Dems split about Public Option

[HenryReardon]

Thank-you for posting this. I think these realities are why Obama shifted to 'health insurance reform'. The quality of our care is second to none. Do you think the taxpayer should subsidize poorer people to buy private health insurance? and I'm talking about people that don't qualify for medicaid (i.e. single men) or should we abolish medicaid and put those people on subsidized private insurance?

That little dose of reality won't stop people from uttering the dernier cri of the loser: "I don't have what I want, so I expect the government to take it away from somebody else and give it to me."

 

[NickCole]

Thank-you for posting this. I think these realities are why Obama shifted to 'health insurance reform'.

Yeah he probably just didn't look into it before the election when he promised health care reform. Thank goodness someone got him up to speed before it was too late.

 

[naked gent]

That little dose of reality won't stop people from uttering the dernier cri of the loser: "I don't have what I want, so I expect the government to take it away from somebody else and give it to me."

Just remember Henry without reform we're all be seeing our taxes go up to pay for the type of medicare that republicans are demanding which means the patient gets whatever he or she needs no matter the cost.

For a man who has complained about government stealing too much of our hard earned money having no concern for the cost of future government obligations is an odd and contradictory position to take.

Not that you've been cursed with consistency in that past.

 

[HenryReardon]

For a man who has complained about government stealing too much of our hard earned money having no concern for the cost of future government obligations is an odd and contradictory position to take.

.

Trying to diagram that sentence. Kind of hard to do. You seem to be saying that the government has no concern for the cost of future government obligations. Is that it?

Ever hear of punctuation?

LOL

 

[HenryReardon]

Just remember Henry without reform we're all be seeing our taxes go up to pay for the type of medicare that republicans are demanding which means the patient gets whatever he or she needs no matter the cost.

.

Which republicans are advocating that?

And, you seem to have neglected to notice that the opposite of that is to say if its too expensive, the patient cannot get it.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[naked gent]

Which republicans are advocating that?

Republicans are saying the dems want to establish 'death panels' and will limit your care if they deem you to be too old. John McCain said on sunday that the dems rejected a republican amendment which would have made the medical efficacy panel only advisory and the final decision will be with the patient.

Put another way republicans are saying if a generic drug works as well as the name brand its up to the patient which drug he'll get with the bill being sent to medicare.

That don't seem like a good way to hold down costs to me. All care is decided by the patient all the bills go to the government.

And, you seem to have neglected to notice that the opposite of that is to say if its too expensive, the patient cannot get it.

Can't have it both ways.

Its not quite that black and white although I will admit that we all need to decide what we're going to do if the day comes when we have the ability to keep people alive until they are 120 but not the money to do so. The current republican strategy and rhetoric to defeat healthcare reform only serves to push that day farther and farther away.

If this bill fails to control costs, like the Bush attempt to reform SS, no one will touch it for many yrs to come because its a political loser.

 

[HenryReardon]

Put another way republicans are saying if a generic drug works as well as the name brand its up to the patient which drug he'll get with the bill being sent to medicare.


If this bill fails to control costs, like the Bush attempt to reform SS, no one will touch it for many yrs to come because its a political loser.

Nothing wrong with generics, except - some of them are not quite the same. If you have allergies, you body can detect the difference, which can cause some patients to be suspicious of generics. There was a huge scandal a few years back because of problems with a generic version of one of the most widely used hypertension drugs.

The Bush attempt to privatize a small portion of SS for younger workers was killed largely by the multi-million dollar campaign the AARP mounted against it.