I guess in your opinion a bad dream is still better that no plan?
Wasn't it the same way with health care? The Rightos agreed that it needed to be reformed, but they had no viable plan to demonstrate that the demo plan was worst than theirs?
Didn't they blame the high raising health costs on incompetent doctors being sued for malpratice?
Was Boehner's plan a plan or a dream? Or, did it continue to rubber stamp half the problem? Not making everyone pay their share,
I didn't read this fantsy literature, but was it squacking about passing a balanced budget admendment?
ANY plan. ANY plan that indicates what hard choices he is willing to make. ANYTHING that would at least let us know where the man STANDS and serve as an unmovable starting point for negotiation.
It's not about high quantity. But it is at least about showing up. So Far Republicans sent up one bill, it died in the Senate, and so they have sent another, which has died in the Senate. The Republican Leader in the House and Democrat Leader in the Senate went to the White House with a bipartisan deal they'd hammered out between them, and the White House killed it.
So, thus far, Republicans have given us two plans, and Democrats have killed both of them while producing nothing. that's not Governing. That's footstamping and holding ones' breath until you get your way.
on the contrary, the Right is awash in plans for healthcare reform. and, where we have been in government (for example, in Indiana), we have been demonstrating their superiority.
that is part of it, but the main killer is our idiotic third-party-payment system
A piece of crap if you ask me. Who in their right mind would want to go through this crap again in 6 months? The proposal the GOP has produced is nothing but a piece of crap and I'm glad the Democrats in the Senate are going to treat it as such.
Be reasonable, do you think the moron Tea Party Congressmen are going to agree to anything the Democrats put forth?
Obama tried to negotiate a plan that would go beyond 2012
- the GOP is deceitfully trying to squeeze by on a mere figure that will need to be upped again in 6 months.
Only morons would want to go through what the country is going through again in 6 months, but I guess if that is the only way you can posture politically, then that is what you go for - and at the same time, let's not expect the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes - that might just incite them into voting Democrat!
Yes, I remember all the health care bills the repubs passed when they controlled the house, the senate, and the white house
Now the right doesn't like the free market or capitalism
The Dems have proposed several plans, including one that just raises the debt ceiling. The repubs rejected every single one of them.
You're ignoring plans from the Dems just to have a point to make.
that would be Medicare Part D, the only government program of such size to come in at 41% under projected costs, and the only portion of Medicare so structured that it has held down cost inflation in the portion of healthcare that it effects to 1.2%.
our current system is not the result of a free market - it is the result of meddling in the market under the FDR administration, which was then expanded under LBJ.
where are they? all i've heard are arguments from White House Press Secretaries that you don't, you know, like, have to actually, like, you know, "write these things down", or anything....
as for the clean debt ceiling rise that everyone now agrees would be a disaster and which Obama spent most of the year demanding before he suddenly decided that he wanted to "do something big"? Democrats helped kill it.
neither of the plans that have passed are bad plans - though CC&B was better.
on the contrary, the Right is awash in plans for healthcare reform. and, where we have been in government (for example, in Indiana), we have been demonstrating their superiority.
that is part of it, but the main killer is our idiotic third-party-payment system
as far as I am aware, the Boehner Plan does not raise taxes on the middle class, who are currently not paying their fair share, no.
which is an excellent addition and badly needed.
The devil certainly is in the details for the White House, as the clamor from some members of Congress for specifics on what President Obama is proposing has drifted over to the briefing room, where answers are scanty.
Now reporters are looking for more detail -- as Obama might say, less posturing -- about what, exactly, the White House is proposing on the deficit.
Newly minted Fox News reporter Ed Henry wondered at the daily briefing what the point of Monday's national address was, given the lack of a specific Obama plan for closing the deal.
White House press secretary Jay Carney called demands for more detail, "talking points issued by the Republican Party," adding, "I get that, OK?"
