[BadKosh]

So the White House wants you to snitch on your neighbors and such about the Health care BS??? The same pack of mostly UNREAD PORK from the left that is being discussed at Clown Halls across America. Yep, If we show that ABORTIONS are paid for and make some comment about it, Some liberal ACORN Dick or somesuch can report you to the White House!!! One step at a time towards FASCISM. YOU were WARNED! What are they gonna DO with that info? Tax Audit?

from ABC "News"..............

A Republican senator is calling for the White House to suspend a new project that asks members of the public to flag “fishy” claims about President Obama’s health care plans, arguing that it raises privacy concerns and will serve to chill free speech.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is sending a letter to the White House today asking the president to “cease this program immediately” -- or to explain how Americans’ privacy will be protected if e-mails are forwarded to the White House as requested.

“I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests,” Cornyn writes

“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program -- and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.”

Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].”

Cornyn specifically asks whether those who quote the president’s past statements -- such as his 2003 statement that he was a “proponent” of single-payer care -- qualifies as “disinformation.” He also asks what actions the White House would take against those engaging in “fishy” speech.

[ebuddy]

The good news is if I oppose a healthcare measure that seeks to eliminate private insurers, regulate care, still fail on availability, while racking up huge additional debt for this country; I'll be considered astroturf, part of an "angry mob". So... here you have it folks.

- When those who oppose the Preferred Ideology™ convene, it is an angry mob, a coordinated effort, and astroturf.

Otherwise it's healthy dissent and free speech; a necessary part of Democracy.

[BadKosh]

I may just start reporting lies from Democrat politicians who try to spin the healthcare pork bill. Nobody seems to know exactly whats in it - including the politicians.

Funny how 0bama wanted his followers to 'get in the faces' of those who disliked him, but now when the shoe is on the other foot those who are against the bill are somehow destructive and evil.

Maybe I should report Pelosi for her 4 different stories about what she knew and when with the CIA? That pack of lies really stinks.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is sending a letter to the White House today asking the president to “cease this program immediately” -- or to explain how Americans’ privacy will be protected if e-mails are forwarded to the White House as requested.

Umm...I have news for Sen. Cornyn. There is no privacy in email communication.

[Chuckit]

More practically, it's pretty clear from the wording that they want the claims forwarded to them, not the full name and social security number of the person making the claim. They're basically saying, "Give us a chance to defend this bill — don't assume it's bad just because there's a rumor going around." It's a reasonable request phrased so as to make it sound insane.

[BadKosh]

Or, more to the truth,

"SHUT UP!! We want to control the healthcare industry and manage it as good as we have Social Security and Medicare."

or

"Quick!!! Pass the bill before the citizens get to see how we're screwing them AND RAISING TAXES to pay for it AFTER THE BILL IS LAW. "

[CreepDogg]

If it's an attempt to respond to and/or discredit the FUD and misinformation floating around about the bill, that's a good thing.

If it's an attempt to restrict information flow and silence dissent, that's a bad thing.

I tend to lean toward thinking it's the former.

[ort888]

This is a new low in foilhattery.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

More practically, it's pretty clear from the wording that they want the claims forwarded to them, not the full name and social security number of the person making the claim. They're basically saying, "Give us a chance to defend this bill — don't assume it's bad just because there's a rumor going around." It's a reasonable request phrased so as to make it sound insane.

I guess I will have to end my habit of appending my social security number to all of my emails.

[ghporter]

BadKosh, did you know that Reynolds now offers 100% recycled foil? Great for beanies!

Seriously, as Chuckit points out, the White House program isn't asking for people to "snitch." It's asking for people to send in "fishy claims" they see online or get in emails. Rumor management is very important, and not at all like "quashing dissent." It's very different.
From the proverbial horse's mouth:

Originally Posted by The White House

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].

To quote the above linked page quoting Jefferson, "Facts are stubborn things." The hysteric quality of the original post in this thread, followed by my beloved senator's knee-jerk reaction, are the kinds of things that make it hard for people to trust the best, most efficient and most honest governments. They make it almost impossible to "give them a chance" to actually get something done.

And I really am amazed that someone has poked hard enough to get me to defend the Current Administration...

