SD, you may be right about the Post Office getting a bailout, hopefully only a loan, like the Banks, AIG, GM.

pharm: I may concede the point that the USPS does not currently get direct subsidies allocated by the US Congress. There may be something buried in there as I already mentioned, but they may not get direct subsidies.
That being said, they are also failing, said to be losing seven billion dollars in the current fiscal year. They can borrow up to three billion dollars per year, so obviously their line of credit will not keep them afloat any longer.
Now what do you think is going to happen? Well, we've just witnessed how many federal bailouts of PRIVATE businesses, as well as gigantic federal agencies that have been mismanaged for years but were deemed "too large to fail". Let me tell you, very soon the USPS is going to get their bailout, however it may be labelled, in the form of free money from the federal government.
So while there may be years when federal subsidies did not happen (so far as we know), eventually the USPS will have to go back to their rich uncle, hat in hand. Bottom line: the USPS is broke, and despite it's monopoly is unable to compete with private business (without taxpayer support). A failed model.

Do you believe John Stossel?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/200...

SD, Using a blogger who "thinks' he has found something in the annual Post Office report to "refute" the government is ridiculous. If this guy really believes he has found fraud, taxpayer money going to support the post office, it is his civic duty to report it to the proper authorities. Failure to do so makes him an accomplice. Let me know when the case comes to trial.

whythink and pharm: You two are truly scaring me. You keep bringing up things that we have already discussed, and I have already refuted. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see". They've got you, and the worst part of it is, you don't even know that they've got you, because they've got your minds. I truly hope you'll come around at some point, open your minds a little and see the truth.
The government cannot and will not solve all your problems. They invariably make things worse, then set about managing the perceptions of the public to explain away why everything is not as it was promised. Until more people wake up and realize what is happening, the politicians and financiers will continue to take the power and ruin this country.

“Then why fear the free market (that is not currently working for many Americans) competing with a Government option.”
-
There is no free market in healthcare. Government restrictions are one of the major reasons for increasing insurance rates; increasing mandates and items covered. A true free market would allow you to purchase health care like you do auto coverage; picking the limits and items you want in your policy…when was the last time you were able to do that with your health insurance?

Two things SD:
"But Catholic schools routinely do a better job at a LOWER cost than the public schools. And parents who homeschool do a better job for even less money!"
.
Think about why that is. Do Catholic school education LD, EBD, At-Risk, and CD students at the same rate with the same integration as public schools?
How do you determine what education is better? Test scores, YUCK! Some MC test to determine if I educated a student about the constitiont. A test that cares more about naming the founders than understanding the content...UGH!
.
2nd point
.
And the rest of us favor liberty and freedom, and believe that the free market produces a better result than an all-powerful government.
.
Then why fear the free market (that is not currently working for many Americans) competing with a Government option.
.
If you like the free market then we should fight together for a bill that allows the free market to compete with the government option. Don't blindly oppose A government option, fight for an option for those who need it that does allow me to keep my health insurance if I choose.
.
I don't know, or pretend to know enough about the bill to support IT but I do support a public option that will give me a choice.
.
I happen to be lucky and have good insurance but there are plenty of people who aren't lucky OR are being screwed by the insurance companies. It is happening.
.
I don't want a government take-over but I do want a government option.
.
I am hoping, that through all the lies on both sides that is what ends up happening.

"Today the USPS is funded entirely by revenues from postage." USPS website, not some blog.

Why do you think so many parents send their kids to private school? Is it just because they're "rich", and want to isolate their little darlings from the riff-raff? No - if you are a good parent you search out the best education you can find (and the best you can afford, since you are now paying twice). But Catholic schools routinely do a better job at a LOWER cost than the public schools. And parents who homeschool do a better job for even less money!
Some public schools are better than others of course, but again we can't really know how much better schools would be if they were all private, since public education has a de facto monopoly.
I guess it comes down to this. Some people favor central planning and control for all aspects of life. And the rest of us favor liberty and freedom, and believe that the free market produces a better result than an all-powerful government. Next time you hear about a major new innovation, notice whether it was produced by private citizens or a government agency. It's all too sad the direction this country is taking, soon we'll all be paying for the right to exhale, and eventually we'll all (except the politicians) be counseled as to how to best end our lives.

" public education are failed models shows that we should do the same thing with health care??? "
.
I don't believe public education is a "failed model" and if we did the same with Health Insurance that would be great.
.
Those that need an affordable quality option would get it and those that want something different AND more expensive can have it.
.
Public education represents a true public option and it is working.
.
Not to change subjects, but whenever you are dealing with people methods will need to change so public education is not perfect, far from it BUT for those who want it, most children have a chance at a quality basic education have access. Is the quality of education equal from district to district? No, because the wealthy refuse to help the smaller or poorer districts.
.
If the health insurance reform ended up as successful as the public education system Obama could/would/and should claim success.
.
IMO

http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston...

They have not gotten taxpayer money since 1982, according to that article.

SD, the Postmaster in Phoenix, Az. had an article last week where he specifically said the post office does not receive one cent from the government.

whythink: You said "At the rate we are going (increased rates) many soon won't be able to afford the private sector compeition so a public OPTION is necessary... The problems of the USPS and public education don't discount the idea of a public option for health care in my mind... Like public education, in my opinion, it is a necessity for this country".
So, the fact that the USPS and public education are failed models shows that we should do the same thing with health care??? Or is the fact that health care is a "necessity" the reason the government should take it over? What about other necessities? Maybe the USDA should take over the farms (since food is a necessity) and we could have government farms, like the old USSR? And btw, it won't be considered an "option" by those who are forced into the system, which eventually will be everyone - except the self-designated elite (politicians).
pharm said that the USPS does "not get a nickel from the government". Not true - while the subsidies are smaller than in years past, they are still there, listed as "U.S. government appropriations — received" rather than subsidies. While the USPS is doing better, the fact remains that it has a government-granted monopoly, so we don't really know how much better and cheaper things would be if they had real competition.

As is usually the case, government involvement changes the economic model to such an extent market forced can’t apply to regulate cost. Higher education is a perfect example. To make it more attainable, government secures student loans, thereby supporting rising tuition rates. If tuition rates climbed to a point were enrollment drops institutions would adjust to compete or face a drop in students. The government subsidy of loans exacerbates and condones increased rates by not reducing demand (student enrollment).

I understand the argument of wealthy kids to Ivy League schools, but a quality education is beyond the amount of money spent and more about the education received.

This same model of subsidy is what the government now wants for health care. Not addressing prices at all, instead focusing on coverage (same as tuition help), thus reinforcing prices and completely bypassing market forces.

SD, the Constitution mandates the Post Office, also "post roads." They do not get a nickel from the government, why is beyond me when it is mandated.

SD
"So clearly the motives of the public school system do not revolve around satisfying their customers (the parents), since most of their customers do not have the resources to go to the competition."
.
Thanks for making my point.
.
At the rate we are going (increased rates) many soon won't be able to afford the private sector compeition so a public OPTION is necessary.
.
The problems of the USPS and public education don't discount the idea of a public option for health care in my mind.
.
Like public education, in my opinion, it is a necessity for this country.

chad: You are doing the inferring, please don't use quotation marks when you are not quoting anything I actually said. No, I don't attack people, that's a waste of time. I might "attack" someone's ideas, but not the writer himself. Civil discourse is my preference, but I can neither prove or disprove anything to anyone's satisfaction (nor can you), particularly when we're talking about a (misguided IMO) government initiative of this magnitude. It's really all about getting as much information as you can, and using your own knowledge about how government works and then drawing a conclusion. We see things differently, that's clear enough!
whythink: A few facts for you. The USPS has a monopoly on the delivery of First Class mail, this so-called quasi-governmental organization loses money year after year, but instead of having to deal with it with better service and lower prices, they continue to increase (!) the price of postage, and then ask for more money from Congress. No, it's not a takeover, they've been around so long that's not the way we perceive it But if the USPS did not exist and we relied on private carriers, the establishment of the USPS and the granting of monopoly pricing would indeed be a takeover.
Public education is another example of a failed model. The same comments apply (it's been around forever and if it were not, an establilshment of a public education system would be a takeover of K-12 education). In this case though, we are all required to pay for public schools, and if a parent wants to send a child to private schools, they get to pay again! So clearly the motives of the public school system do not revolve around satisfying their customers (the parents), since most of their customers do not have the resources to go to the competition.
Not "complaining" (LOL) about personal attacks, just pointing out that when one writer attacks another on a personal level, the discussion descends into a useless shouting match. Better to stay on-topic. Btw, that's one of my favorite overused words on here - the others are "whining" and "negative", i.e. you don't agree with me so you're being negative. All are useless in my mind, because (again) the conversation is switched to the motives and/or feelings of the other writers, which is generally a red herring.
Have a great day!

SD,
.
I don't believe it is a takeover any more that the US Postal Service is a takeover of the delivery industry of public education is a take over of k-12 education system.
.
BTW, calling someone naive while complaining about personal attacks is naive.
.

SD - And you are not attacking anyone????? PUHLEEEZE! You have attacked me from the beggining, inferring that because I or anyone who does not completely agree with you "just won't get it".
Apparently you believe in only a one sided discussions and not civil discourse. And you still have not proved I said what you said that I had said.

Pardon me, the CBO estimates less than 4% will be in any public option.