Amid Henry's protestations that the talking point crack was unfair, Carney continued:
"He explained a lot of the detail," Carney said. "The president stood before you -- I can't remember if you were here Friday night. Some of you weren't, because you cut out early, but a lot of you were."
Responded members of the press: "Ooooooohhhh!"
"We have shown a lot of leg on what we were proposing," Carney said.
Pressed for more details -- something on paper? Some numbers? Carney grew scornful.
"I mean, look, you need something printed for you, you can't write it down?" he said. "There is ample detail."
Reminded that Obama on Friday also promised to walk reporters through the process, saying, "We'll go through all the paper" but then there was no paper, Carney told the press to grow up:
"Most of you are veteran Washington reporters," Carney said. "You know how this process works: that if you -- that when you put forward a position, it becomes highly -- on difficult issues before a compromise is reached, it becomes charged politically and your chances of acting getting an agreement diminish significantly. That's how it works. You know that's how it works."
So you approve of the massive increase in spending on health care?
And thanks for acknowledging that socialized medicine holds down costs!!
You complained about health insurance (ie third party payers). Now, you're changing your complaint to FDR and govt meddling. You're moving the goalposts
Really, not bad for whom? The rich?
Really, these were plans? I thought they were only statements, nothing to fix the problem immediately. Talking about fixing health care is not fixing it and is not a plan. In the end it is talk.
That is most of it. The right blames lawsuits on the high cost of health care, not the greedy pharmacuticals (sic) or insurance plans that drop paying policy holders with major illnesses. Again, they don't blame Greed on the problem.
Really, let's do a ratio, for what the MC makes, they pay more than their share of taxes.
If the BIG Corps and Oil paid their share, for the benefits they recieve, we'd not be having this discussion.
No it is not needed. We don't need to spend more money on a concept that will not pass the states or the senate.
We need for everyone to pay their fair share. And, we need to have responsible gov't (hey you trust big business to do the right thing, I have my fantasy also?)
Isn't the right always saying you should not regulate anything?
You should like Wall Street play without rules because they will not do damage to our economy, or Insurance companies should not be watched because they are not interested in the bottom line, they care for those that pay for insurance.
What is needed is the enforcement of the other admendments, e.g. 14th equal protection, etc.
i approve of the structure of Medicare Part D, and I appreciate the power of it's results. the rest of Medicare needs to be moved to a similar structure, and I am glad that Republicans have voted to do so.
Medicare Part D works to hold down costs because it utilizes market pressure. what we have seen from socialized medicine is that costs climb rapidly while expenditures are controlled through rationing.
not at all. the reason we get health insurance from our employers, and the reason why we overpurchase health insurance is because of FDR's meddling in the labor market. like agricultural subsidies, it was a stupid policy that took on a life of it's own and which we've never changed.
Thanks for admitting that socialism works!!
Every nation with a socialized health care system has lower costs than the US
, and many provide better health care.
In the US, health care is rationed. Only those who can afford it get it
But thanks for admitting that socialized medicine works!!
That's not what you said at first. But I won't complain if you back away from your prior nonsense. I would do the same if I had said something so absurd
So why don't you tell us about that massive cut in spending you claimed happened sometime in the last century? Will you ever back that up, or were you hoping I'd forget about it?
....thereby indicating that in fact, you have no idea what Medicare D is or how it functions.....
but hey, if letting you call the Ryan Plan "socialism" will get you to vote for it.... :shrug: a rose by any other name. go right on ahead with your bad self.
you are mistaking "costs" with "expenditures".
this is incorrect. particularly when it comes to access and severe condition survival rates, the US system is superior.
this is incorrect. not only do we have Medicaid to take care of those who have difficulty affording medical care, our emergency rooms are required by law to treat any who come in.
again. whatever you want to call it. but if you think that applying market pressure to a corporatist system in which costs are socialized while benefits are individualized is "socialism".... then you really don't have any idea what you are talking about.
:shrug: my position hasn't changed at all. this isn't exactly the first time I've argued precisely this point.
