The Rage Is Not About Health Care

[IGotWorms 3,319]

The Rage Is Not About Health Care

By FRANK RICH

 

...

 

No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.

 

Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.

 

...

 

In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

 

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

 

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/...mp;ref=homepage

 

 

He makes a good point, no?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

No. He's trying to use emotions to sway the facts. It's a childish argument. Hell we had a black man and a black women leading the effort to invade Iraq and white men weren't upset about that. These same people voted for and rally around a woman right now. Frank Rich is nuts.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

No. He's trying to use emotions to sway the facts. It's a childish argument. Hell we had a black man and a black women leading the effort to invade Iraq and white men weren't upset about that. These same people voted for and rally around a woman right now. Frank Rich is nuts.

 

I don't recall a complete breach of decorum at the state of the union and on the house floor. And while liberals were certainly angry over the war, I don't remember death threats or key politicians being spat upon. The right is experiencing a deep and scary rage right now. Rich's point is that it really doesn't have much to do with the health care bill itself.

[NewbieJr 540]

It's all political posturing. The Republicans know how bad this makes them look since the Pubs had George W in there for eight years and he wouldn't do a damn thing about an obviously broken system.

 

So Obama decides to take it on and gets the biggest bill passed in this country in decades. No wonder there is so much outrgae from the GOP. After the ass-whooping they took during the elections, to be owned this badly on this was a tragedy to their party. This was a huge rub-it-in-your-face victory and the fact that the Dems could get it done angers the GOP more than anything imaginable.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

It's all political posturing. The Republicans know how bad this makes them look since the Pubs had George W in there for eight years and he wouldn't do a damn thing about an obviously broken system.

 

 

Please tell us how he "fixed" this broken system. By all reasonable assessments all he did was throw 30 million more people into the same broken system.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

I don't recall a complete breach of decorum at the state of the union and on the house floor. And while liberals were certainly angry over the war, I don't remember death threats or key politicians being spat upon. The right is experiencing a deep and scary rage right now. Rich's point is that it really doesn't have much to do with the health care bill itself.

 

It's not "the Right" that is spitting on people or calling in death threats. That's a broad generalization the media is trying to portray, doesn't make it accurate. By definition I'm a member of "the right", I opposed the health care bill. I've never spit on a politician or threatened to kill anyone. There are many many more of me than those ass holes.

 

Instead of arguing about the merits of the legislation, it's easier to call the other side homophobic, racist, etc. It's a common technique that works on the feeble minded.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

It's all political posturing. The Republicans know how bad this makes them look since the Pubs had George W in there for eight years and he wouldn't do a damn thing about an obviously broken system.

 

So Obama decides to take it on and gets the biggest bill passed in this country in decades. No wonder there is so much outrgae from the GOP. After the ass-whooping they took during the elections, to be owned this badly on this was a tragedy to their party. This was a huge rub-it-in-your-face victory and the fact that the Dems could get it done angers the GOP more than anything imaginable.

 

The system was/is not broken. If anything is broken it's medicaire and this didn't fix it.

 

It's about another entitlement program, more taxes, more spending and bigger government. Republicans in Washington might be posturing politically, I don't know and I don't care. The average person only cares about how this will affect them, not about the color of anyone's skin.

[Greedo 13]

Please tell us how he "fixed" this broken system. By all reasonable assessments all he did was throw 30 million more people into the same broken system.

 

 

The system was/is not broken. If anything is broken it's medicaire and this didn't fix it.

 

It's about another entitlement program, more taxes, more spending and bigger government. Republicans in Washington might be posturing politically, I don't know and I don't care. The average person only cares about how this will affect them, not about the color of anyone's skin.

 

Any thoughts, Vike and Gutter, about the comparisons to the health care bill Mitt Romney signed into law in MA?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Any thoughts, Vike and Gutter, about the comparisons to the health care bill Mitt Romney signed into law in MA?

As soon as I get an answer to my question I'll be happy to respond to yours. I'll even let you answer for Newbie.

[Greedo 13]

My answer would be this - after everyone's adjustments, the cost containment doesn't seem to be there, at first glance.

 

My hope is that this works like civil rights legislation - an initial bill, followed by improvements over time.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

Any thoughts, Vike and Gutter, about the comparisons to the health care bill Mitt Romney signed into law in MA?

