I have no link - I saw it. Sheesh.

Ohhhhh, I see. OK. Sure.

BITES TONGUE

tw sure is right about you sometimes...

I point out a glaring error. You dance and skate and can't concede your Chicken Little tendencies.

Just admit it was a bad point?

Olbermann got it right, here's the transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34430893...ith_olbermann/

Or, here:

http://www.votesmart.org/speech_deta...rase=&contain=

So whats new?

Classic (and Merc) will find small issues to nitpick, as long as it is critical of the Democrats...then duck and weave when called out on the facts or the lack of context in their endless links.....because they care about America first!

Or they will just call you a partisan.

Its easy to nitpick the health care reform. The process and the results have been far from perfect.

But if one focuses on the big picture.....it represents the most comprehensive health care reform ever in the US.

And the results, when enacted, are that 30+ million of those currently uninsured will have access to affordable health care. And those 200+ million currently insured will have unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue....and by most objective analyses, they wont see their health care costs continue to rise at unmanageable rates.

Yabbut, Sherrod Brown, a Demoncratic senator from Rhode Island...

:lol:

That actually was very good.

It falls far short. Gives the Insurance Industry carte blanc to charge us anything they want and raise our deductibles. It will not fix cost controls. It is far from fixing what is wrong with healthcare in America and in the end leaves 12 million people un-insured.

But you go ahead and pat your Demoncratic buddies on the ass and congratulate each other for a partisan Bill that will do little to fix the problems. You are delusional. You traded a bad bill for passing anything at all costs. A very expensive one at that.

:lol2:

I watched the show personally, I saw it. But that wasn't the main point of posting the artivle. His opinions were. Whether he was from Ohio , Rhode Island or East Jabip, is inconsequential. If it makes it easier to discuss what he actually said instead of that, fine. I must have what I saw.

Sorry pal - thats not my game. Aside from you being admittedly partisan. You, however, have been doing it more and more lately though. (Look in a mirror) And please stop grouping people together. Take each of us on our own for what we each say and do.
I found an article with information I thought of value and posted it for discussion. Both you and Shaw have glossed over the point of the article and tried to, how did you put it "duck and weave." Instead of discussing what the content was, you focus on a totally insignificant point.
We certainly agree upon that.
I disagree wholeheartedly with respect to the costs and history will bear me out as being correct. There is not one Gov't program of this significance that didn't cost infinitely more than proposed and deliver far less. The numbers are and will be manipulated and shown in the best light possible for the benefit of whomever is making their point.

Same old tired tune....from both you guys.

Not your game? WTF! All you (both) do is cherry pick articles, never providing full context, and nitpicking minor issues.

Or call me a partisan and imply that you are not and make sweeping generalizations that ignore the facts or nitpick more minor points.

So whats new?

As you suggested....look in the mirror, dude and you will a phony (or two).

I always provide the link to the entire article for those who wish to read it. Posting the entire article is cumbersome and pointless when one wants to address a particular point being made.

Oh and you STILL haven't address what he said - you're still going on about nothing ... as usual.

Where is the true tort reform? What about the medicare cuts and the repeated delays in payments to providers? Why do we need to pay for four years before any change is enacted? Why the elimination of payment codes for providers to pay the specialist for performing an independent physical or for getting a separate history of the patient, or to set a correct diagnosis and returning to the referring physician a written report of the findings? Why does this or rather will this now need to be done repetitiously?

I am as much for reform as anyone, but this is not really reform its getting a bill passed so that those in power can say to the sheep that they did something for them come reelection time. The vast majority of reform was stripped out of this bill in order to pass "a bill, any bill."

I am not the enemy here and I'm a little tired of being treated as such. Since when did you all stop questioning things. Just because a bill is passed by a D or an R administration doesn't make it inherently good or bad. It still needs to be looked at, reviewed and questioned.

WHat he said, in effect, is that the House and Senate Democrats are not in full agreement and the White House was engaged in the process to get the Senate bill passed so that they move on to the next step that will result in a consensus bill.

So what?

We know there are disagreements between the House and Senate and changes will need to be made that wont please either side 100 percent.

That is how the process works. It is called compromise and consensus building. ...but of course, you guys will nitpick the differences and blow them out of proportion or suggest it has never happened before.

And in the end, they will agree that it would be a huge mistake to throw out a good bill in pursuit of the perfect bill.

IMO, which I am fully entitled to have whether you like it or not, as it currently stands we as a nation are going to be saddled with an ineffective bill that doesn't truly address the cost or "reform" of our nations heath care issues. What we are doing is insuring 30 million more people (good thing) without knowing exactly how we are going to logistically provide care for them.

Tort reform would have an insignficant impact and yet it is still in the bill if you look.

the bulk of the Medicare cuts are to MA providers who have been overpaid by more than 15%.

THere are both costs and benefits implemented immediately and other costs and benefits that are deferred until regulations can be written...unless you expect the Insurance Exchange to be created overnight and w/o public comment (then you would probably complain about acting too quickly and w/o transpaerency).


Exactly what are those provisions that were stripped out that represented the vast majority of reform?

The public option?

Not the enemy, just a partisan.

And, IMO, which I am fully entitled to have whether you like it or no, you are a hypocrite.