It is socialistic. The govt runs it. Socialism and capitalism are compatible. Just look at Sweden
Never said that, but if you can't refute what I actually did say, go right on and have fun with your myths
No, I'm referring to costs.
You can cherry pick all you want and find one or two areas where the US does better, but other nations with socialized health care get better outcomes for less money
Medicaid doesn't cover everything (rationing) and ER's only have to stabilize a patient (another form of rationing)
Again, if you think socialism doesn't allow market forces to work, then you don't know what socialism is
Sure, it hasn't :shrug:
And the NR is ridiculously biased, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us when the US Feds cut spending massively in the last 100 years. I can wait
:sigh:
Socialism involves government ownership of the means of production, there are arguments that government control of the means of production (sometimes also called Corporatism) should fall under the broader heading of Socialism as well.
Medicare Part D, however, isn't "run by" the government in that top-down sense - it is run by the individual consumer. All the government does is supply the money, the consumer makes the choice as to what plan they want from what private company, and the individual covers part of the cost and feels part of the price pressure.
that is, in fact, why it works so well.
dude. what you are calling "socialism" one paragraph above? is the Ryan Plan for Medicare.
no, you are referring to expenditures. as in "sweden spends a lower percent of GDP than the US on healthcare" or "in France they spend an average of $8K per person per year, while we spend $15K". costs include quite a bit else, and much of it is non-fiscal.
maybe it's just me, but I would think that "access to medical care" and "the ability to survive disease" would be pretty major indicators of "outcome".
that is true. but it still gives the lie to your claim that those who cannot afford healthcare on their own do not receive it in the United States.
oh this will be fun. please, enlighten me. but I want citation
well, i gave you one time when they cut it by about 49% and the result was economic boom.
post WWII, of course, they cut it by even more than that - even as they were demobilizing the military. Keynesians were unanimous that this would lead to massive unemployment. Instead it topped out at about.... 4%. and we had an economic boom.
Never mind that all Republican Congressmen will unanimously vote "no" on any proposal that is submitted by Democrats because they won't vote "yes" on anything that even hints at raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Of course, Republicans don't mind wasting valuable time on plans that only their own radical Tea Party group will go along with.okay ... so I guess we go with the senate plan ......... oppps sorry they don't have one ..
Oh, the President submitted one, or do the ones that get voted "no" don't count? OK, well then, I guess the ones the Republicans have submitted don't count either, because none of them have been passed.Time to go with the Preisdent's plan .... oppps sorry he doesn't have one either ....
Well, a lot of the "vocal negotiations" are just as good as those on paper, because until they can come to some agreement, they can submit their worthless plans (like Ryan's) and they will get nowhere. They have to have an idea of what the other side is going to agree on, and so far the Republicans just want to roll over the middle class and protect the wealthy.So lets see ... what is it we are suppose to go with ?? Times getting kinda short ... and not one single Democratic plan ....
What is this? A screenplay?laughs ....
It isn't about who can produce the most plans - it is about who can produce the plan that will "most" help America and benefit the country without putting the elderly and the middle-class in harm's way - and so far, the worthless pieces of crap the Republicans have put forth have done just that. They want to protect the wealthy and the corporations and the heck with the rest of the country - the Democrats are not going to put up with that nonsense that Bush introduced and more power to them.but of course ... it's the Republican's fault ... But that is the way of the liberal ... no plan of their own .... just tell the American people how bad the other sides plan is .. .
=mertex;1059701847]Never mind that all Republican Congressmen will unanimously vote "no" on any proposal that is submitted by Democrats because they won't vote "yes" on anything that even hints at raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Of course, Republicans don't mind wasting valuable time on plans that only their own radical Tea Party group will go along with.
Oh, the President submitted one, or do the ones that get voted "no" don't count? OK, well then, I guess the ones the Republicans have submitted don't count either, because none of them have been passed.
