flag@whitehouse.gov

[prole]

Hey you'll never guess what their findings were!?

 

WHITE SLAVERY!!!!!11 LOGAN'S RUN!!!!!! OBAMA'S LYIN', GRANNY'S DYIN'!!!!1 ABORTIONS FOR TODDLERS!!!!! HUMAN STEAKS!!!!!111 FORNICATIONS ON MAIN STREET!!!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

It's no wonder why most of the Republicunts on this board have quietly become liberals....too embarrassing to hang to the club membership.

[JayB]

Like members of Congress, I don't have time to read a 1000 page bill; since I'm sure you have read it, can you summarize it?

 

1000 pages of obfuscated legalise babble. Nobody but a herd of lawyers can (or will) even attempt to read that POS.

 

 

yes but its a Republican plan therefore like any good partisan he hasn't read it either, he just knows it has to be good.

 

On that note, i got a good laugh listening to Hannity along with Ann Coulter and Dick Morris "analyze" each line of Obama's plan yesterday. Like you said, those bills are pretty complicated but thank goodness we had such impartial legal 'experts' on the case to decipher it for us laymen. Hey you'll never guess what their findings were!?

 

 

 

Is it that hard to punch the bill's name into Google?

 

Enter "Patient's Choice Act" and there are summaries aplenty. I first read about the bill in the WSJ in May, and that article is link number four:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286548605041517.html

 

Here's a quick non-republican analysis:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/ask_the_expert_eight_thoughts.html

 

Here's what the CEO of crunchy-icon Whole Foods has to say about reforming health care.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

 

IMO the less involvement that conflict-of-interest laden third-party rationing agents have in influence what kind of treatment I get and when, the better. I'd also much rather pay hundreds of dollars into an account that I own and control, and have the un-used balance accumulate, than hand it over to either an insurance company or the government. I also think that it makes much more sense to use health insurance as....insurance...to keep from going under in the event of a medical catastrophe, rather than a monthly pre-payment scheme. I'd also like to be able to buy insurance in a national market, as opposed to being limited to the choices that any given state regulator thinks that I should have.

 

For the people that are uninsurable, IMO it makes much more sense to give them income indexed vouchers that cover most of their costs, and let them decide which providers/treatments work best for them than it does to give the money directly to giant, conflict-of-interest-laden cabal.

 

IMO giving individuals as much control as possible over their health care dollar appeals to me on principle, and I think it also has quite a few practical benefits that come along with it. Whoever offers a plan that's closer to that model will get my support.

 

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, it looks like that'll be the Republican party. If you like a single-payer, government-as-uber-HMO model, or just think that maximal government control over the entire sector a better way to go - then it makes sense to support the Democrats. If you fall into that camp, it's perfectly fine under these conditions to say that "The Republicans don't have anything to offer that I like and/or approve of." Saying that they haven't offered up anything other than opposition just isn't accurate though.

 

If you want to notch the claim down a bit and state that they have done a miserable job of presenting their plan, arguing on it's behalf, then I'd agree with you.

 

 

[prole]

IMO the less involvement that conflict-of-interest laden third-party rationing agents have in influence what kind of treatment I get and when, the better.

 

Better to deal with the the rationing party that's in conflict with your interests (trying to extract as much money from you while providing the least costly product) directly, eh?

 

I'd also much rather pay hundreds of dollars into an account that I own and control, and have the un-used balance accumulate, than hand it over to either an insurance company or the government.

Yeah, 'cause that's what's likely to happen for people that are struggling to make ends meet and as a result are uninsured or under-insured...

 

I also think that it makes much more sense to use health insurance as....insurance...to keep from going under in the event of a medical catastrophe, rather than a monthly pre-payment scheme.

Great if you're healthy. How old are you again?

I'd also like to be able to buy insurance in a national market, as opposed to being limited to the choices that any given state regulator thinks that I should have.

Isn't this the opposite of what this bill seeks to institute?