 

 

I think they are valid. From what I know about the MA healthcare law is that it came in over budget and needed money from the Fed. I also know that these people voted for Scott Brown because he said he opposed the federal law. If Romney is gonna defend the bill he signed and criticize Obamacare that makes him a douche.

[gocolts 300]

I don't recall a complete breach of decorum at the state of the union and on the house floor. And while liberals were certainly angry over the war, I don't remember death threats or key politicians being spat upon. The right is experiencing a deep and scary rage right now. Rich's point is that it really doesn't have much to do with the health care bill itself.

No, the media just told how it was fine to make books and movies about how to kill the POTUS, as long as he is not a democrat.

[NewbieJr 540]

Please tell us how he "fixed" this broken system. By all reasonable assessments all he did was throw 30 million more people into the same broken system.

gUYS MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU AND ME HAVE BEEN FIGURING ALL THAT OUT. I don't pretend to know how this will all work out (I was against it, remember?). Problem is, you DO pretend to know something. WE will have no idea how this turns out for at least ten years. And they still may be tweaking it then. All I know is that the outrage isn't about the healthcare bill.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

All I know is that the outrage isn't about the healthcare bill.

 

It is also about the process, lack of trying to work with the other side, etc. It has nothing to do with blacks, gays or women. We've been dealing with them for years.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

gUYS MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU AND ME HAVE BEEN FIGURING ALL THAT OUT. I don't pretend to know how this will all work out (I was against it, remember?). Problem is, you DO pretend to know something. WE will have no idea how this turns out for at least ten years. And they still may be tweaking it then. All I know is that the outrage isn't about the healthcare bill.

 

 

I really doubt that many members of Congress are smarter than you and I. H3ll, If you and I sat down we would have written a much more comprehensive and less costly bill and done it in under 10 pages.

[Frank M 181]

The rage is about the riling up of the masses by prominent Republican figures over the last ten years.

 

You're welcome.

[Greedo 13]

It is also about the process, lack of trying to work with the other side, etc. It has nothing to do with blacks, gays or women. We've been dealing with them for years.

 

The process did include the GOP. Snowe voted for the bill out of committee, and Specter was so villified by the radical right he changed parties. There just aren't many non-insane Rs left in congress that know what "negotiate" means.

[Vikings4ever 496]

If Romney is gonna defend the bill he signed and criticize Obamacare that makes him a douche.

Depends on why he claims to oppose Obamacare.

 

If he claims to oppose it because it's too much government intervention, he's a d0uche.

 

If he claims to oppose it because it's too much FEDERAL government intervention, he's not (well, not beyond the douchiness of all politicians).

 

It's becoming all too irrelevant that the roles of different levels of government are SUPPOSED to be different. It's easy to support something at a state or local level, and oppose it at a federal level.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,922]

No, the media just told how it was fine to make books and movies about how to kill the POTUS, as long as he is not a democrat.

 

 

Isn't it funny how Hollywood has made movies about, Nixon, Reagan, and G.W. Bush in the last twenty years chronicling their lives, but none about Kennedy, Carter, or Clinton? A movie about Clinton should be a money maker but no movie.

[Greedo 13]

Primary Colors.

[MedStudent 56]

If Romney is gonna defend the bill he signed and criticize Obamacare that makes him a douche.

 

I think this whole issue just kills Romney's republican nomination hopes.

[Busted by the Feds 9]

It's all political posturing. The Republicans know how bad this makes them look since the Pubs had George W in there for eight years and he wouldn't do a damn thing about an obviously broken system.

 

So Obama decides to take it on and gets the biggest bill passed in this country in decades. No wonder there is so much outrgae from the GOP. After the ass-whooping they took during the elections, to be owned this badly on this was a tragedy to their party. This was a huge rub-it-in-your-face victory and the fact that the Dems could get it done angers the GOP more than anything imaginable.

 

It passed by 7 votes. That's not being "owned this badly". This isn't like other Dem social programs like FDR's Social Security or LBJ's Civil Rights bill which passed with true bi-partisan support.

[BLS 313]

I'll address many of the points brought up by the boreds "left".

 

The rage is very much, VERY fuckin real. However it is NOT about racism, it's not about Health Care, it's not about Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

It's not about Palin and other so called 'Republican Leaders' trying to insinuate we 'reload' or spit on Congressmen or join the Tea Party.