[BadKosh]

Sure, they START here, but how far will they go?

[ort888]

If we aren't all processed into cat food by 2011 I will be shocked.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

BadKosh, did you know that Reynolds now offers 100% recycled foil? Great for beanies!

Is that what you use?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Seriously, as Chuckit points out, the White House program isn't asking for people to "snitch." It's asking for people to send in "fishy claims" they see online or get in emails. Rumor management is very important, and not at all like "quashing dissent." It's very different.
From the proverbial horse's mouth:To quote the above linked page quoting Jefferson, "Facts are stubborn things." The hysteric quality of the original post in this thread, followed by my beloved senator's knee-jerk reaction, are the kinds of things that make it hard for people to trust the best, most efficient and most honest governments. They make it almost impossible to "give them a chance" to actually get something done.

And I really am amazed that someone has poked hard enough to get me to defend the Current Administration...

How about them 'facts' you speak of? What do you actually know about the healthcare plan? The euthanasia talks, the abortion on demand, and other typical liberal BS. you must be so proud.

[Dakar V]

I heard they'll be supporting abortion up until the 120th trimester.

[CreepDogg]

Dear [email protected],

There's this guy, Dakar V, talking smack about the healthcare plan on MacNN. Please proceed with taking him down.

Sincerely,
CreepDogg

[SpaceMonkey]

Dear [email protected]:

I never thought anything like this would ever happen to me, but...

[turtle777]

I won't send snitch reports via email before they accept encrypted email.
I can't afford my snitch emails being intercepted and read by the NSA.

Oh, wait, nevermind

-t

[besson3c]

BadKosh, it's because of people like you that Stephen Colbert has a gig. Seriously.

[Dakar V]

That's what's missing from this forum. Someone who think Colbert is dead-serious.

[besson3c]

BadKosh: if you are going to continue feeling for all of us, at least tell us what the 0 in Obama's name is supposed to mean?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

That's what's missing from this forum. Someone who think Colbert is dead-serious.

Yeah, we have plenty of daily Obama whistle blowers... It's sort of fun trying to guess their next move though. Maybe tomorrow it will be Obama under tipping his waiter?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BadKosh: if you are going to continue feeling for all of us, at least tell us what the 0 in Obama's name is supposed to mean?

I can answer that: it's the number of improvements and positive achievements.

It can be 0, or O (standing for Oh sh!it).

-t

[besson3c]

On a serious note, I think this is a great idea. It is fair to debate health care reform, but how about we actually debate what it actually is and isn't rather than strawman arguments? Seriously, based on some of the discussions I've seen in here, it is clear that some of you genuinely don't know what a public health care option would entail. If I had a nickel for every time somebody who finds out I'm from Canada asks me if I can choose my own doctor, for instance... That's just scratching the surface.

What kills me though is the f-ing bill isn't even out yet! You guys *really* need to save your ammo so that you don't waste it all debating what the bill *might* be. Yes, it is clear that there may be a reform to Medicare involved, but your arguments will go sooooo much farther when you can propose what these balances should actually be (assuming you don't want Medicare scrapped altogether), which you can't really do when the bill doesn't exist yet.

Making everybody numb with your rants and tirades about the left and Obama in general is not a winning approach. We get it, some liberal kicked you in the shins or somehow traumatized you. The left is dangerous. It is bankrupting America. We are heading for hell in a hand basket. We get it - really!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I can answer that: it's the number of improvements and positive achievements.

It can be 0, or O (standing for Oh sh!it).

-t

What I don't get is why some of you complain about Obama doing too much too fast, while some of you say he's not doing anything.

I suggest working on making your argument a little more coherent. If the zero is this interpretive, maybe whatever you are trying to accomplish by using it should be a little more coherent too?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Is that what you use?

My own level of paranoia does not extend to being paranoid about a "government conspiracy." Having worked for the federal government for an extended period of time, I can conclusively state that the federal government is incapable of building a conspiracy beyond four or five individuals, and even at that, such individuals would be so corrupt that their plans would unravel quickly anyway. No hangar full of space aliens in New Mexico, no satellites tracking our individual movements, and nobody watching our mail boxes for unsavory contents. Sorry, it doesn't happen. And the White House is too busy (and understaffed) to be able to take advantage of "snitching" through this program, even if they wanted to.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How about them 'facts' you speak of? What do you actually know about the healthcare plan? The euthanasia talks, the abortion on demand, and other typical liberal BS. you must be so proud.