 

For the people that are uninsurable, IMO it makes much more sense to give them income indexed vouchers that cover most of their costs, and let them decide which providers/treatments work best for them than it does to give the money directly to giant, conflict-of-interest-laden cabal.

Which one is the giant conflict-of-interest laden cabal? The insurance and pharma industry or the government, I forget. Anyway, it's so easy and quick to research, shop, and change providers whenever you want, right? Especially for poor folks (aka the uninsurable).

 

IMO giving individuals as much control as possible over their health care dollar appeals to me on principle, and I think it also has quite a few practical benefits that come along with it. Whoever offers a plan that's closer to that model will get my support.

Don't most, if not all the Democratic bills retain consumer control over what plan they choose?

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Like members of Congress, I don't have time to read a 1000 page bill; since I'm sure you have read it, can you summarize it?

 

1000 pages of obfuscated legalise babble. Nobody but a herd of lawyers can (or will) even attempt to read that POS.

 

 

yes but its a Republican plan therefore like any good partisan he hasn't read it either, he just knows it has to be good.

 

On that note, i got a good laugh listening to Hannity along with Ann Coulter and Dick Morris "analyze" each line of Obama's plan yesterday. Like you said, those bills are pretty complicated but thank goodness we had such impartial legal 'experts' on the case to decipher it for us laymen. Hey you'll never guess what their findings were!?

 

 

 

Is it that hard to punch the bill's name into Google?

 

Enter "Patient's Choice Act" and there are summaries aplenty. I first read about the bill in the WSJ in May, and that article is link number four:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286548605041517.html

 

Here's a quick non-republican analysis:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/ask_the_expert_eight_thoughts.html

 

Here's what the CEO of crunchy-icon Whole Foods has to say about reforming health care.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

 

IMO the less involvement that conflict-of-interest laden third-party rationing agents have in influence what kind of treatment I get and when, the better. I'd also much rather pay hundreds of dollars into an account that I own and control, and have the un-used balance accumulate, than hand it over to either an insurance company or the government. I also think that it makes much more sense to use health insurance as....insurance...to keep from going under in the event of a medical catastrophe, rather than a monthly pre-payment scheme. I'd also like to be able to buy insurance in a national market, as opposed to being limited to the choices that any given state regulator thinks that I should have.

 

For the people that are uninsurable, IMO it makes much more sense to give them income indexed vouchers that cover most of their costs, and let them decide which providers/treatments work best for them than it does to give the money directly to giant, conflict-of-interest-laden cabal.

 

IMO giving individuals as much control as possible over their health care dollar appeals to me on principle, and I think it also has quite a few practical benefits that come along with it. Whoever offers a plan that's closer to that model will get my support.

 

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, it looks like that'll be the Republican party. If you like a single-payer, government-as-uber-HMO model, or just think that maximal government control over the entire sector a better way to go - then it makes sense to support the Democrats. If you fall into that camp, it's perfectly fine under these conditions to say that "The Republicans don't have anything to offer that I like and/or approve of." Saying that they haven't offered up anything other than opposition just isn't accurate though.

 

If you want to notch the claim down a bit and state that they have done a miserable job of presenting their plan, arguing on it's behalf, then I'd agree with you.

 

 

Summary (one is always needed with this poster):

 

Let the individual regulate the industry. Pit individuals against huge corporations.

 

It's worked so well in the past....

 

 

[JayB]

Like members of Congress, I don't have time to read a 1000 page bill; since I'm sure you have read it, can you summarize it?

 

1000 pages of obfuscated legalise babble. Nobody but a herd of lawyers can (or will) even attempt to read that POS.

 

 

yes but its a Republican plan therefore like any good partisan he hasn't read it either, he just knows it has to be good.