 

It's about being enormously upset with government in general. The conservatives we elected in 2000-2002 were supposed to address most of this; to stop the spending and address the debt. Instead, what we really got was 2 wars, substantial deficit spending, lies from government and another entitlement (Medicare part D). MOST....or at least a good chunk...of Conservatives (voters..not politicians) KNOW we are broke and have known it since the late 80s. The country was fed up with Bush and the Republicans and voted in Dems overwhelmingly in 2006 with the hopes that the wars would end, and some sanity and accountability would appear in Washington. It did not and overall, Congress' approval rate since has been DISMAL.

 

Conservatives have ideas on how to fix Health Care (competition for one).

Conservatives have ideas on how to address the debt, education, growing crime rates, growing radicals, etc.

Unfortunately none of our fuckin "conservative" leaders can get their heads out of their asses.

Now, I for one APPLAUD them for standing in line and fighting this bill. But for reasons different than what most of you will believe for some reason.

It's not because it helps people that we don't want it. It's because it does two things we don't believe in.

1. It means more government control.

2. It IS going to cost us money....it will NOT save us ANY money. That's my opinion, and that's based on my research and a general trackrecord of about 80 years of fuckin failure in everything they touch.

 

NOT ONE Conservative idea was implemented in the bill, even though Obama PROMISED to be bipartisan.

Had he offered to open Health Insurance across state lines (another bullsh1t government law designed to INCREASE costs), they would have gotten some Republican votes in the house and/or Senate.

 

Now you can argue till you're blue in the face about whether opening up state lines would FIX anything, but NOBODY can give me a fuckin reason NOT to at least try it along with what the Dems passed.

 

Conservatives are extremely upset that this many people can call about TARP, the Stimulus Package and now Health Care and they don't listen.

Our government, for the first time in our history is NOT listening to those who consent to allow them to govern.

 

Most Conservatives believe that we MUST abide by the Constitution. Most Constitutional lawyers will easily say that this law is unConstitutional.

The interstate commerce clause does NOT encapsulate this because this insurance is required to protect YOU, not other liabilities.

There is no other provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to REQUIRES you to purchase a SERVICE.

 

This bill is MONUMENTAL in the history of this country from a Freedom vs Tyranny standpoint. And THAT is why right now is a VERY scary time.

This bill, if held up by SCOTUS, will likely incite riots and mass civil disobedience and it's important you understand why.

Once they establish control of this aspect of your life, they ultimately have the ability to tell you what you can eat, drink, smoke, when you have to work out, etc. It opens a whole other world. And while NONE of this has been established yet, history proves that tryanny is never en masse. It is always taken slowly.

 

If you guys were to go over to democraticunderground.com and goto the general forums you'd see the equivalent of .

If you guys were to go over ar15.com and goto General Discussion you'd see the equivalient of

 

 

And for those who inquire about Romney's passing of Health Care; there's a reason he didn't win the GOP Primary.

The guy is KNOWN for being a fuckin RINO. Look up his votes on assault weapons, abortion and health care.

 

Oh and for you who think Mass. health care is working out, I'll just leave this here.

 

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us

By Susanne L. King March 2, 2009 MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.

 

What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

 

The state's plan flunks on all counts.

 

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

 

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

 

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

 

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

 

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.

 

In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.

 

Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.

 

There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.

 

A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.

 

People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.

 

We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.

 

 

 

So what are we mad about?

We know it isn't going to work, you've just given government complete control of our lives (tyranny), it will probably decrease the quality of care and it will accelerate our economic demise.

 

Whether you believe any of what I said or not is not the point. That is up for debate.

You asked why we're mad. Now you know, and if you think you've seen the last of people expressing their displeasure via means that are less than polite, I suggest you keep an eye on the economy and unemployment/benefits.

 

We're nowhere near the end of these times and a significant portion is the EXACT SAME ARROGANCE THAT THE DEMS CONDEMNED WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE IS BEING USED BY OBAMA AND COMPANY. If you're gonna call a spade a spade, you should at least stay consistent.

 

Conservatives are mad at BOTH parties.

[BLS 313]

The process did include the GOP. Snowe voted for the bill out of committee, and Specter was so villified by the radical right he changed parties. There just aren't many non-insane Rs left in congress that know what "negotiate" means.

 

 

OMG...do you get your news from MSNBC and the Daily show?

 

Specter quit because he knew he'd have NO chance at re-election as a RINO.