The end of life counseling is in the House bill, just as it is in the Medicare bill of 2003, passed with large Republican support. The only difference is the new bill says medicare will pay for counseling every five years, more if your health changes for the worse, the bill in 2003 only pays if you are terminal. Recently, bipartisan groups have sought to bring up a stand alone bill in Congress with exactly those same provisions. The screaming now is just politics to fight health care reform. It is not mandatory, but it should be just to protect the patient. A takeover of health care when the CBO estimates less than 45 will be in a public option by 2019, doesn`t wash!

And whythink said "The plan isn't a take over, stop lying!...A government option isn't a take over, it is an option".
You are believing the sound bytes and the misrepresentations of the proponents. I believe what I've read in the House bill and what others have quoted from the bill. The term "government option" is designed to make it sound like a choice. But clearly the intent (and it will be the law if it passes) is to force people into the government system. The devil is in the details! This Orwellian double-speak intentionally obfuscates the truth. Why do you think they changed the term "health care reform" which is what is was on Friday, to "health insurance reform" which it is this week? Why did the Senate version remove the parts pertaining to mandatory end-of-life counseling (so-called "death panels") if, as so many have stated, it wasn't in there? How can you remove what's not there? Why are so many in Congress who are attempting to get this passed quickly endorsing a bill neither they personally, nor their staffs, have actually read?
Before you accuse someone of lying, please get your facts straight.

chad: "you went all Rush Limbaugh on me". Huh? By asking you to clarify your unclear comments? I could say you're going all Forrest Gump on me, not sure you'd understand though. Let's keep it a little more on point, okay? No sense in getting all "hot" over it - ha ha.
whythink: It IS a takeover. Why do you think people are so up in arms over it? It is Socialized Medicine. That's a takeover of private medicine. To not realize that is extremely naive.
And both of you can attack me all you want, I prefer to discuss ideas. Attacking me shows the weakness of the attacker's conviction.

Look the left does keep attacking Palin, because they fear her devastating common sense leadership ability, not because she says stupid things or outright lies.
.
Fox news is fair and balanced.
.
The Republicans don't think that just because they have a power base with the gullible (religious) that they can work them into a frenzy to try to get back in power and continue to serve their corporate interests above ours.
.
Please stop making Palin, the greatest Republican Leader we have, look follish and ignorant by covering the things she says.

SD - I agreed with the scenario that if health care was taken over by the government, that those who passed that legislation should also be included in that same coverage. No where did I say I agreed with a government takeover of all health care.

You are funny. I was just actually agreeing to your point, and you went all Rush Limbaugh on me. LMAO

SuperDave,
The plan isn't a take over, stop lying!
.
A government option isn't a take over, it is an option.
.
WOW!

the best part of the entire Palin joke is watching Fox News. They still attempt to defend her claiming they do not understand the continued attacks.
.
Of course with their journalistic standards, they probably don't realize she has a facebook account, plus, they believe the lies. For them, it is all good.
.

chad: I actually read your comments about five times before stating that I couldn't understand them. If you are referring to me in your "you guys" comment, no I'm not getting "all hot" LOL.
So, to be clear, you are saying that you advocate the takeover of medicine by the government, and you also think they should be forced to participate? You do realize that that will never happen, right? That's my whole point! If it's good enough for US, it's good enough for THEM. For that matter, since THEY work for US, by rights OUR plan should be BETTER!

hemispheres - why should I smoke that? I never smoked and never will, very disgusting habit that has hurt many people. But, I have had discussions about your topic before, and what you say is true. It is the fact that while intentional, or not intentional, supporting a fallacy once shown the truth is not conducive to solving the problem. This is not Lord of the Flies.

SuperDave - your "scenario" was about socialized medicine and how everyone should have the same. You know, if you guys actually read something without getting all hot first, you would see that I had agreed with that scenario that in a socialistic medical viewpoint everyone would get the same treatment. You answer to your own question, "I thought so", designates your reply before anyone else could.

I agree with you SD, everyone should have to follow the same rules that the government wants to establish, be covered, no exemption for pre-existing conditions, be able to choose the insurance you want from the ones that operate following the minimums set by law. Still, if you are economically able to buy a higher priced, with more coverage, plan you can, as long as the minimums are met. Socialized medicine is Medicare/Medicaid, not people buying their own. I agree Congress/Presidents plan should have to follow the same minimums as everyone else, but their plan will still be pricier because of the enhanced coverage we pay for in taxes.

chad: You said "SuperDave - if your are going to post a question, at least let some (one) answer it. Now I don't believe in total socialized medicine, just in reforms to the current system, but in your scenario it would only make common sense for the government employees to have the same coverage we all would be using. You thought too fast".

I don't understand you. What is "my scenario"? Are you agreeing with me? And I AM letting someone answer, it's just that no one has!
So allow me to repeat myself...
Surely, those of you who advocate this takeover can agree on this point (that EVERYONE - ALL U.S. CITIZENS - NO EXCEPTIONS, be part of the new Socialized Medicine)? Or do you think our "public servants" are better than us? And BTW, this also includes Barack Obama, and his wife and children. Simply put, if we're going down this path, we are ALL going together. EVERYONE. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Now those of you who advocate Socialized Medicine, please explain to me why you are silent on this aspect of the takeover????
Anyone???????????

I will see you vader RAF.

Vader late than never.

What is your motivader Chad?

Chad I see you are defending socket puppet, perhaps there is a motive behind your defense?

"you can just look down and talk..."
-
Hey moderator Chad, what does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Oh right typical little whiner boy, it is ok when I do it...

"And as the saying goes, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem"

Hey Chad, put it in your pipe and smoke it. Try to digest this one:

The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")

Retired - you can just look down and talk to your little sock puppet, no need to post personal conversations here.

Thank you , proartist, for seeing what this is all about. Fear-mongering has been used through the years by those who have no other leg to stand on. What is crazy is that with all the information technology we have today, people still can be bamboozled.

"How to account for Palin’s Facebook falsehoods"? There isn't any way unless it's true that fearmongering will always trump intelligent and rational discourse.

Besides Palin, the right also has Fox News' Glen Beck fighting for their cause. In January of 2008 Glen Beck is disgusted at the state of health care in the US. Now all of a sudden, America has the best health care on Earth. What a hypocrite!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX1rLv_hN...

careful sock puppet, chad will be start crying about you not staying on topic.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/20...

The only difference in the proposed legislation and the Medicare bill passed with huge Republican support in 2003 in regards to counseling(death panels) is that Medicare would pay for counseling every five years instead of only when the patient is terminal, it is not mandatory.

Well, andre, I agree with Jefferson. And I like the bipartisanship of working together to make health care better, as the link shows. But the fear mongering and lying that people like Palin do is not constructive, but destructive.

Your ability to gauge another posters "anger" from words is almost as laughable as your wanting the lotto numbers from the CBO.

As Ghandi once said "Anger is never without an argument, but seldom with a good one."

You need to harness your anger, retired.

Or what may more appropriately fit your state:
"Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind." ~ R. Ingersol,prominent politician from Illinois, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought

1. Irrelevant would be a comparison to a cow walking into an electric fence; as you wrote.

2. Inflammatory is declaration of “mental midget” and “that was a good one for a 6th grade education; as you wrote.

3. Controversial is the absurd belief others also expect the CBO to provide winning numbers as convoluted self-confirmation and justification for stating it in the first place.

As my comment was relevant, suggested to another poster the absurdity in judgment and observation that you make, his continued debating with you was a waste of time. If you took that personally (inflammatory or controversial) perhaps you need thicker skin or you should think twice before posting requests of the CBO for lotto numbers.

Lastly, as I have shown from your examples, you are that last person that should scold others on keeping comments relevant to the article it was posted on. Please do continue in your self-appointed role as moderator; it makes for great comedic relief.

1. the comment was made in jest on another article on this website, not this article, making it irrelevant.

2. Your post was clearly inflammatory, since it had nothing to do with this topic. You were just demeaning me for personal satisfaction.

3. It is controversial because many people play the lottery. And since the CBO was so great at predictions, as you pointed out, there may have been others who wished they could get winning lottery numbers from them. Hence, two opposing views = controversy.

Please keep the comments to the relevant article it was posted at, or did you forget your medicine this morning?

Chad, since you are the one that asked the question if the CBO can pick the Lotto numbers for you, in this GazetteXtra on line community, please show how my comment was "controversial, inflammatory, or irrelevant?

Now, retired, you sound like the troll.

"a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community" ~ Wikipedia

andre your wasting your time debating someone that wants the CBO to give him the lotto numbers.

Thanks andre, any job in these economic times is valuable. I would not look a gift horse in the mouth. ( a gift cow ... mooo...ZZZaappp..aarrggh..is another matter)

SuperDave - if your are going to post a question, at least let some answer it. Now I don't believe in total socialized medicine, just in reforms to the current system, but in your scenario it would only make common sense for the government employees to have the same coverage we all would be using. You thought too fast.

hemispheres - I'll try! I just think the word liberal is thrown around too easily, same as socialism. I consider myself more of a conservative. Yet when people like me want to see some change for the good, then we are labeled liberals. While all suggestions to health care reform may not be palatable, those who seem to oppose it offer no suggestions other than " It's fine, leave it alone". It is not fine, those who do not see the problems have blinders on. And as the saying goes, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. ( those are general statements, not directed at any one person by the way).

I would be very wary of the pre-release version of the Senate Bill. It is not even been voted out of committee yet.

vatoloco, I think pre-existing conditions, portability of your current insurance, and tort reform are all a great place to start.

Palin is a nutjob. How can anyone take her seriously? Everytime she opens her mouth, she weakens the nation.

I really wonder if any one person has actually read the bill. I don't know about the Senate version, but the House bill (HR 3200) is over 1,000 pages long!