 

On that note, i got a good laugh listening to Hannity along with Ann Coulter and Dick Morris "analyze" each line of Obama's plan yesterday. Like you said, those bills are pretty complicated but thank goodness we had such impartial legal 'experts' on the case to decipher it for us laymen. Hey you'll never guess what their findings were!?

 

 

 

Is it that hard to punch the bill's name into Google?

 

Enter "Patient's Choice Act" and there are summaries aplenty. I first read about the bill in the WSJ in May, and that article is link number four:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286548605041517.html

 

Here's a quick non-republican analysis:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/ask_the_expert_eight_thoughts.html

 

Here's what the CEO of crunchy-icon Whole Foods has to say about reforming health care.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

 

IMO the less involvement that conflict-of-interest laden third-party rationing agents have in influence what kind of treatment I get and when, the better. I'd also much rather pay hundreds of dollars into an account that I own and control, and have the un-used balance accumulate, than hand it over to either an insurance company or the government. I also think that it makes much more sense to use health insurance as....insurance...to keep from going under in the event of a medical catastrophe, rather than a monthly pre-payment scheme. I'd also like to be able to buy insurance in a national market, as opposed to being limited to the choices that any given state regulator thinks that I should have.

 

For the people that are uninsurable, IMO it makes much more sense to give them income indexed vouchers that cover most of their costs, and let them decide which providers/treatments work best for them than it does to give the money directly to giant, conflict-of-interest-laden cabal.

 

IMO giving individuals as much control as possible over their health care dollar appeals to me on principle, and I think it also has quite a few practical benefits that come along with it. Whoever offers a plan that's closer to that model will get my support.

 

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, it looks like that'll be the Republican party. If you like a single-payer, government-as-uber-HMO model, or just think that maximal government control over the entire sector a better way to go - then it makes sense to support the Democrats. If you fall into that camp, it's perfectly fine under these conditions to say that "The Republicans don't have anything to offer that I like and/or approve of." Saying that they haven't offered up anything other than opposition just isn't accurate though.

 

If you want to notch the claim down a bit and state that they have done a miserable job of presenting their plan, arguing on it's behalf, then I'd agree with you.

 

 

Summary (one is always needed with this poster):

 

Let the individual regulate the industry. Pit individuals against huge corporations.

 

It's worked so well in the past....

 

 

 

 

 

The only case where the deck is stacked in those cases where the government plays favorites and uses tarriffs, subsidies, and other mechanisms to insulate favored businesses from competition. Otherwise it's a case of pitting huge corporations against...huge corporations. Or whoever else wants to try to provide the best deal.

 

Most of us manage to secure our food, clothing, and shelter just fine in cases where the government restricts it's role to that of a referee enforcing a uniform set of rules designed to limit the role of force or fraud in exchanges between two parties.

 

For those that can't afford to pay for the entire cost of these things on their own, vouchers that let them choose from businesses that have to compete for their business seem to produce better results than forcing them into a centrally administered government monopoly and/or price fixing scheme.

 

When and If I find myself in a position where I can't afford food, clothing, or shelter I'd much rather take my chances against corporate titans and anyone else trying to sell me the things that I need armed only with vouchers than I would contending with a public monopoly that can completely take me for granted.

 

Section 8 vouchers vs public housing complexes, food-stamps vs bricks of spam and cans of welfare cheese, choice of schools vs being forced to send your kid to whatever the government can provide, no matter how bad? It's not clear to me that people are objectively worse off when the government limits its assistance to paying for essential services on behalf of people who aren't able to pay them themselves, rather than the government providing the services.

 

There are cases where government providing the service makes sense for political or technical reasons, but it's far from clear that medicine is one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[prole]

Here's what the CEO of crunchy-icon Whole Foods has to say about reforming health care.

 

Crunchy icon? That guy's a fuckin' douchebag!

