions.

Everybody else is paying more - the more you earn, the more you pay, in any of their plans, and each plan can vary widely from state to state.

Personally, I'd like to see a national health care plan, but not one run by the gov't. They can pass laws to regulate it, but I don't want the Feds running my health care. Just like food processing. The feds regulate it, but I don't want them growing the beans, canning the beans, etc.

Let the farmer grow the food, and the doctor and health insurer, handle the health care, in accordance with good regulations, of course.

Those of you who blame the republicans for the shutdown: it is easy to send mail to the RNC.

I have let them know that they are not making friends this way.

Both of those are simply lies. Maybe you're lying, or maybe you're just passing on lies that you believe.

Under the ACA, Congresspeople and their staffs are the only people who are explicitly forced onto the exchanges; their employer-provided plans cancelled by the law. While I think that's a good thing, it is explicitly NOT "the same" thing that everybody else gets. Most professionals on their level in the private sector will keep their employer-provided plans.

The so called "exemption" (exemption from what?) that they will be getting is the employer contribution that they had been getting, and that most professionals in the private sector will be getting for their private plans, will be available for them to buy insurance on the market. Something similar is often available in the private sector when you decide to use your spouse's insurance, and get cash instead of coverage. In this case, they are forced onto the exchanges instead of deciding to opt out, and they get money for the exchange instead of cash, so they actually have a worse deal than their private sector equivalents.

Giving them the same treatment as everyone else would mean letting them keep their employer-provided Blue Cross Blue Shield plans.

When you make statements like these, it sounds like you are speaking knowledgably, for everyone. But your statements are flat out not true. I still have my current plan, I still have my current doctor and I have no idea about premiums since my policy doesn't expire for another 6 months. And for the last damn time, there are no death panels. Grandma will get the treatment she needs.

But if Adak doesn't keep his "death panels" and "Grandma" fables going,
he would be giving lie to another of his most recent secret fears...

All three of these false rumors come from the same person, Betsy McCaughey
... as was pointed out by UT in post #4 of this thread ( in this link )

Frankly, I didn't think about a "death panel" at all, until I heard Obama say "maybe we just send Grandma home with a pain pill, instead" (of an expensive treatment).

That was your boy, right there. In broad daylight. I'm not sure about the word "Grandma" however. He sort of slurred that one word.

Then I heard about these commissions in Great Britain. They decide what treatments (if they're expensive), will be used, for what type of patients. The older you get, the fewer expensive treatments you qualify for, or the longer you have to wait.

Which I fully understand - you have to manage costs in any insurance plan, whether it's ACA or not. But when the public cheered Obama right after he said that, I was quite sure that they didn't understand just what he was saying would be done here.

Because 95% of the time, the "send them home with a pain pill" will be "send them home to die", since the expensive treatment for the elderly would probably be a cancer treatment, or a transplant of some kind.

You post a link to ONE, just ONE article from ANY Great Britain newspaper or BBC, about a NHS patient over the age of 65 years, who received a bone marrow transplant, or an organ transplant, and I'll re-consider the validity of what I've been hearing (and read on line).

I believe you'll find there are none, unless it was done overseas. You know, in some advanced health care country - like the US.

Australia has a two-tier system. Everyone has a basic NHS service account, but if you want very good health care, you better have your private insurance account, as well. It can get pretty ugly pretty fast, otherwise, for the important stuff.The medical care is OK, but the waiting periods are dreadfully long.

Individual patients aren't generally going to make the news, so that's a sort of silly request.

However, trivia to the rescue!

A simple Google Scholar search turned up this article...

Your "reconsideration" should begin NOW

Those are cheap (relatively) diagnostics, NOT heart transplants!

"patients were subsequently managed by general practitioners, in consultation with cardiologists or the admitting physician".

Do you know what that means? That means your heart attack care will be handled by a GP, and probably, by an Internist - not even a Cardiologist. (Internists are more common).

They did however, find not one, not two, but three ways to successfully predict which one's would die earlier, and approximately when they would die.

Oh! That's FABULOUS medical care, right there! :( :rolleyes: :(