If sarah palin has read the proposed bill she is dumber than we already knew she was. Because its clear she does not understand it. Sarah palin has done nothing but distort facts from day one. The woman is a loser, wanna be..She can't even keep her own life straight, she needs to stay out of everyone else's.

The senate version is out now!
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images...

RAF-Most agree that healthcare changes are in order. We need to dice the elephant into manageable chunks so we can eat it more efficiently. Which chunk do you feel we need to slice first? And, why is there such a hurry to get this passed? What's the rush? I feel this administration is moving too soon to fast. Legacy?

RAF: LOL! I'm tellin' you, if you see "darwin1", don't bother. Total waste of cyberspace!

Darwin1, if you actually read the letter you say is not a peer review study you would have also read the conclusions made in the letter were from a peer review study also listed in the letter...you continue to show how little you know on a daily basis.

I said it before, but the NUMBER ONE REQUIREMENT for Socialized Medicine is that all government workers are required to be in the government system. This would include members of Congress. (They should also be required to be enrolled in Social Security, but that's another battle). We need to insist that any government medical "insurance" includes those who create such a system. Get them in the system, and either problems in the system will get fixed, or they can suffer from the results of this legislation along with the rest of us. Or better yet, it won't pass in the first place.
Surely, those of you who advocate this takeover can agree on this point? Or do you think our "public servants" are better than us? And BTW, this also includes Barack Obama, and his wife and children. Simply put, if we're going down this path, we are ALL going together. EVERYONE. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Now those of you who advocate Socialized Medicine, please explain to me why you are silent on this aspect of the takeover????
Anyone???????????

I thought so.

mikef, janesvillemom and others: You have to put two and two together, read between the lines so to speak. Regarding mandatory end-of-life counseling, yes, it's there. But more importantly, it's there in a specific context. And that context is a government run (Socialized) medical system where, beyond the expected, predicted, and virtually guaranteed waste, fraud, and abuse, it has the STATED PURPOSE of cutting costs. I of course don't know how old anyone on here is, but at some point, if you're lucky enough, you will be a senior citizen, perhaps suffering from dementia, senility, or just plain slowing down. And what if you don't have family, or maybe your family can't or won't help you make medical decisions, and you're isolated, lonely, and your main social contacts are the medical practitioners you see more and more often. And now a well-meaning doctor, nurse, aide, or bureaucrat, says, "Mr. F., let's face facts, you're eighty-seven years old, you've had a nice, long life, do you really want to suffer any more? Do you really want to burden your children and grandchildren?". If you don't think that's realistic, have you ever dealt with the VA, or the IRS??? "Mrs. Janesvillemom, your children haven't responded to our letters. But at your age, it's probably not cost-effective for US to fund YOUR hip replacement, I'm sure you agree". GET IT??? If not, you will, maybe twenty or more years from now, when you're sitting unattended in a wheelchair, wide-eyed, drooling and vaguely remembering this public debate that occurred in the suumer of 2009 when you were younger.

Liberals speak often of tolerance, but they only tolerate Liberals and Liberal ideas.

Chad, you vader be nice.

"shouting down everyone and portraying yourselves as victims".

Really? Who ran on a platform that everything wrong with the country today is Bush's fault?

Mooo! (zzzzzzappppppp) Whoops, there goes andre again.

It was the ignorance of those protesting something that has been proven false I was complaining about. They have the right, as all Americans do, to protest. But that does not mean falsehoods should be turned into truths because a wave of robotic Palenites have no ability to reason fact from fiction.

You are still funny, andre, and I am sorry for my grammatical mistake. I will say 3 Hail Andre's if helps correct my mistake.

You missed the point again, Andre. Your like a cow that keeps walking into an electric fence. What a shocker!

And what do you have against the wee folk anyway?

kinsohn - Palin was really not responsible because of her Facebook stuff, It's all the Republican wacko's who spread false rumors and like mass hysteria, compared to the truth. Palin is just getting more face time in. You really must do something about that crush you have on her.

hemispheres- that was a good one - for a 6th grade education.

Andre - The point was not about the ability to protest, but the validity of what the protesters are saying. You are the same old, read what into it that you want to idiot.

This thread is a fountain of left-wing ignorance, but I repeat myself. There are so many wacky contentions it's like playing whack-a-mole, but here's 5 minutes' worth:
"your child has a chronic illness and if you leave that job, you will not be eligible for coverage for your child. What are your choices?"

Go to a large group employer. Their plans do not exempt pre-existing conditions.

If you imply Sarah Palin is ignorant, you should be sure to spell "governor" correctly. Otherwise, you look like the idiot.

"There are a lot of small employers who cannot afford to provide insurance for their employees." And the Democratic plan is to place huge tax increases on those same small employers, making even less of them able to afford insurance (not to mention employees). But of course, that's the plan, as everyone will eventually be absorbed by the Borg, I mean government insurance, as Obama has repeatedly pointed out.

Along with US News and World Report, the AP, and Senator Charles Grassley, the Wall Street Journal has also shown how stupid Sarah Palin once again beat you left-wing kooks by getting the verbiage that wasn't a problem out of the bill.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

If she's so stupid, what does that make the rest of you as she gets the language she wants out of the bill by simply posting on Facebook? You are laughable.

darwin1: Your comparisons are beyond moronic. Comparing the FDA testing drugs to the government taking over our entire health care system is senseless. Even if I use your sorry argument, how many times has the FDA gotten it wrong? Plenty of people have died thanks to the FDA. Drugs are pulled off the market regularly. Granted, it's better than nothing, but I surely wouldn't use that as an argument. Health care is a good debate that has been going on for decades, which will spark protest. To think differently is not to look at both sides of the argument. Most people I know agree something needs to be done. Where most differ is the role government plays in our health care. So everyone should just except the Obama plan as right and call it a day? A plan that was attempted to be rammed through congress by the August recess? The plan that didn't have care panels, but then had them removed after protest started? The plan that still hasn't told people how much it will cost per person? Cut me a break. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents both agree and disagree with this plan. The new talking points for Democrats is that protesters are extremists. Debate, protest, arguments, will hash this thing out and insure we get a plan that isn't over the top. To accept one side as completely wrong or right on this issue is short sited. Again, most agree something needs to be done. However, having a government plan will certainly limit options, extend our deficit, and potentially put insurers out of business. It needs to be thought out.

Andre are you paying attention. Scalia, remember, Scalia, the guy you brought up? He is a traditionalist. His Constituional interpretation is based on the original intention of the founding fathers who wrote a Constitution that allowed slavery and for only a minority of people to have rights. Remember, the town halls and the "founding fathers" comments being made? Did you read my comments about what Ruth Ginsberg said about Scalia. You do know she is a supreme court justice? Too bad you can't follow your own advice and close your own lie hole.

Let me guess, you have never been paid to think.

andre you're living in a past that no longer exists. Crazy Republicans here and now, not forty years ago, want to go back to a time of slavery. As Ms Ginsberg has pointed out to Mr Scalia on 60 minutes, your Constitution allowed for slavery and women to be second class citizens. Pull your head out of your past.

Doormat? You changed my "doorknob" into doormat? Wow, that must've been a pretty big leap for you. I understand that you need to take very small intellectual steps whittle andre.

RAF: thanks for the info on the location of what you were referring to. I don't interpret it the same way you do. I agree with pharm's interpretation.

Recently, Republicans have latched onto a letter from the CBO in regards to cost and as usual have misrepresented it to gain political points. First, this is a "letter" and not a peer reviewed study. Secondly, you need to actually read the letter because it is not the Holy Grail they seek. In fact, if you read it you will find the Republican latch in this disturbing. In effect, the letter states that the problem is with longevity. Preventative care will cause people to live longer and that will cost more. The reason why Republicans talk about death panels is because they don't want to talk about the current system which plays Russian Roulette with your life by denying all access to health care until you are being rushed to the ER.

Here is a direct quote:
In sum, expanded governmental support for preventive medical care would probably IMPROVE people’s health but would not generally reduce total spending on health care. However, government funding for some specific types of preventive care might lower total spending. In its estimates, CBO seeks to capture the likely future effects on the budget on a case-by-case basis.

It also states:
20% of Preventative care saves money
60% is cost effective meaning that it may cost more but you will live longer: pure evil(sarcasm).

However, this is ONLY medical spending and savings this does not take into account an individuals lost productivity for extensive treatment or the cost of death on a family that preventative care may have mitigated.

You're called followers for a reason.

Dixiecrats became Republicans during the Civil Rights era you doorknob.

I disagree. What exactly constitutes the middle and why is it the middle? The problem with this argument is that it assumes all sides are equal (socialism in the marketplace of ideas) when in fact they are not. We all know how compromises worked with slavery.

Republicans have a simple strategy. Make all kinds of ridiculous and absurd claims, back them up with nothing while stomping your feet, shouting down everyone and portraying yourselves as victims. Finally, blather on endlessly about the going back to a time when black people were slaves, women had no rights and medicine was cutting off a hurt limb.

Could the National Science Foundation build a time machine to send these Republicans back to 1776.

I agree. Some want the radical change while others want no change. No matter on what spectrum of idealogy you fall on most of us can agree that there has to be some modifications. Just not too quick like it's being pursued now. Too many factors to consider. People are freaking out.

hemispheres
1. I agree; torte reform should help in this respect
2. Everyone when ill, or when a family member is ill want the best and latest devices at their disposal; new doesn’t always mean better.
3. See No. 1.
4. In some respects the same as No. 2.

