quote:

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson proposed an amendment Wednesday that would force all members of Congress to receive health insurance coverage through the government-run plan proposed in the House's reform bill.

Link

We have too many talking heads trying to keep the fuzzy gray area intact about this healthcare plan. Yes and Yes the house and the senate both should be required along with every other american politician, union member etc. to be placed under this absolutely ungodly boondoggle of a supposedly healthcare plan. Never will happen though folks as long as they can keep talking about nothing and NO one calling them to task for excluding themselves and other favored Democract party funders.

Yes. The populace should stand for nothing less. Unfortunately, the idiots will re-elect them.

What difference does it make? They all have enough money to go get the best private insurance around. You can not require anyone to give up the private option, all we can do is taking away their current tax payer paid for health coverage......which, in my opinion, since they are all rich people to begin with, they should not have regardless of reform or not!!

quote:

Originally posted by ncargat1:
What difference does it make? They all have enough money to go get the best private insurance around. You can not require anyone to give up the private option, all we can do is taking away their current tax payer paid for health coverage......which, in my opinion, since they are all rich people to begin with, they should not have regardless of reform or not!!

That would kinda be the point though... Lets see how many would actually drop that coverage and take on their own. That would be telling enough in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by g8rzguy78:

quote:

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson proposed an amendment Wednesday that would force all members of Congress to receive health insurance coverage through the government-run plan proposed in the House's reform bill.

Link

If you want to drive up the cost of the public option, then by all means do this.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
If you want to drive up the cost of the public option, then by all means do this.

I think I am missing your point, how does this drive up the cost of the public option (seriously question, not sarcastic tone implied).

quote:

Originally posted by ncargat1:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
If you want to drive up the cost of the public option, then by all means do this.

I think I am missing your point, how does this drive up the cost of the public option (seriously question, not sarcastic tone implied).

Congress is going to take care of themselves. So if they are subject to public option health care, it will be better - which is good, but will be more expensive - which is bad.

For the most part, I avoid debates about how much congressmen should make, what their benefits should be, etc. Do they make too much? Are their benefits too much? Maybe, maybe not, in the end they are mostly populist and symbolic arguments and overall fairly immaterial to the bigger picture.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by ncargat1:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
If you want to drive up the cost of the public option, then by all means do this.

I think I am missing your point, how does this drive up the cost of the public option (seriously question, not sarcastic tone implied).

Congress is going to take care of themselves. So if they are subject to public option health care, it will be better - which is good, but will be more expensive - which is bad.

For the most part, I avoid debates about how much congressmen should make, what their benefits should be, etc. Do they make too much? Are their benefits too much? Maybe, maybe not, in the end they are mostly populist and symbolic arguments and overall fairly immaterial to the bigger picture.

So, are you being pragmatic or supporting the behavior of Congress (looking after their best interest vs. the country's)?

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by ncargat1:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
If you want to drive up the cost of the public option, then by all means do this.

I think I am missing your point, how does this drive up the cost of the public option (seriously question, not sarcastic tone implied).

Congress is going to take care of themselves. So if they are subject to public option health care, it will be better - which is good, but will be more expensive - which is bad.

For the most part, I avoid debates about how much congressmen should make, what their benefits should be, etc. Do they make too much? Are their benefits too much? Maybe, maybe not, in the end they are mostly populist and symbolic arguments and overall fairly immaterial to the bigger picture.

So, are you being pragmatic or supporting the behavior of Congress (looking after their best interest vs. the country's)?

I'll let you figure that one out.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by ncargat1:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
If you want to drive up the cost of the public option, then by all means do this.

I think I am missing your point, how does this drive up the cost of the public option (seriously question, not sarcastic tone implied).

Congress is going to take care of themselves. So if they are subject to public option health care, it will be better - which is good, but will be more expensive - which is bad.

For the most part, I avoid debates about how much congressmen should make, what their benefits should be, etc. Do they make too much? Are their benefits too much? Maybe, maybe not, in the end they are mostly populist and symbolic arguments and overall fairly immaterial to the bigger picture.

So, are you being pragmatic or supporting the behavior of Congress (looking after their best interest vs. the country's)?

I'll let you figure that one out.