Attributing a political position to me is unwise, as I have an extremely eclectic take on politics.

I have yet to see a CLEAR and CONCISE explanation of any of the options being discussed in Washington. Because of this I am still trying to gather information.

As for euthanasia, where did YOU get your information? It is currently unlawful to assist in a person's suicide in 49 states, and even if you're a physician, actively causing a death is still homicide. Can't get around that with "this is federal law" either, because the courts have held many times that state laws CAN be MORE STRINGENT than federal laws.

One of the VERY FEW things I ever agreed with Bill Clinton on was "abortion should be legal, safe, and RARE." I have yet to see any wording that even intimates "abortion on demand," and again all states have laws regulating abortion. PAYING for it is an issue for some people, but then being raped or conceiving via incest is an issue too, don't you think? Besides YOUR personal ideas about the morality of abortion are yours. Do you understand that insisting that nobody be able to have an abortion because of your own personal religious beliefs seems to be imposing your religion on other people? Anyway, what reliable source do you get this "abortion on demand" stuff from, anyway?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I don't get is why some of you complain about Obama doing too much too fast, while some of you say he's not doing anything.

I'm thinking it's because he's doing nothing with hundreds of billions of dollars of our money.

I'm completely confounded to read; It is fair to debate health care reform, but how about we actually debate what it actually is and isn't rather than strawman arguments?
and...
What kills me though is the f-ing bill isn't even out yet! You guys *really* need to save your ammo so that you don't waste it all debating what the bill *might* be.

If you're prepared to travel across the country "selling" it and demonizing the opposition of it, you should be prepared to explain it no? We certainly have a good idea of what it'll cost. We know who it will leave without insurance. We know who it will drive out of their current insurance. We know how low-balling works and what it does to free-market competition. We know the state of our economy. We know who will pay for it and how. We know what the national debt is and who we're borrowing from. We know this Administration has a propensity for passing bills it hasn't read. I think it would behoove this Administration to focus more on the substance and details of their program than what naysayers are sending each other on the internets. Right now they're defending vapor.

Besides, you can't really blame people for not wanting to wait for a bill when it means there's less than 24 hours before it's law.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I don't get is why some of you complain about Obama doing too much too fast, while some of you say he's not doing anything.

I said improvements and positive achievements.

Both of your statements and mine can be true at the same time.

-t

[besson3c]

Ebuddy, it must be nice to be as dogmatic as you are to have all of this figured out before the horse is even out of the gate.

[BadKosh]

GHPorter the euthanasia and abortion parts of the health care bill have been discussed and highlighted in the news for about 2 weeks now. I wonder if you read news.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ebuddy, it must be nice to be as dogmatic as you are to have all of this figured out before the horse is even out of the gate.

Your use of the word dogmatic suggests that we do not already have CBO estimates of what the plan will cost, who it can and cannot cover, and what it will do for those already happily insured. You're suggesting we don't know the state of our economy, the size of our deficit, and who is funding our debt. The Democrats aren't struggling for common ground because the proposed bill is a nice little program that will help everybody.

The horse is being sold based on how cool it would be to have one, but you're correct; we haven't been shown the horse. We know they're a big responsibility and we know what resources we have available to care for one. Instead of demonizing Republicans and focusing their concern on combating email opposition, how about focusing a little more on the actual meat and potatoes of their plan? In the interest of transparency and bipartisanship of course.

Like I said, few are willing to wait on a thousand-page bill that will become law in less than 24 hours. If it can be sold now, it can be critiqued now. Fear not though besson3c, little will change when the horse leaves the gate. The debate will get more interesting with every detail. That much I do know.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

GHPorter the euthanasia and abortion parts of the health care bill have been discussed and highlighted in the news for about 2 weeks now. I wonder if you read news.

I'm selective. When 90% of what's presented as "news" is hype and sensationalism, I sort of back off from that particular source.