 

Non-insane Republicans? You have got to be kidding me. Kucinich swears he saw a UFO, Pelosi wants to save hay field mice but flies home to San Fran on a fuckin 747 every week, Baucus would make Ted Kennedy blush, and Obama is turning out to be a bigger liar than Bush.

 

You lose alot of credibility with this crap.

[BLS 313]

I think this whole issue just kills Romney's republican nomination hopes.

 

 

Agreed. Talk to most R's and they despise him. He has NO chance.

[gocolts 300]

I'll address many of the points brought up by the boreds "left".

 

The rage is very much, VERY fuckin real. However it is NOT about racism, it's not about Health Care, it's not about Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

It's not about Palin and other so called 'Republican Leaders' trying to insinuate we 'reload' or spit on Congressmen or join the Tea Party.

 

It's about being enormously upset with government in general. The conservatives we elected in 2000-2002 were supposed to address most of this; to stop the spending and address the debt. Instead, what we really got was 2 wars, substantial deficit spending, lies from government and another entitlement (Medicare part D). MOST....or at least a good chunk...of Conservatives (voters..not politicians) KNOW we are broke and have known it since the late 80s. The country was fed up with Bush and the Republicans and voted in Dems overwhelmingly in 2006 with the hopes that the wars would end, and some sanity and accountability would appear in Washington. It did not and overall, Congress' approval rate since has been DISMAL.

 

Conservatives have ideas on how to fix Health Care (competition for one).

Conservatives have ideas on how to address the debt, education, growing crime rates, growing radicals, etc.

Unfortunately none of our fuckin "conservative" leaders can get their heads out of their asses.

Now, I for one APPLAUD them for standing in line and fighting this bill. But for reasons different than what most of you will believe for some reason.

It's not because it helps people that we don't want it. It's because it does two things we don't believe in.

1. It means more government control.

2. It IS going to cost us money....it will NOT save us ANY money. That's my opinion, and that's based on my research and a general trackrecord of about 80 years of fuckin failure in everything they touch.

 

NOT ONE Conservative idea was implemented in the bill, even though Obama PROMISED to be bipartisan.

Had he offered to open Health Insurance across state lines (another bullsh1t government law designed to INCREASE costs), they would have gotten some Republican votes in the house and/or Senate.

 

Now you can argue till you're blue in the face about whether opening up state lines would FIX anything, but NOBODY can give me a fuckin reason NOT to at least try it along with what the Dems passed.

 

Conservatives are extremely upset that this many people can call about TARP, the Stimulus Package and now Health Care and they don't listen.

Our government, for the first time in our history is NOT listening to those who consent to allow them to govern.

 

Most Conservatives believe that we MUST abide by the Constitution. Most Constitutional lawyers will easily say that this law is unConstitutional.

The interstate commerce clause does NOT encapsulate this because this insurance is required to protect YOU, not other liabilities.

There is no other provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to REQUIRES you to purchase a SERVICE.

 

This bill is MONUMENTAL in the history of this country from a Freedom vs Tyranny standpoint. And THAT is why right now is a VERY scary time.

This bill, if held up by SCOTUS, will likely incite riots and mass civil disobedience and it's important you understand why.

Once they establish control of this aspect of your life, they ultimately have the ability to tell you what you can eat, drink, smoke, when you have to work out, etc. It opens a whole other world. And while NONE of this has been established yet, history proves that tryanny is never en masse. It is always taken slowly.

 

If you guys were to go over to democraticunderground.com and goto the general forums you'd see the equivalent of .

If you guys were to go over ar15.com and goto General Discussion you'd see the equivalient of

And for those who inquire about Romney's passing of Health Care; there's a reason he didn't win the GOP Primary.

The guy is KNOWN for being a fuckin RINO. Look up his votes on assault weapons, abortion and health care.

 

Oh and for you who think Mass. health care is working out, I'll just leave this here.

 

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us

By Susanne L. King March 2, 2009 MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.

 

What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

 

The state's plan flunks on all counts.

 

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

 

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

 

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

 

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

 

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.

 

In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.

 

Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.

 

There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.

 

A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.

 

People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.

 

We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.

So what are we mad about?

We know it isn't going to work, you've just given government complete control of our lives (tyranny), it will probably decrease the quality of care and it will accelerate our economic demise.