I need alittle more info. Are you voting for any incimbents in Congress?

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by ncargat1:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
If you want to drive up the cost of the public option, then by all means do this.

I think I am missing your point, how does this drive up the cost of the public option (seriously question, not sarcastic tone implied).

Congress is going to take care of themselves. So if they are subject to public option health care, it will be better - which is good, but will be more expensive - which is bad.

For the most part, I avoid debates about how much congressmen should make, what their benefits should be, etc. Do they make too much? Are their benefits too much? Maybe, maybe not, in the end they are mostly populist and symbolic arguments and overall fairly immaterial to the bigger picture.

So, are you being pragmatic or supporting the behavior of Congress (looking after their best interest vs. the country's)?

I'll let you figure that one out.

I need alittle more info. Are you voting for any incimbents in Congress?

So why would you ask me if I am more concerned with Congress's self interest vs the country's - seriously?

I will say, I am not fond of most politicians - basically they will sell their soul to get elected, and say whatever they have to, whether they believe it or not. However, I get kind of tired of the "throw the bumbs out" posts, etc, discussions of how bad congressman are as a group, etc. Ultimately, WE elect them. We elect people that are electable - those are typically people who are semi attractive, telegenic, generally won't take stands that are too controversial, and say what their majority vocal and active constituency wants them to say.

Basically, they do what we want them to do. So why are we complaining about them?

So you do condone, or at least excuse their behavior.

First, I did not ask you if you were concerned with Congress's interest. I ask you if you condoned their behavior.

Second, my candidate, on Tuesday, was very far from what you described. He was a queen who protested against absentee landlords and took on the establishment. However, he only got 18% of the vote.

FYI, I always 'throw away' my vote. I don't sleep with no whore and I don't buy shirts from the shirtless man. 'Electability' is a non-factor. This is where they get you. Works every time. Cha-ching.

"semi-attractive??" Lboy do you have a thing for Pelosi?

If this public option nonsense gets voted in, Congress absolutely should take it. That's part of the problem with the public option. No one's defined what it is. But if congress members choose to take it, we know the insurance will be up to snuff.

But its all sorta silly anyway. The public option isnt going to do anything much to address the actual costs of health care.

I do not understand, for the life of me, why the Democrats arent pushing for a single-payer system. Its the only system that we know holds down the costs- especially in its administration.

They arent pushing for a single payer system because they dont want to lose their seats and they know that over time, this reform bill that just passed the house is going to lead to that anyway. Rick, why dont you try asking some physicians what they think of the single payer system and the kind of reimbursements they could expect for services? The job loss in the medical profession would be HUGE!! Do we need more unemployed people on top of what we already have?

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:
So you do condone, or at least excuse their behavior.

First, I did not ask you if you were concerned with Congress's interest. I ask you if you condoned their behavior.

Second, my candidate, on Tuesday, was very far from what you described. He was a queen who protested against absentee landlords and took on the establishment. However, he only got 18% of the vote.

FYI, I always 'throw away' my vote. I don't sleep with no whore and I don't buy shirts from the shirtless man. 'Electability' is a non-factor. This is where they get you. Works every time. Cha-ching.

I do not excuse the fact that they are whores, but realize also the only way you get in and get anything done is to be a whore.

Five years from now I want all the resident libs on this board come to this site and tell us again how much better our healtcare is. If and a tremendous big if, this country keeps voting for liberal candiates and more of our everyday life is given over to the elected government who gives permission to non elected persons to degrade our freedom, we are finished as a country and this country will be split apart. Not sure in how many pieces but texas and the Mormons in the west are not going to go quietly in the night.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:
So you do condone, or at least excuse their behavior.

First, I did not ask you if you were concerned with Congress's interest. I ask you if you condoned their behavior.

Second, my candidate, on Tuesday, was very far from what you described. He was a queen who protested against absentee landlords and took on the establishment. However, he only got 18% of the vote.

FYI, I always 'throw away' my vote. I don't sleep with no whore and I don't buy shirts from the shirtless man. 'Electability' is a non-factor. This is where they get you. Works every time. Cha-ching.

I do not excuse the fact that they are whores, but realize also the only way you get in and get anything done is to be a whore.