My impression of the euthanasia piece is that it's hooey. I don't see anything calling for euthanasia in any proposals, at least not as such. I should also point out that some other countries have parts of their national health care system built in such a way that they seem to have a "passive" euthanasia policy; I've read about older people in Germany not receiving treatment for serious illnesses because they're "too old to benefit from treatment," which is obviously code for "we don't want to spend the money on you because we figure you'll die soon anyway." This is something that's bad and needs our attention to vigorously avoid. On the other hand, "end of life planning" is not a bad idea-if done right. Surprise: EVERYBODY dies eventually, and nobody should get anywhere near that event without at least thinking a little about it. So how would YOU want to be treated when you're eventually terminal? That sort of planning is not only a good idea, it's essential for financial and estate planning. If end of life planning is where the "this is really a plot to kill off old people" euthanasia stuff is coming from, I simply don't buy it.

And again, PAYING for abortion, which is what is being discussed as part of the plan right now is a far cry from "abortion on demand." Remember that I mentioned that all states have laws about abortion? Just because the procedure might be paid for by a federally managed insurance program doesn't make it "available on demand." And I still say that most people's arguments against abortion are based entirely on THEIR religious beliefs, and their attempts to enforce those arguments on the rest of the country are an attempt to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Which, by the way, violates the First Amendment. I'm just sayin'...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I've read about older people in Germany not receiving treatment for serious illnesses because they're "too old to benefit from treatment," which is obviously code for "we don't want to spend the money on you because we figure you'll die soon anyway."

I hear this for the first time. I'm fairly certain it's wrong, because it would be illegal (unless, of course, the patient has asked not to receive certain treatments). Some young (conservative) politician who wanted to make a name for himself proposed that the elderly shouldn't automatically be eligible for things like hip replacements. It was struck down and never seriously considered in parliament. Perhaps you're thinking of that particular case?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If end of life planning is where the "this is really a plot to kill off old people" euthanasia stuff is coming from, I simply don't buy it.

I think buzzwords like abortion and euthanasia are just taken out of the desk drawer to cause a commotion to divert from the `real' (rather original) issue mentioned in the thread. It just feels better to connect a health care reform you may object to (for legitimate reasons perhaps) with things you strongly disagree with. Suddenly you go from `Obama wastes our money' to `Obama uses my hard-earned money to pay for abortions and euthanasia.'

[BadKosh]

A list a friend has compiled of bits from the proposed hellthcare swindle:

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.< br>
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard..
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149:=2 0Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

[ort888]

Headline:

Park Ranger Rescues Family of Bears

Badkosh Version of Headline:

Government Takes Control of Countries Wildlife and Releases Killer Animals Into the USA!!!!!!!!

[Monique]

First about health care; if your future health care is based on the Canadian system you will regret it.

First, you do not have the choice of your doctor; you take the doctor that is available. I mean when I moved back to Québec I called several clinics before I could find a doctor that was taking new patients; and you pray that he is good; you stay in the doctor's office as an average of 10 to 20 minutes; he will over prescribe drugs because it is easier than listening to you; if you need an operation and it is not too serious yet you will wait until 1 year before you can get it; you will not get good post operative care because they do not exist; drugs will be very expensive and not covered under this new health care bill; dentists care are not covered and will cost you a fortune; hospitals are under staffed; they are not sterile; you will not have any recourse when you get a bad doctor; and you will pay a high price. I was talking to a very nice lady from Texas and she told me that she was paying $250. for her health care insurance. I am paying $300. for the following a 10 minutes visit to the doctor, if I go to the hospital I share the room with 3 other people, if I need an operation I have the great opportunity to wait for one year; we wait at the emergency for an average of 7 to 23 hours. Good luck to my American friends.

[turtle777]

I'm sure there are many Canadians that would hate to see the American system do down the drains; after all, it's the last resort for many Canadians with serious issues...

-t

[ort888]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm sure there are many rich Canadians that would hate to see the American system do down the drains; after all, it's the last resort for many rich Canadians with serious issues...

-t

Fixed it up a little.

[ort888]

The problem is that all of these bills are being drafted by rich people with great healthcare, who are being manipulated by rich people with great healthcare and those who run the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry and are used to profiting off human misery.