 

Whether you believe any of what I said or not is not the point. That is up for debate.

You asked why we're mad. Now you know, and if you think you've seen the last of people expressing their displeasure via means that are less than polite, I suggest you keep an eye on the economy and unemployment/benefits.

 

We're nowhere near the end of these times and a significant portion is the EXACT SAME ARROGANCE THAT THE DEMS CONDEMNED WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE IS BEING USED BY OBAMA AND COMPANY. If you're gonna call a spade a spade, you should at least stay consistent.

 

Conservatives are mad at BOTH parties.

POW!!!

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Well done BLS, well done

[jerryskids 5,212]

The thing that upsets me the most is: Obama frightens me. That guy is Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka, he wanted his HCR toy and dadblammit he was going to get it. And I truly believe that his end goal is as much socialism as possible.

 

Next up: Amnesty, and collect the better part of 12M illegals into the fold.

 

Ultimately, hyper-inflation will lead to a currency conversion. Euro, Yuan, new "dollar," doesn't matter. That is where the true wealth redistribution will occur.

 

Tinfoil hat? Mebbe. I hope I'm wrong.

[BLS 313]

The thing that upsets me the most is: Obama frightens me. That guy is Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka, he wanted his HCR toy and dadblammit he was going to get it. And I truly believe that his end goal is as much socialism as possible.

 

Next up: Amnesty, and collect the better part of 12M illegals into the fold.

 

Ultimately, hyper-inflation will lead to a currency conversion. Euro, Yuan, new "dollar," doesn't matter. That is where the true wealth redistribution will occur.

 

Tinfoil hat? Mebbe. I hope I'm wrong.

 

I believe most people thought I was NUTS when I suggested this very same thing 2 years ago.

Now it's not so unbelievable is it?

 

Obama scares me too JK. More than I ever thought I should've been.

He PLOWED through a trillion dollar bill in the middle of the worst recession 99% of Americans have ever seen.

And then had the audacity to suggest that spending must be controlled.

 

Government is out of control.

[MedStudent 56]

NOT ONE Conservative idea was implemented in the bill, even though Obama PROMISED to be bipartisan.

Had he offered to open Health Insurance across state lines (another bullsh1t government law designed to INCREASE costs), they would have gotten some Republican votes in the house and/or Senate.

 

Now you can argue till you're blue in the face about whether opening up state lines would FIX anything, but NOBODY can give me a fuckin reason NOT to at least try it along with what the Dems passed.

 

states are allowed to form compacts where they could sell across state lines. Its up to the states to decide if they want to do this or not. The state where the insurance company is located will set the insurance regulations. So, a tightly regulated state would unlikely want to form a compact with a loosely regulated one. But take it up with your state. The federal government is no longer preventing states from opening its borders.

[posty 2,296]

You lose alot of credibility with this crap.

 

Greedo had zero credibility before, can't get much lower...

[BLS 313]

states are allowed to form compacts where they could sell across state lines. Its up to the states to decide if they want to do this or not. The state where the insurance company is located will set the insurance regulations. So, a tightly regulated state would unlikely want to form a compact with a loosely regulated one. But take it up with your state. The federal government is no longer preventing states from opening its borders.

 

 

So what you're saying is government regulation is fuckin up the market.

 

Wow.....color me shocked. And then you guys wonder why insurance is so expensive.

[MedStudent 56]

So what you're saying is government regulation is fuckin up the market.

 

Wow.....color me shocked. And then you guys wonder why insurance is so expensive.

 

i'm saying state regulations. Some states have more regulations than others. Thats why insurance companies want to be able to sell across state lines. Some states may classify something like "autism" as a medical condition and must be covered while other states may not.

 

Not all regulations are bad. They keep certain industries honest. The insurance industry has not been one of the more scrupulous industries.

[FeelingMN 273]

I'll address many of the points brought up by the boreds "left".

 

The rage is very much, VERY fuckin real. However it is NOT about racism, it's not about Health Care, it's not about Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

It's not about Palin and other so called 'Republican Leaders' trying to insinuate we 'reload' or spit on Congressmen or join the Tea Party.

 

It's about being enormously upset with government in general.

 

 

Obama scares me too JK.

 

See, this is where you lose me. I agree with all of your points, except Obama doesn't scare me anymore than Bush scared me.....they've both exercised authoritarian power. And if sh!t doesn't change, the next POTUS will do the same things....and our freedoms, if not disolve completely, will look a lot different than they do now. It's not about Obama....it's the system....right?