To expand more on 2, 4, and 5.--- What is life worth? If you take ill would you like to go back in time to 1960 and have the care, medicines, equipment, and knowledge of that era or use all the stuff from today? There will always be naysayers on both sides; wanting complete government and those wanting absolutely no government. We have to decide how much we are willing to spend to provide the life we want.

Our country over time has swayed close to the middle on most areas and I think that will also hold true for health care---something will be done, but much closer to the middle than either side wants.

Your plan can change,but as long as it still meets the minimum requirements that the government sets you can keep it. If it changes enough not to meet those requirements the plan operators are obviously getting out of the business because they would no longer be allowed to cover anyone.

RAF-It's quite clear that healthcare keeps getting more expensive for several reasons.

1. Too many medically unecessary procedures.
2. Technology/Equipment
3. Malpractice lawsuits
4. Drugs/Research and development
5. Unhealhty habits-Heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer,smoking, drinking

How do we, as a country, deal with this? For the billions we spent on healthcare, it seems the return on what we spend is lagging. For example, other countries (Canada, Japan) have longer life spans than us? How can this be if we spend more money on our health than they do? Do we spend more than they do?

janesvillemom---

Section 102; PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. 1(A) and C(1) both discuss it.

You are grandfathered with your existing plan unless there are any changes (cost, benefit, coverage) after the new law starts; if anything changes your old plan does not meet current law and does not qualify under the new provisions. If you then want individual health insurance it will be part an exchanged based plan---completely different than you had before.

If you choose to keep your old plan, that no longer qualifies, you are subject to penalties or will be automatically enrolled in another plan. (these both are from other areas of the bill).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-A...

RAF: Can you tell me which section you are referring to about not being allowed to buy single plans? I have been reading and have not come across that. Thanks.

"A stand alone law against pre-existing conditions would help your situation more than a complete overhaul."
*
Not if I am then priced out of being able to afford health insurance at all!
*
New issue: Let's say you work for a company where you are very unhappy, don't feel valued and so do a poor job (low productivity). BUT your child has a chronic illness and if you leave that job, you will not be eligible for coverage for your child. What are your choices? Or even if you don't have a pre-existing issue, but are the only one in the family with a job that provides insurance? There are a lot of small employers who cannot afford to provide insurance for their employees. Those businesses could be more productive and overall productivity would go up if everyone could work at jobs they WANT to work at instead of feeling forced into jobs with insurance benefits. In the old days, people stayed with one job for life and the employer based made sense. It's a whole new world now, and we need to change with the times and come up with a way to cover everyone no matter what their job may be.

Janesvillemom, people might not know what the revised version out of the joint committee might be, that is the same of any bill; but we do know what the bill says that congress wanted to vote on before recess…this is the only published one available for review as such this is the only one people can be against.

The text from the above bill says a person wanting to purchase single health coverage, not in a group policy, will not be allowed how is that more choices?

A stand alone law against pre-existing conditions would help your situation more than a complete overhaul.

RAF: If a single law is passed requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, they will just raise the rates and force more people off of insurance because it will not be affordable. THE SYSTEM is broken and a piecemeal approach (which the current plan may be) is just going to complicate the same broken system.

RAF: Where are your choices NOW if you are not healthy? There are none. With this plan, there will be MORE choices. This is not a single payer system, but an ADDITION of another option.
*
No one knows what exactly the final bill will entail, so I don't know how anyone can be so strongly for or against it. I hope EVERYONE can agree that change is NEEDED. Obviously, there are a lot of options for how to achieve that change. Throwing around words like socialism, death panels, euthanasia, rationing, etc., just cloud the issue by stirring up strong emotions rather than encouraging everyone to think rationally about the best way to fix the problems. I wish I knew the answer, but in the current political climate, nothing will happen and that's a SHAME.

Doh! Another one!
*
But in 2005, Grassley supported government intervention into the end-of-life choices of Terri Shiavo, a brain damaged Florida woman who had remained in a vegetative state for 15 years. The U.S. Senate voted unanimously for legislation that required a federal judge to review whether her husband could remove her feeding tube, something he said she had requested.

Janesvillemom, first I do purchase healthcare so drop the insinuations without facts.

You are correct that pre-existing conditions need to be addressed. But this can and should be addressed as a single law not a complete overhaul.

Your position that you can’t change doctors or hospitals is false, you can. It might not be convenient but you do have a choice. The same for your employers insurance, you have the option to change jobs if you are that unhappy and your employer does not address your concern over the insurance they provide. I never said it was easy, good things in life never are.

With a government approach, if passed, where do you go if you don’t like it; what then are your options?

Darn past keeps biting them in the rear! First Repubs mandated end of life education in 1990 and then in 2003....
*
"Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now–or they’re lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley?
*
http://iowaindependent.com/18673/grassle...

RichE95-I agree. Basically, all Sarah is saying is this,

I am an American with individual rights. I should choose whatever is best for my family and I without dependence on a bunch of politicians to decide how my healthcare is managed.

The proliferation of social spending programs throughout history have not had a great influence on society. How long have we been fighting the war on poverty? Big government spending programs diminish an incentive to work hard and pursue the American dream. With Obama in office now, he has just told millions of Americans dont worry we will rake care of you because I will take money from those who have earned it outright and spread it to those who don't have an incentive to earn it. That's the message.

The Klan agrees with you andre. All protests are equal (communist). Andre is a protest commie.

Ordinary citizens already have rationed care. Cost/benefit analysis is at the heart of all engineering and science. This is why products have prices. And herein lies the problem with the current health care system - no prices. So, Republicans whine about the cost and whine about he manner in which we control costs. With the current rates of inflation no one will have health care in five years. (According to the RWF crazy predictions about the future are ok?) If rich people want to pay for a shaman to cure them let them and tax it because it doesn't work.

Sure - a statement like "death panels" is over the top. However, it does put valid questions on the table. Decisions on what to cover will be made by government panels. They will be based on a government established cost/benefit analysis. That is absolutely inevitable but has been covered up by the administration. It is already the case in Britain. Take a look at the editorial today (Friday) in the Wall Street Journal. The wealthy will always be able to pay for what they want. Ordinary citizens will be rationed - period. At the core, Sarah Palin is correct.

Just like Pukosi did not know about waterboarding techniques.

Well, if a Republican says it, it must be true. I mean a Republican wouldn't lie to win political points. Talk about naive.

Sure the Hitler guy was a Dem, and George Bush is a real cowboy too.

Hey vader, you like it, its spinless.

Senator Chuck Grassley has just issued a statement saying that concerns about end-of-life issues in the House health care bill are entirely legitimate. In addition, Grassley says the Finance Committee has "dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely" because of those fears and also because of concerns that they could be "implemented incorrectly."

Please go draw up another straw man as this one has been torched, like maybe the guy who was carrying the Obama is Hitler sign (who turned out to be a Dem.)

Chad, did you get your masters degree in bader?

The difference being, andre, the war protesters had actual things to protest. Unlike the "Death Panel" protesters who are complaining about something made up by the Republican Right Rumor machine. One is based on truths, the other based on idiots like Palin.

Wow, hemispheres, did you learn that tidbit of wisdom on the Fox News Network?

Katy, if you don't want the answer why ask the question?

you

Go ahead and keep believing that you just simply care more than everyone else and damn it, people like.

When I go to my superiors on the job, I don't complain about an issue without having a suggestion for a fix to the problem. I'm not hearing many fixes from most citizens, only complaints.

So, here's the challenge:
1) Do each of you on this board think we need reform?
2) If yes, what do each of you think we should reform? You only need to cite one idea...

Simple questions, maybe not so simple answers. But I'm sure our legislators would like to know what we think, rather than hearing only complaints.

Me?
1) Yes, we need health care reform. My aunt has no health care insurance(<60), wearing a neck brace because she needs surgery due to osteoporosis. She can't work anymore and her husband is just getting the family by on what he makes (with no health coverage). She's in constant pain and the extended family can't really help at this time. She's trying to make do until she's on Medicare. (Medicaid isn't an option.)

2) We need to fix the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D. A neighbor of mine is having a terrible time trying to pay for her anti-breast cancer drugs right now. We help out when we can with other expenses so she can pay this "donut" off, but why do the drugs cost her so much, when I could get the same thing with a simple co-pay? Let's use the VA Pharmacy system's contract for pharmaceuticals. Anyone on Medicare (or a new reformed health program) could order their drugs either from a VA depot/mail order source (to prevent clogging up crowded VA waiting rooms and to make more efficient use of VA personnel dollars) or allow non-vets to visit the pharmacies at VAMCs. Maybe vouchers could be used instead (like the school system) to pickup meds at their own pharmacies, with the meds covered/supplied by the VA contract and drop shipped around the nation. (Hey, Tommy Thomas could help with the vouchering system concept!)

One more item and I'll close: I don't think it's a good idea to buy drugs from the Canadian outlets. Why? If the 'durn' stuff is made in the USA, why ship it to Canada, only to ship it back across the border. Where does the "let's reduce our carbon footprint" consequence show up in that scenario? Buy in bulk (like the VA) and get good prices.

Buy locally!

(Oh, don't forget to visit the Janesville's Farmers Market!)

Notice everything I pointed out was actually something a right wing fanatic did. They did lynch people, they did blow up a federal building, they did blow up a church, they do follow a criminal(s). You're called a follower for a reason.

Bill of Rights, Bill of Rights, and Bill of Rights.

And, I might add, exempt themselves from the rules they impose on society. Such a weak gene pool. They cannot survive but on collectivism.