Here he is posting on a Yahoo Finance message board under the alias Rahodeb:

FEBRUARY

25, 2003, 1:31 P.M.: Wal-Mart is one of

the greatest companies in the history of the

world! This single company has done more for

improving our society than every labor union

combined. Wal-Mart was just named the #1

Most Admired Company in the United States

by Fortune magazine. Of course, you don't give

much credibility to their writings, no doubt

preferring magazines like Mother Jones for your

interpretation of the world. How come Whole

Foods workers' wages and benefits are over

eight times the shareholders' profits? I would

think that if Whole Foods were solely con-

cerned with profit they would pay their em-

ployees less and make much more profit than

they actually do. You believe that corporations

care only about profit and stockholders and

nothing about anyone else. This may play well

in Hollywood and in The Nation, but it isn't

true. As a stockholder at Whole Foods, I have

the opposite concern. It is obvious to me that

Whole Foods cares way too much about its

employees and not nearly enough about its

stockholders! As to union-busting, I hope

Whole Foods does it. Unions are a cancer in

our society.

--from Harper's, December 2007

 

 

[JayB]

IMO the less involvement that conflict-of-interest laden third-party rationing agents have in influence what kind of treatment I get and when, the better.

 

Better to deal with the the rationing party that's in conflict with your interests (trying to extract as much money from you while providing the least costly product) directly, eh?

 

I'd also much rather pay hundreds of dollars into an account that I own and control, and have the un-used balance accumulate, than hand it over to either an insurance company or the government.

Yeah, 'cause that's what's likely to happen for people that are struggling to make ends meet and as a result are uninsured or under-insured...

 

I also think that it makes much more sense to use health insurance as....insurance...to keep from going under in the event of a medical catastrophe, rather than a monthly pre-payment scheme.

Great if you're healthy. How old are you again?

I'd also like to be able to buy insurance in a national market, as opposed to being limited to the choices that any given state regulator thinks that I should have.

Isn't this the opposite of what this bill seeks to institute?

 

For the people that are uninsurable, IMO it makes much more sense to give them income indexed vouchers that cover most of their costs, and let them decide which providers/treatments work best for them than it does to give the money directly to giant, conflict-of-interest-laden cabal.

Which one is the giant conflict-of-interest laden cabal? The insurance and pharma industry or the government, I forget. Anyway, it's so easy and quick to research, shop, and change providers whenever you want, right? Especially for poor folks (aka the uninsurable).

 

IMO giving individuals as much control as possible over their health care dollar appeals to me on principle, and I think it also has quite a few practical benefits that come along with it. Whoever offers a plan that's closer to that model will get my support.

Don't most, if not all the Democratic bills retain consumer control over what plan they choose?

 

Just explaining that the Republicans have fielded an option, and explaining why on balance I prefer it to what the Democrats have proposed.

 

I'd like to see us go more in the direction of the Whole Foods plan, and less in the direction of Medicaid for All for a variety of reasons.

 

One of the main concerns I have with the Democrat's plan is the provision that stipulates that all employer sponsored plans have to satisfy a set of federal guidelines after a five year period that would start at some indeterminate point. Great mechanism to guarantee an income stream for people that sell stuff that the Federal board forces everyone to pay for - "Infertility coverage for all!" - not such a hot idea if the goal is to keep premiums affordable for as many people as possible. Unions that want to exempt plans with incentives for not smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, and all of the other most important and cost effective prevention mechanisms out of any Federally approved plan. This is clearly rational and defensible from the union's perspective, or else they wouldn't already be lobbying for such things, but again - I'm not sure that it's quite as beneficial for everyone else.

 

Will the Whole Foods plan, and others like it make the Federal cut? I'm not optimistic. Ditto for the catastrophic/HSA combo that makes the most sense for us and quite a few other people. Make direct, annual, income-indexed infusions to the HSA accounts and income indexed tax-credits/vouchers to the mix and the pool of people that they'd work for expands to include a big chunk of the population. There are already mechanisms out there to help insure that the uninsurable get the care that they need. I'm just not convinced that going in the direction that the folks in favor of a single payer model tend to advocate is the best way to do so.