If you are well employed or wealthy then the system works fantastically. If you are anything besides upper middle class or above the system is broken and no one seems to be looking out for their (our) best interests. Neither congress or the healthcare industry.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Monique 

First about health care; if your future health care is based on the Canadian system you will regret it.

I'm an American with pretty good (relatively) health insurance. Let me relate this description to my experience.

First, you do not have the choice of your doctor; you take the doctor that is available. I mean when I moved back to Québec I called several clinics before I could find a doctor that was taking new patients; and you pray that he is good;

Same in the US today. You take a doctor that's registered in your health plan, or you pay (often a lot) more. Primary Care doctors often aren't taking new patients. There's information provided by health plans and employers about the quality of doctors, but it's still pretty much a crap shoot as to the quality of care.

you stay in the doctor's office as an average of 10 to 20 minutes; he will over prescribe drugs because it is easier than listening to you;

I've had this experience also with US doctors. As with anything, I'm sure there are good and bad doctors everywhere.

if you need an operation and it is not too serious yet you will wait until 1 year before you can get it;

I can't speak to the timing on this one, but Americans also wait for elective surgeries. They need to go through the pre-approval process for most insurance companies (which takes time), and schedule as appropriate. Less than a year? Probably, but still a wait.

you will not get good post operative care because they do not exist;

Insurance companies limit the amount of post-op care they will cover. Pretty much the same, unless you can pay.

drugs will be very expensive and not covered under this new health care bill;

Um, today, most drugs are considerably cheaper in Canada than in the US. My state was considering buying prescription drugs from Canada (because of costs) until the FDA got wind of it and stopped it. Because, you know, drugs from Canada are not 'safe' for Americans.

dentists care are not covered and will cost you a fortune;

My health plan does not cover dental. I pay out-of-pocket (well, out of a pre-tax Health Care Spending Account) for all dental care.

hospitals are under staffed; they are not sterile;

Some US hospitals currently have these problems too.

you will not have any recourse when you get a bad doctor; and you will pay a high price.

Well, in the US, there's recourse in the form of malpractice suits, which most people agree are out of control and are driving up costs even for general care.

I was talking to a very nice lady from Texas and she told me that she was paying $250. for her health care insurance. I am paying $300.

Not sure what the frequency is here - monthly or annually?. I pay a bit over $700/year, not including what my employer pays. For a high-deductible plan. (PPOs and HMOs are a lot more). So I also pay into a HCSA and HSA to have tax-free money to take care of smaller items. Which means, that unless I have a bill that goes into the several thousands of dollars, I pay for EVERYTHING else out-of-pocket (albeit I get a tax break).

Don't get me wrong - I'm actually fine with this approach and like the fact that I'm responsible for my day-to-day care and preventive items. The issue is around what my employer and I really get for the coverage we DO pay for.

if I go to the hospital I share the room with 3 other people,

I've been hospitalized twice. Shared a room both times. For others I've visited in the hospital, they are almost always in shared rooms. You can get a private room if you pay more (either for more expensive coverage, or out-of-pocket outside of coverage).

we wait at the emergency for an average of 7 to 23 hours.

Sounds about right. People are triaged and treated based on medical need.

Good luck to my American friends.

Well, thanks. It sure sounds like you're not satisfied with the quality of care in Canada, and the things you have outlined as concerns are pretty much the same in the US. So you probably wouldn't be satisfied in the US either - can you blame us for trying to change it?

Like I said, I actually have pretty good coverage, and no one has been able to scare me with the 'horrors' of the Canadian system. Now take 20% of your population and cut them off entirely, other than letting them go to the emergency room at SOME hospitals. Then you'll have what the US has right now. Good luck with that.


I'm not saying I like everything that's in the current proposed bill, but I do think the status quo is untenable. I don't think that it's productive to just spread FUD about current proposals, and people who do deserve to be discredited or just plain ignored. The price of admission to the conversation should be an alternative reform proposal, or to concede that one is satisfied with the status quo and argue for that.

I'm also not saying the Canadian system is the perfect model (US reform should seek to address the above issues and others). But it also doesn't make me think 'socialized medicine' is 'scary'.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Headline:

Park Ranger Rescues Family of Bears

Badkosh Version of Headline:

Government Takes Control of Countries Wildlife and Releases Killer Animals Into the USA!!!!!!!!