Darwin1, how can you relate to people who show empathy for criminals and that think the terrosrist acts against us is our fault.

I don't like to associate myself with the "The Brotherhood of Man" mumbo jumbo and try to appeal to the naive masses who are duped into believing that the ultimate goals of Liberals are genuinely good.

Poor whittle hemispheres being picked on by the mean old bleeding heart liberals who want to help the poor and sick get health care. Exactly what kind of cry baby Republican are you? I thought you people pulled yourselves up by the boot straps? What has happened? See what happens when you follow idiots, fat hypocritical drug addicts and pretend cowboys. Sorry but Tim McVeigh was not a bleeding heart liberal.

You should try reading the Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck saw first hand how the government could and did help people.

Unidentified, what is wrong with you? ALL prescription drugs are reviewed by the Government. It's called the FDA. If your Doctor is licensed or board certified, they are reviewed by the government. Hospitals are licensed by the government. Stop being a thoughtless follower. This is about your Doctor's REIMBURSEMENT. You might want to check your current policy because it probably also wants to reimburse your Doctor for these consultations as well. Get a clue and grow up.

So, the sky could fall in a future you clearly know nothing about. Stop telling us that you don't know anything.

War protesters were right about the war in Iraq: Health Care protesters are stupid and have admitted as much. Remember, the woman who wants to go back to the Constitution of our fore fathers not realizing that brings back slavery and denies her property and the right to vote.

When possible, Liberals oppress anyone who questions their beliefs.

Death panel is harsh I agree and maybe the choice of words. However, in no way and under no circumstances would I want the government reviewing any aspect of my health care. What scares me is the future. So they pass a mild bill just to get it done in a hurry, but then realize the cost is too high five years down the road. Then what? Someone is getting benefits cut. What are they going to do if one state has too many doctors and another not enough? Are they going to force doctors to locate in higher traffic areas? Our health care system is already overloaded. What if we have too many gynecologist and not enough uruoligists? There are far too many questions and not enough answers. There isn't a government program that hasn't fleeced tax payers in some way. If the time comes to make cuts in this program, you can bet someone is going to be left to die. That's just simple common sense. I think we need to make changes, but I don't think we need to do a complete overhaul. As far as spreading lies, well it seems like anyone who disagrees with the Democratic plan is now spreading lies and is some type of radical. This while 2 out of 3 independents disagree with this plan and a majority of Americans. Moreover, 42% of Democrats don't even like this plan. Who's spreading lies, who's radical? When it was time to protest the war it was OK, but now protesting health care bills makes people radical. It's funny how the tide turns. It was OK when movies were made about assassinating Bush, but now people fear for Obama's safety because of these "Radical" protesters. What a joke.

Unidentified: If you care about the truth, read one or two of my comments regarding these so-called "death panels". You have now joined the group of those being irresponsible by spreading lies.

Unidentified - they are still politicians, and worry about votes. Whether something is true or not really doesn't matter, it's the perception of their constituents. That is the scary part. The ignorant in this world actually wield some power.

Interesting to see the finance commitee now pulled the verbage of these so called "falsehoods" from the bill. I'm not a Palin fan, but she definately made an impact here.

"It's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress," Palin wrote late Thursday.

No, it's the voice of the ignorant who believe this blow hole every time she spouts off. Isn't her 15 min of fame over yet?

Ezoner, the more rules they put on the insurance companies, the more they raise the premiums. The system is broken...GREED has ruined it. Sadly, a new system IS what we need.
*
If the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and medical care industries would charge rates that would give them a reasonable profit, then everyone could afford insurance and healthcare. When CEO's of insurance companies, big pharma and hospital administrators all think they need to make over 100 million/year, then it becomes too expensive for everyone.
*
I think all insurance and hospitals should be run as non-profits so the money we spend would go to HEALTH CARE and not to line the pockets of the administrators and investors.
*
Tort reform also needs to be included as a way to cut costs. There should be a way to penalize bad doctors without having to go to court to get a big monetary settlement.

Palin's at it again...WHY is her Facebook blather making the news? The new buzz-word, scare-tactic is.....
RATIONING! Look out everyone, she says if the death panel don't getcha, the rationing will!
*
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Hornet,

I agree wholeheartedly. Thats why I stick to forums. I would not have the patience to deal with the screaming and shouting.

The politicians won't listen, the rhetoric starts flying (On both sides), then comes accusations, then comes negative snipes, then people raise their volumes, then someone says something really offensive.

At least here we can speak relatively freely. WHile we may disagree on the direction, its actually fairly civil.

Well, they can still yell Socialism, even though they don't know what that really means either. (Actually I saw where the Socialist party is mad, because Obama is no where near their philosophy, and it makes a mockery of the term).

On the current CNN poll, 23% believe that "death panels" are part of the legislation! THAT is scary! No wonder ONE senate committee pulled it from their version...too many people buying this crap to try to explain the truth. I wonder what the next buzz-word, scare-tactic will be?

Isn't free speech grand!?! Hope mine will count if/when I attend a town hall meeting with all the rude screamers! (What do you think is the average IQ of the screamers? Do they just not get what it means to negotiate in order to obtain a "win-win"? Whatever happened to "catching more flies with honey than with vinegar?")

At least in a posting system like this one at GazetteExtra, we can each put in our comment without being shouted down--or even punched. (Go McCaskill! Stop that fight.) Thank you to whomever invented this form of "town hall".

http://tinyurl.com/leg3ta

(Oh... liked the "medical marijuana" analogy earlier in this particular gazette dialog regarding 'actions should be made between patient and doctor', not by the gov't! Shared it with my local law enforcement pals over lunch...they liked it, too, AS a great analogy of this health care conversation.)

Katy,

I have a suggestion --

Rules can be put in place for coverages. Example -- minimum covergae allowed is 80/20. That could be mandated.

Rules can be mandated for the industry and private insurance companies then compete on a cost/price basis across the board. It does not require the dismantling of an entire industry, which is exactly what will happen.

kinsohn,
My INSURANCE COMPANY is currently deciding whether we are worthy of health care. It is called a "medical history review" and they did this before they paid for my surgery and they are doing it before they will pay for my husband's ER visit. We had to go though underwriting before we could be deemed worthy of getting this policy in the first place and even though we "passed" that test, we have to jump through more hoops because we had the audacity to need to use our health insurance!
This is a lot more restrictive than the government program is planned to be. I'd rather have a civil servant between me and my doctor than an insurance company trying to make a PROFIT by DENYING my care!
*
Obama was criticized because his grandmother underwent a hip replacement a few months before she died. It seems that such a surgery was probably excessive for a woman who was already terminal. He is saying that is was a difficult decision as to whether to get this surgery or not. He is not saying that elderly should be denied this option...his family chose to GET the surgery!

kinsohn: Obama is absolutely right. This area has always been difficult for many people to discuss. However, this is why "living wills" AKA "code status" AKA "end-of-life issues" need to be discussed. It is also why hospitals, assisted living and long-term facilities already require the issue to be addressed in writing and charted before admission paper work is complete. Knowledge of what a patient wants done in case of a health crisis is vital. It gives the patient control over their care. The desires need to be made known BEFORE the crisis occurs if possible. This does not say that a "death panel" will decide one's treatment. Again, you and Palin are being irresponsible and not telling the truth.

Yeah, you still have not proved there will be this Death Panel that is so much talked about. Obama was talking about the costs for terminally ill people. If you never were in that position, you won't understand that these items need to be talked over before things happen or get too bad. There is no taking away of patients rights, it gives the doctors paid time to discuss all options with the patient. I hope I have that right some day.

Sarah Palin said "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n...

Any more questions?

RAF: You CANNOT change insurance companies if you are not healthy! You must not have ever had to buy your own insurance. THIS is one of the biggest problems that reformers want changed. Also, IF you DO have insurance, you CANNOT change hospitals/doctors unless you have the $$$$ to pay for it yourself. You are clearly missing the point of the reform if you seriously think that "you can change insurance, doctor and even hospitals". For many people this is NOT POSSIBLE in the current system.

First, kinsohn, the AP article proves nothing. Second, this has been brought up in every town meeting, as the public has mainly heard the lies people like Palin spread about this being a Death Panel. Third, Kool-aid would be better than the gallons of hogwash you are guzzling down from Palin, Rush, Fox and all their cohorts.

RAF: Well, maybe you are independently wealthy and can change insurance companies, hospitals and doctors, but my insurance company (provided through my husband's employment at a cost to us of hundreds a month) essentially tells me where I can receive services should I wish to have the concommitant payment for said services. Out of network services are not covered at the preferred rates (20% payment from us for services rendered in network, 60% for out of network or unauthorized (by the insurance company) services). This would be after we have met all deductibles for each and every possible category in which said service falls. I have two medically recommended procedures I have performed, one annually and one every three years. This was the double whammy year and we ended up paying over $2000.00 out of pocket to pay for our part of these procedures. If we could not have afforded these procedures at the same time, there is a good chance that by the time we got around to affording it, I would have been terminally ill and ended up costing the insurance company a lot more than the 2K they made us pay in addition to the damn monthly fees they charge.

I have numerous aggravating stories of this nature. Insurance companies are the bane of my existence. They look for each and every excuse to exclude you from coverage. I have taken them on with some degree of success, but this always includes lots of time and an extremely healthy self-image. They absolutely count on the rare individual having the education, the stamina and the chutzpa to take them on. Every time I am in such a predicament, I think of my (now deceased) elderly parents simply accepting both the insurance and providers' limitations because they didn't have the stamina to challenge an incorrect bill or an outlandish denial. Or I consider my nephew who at age 32 had to have a triple by-pass and the bills and meds will haunt him for the rest of his life. The system is broken and doesn't even work for the ones who have insurance. Stop being pawns of big business and get on board with alternate solutions. Quit repeating the mantras of the right and figure out solutions if you don't like the ones being offered.

kinsohn: You still haven't addressed my questions to you. You just keep spreading the lies.