 

BTW - I'm 36 and in relatively good health - but I recognize that that could change at any time. I'd still much rather save hundreds of dollars each month and use the funds to enjoy the health that I've currently got, and pay the $10,000 max out of pocket with savings and/or borrowing when I have to than send the money to either an insurance company or the government for care that I'm not using, and may never use. I carry high deductibles on all insurance for that very same reason.

[prole]

BTW - I'm 36 and in relatively good health - but I recognize that that could change at any time. I'd still much rather save hundreds of dollars each month and use the funds to enjoy the health that I've currently got, and pay the $10,000 max out of pocket with savings and/or borrowing when I have to than send the money to either an insurance company or the government for care that I'm not using, and may never use. I carry high deductibles on all insurance for that very same reason.

 

Great. I wasn't aware that what you got going here was under any threat by the current proposals.

[StevenSeagal]

BTW - I'm 36 and in relatively good health - but I recognize that that could change at any time. I'd still much rather save hundreds of dollars each month and use the funds to enjoy the health that I've currently got, and pay the $10,000 max out of pocket with savings and/or borrowing when I have to than send the money to either an insurance company or the government for care that I'm not using, and may never use. I carry high deductibles on all insurance for that very same reason.

 

Great. I wasn't aware that what you got going here was under any threat by the current proposals.

 

 

 

The fear is that what is being tabled is a "trojan horse"- that first we have both public and private options, but next thing you know, Obama's in the operating room taking the scalpel away from the surgeon and putting HCL in your IV. ::

[prole]

 

Great. I wasn't aware that what you got going here was under any threat by the current proposals.

 

 

 

The fear is that what is being tabled is a "trojan horse"...

 

Oh I see, so all the arguments about how these proposals are going to take away people's freedom and all that is based on a hypothetical fear rather than the legislation that's actually being proposed? Now I get it. Wow...Great stuff...God, this country is stupid.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Great. I wasn't aware that what you got going here was under any threat by the current proposals.

 

 

 

The fear is that what is being tabled is a "trojan horse"...

 

Oh I see, so all the arguments about how these proposals are going to take away people's freedom and all that is based on a hypothetical fear rather than the legislation that's actually being proposed? Now I get it Wow...Great stuff...God, this country is stupid.

 

yeah, we need intellectuals like you to show us the truth.

 

fuck off Prole you POS

[tvashtarkatena]

Worry not. There is zero chance of his intellectualism rubbing off on you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Worry not. There is zero chance of his intellectualism rubbing off on you.

 

There is zero chance of him rubbing of on me period.

 

And Prole is about as intellectual as a bowl of oatmeal, he just fancies himself to the contrary.

[Bug]

I still think you two should go climbing sometime.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I still think you two should go climbing sometime.

 

Only if Raindawg joins us.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Check out my TRs: proof positive that I'll climb with anyone, and that my partners share the same lack of discrimination.

[tvashtarkatena]

As long as your not a fucking idiot, that is. I like being alive.

[Bug]

I have climbed with a few people who exchanged flames with me.

It worked out quite well.

We kept flaming each other and kept climbing.

 

Trading perspectives with someone who dissagrees with you is a good thing.

[tvashtarkatena]

I've always thought so.

[tvashtarkatena]

If you're local, if you haven't climbed with someone you've flamed, you've climbed with a partner of someone you've flamed.

 

Incestuous business, I tell you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I have climbed with a few people who exchanged flames with me.

It worked out quite well.

We kept flaming each other and kept climbing.

 

Trading perspectives with someone who dissagrees with you is a good thing.

 

Well, I'd love to climb with Pope and Dwayner some time, and even you Bug. ;-)

[tvashtarkatena]

You've slept together, haven't you?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You've slept together, haven't you?

 

Still trying to keep AKA away, eh?

[tvashtarkatena]

He broke up with me

 

He broke up with all of us.