Well, let's see what this type of pragmatism gets us when we are 80.

To me it is the slippery slope. The envelope has been burst.

quote:

Originally posted by spurdog:
They arent pushing for a single payer system because they dont want to lose their seats and they know that over time, this reform bill that just passed the house is going to lead to that anyway. Rick, why dont you try asking some physicians what they think of the single payer system and the kind of reimbursements they could expect for services? The job loss in the medical profession would be HUGE!! Do we need more unemployed people on top of what we already have?

Seriously?? LOL Have you done ANY research on this subject? Or are you just sticking with what you "know."

The fee for service proposition is one of the many problems we have. Why dont you study the Cleveland Clinic model and see if the way they pay physicians there leads to worse health care.

Just silliness from people stuck in ideology as opposed to actually doing something to solve problems.

Hey Rick, if I can find one charter school where vouchers work would you agree that that is the way to go for the entire country and abolish the dept. of education? I am well aware of the cleveland clinic and how they do business but what does that have to do with single payer system? They dont operate on that and as a matter of fact they encourage competition in the private market. If people want to be paid on the basis of a salary thats fine but what happens when they no longer want to put in 60-70 hours a week for 130k a year coupled with higher taxes and inflationary spending? Unable to save or invest money. I dont see Obama asking the trial lawyers assoc. to operate on the same priniciple. You dont see the big picture. This is a power grab plain and simple.

Spur- you made a statement about reimbursement. I simply responded that's not the way they pay doctors at the Cleveland Clinic- and a lot of other major health care providers- across this land. And they provide high quality health care.

As for the trial lawyers- i agree with you. There needs to be some sort of tort reform as well. We need to do it ALL to hold down costs.

Single Payer system is the best way to do it from the information i've seen. If you believe differently feel free to post something that shows how great our current system is.

Is this a trick question? I am sure all Pubs believe they should while Dems are probably divided over it.

quote:

Originally posted by Gator Rick:
Spur- you made a statement about reimbursement. I simply responded that's not the way they pay doctors at the Cleveland Clinic- and a lot of other major health care providers- across this land. And they provide high quality health care.

As for the trial lawyers- i agree with you. There needs to be some sort of tort reform as well. We need to do it ALL to hold down costs.

Single Payer system is the best way to do it from the information i've seen. If you believe differently feel free to post something that shows how great our current system is.

About 85% of people in this country are happy with the healthcare policies they have and I am one of them. Single payer systems eliminates competition and puts everyone at the mercy of the federal govt with no option out. We dont need to destroy the entire system. What we need is to try and fix some of the problems like dropping people from a policy simply because they have become sick. Once your in and paying your premiums they shouldnt be allowed to drop you out. Crossing state lines to shop should also be allowed and removing the exemption for anti-trust laws. We could also allow for more tax deductions for HSA and small businesses that provide healthcare for employees. There are many ways to address the issue without a massive govt takeover. Again, its a power grab by Washington.

spur, its just nonsense what you are posting. At least provide a link to your claims.

1. The "poll" that you cite was more like 78% of those that HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE like their insurance plan. Including you and me.

2. The same poll discovered that the people who use their health insurance the least (ie. the healthiest) like their insurance more than the people who actually have to file claims.

3. Nothing that you've stated yet addresses the actual COST of healthcare. The simple administration of health care in this country costs at least double, sometimes triple, of other countries.

4. What about pre-existing conditions? the "free market" has given us this nonsense that we currently have.

Seriously, you have your head in the sand if you think the current system is not in need of a major overhaul. But maybe you like sandy hair.

Something has got to change. Our system is not substainable, either model - medicare or employer based model.

I support a single payer for basic coverage, the removal of employer based insurance, and the true socialization of low and medium based additional coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:
Something has got to change. Our system is not substainable, either model - medicare or employer based model.

I support a single payer for basic coverage, the removal of employer based insurance, and the true socialization of low and medium based additional coverage.

Exactly Augusta. Agree completely. This health coverage through our employers is costly and kills american jobs. Some people just cant see that though...

The general populace can not force congress to do anything. They the congress disregards the American voter and holds them as nut jobs to lie to continue their (our) sorry behaavior of re-electing them.