Katy, you can change insurance companies, doctors, and even hospitals...try to change your government if you don't like it.

According to the AP, the Senate dropped the provision in question (even though it was not an issue.) Got it. I must not be drinking enough Kool-Aid.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=1...

Well, I agree with the right wing extremists here on one point only. Rick Horowitz does seem preoccupied with Sarah Palin. Maybe it's because she is unaccountably in such a position of influence for those who would rather have biased information than do the homework themselves.

I have a question that has been festering since Clinton tried to reform Healthcare and got the corporate body slam. In what way does government as decider differ from insurance company as decider? Anybody with insurance who thinks that there is nobody else in the room with them and their doctor when healthcare decisions are being made is seriously deluded. Insurance companies deny coverage for "experimental" procedures that have been standard practice for 25 years ( electrostimulation therapy for muscle damage denied be BCBS for my daughter).

Superdave- Where does it MANDATE end of life counseling? It doesn't. It just adds end of life counseling to the list of items that will be paid for. In fact, it puts this item in right after "intensive cardiac rehabilitation" and "kidney disease education services" and before diagnostic X-rays, surgical dressings and durable medical equipment.
Here is another analogy, my health insurance covers a dental exam every six months. Does that mean that I am REQUIRED to have a dental exam every 6 months? No, it means the insurance will pay for the exam as long as it is at least 6 months since the last one. Get the difference???

Janesvillemom and jimbofish : 1
SuperDave : 0

SuperDave, There is NO MANDATED end of life counseling in the new bill! That has been in effect since 1991! The new bill just allows doctors to be reimbursed for providing this service. This should encourage more doctors to discuss this IMPORTANT ISSUE with their patients! Even Sarah Palin thinks it is an important issue or she wouldn't have signed a declaration about it!
*
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/07/...

Here is the deal. If you have money you still can get health care even if it is denied in the USA.
You can go to India where good care is available for cash. Insurance is available in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada to get an appointment in a reasonable length of time or be sent to another country to get care. So money will buy health care so I saw work hard and save your money for these options.

There already IS a federal mandate regarding advanced directives. It was sponsored by Republicans in 1990 and passed without any fanfare. It's called the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 and took effect in 1991. It REQUIRES health care providers to educate their staff and the community about advance directives. The new bill just allowed doctors to bill for appointments (once every 5 years) where this issue was discussed. Making this into any kind of issue is a red herring and so disingenuous of people like Palin.

jimbofish: Did you actually read what you posted? The proclamation Sarah Palin signed was just that, a proclamation. She proclaimed "April 16, 2008, as: Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska". Governments make proclamations all the time - the other day was National Watermelon Day - big deal! These have absolutely no teeth, they force no one to do anything.
No one (that I know) is against End-0f-Life counseling. But plenty of people are against government-mandated End-of-Life counseling (particularly with a bureacratic goal of cost-cutting as a primary, stated motive). Get the difference????? Here's an analogy for you: I FAVOR wearing helmets when operating a motorcycle, and wearing seat belts when driving a car. I OPPOSE laws requiring either.
So to say "Palin was for 'death panels' before she was against them" is non-sensical.
A little critical thinking, people.
Now we're to the point where people who oppose Socialized Medicine are labelled as "health care opponents". Who in the world is against health care?!?

kinsohn , that article only showeed what an idiot Peter Roff is. Anyone who has gone through an end of life experience will know that any time of counseling to provide answers to ALL AVENUES of care is appreciated. How anyone can see this as a death panel is beyond me. It's just more Republican political whitewash. The reason anything it was dropped is because Republicans such as Palin made it look to be something it was not. They did not help the public with their short sighted, self fulfilling goal. Who would stand behind, and believe, such idiocy is beyond me.

Wow, Jimbofish, sounds like Herr Palin had her own Death Panel in Alaska. But, hey der she cannot remember all dat information from when she was a governing. That's why she quit..er.resigned, too much of da legull stuff ta remember. Now she go to book writin' and talking gibberish on tv, stuff she likes ta do.

kinsohn: How does that "prove" Palin's "death panel" comments are factual? Discussing one's "code status" has nothing to do with Palin's assertion of "death panels" being part of the reform plan. As I have stated numerous times and wish the anti-reform people could comprehend is that most hospitals, assisted living, and long-term care facilities already require patients to determine what "end-of-life" procedures they would want used if the need for the same would present itself. As a registered nurse, we usually refer to it as a patient's "code status". This paper work, usually one page in length, is a required part of the admission process and usually is placed in the front of one's chart. Quit making this sound like a threat to the consumer. You, like Palin, are being irresponsible ... that's another way to say that you are being untruthful. I have a strong feeling that this portion of the bill was removed, if it was, to get past the false information people such as Palin and yourself are spreading to raise false fear in seniors and others.

The RWFs always portray themselves as victims and entitled to a greater voice than one person one vote while at the same time complaining about entitlements and victim culture. If you're oppressed, they are oppressed even more. If you are a minority, they are a minority even more. However, when they are in the minority they suddenly become a "silent majority." They believe what they believe because they believe it. The liberal elite is out to get them while making death threats, brandishing weapons and acting like a mob. They will be blaming you, while they round you up.

Hey guys, the libs, as usual, have been proven to be liars on this:

In what can fairly be described as an admission that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin knew what she was talking about, the Senate Finance Committee Thursday dropped language from its bipartisan healthcare reform package that Palin and others had suggested would eventually lead to mandated end-of-life counseling sessions for seniors. Score one for Sarah Palin. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2...

What's next, you guys going to start discussing again how she adopted her daughter's baby? Jeesh.

Palin was for "death panels" before she was against them.

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use.

WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover, it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.

WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives.

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.

WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:

Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

To paraphrase your so fearful comment, billnewbie, have the insurance company CEOs become multi-billionaries while they make the final determinations for their corporate interest payouts "...based on their medical expertise or financial reality..."??? Anyone who has dealt with the current "sickness care" system, knows the answer quite well and that is exactly why REAL health care reform is not just spurred on by the populace but DEMANDED!

At least with the gov plan I can fire the administrators every 4 years- I have no say who is the CEO of BigPharm.

I don't have health insurance because I have MS and am considered uninsurable. It would be good to be able to go to a doctor once in a while, so I am hopeful that they can get something passed.

Sarah Palin is an idiot. Unfortunately there are people on the right that believe every word she says, proving they are just as big of idiots as she. I also see that other right wing nut job Glen Beck is spreading lies just like Palin. Now multiple advertisers are pulling their ads from his program. What a fool.

Joan, yes it appears we are still where we are, I believe what read, you don’t.

Can you show me where in the legislation it says you and your doctor will decide your care without the influence of the government? Can you show me where in the legislation it says you can buy your own individual policy if you want? Can you show me where in the legislation it says if you want to, you can opt out of the program altogether?

Thanks for mentioning the Palin article! Here's a quote "As Alaska governor, she signed a proclamation making April 16, 2008, Healthcare Decision Day with the goal to have health care professionals and others participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information about advance directives."
*
I guess she was for it before she was against it again! LOL!
*
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...

Did you see the Senate took out the provision that Palin was talking about? Funny they felt the need to do that if it was all made up. As US News said "score one for Sarah Palin."

Big Pharm is scarier than Big Brother!..

If you want to know what scary, Big Pharma is scary. For example, Pfizer has been buying up the competition for several years now. They have also been buying research facilities. Google "Pfizer purchases" and you'll see a few of them. Wyeth is the latest (Fort Dodge Animal Health for ag people). They do everything they can to limit competition and to buy influence in Washington and with your doctors and veterinarians. I wish the anti-trust laws would be enforced with lots of the big companies. If they are "too big to fail", then break them up!

Let's see now, since Sarah Palin has been thoroughly trashed by pundits, reporters and comedians who either covertly or actively worked for her opponent's victory last Nov. then anything she says must be considered to be nothing but a lie, or at the very least, nonsense since some comedian imitating the Governor said "I can see Russia from my house" thereby marginalizing her as some kind of a intellectual lightweight. What a wonderful political climate we have in this country now!

I did find this Janesvillean comment rather revealing, "What complete jackasses these critics are. The idea that looking at the efficacy of treatments is the same thing as deciding individual patient life-or-death decisions really is a new low in the wingnut paranoid fantasy genre." He manages to discredit any who dare criticize his leadership of choice with a rather low-ball disparagement and then characterizes anyone who questions the wisdom or intent of health care bureaucrats at determining the efficacy of treatment with even more disparagement while claiming that they are stooping to a new low. (You have to admire his chutzpah!) It seems that perhaps some frustration may be setting in among our new President's staunchest supporters since the people of this country don't seem willing to accept the "hope and change" that our newly elected leader and his party are trying to affect. It seems we are just suppose to accept this new direction without complain, after all they did win the election. And of course when the had lost the previous 2 elections, they meekly accepted the direction the previous President lead us to! (Historical records can be soooo inconvenient!) So either we accept the proposition that health care czars will soon determine the "efficacy of treatments" as our leaders see fit or we are traitors to our country which is heading in a new and improved direction for all Americans whether we like it or not. Still, I can't help but wonder if those bureaucrat's decisions on the "efficacy of treatments" will be based on their medical expertise or financial reality as our President has pointed out that 80% of medicare expenditures are used on "end of life" treatments, and cost reduction is one of his stated goals. Under such circumstances, financial concerns will be a major consideration when expensive treatments are considered. Even a "wingnut" can easily discern that.