 

When I rant about the Feds, I just refer to them collectively as Uncle Sam. I don't want to distinguish between Democrat and Republican....there's no need to, they're the same. They really are.

 

But to go out of your way to say Obama is somehow worse than the others....meh....I think you guys saturate your thinking with too many inflammatory political sites.

[BLS 313]

See, this is where you lose me. I agree with all of your points, except Obama doesn't scare me anymore than Bush scared me.....they've both exercised authoritarian power. And if sh!t doesn't change, the next POTUS will do the same things....and our freedoms, if not disolve completely, will look a lot different than they do now. It's not about Obama....it's the system....right?

 

When I rant about the Feds, I just refer to them collectively as Uncle Sam. I don't want to distinguish between Democrat and Republican....there's no need to, they're the same. They really are.

 

But to go out of your way to say Obama is somehow worse than the others....meh....I think you guys saturate your thinking with too many inflammatory political sites.

 

 

Miss this part?

 

We're nowhere near the end of these times and a significant portion is the EXACT SAME ARROGANCE THAT THE DEMS CONDEMNED WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE IS BEING USED BY OBAMA AND COMPANY. If you're gonna call a spade a spade, you should at least stay consistent.

 

Conservatives are mad at BOTH parties.

 

For the record, I agree with you FMN.

I think you think I saturate my thinking with too many imflammatory political sites, but the reality is you obviously don't pay attention to my posts because I LOATHE Bush for his Patriot Act.

 

But I LOATHE Obama because he ran AGAINST the Patriot Act, yet has extended provisions that came up for expiriation. Why?

 

Because he's not different than Bush. Just another fuckin authoritarian politician.

[MDC 5,896]

I think there's definitely something to this analysis. I wouldn't say that many or even most Teabaggers are racist, but there is absolutely a racial edge to the frankly hysterical criticism levelled at Obama and I think part of it has to do with his race. For example the birther stuff is IMO pretty obviously racial in origin - you can't tell me a Caucasian president would still be answering these questions. McCain was actually born in the Panama Canal Zone but no one questioned his citizenship.

 

So yeah, the racial stuff is there but it's in the minority and most teabaggers are just angry Republicans in libertarian disguise.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

I think there's definitely something to this analysis. I wouldn't say that many or even most Teabaggers are racist, but there is absolutely a racial edge to the frankly hysterical criticism levelled at Obama and I think part of it has to do with his race. For example the birther stuff is IMO pretty obviously racial in origin - you can't tell me a Caucasian president would still be answering these questions. McCain was actually born in the Panama Canal Zone but no one questioned his citizenship.

 

So yeah, the racial stuff is there but it's in the minority and most teabaggers are just angry Republicans in libertarian disguise.

 

 

What does questioning someone's birthplace have to do with the color of their skin?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Those scary Republicans......please.

 

Has anyone heard audio of the racial slurs? Anyone seen video of the spitting? I'm not saying they don't exist, but if they did Olberman would have it on a loop 24/7. Someone have a link.

 

So far the only politician who has had violence projected at him is a Republican.

 

Rich is a Sharpton wannabe.......and not a very good one.

 

Oh, and BLS is obvoiusly a racist homophobic troop-hating scumbag loser.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But he fukking won this thread.

[FeelingMN 273]

Miss this part?

For the record, I agree with you FMN.

[/size]I think you think I saturate my thinking with too many imflammatory political sites, but the reality is you obviously don't pay attention to my posts because I LOATHE Bush for his Patriot Act.

 

But I LOATHE Obama because he ran AGAINST the Patriot Act, yet has extended provisions that came up for expiriation. Why?

 

Because he's not different than Bush. Just another fuckin authoritarian politician.

 

 

[NewbieJr 540]

But he fukking won this thread.

Uhhhh, here's a tip for you.....saying that someone who is on your side "won this thread" doesn't hold a bit of water. Sorry. Wish it were that easy, then simpletons like you might actually be declared a winner once in a while. I'm pretty sure that guys like posty or Flahawker or Jeeryskids or NothernVike probably think YOU win a lot of threads. That's because you all spew the same nonsense. NAturdally, you're going to declare one of the other parrots to be victorious. Duuuuuhhhhhhh.