So, you have no rebuttal or examples of where the information is wrong? Just your typical BS?

[ort888]

A rebuttal of a draft "your friend" found? How is that even possible?

No. Debating with you is about as fruitful as debating with a Milk Dud.

I don't claim to even be in favor of the proposal because I don't even know what it is yet.

You however, don't care what it is. All you need to know is that the Democrats came up with it and you will hate it.

EDIT

I'm having a debate with a meatball sub as we speak. I'm taking the position that I should eat it and it's attempting to convince me otherwise.

I am winning.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The same pack of mostly UNREAD PORK from the left that is being discussed at Clown Halls across America.

As far as I know, there is only one:

[ort888]

http://larouchepac.com/node/11111

Now I'm opposed to the plan. I just had to be educated to the details. Obama plans to Euthanize us all. It's all so clear to me now.

I bet 0bama just wants people's emails so he knows who to euthanize first.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your use of the word dogmatic suggests that we do not already have CBO estimates of what the plan will cost, who it can and cannot cover, and what it will do for those already happily insured. You're suggesting we don't know the state of our economy, the size of our deficit, and who is funding our debt. The Democrats aren't struggling for common ground because the proposed bill is a nice little program that will help everybody.

The horse is being sold based on how cool it would be to have one, but you're correct; we haven't been shown the horse. We know they're a big responsibility and we know what resources we have available to care for one. Instead of demonizing Republicans and focusing their concern on combating email opposition, how about focusing a little more on the actual meat and potatoes of their plan? In the interest of transparency and bipartisanship of course.

Like I said, few are willing to wait on a thousand-page bill that will become law in less than 24 hours. If it can be sold now, it can be critiqued now. Fear not though besson3c, little will change when the horse leaves the gate. The debate will get more interesting with every detail. That much I do know.

It's downright depressing that on one hand both sides seem to agree that some sort of health care reform is necessary, yet on the other both sides have committed to churning out the same sort of rhetoric. Like I wrote in another thread, one of the big breakdowns in our understanding of each other is that we argue rhetoric rather than taking the time to understand what the actual differences are and being open to the validity of the other argument. ebuddy, could you even explain my health care opinions without an editorial? I somehow doubt it, which is why the "I have everything figured out" thing is silly at any time, let alone now that the bill is vaporware.

Just because politicians seem to have some sort of obligation to deny the other party of everything and anything doesn't mean that we have to do the same.

[BadKosh]

So, you don't know anything about it- But because I think most of the issue is the expense, the government intervention and the governments past record of screwing up you seem to think I must be wrong to criticize the plan?

[besson3c]

Yes. You need to make an argument about what the costs of doing nothing are, the costs of doing whatever reform you are in favor of, if applicable, or if you really don't have any alternatives you want to put on the table, how exactly the costs of doing what you think is being proposed will surpass our current costs.

None of these grand sweeping rhetorical "it will cost more, just because", that doesn't really add much to the debate. Tell us what, how, and why. Go beyond your rhetoric. Otherwise, we can't really debate much here.

[besson3c]

Oh yes, be sure to tell us what you think will be proposed too, just to give us context. Be precise.

[BadKosh]

Its a couple of post above....

pages are noted. I don't see any posts that show the pages or excerpts are incorrect, so why not start there? Or...do we have to wait for the paid union thugs to show up first?

[CreepDogg]

Why don't you post a link to the actual document those page #'s reference? That way, there'd be an apples-apples comparison and everyone can confirm for themselves. You know - disclose your source, like someone actually interested in facts would.

If not, I could add other references, like
Page 45 - Obama says everyone gets a free unicorn.
Page 192 - Free Fireworks at the hospital every Tuesday!

Who can refute me? These are straight from a document my buddy saw!

[CreepDogg]

Aw, heck, I'll just post. A quick google yielded this as (I believe) the latest version:

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - July 14, 2009 Draft

I didn't see any reference to audits of self-insured employers on p.22. No reference to rationing on p.29, and no reference to what the committee will do on p.30 (it starts to define the committee there though). I stopped my quick check there. Sounds like BadKosh's buddy saw a different version.