Reason #10? she's a NUT...

Btw, My dad gets great health coverage while my wife has to fight to get enough insulin for the month... MY dad?..Medicare, goverment run. WORKS MY wife? Two different HMO's and One self-manage health insurer over 4 years from same empolyer. she is always fighting to get enough insulin. now she has to get temperature sensitive insulin thru the mail.

I found the LA Times article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...

Scary stuff.

Here's an even better article. I guess this story first came out in the LA Times, and then Mother Jones covered it.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08...

I couldn't find the LA times article though on how pharma is eliminating discounts normally negotiated with public health insurance, and eliminating drugs from Canada. Anybody have it?

Thanks,

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/form...

Here's an article from Mother Jones on the pharma deal in the health care bill:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/200...

Ezoner: I don't think Obama is really all that in charge - which he has said himself, making references to limited power.

I think the democratic party is in power, and they are corrupted by corporations and their money. I think Barack Obama loves his children, and loved his mother. His Mom had cancer without health insurance if I recall, and that stuck with Barack. But also, I think he is stuck with politics, that is, having to negotiate deals to get things through. I think there are democrats who don't want this because they are bought off, and he is making the best deal he can. Sad.

Everyone knows the intent of the HR bill. Obama has previously stated it and so have members of congress, i.e B. Frank, Pelosi etc.. They want a single payer system where the governemnet dictates when, where and what care you will get. I would have more respect for them if they all just stated that. I would not agree, but I would respect them for their position. What bothers me most about Obama and some in congress, is that they state they are not for a single payer system, when previously they stated they were.

That erodes ANY trust or faith that people may have previously had. For me, I already had a great distrust for Obama, just based upon Chicago politics and Chicago polititians. I distrusted the repubs less, so what it comes down to is who do I trust the most or least. My view is that at least Clinton was more of a centrist, and although his pesonal life was a disaster, I believed that he did love his country. I do not feel that way about Obama. He only sees his vision of what our society should be and t hat is not consistent with our constitution.

RAF - thank you for that information, but I guess we are still where we started. No mandate or requirement.

Now let's talk about a real problem that is more apparently explicit rather than a maybe.

The veterans administration negotiates a 40% decrease in costs with big pharma, medicare as well gets a discount negotiated. I heard today that this $80 billion discount agreed to is only a 2 percent discount. I also heard today (Thom Hartman show) that the bill also would outlaw importing drugs from other countries. Sounds like the same old same old to me - no competition = gouging the taxpayer.

We need single payer health care that will provide competition for insurance companies, and we need to negotiate pharmaceutical costs, not get a measley 2 percent.

If we get what we should have, then nobody will have to pay more under this plan, but we should all pay less.

We are all on the same side people. No more fighting. That's what they want. These conversations should be about educating each other on the facts, if it's even just our perception of the facts. That's how we all learn, etc...

You logged on just to type that?

hemispheres . . . let us know when the shuttle lands.

Political liberalism often involves the determination to change or ignore our constitution. Liberalism, as herein viewed, is a flagrant disregard for restraint and an inordinate desire to be immersed in what they term liberty.

Liberalism-The result of being too open minded to take one's own side in an arguement.

SarahB1: It's purely political. You will notice that it's only Democrats or left leaning news outlets that make Palin the center of conversation.

andre: At first I was confused by your last post, then I figured out you were quoting darwin1. Whenever I see that name, I just skip over the post because that person tends to post useless nonsense.

Forget for two seconds, those of you who vote Democrat or Republican, your political affiliation. Also forget your media programmed views that Palin is either an idiot or a genius. Go and read some of her writing (not sound bite lines cherry-picked and paraphrased by someone with an agenda). Go to the source. And go read relevant parts of the actual bill while you're at it. Then use that two pounds of grey matter between your ears, armed with your life experience and knowledge regarding how things work in the real world, and figure it out. Now...my opinion. The government is trying to pass these massive pieces of legislation in a big hurry. There is a reason. Sarah Palin is offering an alternative point of view, and providing a real service to those that care to listen. She is doing the work that those in Congress are refusing to do. Instead of explaining the legislation and addressing legitimate concerns, they are trying to "sell" this legislation to us, all the while demonstrating and even admitting (!!) that they have not even read the bill! Again, there is a reason. I'll leave it to you to guess what the reasons are.

15yearsthere: You are more likely to be distracted if you are working and a mother (or father) than if you are not working and a mother (or father). So RH has a valid point. But, perhaps this is all an ugly slam against TRIG!!!!

Joan, the verbiage is in the bill.

But to address your concerns lets start with the first. You state the verbiage I provided referred to a research department…not even close. It referred to a new government agency under the control of the Secretary of HHS; hardly a research department.

It further goes on to say results from the board will be shared (voluntarily) with health care providers including hospitals and other health facilities and practitioners in a state or region to “IMPLEMENT” best practices identified or developed under this section.

It then states that the Director WILL give priority to healthcare provider’s implementing these best practices.

Yes, hardly scary language if you trust them. Given the history of the government of not being able to efficiently run a railroad, mail center, computer network, IRS, insert your favorite name here…do you really want them deciding what best practice your provider should be using and not giving priority to him/her if they decide against it?

Sarah Palin is a riot!.. she's pretty and funny and her statements just keep getting more bizarre..don't know why she has a delusional sense of self-importance..but keep on spewing it Sarah..I find you good for a needed laugh..

grininear2ear: I only wish Palin was only speaking for herself and her family. Unfortunately, she is spreading a serious lie about the reform bill(s) with the intention of reaching as many of the public as possible. She is being irresponsible.

Unidentified: I don't know about the Democrats, but I do know that "independent" voters such as myself just want Palin to go away.

Well Rick you get a " I Drank The Kool-Aid" Sticker. Are you infatuated with her? Her Opinions are just that.. Hers..she speaks for nobody but her Family which I remind you is not only her right but her Duty. This Health Care Bill is nothing but Government Control of the people.By using Health Care as a platform they will compile records on every American including accessing your bank accounts and sharing your private information with anybody they please without your permission or knowledge, and they will..WAKE UP RICK!

Palin's comments aside, the Democrats are determined to make Palin the focal point for Republicans in hopes that she'll get a nomination in 012 and be easily defeated. However, I'm confident she won't get the nomination and this is a fruitless effort.

Once again RAF pretend to be smart. You have read it. Then exactly which parts don't you like? Your paraphrasing is devoid of meaning.

prounion: You are being sarcastic, right?

Both the left and the right have their paranoid government-phobic nuts, (anyone remember something Bush signed was going to declare martial law and he was building concentration camps in the US to put dissenters into??? for an example). The problem with this issue (Health Care Reform) is that the insurance lobby and the big pharma lobbies have BIG BUCKS to feed into the hysteria on this issue. They are giving credibility to the extremists with their $$$$$$$$$. If the words, socialized, rationing, euthanasia, death panels, etc are used by your "sources" then they are probably funded by lobbys using scare tactics to manipulate you. I wonder how much SarahPac got from them?

RAF - I guess you don't have any verbiage to share? Let's stay with the topic. Verbiage about how they will decide for you.

Thanks,

Its seems clear. Palin is a victim of the left wing media which fears her powerful intellect.
.
Or she is just a tool of the corporations/republicans? Or do I only think that because the left controls the media and Palin is just what this country needs to get us back on the Bush success track?

But did she COMPREHEND it? That appears to be the issue. If she understood it, then she lied.

Palin has read the proposed current bill.

15yearsthere: You are trying to distract others from the main point of this column: Palin was not truthful in what she wrote.

JSM-Rick Horowitz is insinuating Sarah Palin could not have been distracted enough to miss the "falsehoods" on her facebook page about the "death panels" and the bureaucrats "level of productivity" because SHE (denoting gender) has no day job.Palin IS a women and IS a mother.Sounds like a slam against stay at home moms to me.I didn't bring anything up about women employed outside the home nor "working dads" (neither of wich i have a problem with).Nice try though:)

Politicians have a track record of saying one thing a doing the complete opposite. This will be no different. Out of all the plans for reform (President, Congress, Senate), only one has provided a complete version to the tax payers for review; the HR bill. The same one the house was pushing to vote on before the August recess.

Through the continued posts of dissension it is clear that people have not read HR bill, decided to believe what the President says, or believe what a Senator says is in their version of one of 4 bills not available for review. I tend to believe what I can read for myself.

For instance the part of this bill that says individual policies will not be allowed. The part of this bill that says if your current policy is deemed to not meet new guidelines you will be required to get a new one; despite the fact the President keeps claiming if you like your current plan you can keep it. So who or what are you going to believe, what you can read for yourself or a sound bite from a speech or town hall?

What complete jackasses these critics are. The idea that looking at the efficacy of treatments is the same thing as deciding individual patient life-or-death decisions really is a new low in the wingnut paranoid fantasy genre. These people have sacrificed all claim to rational argument or position within civilized debate by resorting to such deceptive tactics.
.
Fortunately, they lost the last election, so we don't need to listen to them blather on.

booch11: Your parents most likely have already discussed "end-of-life" issues. It involves paper work that is required for most hospitalizations and before admission to any assisted living facility or long-term care facility. In addition, any physician worth his pay will have already discussed the issue with your parents and charted about that discussion. People against universal health care in this country are causing a lot of unnessary heartache and fear for our senior citizens. They should be ashamed of themselves.