Well, a lot of the "vocal negotiations" are just as good as those on paper, because until they can come to some agreement, they can submit their worthless plans (like Ryan's) and they will get nowhere. They have to have an idea of what the other side is going to agree on, and so far the Republicans just want to roll over the middle class and protect the wealthy.
What is this? A screenplay?
It isn't about who can produce the most plans - it is about who can produce the plan that will "most" help America and benefit the country without putting the elderly and the middle-class in harm's way - and so far, the worthless pieces of crap the Republicans have put forth have done just that. They want to protect the wealthy and the corporations and the heck with the rest of the country - the Democrats are not going to put up with that nonsense that Bush introduced and more power to them.
[/QUOTE]And, they don't have to tell us how bad the Republican plans are - it has been plain to see. Even Republicans told Ryan his plan stunk! Of course, some have not gotten the word yet - or don't understand, or don't care - or, are just plain ignorant.
Well until you submit a plan for them to vote no on … you have nothing, just saying so doesn't make it so. There was “no” plan submitted by the Dem's for a vote....
Yes, really! Geez, doesn't Faux News cover such a thing as this? Guess not. Maybe it is true that Faux News viewers are the least informed. Time to check out some other news sources.Really ?? I'm sorry .. care to give a link to the presidents plan that was voted no on ??
Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when both parties come to certain agreements, they write them down. Geez, I think that is what finally came down, or didn't you know? They discussed it and changed some of the items! Duh!Oh I see so we are now down to vocal negotiations, so exactly how does the president sign a vocal plan?? Maybe he just vocally declares it a law huh?
It sounded rather stupid, I guess you knew that, (or not)!No not a screen play, it's me laughing at you
Sheeez go back to MSNBC and get some more talking points, because you don't have the faintest idea what was in any plans that were “written” and submitted. You say the dems aren't going to put up with any nonsense that Bush introduced ?? Funny I thought he served his two terms and was out of government at the end of 2008. But if you think that the Dems should vote no to nonsense, that's fine … that's the way I feel the Republicans should do too, so we agree … we just disagree on what is nonsense.
Yeah we should do like we did with the nonsensical health care plan .. just pass it so we can see whats in it right ? Or better yet lets just vocally pass that bill ... and the President can vocally declare it to be the law of the land .........................That is just as ignorant … and you liked that idea .. what does that say about you?
You have not a thing to worried about in terms of your party deciding to attack the President..... unless of course you actually love America and its people and are willing to crash the ship of state upon the rocks just so you can be a rabid GOP partisan and blame the captain.
You will probably get your wish.
=mertex;1059715158]The Democrats in the House and Senate know better than to waste their time and effort and our tax-payer money on something the Party of "no" is going to reject. It is no secret the Party of "no" controls the House - nothing gets passed without getting House approval. On the other hand, the stupid Republicans wasted valuable time and effort, not to mention our tax-payer money repealing Health Care - did it go anywhere? No - well, I'm sure you get the picture, (or not).
Yes, really! Geez, doesn't Faux News cover such a thing as this? Guess not. Maybe it is true that Faux News viewers are the least informed. Time to check out some other news sources.
The budget proposal released by the White House back in February didn’t win a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday— the final tally was 0-97. Senate Republicans pushed for the vote as a counterpoint to the defeat of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
Unanimous rejection | POLITICO 44
Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when both parties come to certain agreements, they write them down. Geez, I think that is what finally came down, or didn't you know? They discussed it and changed some of the items! Duh!
It sounded rather stupid, I guess you knew that, (or not)!
Ha,ha, it is true, the Faux News viewers are the least informed! FYI, the Bush Tax Cuts are still being negotiated - and the Republicans will sell their first-born to keep them, after all, it is their base they are protecting. Someone needs to bone up on what is going on, so they won't sound so uninformed!
The Republicans had the opportunity to read it - didn't they? I guess they didn't bother to. And, FYI, it passed - and what it says about me is that I care about the middle-class, the poor - not just the corporations and the rich of which I hope those that support the Republican Party should all be rich - otherwise they are like chickens that root for Colonel Sanders!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?