SuperDave: I saw the posting myself ... Palin acted irresponsibly.

If you have any kind of insurance all the decisions are NOT between you and your Doctor if you want the insurance to pay for it. The only "death panel" I know of is in Texas where Governor Bush(1999) signed a bill called, "The Texas Advance Directives Act", or "The Texas Futile Care Law", which allows a health care facility to override the wishes of patients and guardians to discontinue life-sustaining treatment. A very interesting article, The Washington Post, July 6, "Health Care Reform: What It Means For You."

hahaha. funny stuff here. while i dont agree w RAF, he does have THE BEST line here...'have problems with a Government person “deciding” outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of my health care --- that is between me and my doctor'...sounds like a vote for medical marijuana to me;)

Possibility #11. Every time she opens her mouth or writes something, she shows us that she truly is a whacked-out goof ball right wing nut ding bat quitter. People of her persuasion eat it up and defend her, the rest of us laugh.

Whoanellie, by your theory, Sarah Palin better find a new crush because Obama is already taken.

15yearsthere, Palin just quit her job, so she does not have a job. This does not have anything even marginally to do with gender. If anything, your comment is an insult to all mothers who are employed outside the home. You never hear the term "working dad" do you?

Possibility No. 5: She wrote it herself, but demons took over her body and hijacked her typing fingers and…

More likely than anything we’ve heard so far.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

RAF's quote is simply about creating a research group to study health care outcomes...it is already going on at university's all over the world. Nothing scary about it. It does NOT MANDATE that anyone follow the "best practices" but simply tries to identify them. The "worst" outcome would be that they would deny coverage for things that are not found to be "best practices", which INSURANCE COMPANIES ALREADY DO!
*
Where is this "death panel" mentioned in the bill? It does allow payment to doctors for discussing end of life issues...which EVERYONE should discuss with their family member and with their doctors if they have questions. This is about end of life CHOICES, NOT restrictions and certainly not euthanasia. Everyone should have living wills and medical power of attorney established so YOUR wishes will be honored.

(AmishBob comes to mind)

"I don't know what's scarier, that someone with her intelligence level has risen to the level that she has, or that people would actually vote for her for president."

OR the ones here who cannot recognize prounion's OBVIOUS sarcasm....LOL

RAF - please indicate the verbiage which says that they will decide on your health care. You have provided information simply about the development of a research agency.

Please educate us on why this clause is worrisome.

We're all on the same side here folks - against corporate interests. We can't let them continue to divide and conquer us.

Oh Rick!! Your Jr. High colors are showing once again!! Give it a rest and find someone else to write about! She is already taken!!!!!

Prounion: If Sarah Palin is the smartest in the Republican Party, 100% of Americans should be petrified if she were to ever hold a elected office again. Alaska must be breathing a collective sigh of relief that she is no longer their governer.

Now to pose a question: Why is it Patriotic when Republicans curtail/intervene Americans rights, but when Democrats propose a expansion of a fundamental civil right it is Socialism?

Okie - its clear your left wing bias has tainted your views on Palin - the intellectual powerhouse of political power. The person that has been and will continue to be the leader of the Republican party. She is the best, smartest and most effective Republican out there.
.
Clearly she is correct - the health care plan will involve killing people that get sick.
.
In fact she single handledly discoved a secret facility that will produce terminator robots to hunt out and kill the sick, resulting in an elegant solution to the health care problem.
.
We need to pull together - scream at folks with whatever Fox tells us to scream, otherwise: certain death for our grandparents.

RAF, your point is clear. Science is evil. It is basic science to require proof of claim or efficacy. The FDA requires drug companies to prove the efficacy and safety of their products. This concept was started by the Republicans to contain Medicare/Medicaid costs. However, it was lobbied away. Conservatives complain that this will cost too much and then complain about the means to contain costs. Sounds about right.

We already have rationing based on wealth.

You should have seen John Stewart on Monday. He has footage of O'Riley referring to protesters as Nazis. And it was great to see Claire McCaskill ask the old folks who was going to give up their government run Medicaid.

i find it absolutely amazing that libs are stating the "death panel" does not exist in the plan. it clearly does.
RAF printed it word for word.
the MSN is however saying it does not exist and that all of us conservatives are nuttier than loons.
as the obabma election train rolled on, conservatives were trying to alert people about his radical ties (too numerous to mention here).
yet, we were all vilified -- called kooks and nuts. "the right wing fringe."
we were correct all along!
the same is true for health care.
if we oppose it -- we're racists, and right wind nuts -- and we are all to be discounted as such.
we are correct this time.
i sincerely don't want to have to say "i told you so" two years form now when this country is spending trillions on inadequate health care -- and my parents have to sit down with some social services hack to discuss "end of life" options.

RAF: Having served, I had to laugh at your comment to pubsrus. Some of the "medical care" one receives in the service reminds me of a line from the the movie "Papillon": "how does a guy fail a test like this?"

ok dave, do you have a Possibility No. 10?

Once again the press is picking on Palin - the greatest political leader of our time, or really any time. If they were less threatened by her they would not point out the things she says. The usually hilarious sometimes blatently untrue things she says.

SarahB1 - the "truth"?!? RH routinely "makes stuff up". This article is another example of the inner workings of his tiny mind and has little connection to objective reality.

Pubsrus…it is obvious by your comment you have idea of the medical care while in the military.

At least Horowitz is telling the truth, something Palin ignored in her Facebook entry. Gonzo and Joan make a lot of good points in their comments. RetiredAirForce, I respect your comments but can't find anything threatening about the material you quoted.

retiredairforce--you didn't have a problem with government providing you with health care in the service so why does it bother you now?????

That specific verbiage refers to the development of a research department that examines proper procedures for managing disease. It doesn't say that the doctors have to take their recommendations from their research.

The need for research is to discourage doctors from providing unnecessary medical intervention and not providing alternatives. That happened to me - 15 years on inhaled steroids for asthma I didn't need. However, they got their kick backs from the pharmaceutical industry. I asked to go off the meds repeatedly, and was told I could not. I got a new doctor who wasn't paid off, and he said I could. I am doing well and am in much better health now. It's all a crock. I'm glad the government is going to make this effort, although I am skeptical that it will be unbiased.

Therefore, given there is no mandate for taking research recommendations, the reaction by Palin and others is a bit hysterical and frankly a theatrical puppet show manipulated by the conservative groups because they are freaked out over health care being socialized.

I think it's great that we will have guaranteed health care so people don't have to sell the farm, etc... to get that kidney or what have you. Not all problems can be solved in the emergency room (like getting a new kidney).

Now what would happen if people were not slaves to health care? Why are the conservatives in power really afraid of this happening? It's because insurance companies would have some real competition with a public option, and its because workers would have the option of leaving their job when dissatisfied instead of being stuck.

My father lost his job, couldn't find one due to age discrimination, got cancer, lost the house due to the cancer, and had no health insurance.

I don't think this story is unfamiliar and there are many more like it. This country sets you up to lose your home to medical problems when you get older (but not yet eligible for medicare). Who wins? the banks - of course!

yep..all Bush's fault.

you quoted "deciding" but that word does not appear in your original post. that whole section involves after the fact analysis.

after all the erosions the 4th amendment has suffered in the last 8 years i hardly think medical research is the final straw

Gonzo, I guess the point is you have no problem with it, like Rick, that is fine.

Others, including me, have problems with a Government person “deciding” outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of my health care --- that is between me and my doctor. Also, the powers provision has no limitations; can gather data from anywhere, about anything.

Another winner from Rick.Hmm..lets see.
"Marginally plausible, but unsettling. Distracted? It’s not like she has a day job." Nice cheap shot,i hope any women/mothers take offense to that.
"put congressional Democrats on the defensive and make the president of the United States an object of fear and loathing to a significant fraction of the country he’s trying to lead." Obama is already doing that all by himself (imo).

what in that quote is so worrisome? isnt this what the FDA and CDC are already doing?

Rick you are such a transparent tool for the left and your audience at the huff post. I am not a member of facebook so I will assume your quote is correct on what is one her page. With that said, have your read the bill? Even if you didn’t perhaps you could look at it…gets a little worrisome.

Sec. 1181. (a) Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the `Center') to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.

`(3) POWERS-
`(A) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA- The Center may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out this section. Upon request of the Center, the head of that department or agency shall furnish that information to the Center on an agreed upon schedule.
END QUOTE

You may not be worried but others are.

SuperDumb, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects money. However, the Constitution protects people and their "welfare" which according andre includes "health." Our money system, the military, police, fire, roads are all socialist. So, unless your a hypocrite you should stop using money, roads and anything else run by the government.

Possibility #10 - Her gun kicked her in the head when she was shootin' critters from the chopper, and now she has an alter ego. But unlike most movies, both personalities are evil.
"Death panel" "Death Squad", boy the Republican'ts are sure good at catchy phrases. Maybe they should be in advertising instead of politics.

Why is Rick Horowitz so obsessed with Sarah Palin?!? Is she running for office? Is she IN office anymore? Obviously, NO to both.
A better question - with all of the blatantly unconstitutional shenanigans going on right now in Washington DC, can he find even ONE thing with current relevance to write about? How about the big mess with socialized medicine? Takeover of the financial and auto industries? Double-digit trillion dollar deficits? Congress ordering new jets for themselves, on our dime, after having lectured the CEOs of private industry? There are so many things...
But no, I guess the most important thing in the world right now (in RH's diminutive mind) is Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Idiot.