You're right. You didn't read the bill. Apparently, you chose a silly method to attack it. Just what is this suppose to mean.

What a shallow and vapid way to approach this important issue.

More fear mongering and more misinformation - just what's needed.

Number 30 fits very well for you, Vic.

Then 28, and 29.

And an equally shallow and vapid reply by JLawson.

Is it that you folks are afraid to raise any real issues you might have with this legislation -- because you're afraid of losing the argument or looking like an fool perhaps -- or is it that you're just not bright enough to understand the issues and therefore stand on the sidelines throwing stones and yelling obscenities?

Vic

This from Mark Steyn at NRO about what Obamalala's plan is all about.
"The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority. By "dependent", I don't mean merely welfare, although that's a good illustration of the general principle. In political terms, a welfare check is a twofer: you're assuring the votes both of the welfare recipient and of the vast bureaucracy required to process his welfare".
It's about staying in power and advancing the anti-American socialist agenda. Nothing more. Go to NRO or his web site and read all of the article. Steyn hits the nail on head again.

Family
[As in Family Planning]
TORT
Patient Safety
Patient Responsibility
Dental

Anyways, I have read the Bill. It is a collage of smaller past efforts of many folks to change health care that has previously been defeated, stuck together with the Health Czar bureaucracy. There are bits and pieces of disease-specific pork that have no business in Federal legislation (mandating specific screening procedures, like the art of medicine will never change and technology will not make these methods obsolete). The insurance portion is a veiled process to ultimately undermine private insurance, but its demise is not spelled out. It does not really address the underlying triad of problems I've drummed on before.

Mental health IS very significant in addressing health care reform. It was carved out of private insurance early on (to keep it affordable, I believe, as well as due to stigma). Unless it becomes more confluent with Primary Care, our system will remain very inefficient and of lower quality. It would be a good thing if all the citations in the Bill addressed improving the relationship of Primary Care and Mental Health, but it does so poorly and ineffectively for the most part.

Ah, Vic - you wound me. Dang. Now I've got to go trim that fingernail.

Unfortunately, you've got vapid and shallow down to an art form. And even more unfortunately, you're unconvincing and exceedingly unpersuasive.

But then, perhaps you're not intending to be?

Steyn: "It's about staying in power and advancing the anti-American socialist agenda."

Nice to see Steyn is now channeling Sarah Palin. I wonder how many IQ points he had to burn off to accomplish that?

Again - same deal - same chicken suit - same clucking - Steyn offers up no issues with the legislation, just fear mongering that the evil Democrats are hatching a plan to enslave America in their socialist trap.

Vic

Ok then, I'll start things off talking about "What's Really in the Health Care reform Bill".

Sarah Palin said Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

That's a lie.

We agree with Palin that such a system would be evil. But it's definitely not what President Barack Obama or any other Democrat has proposed.

We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care.

Palin's claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure.

Palin also may have also jumped to conclusions about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for "worthiness." Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others.

The health reform bill being considered in the House of Representatives says that a Comparative Effectiveness Research Center shall "conduct, support, and synthesize research" that looks at "outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."

The idea here, which Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag have discussed many times, is to make it easier for doctors, health care workers, insurance companies and patients to find out which treatments are the most effective, as determined by clinical studies and other research.

Obama has said he believes a comparative effectiveness commission should advise health care workers, not require them to follow certain treatments.

"I actually think that most doctors want to do right by their patients. And if they've got good information, I think they will act on that good information," Obama said during an interview with the New York Times on April 28, 2009.

He also specifically addressed end-of-life care for seniors, discussing the last week of his grandmother's life in 2008, and how her family and doctors decided on treatment for her.

"It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels," Obama said. "And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

And in fact, the House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

Palin's statement seems extreme, but other Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, are backing her up. "You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards," Gingrich said in an interview on This Week with George Stephanopolous on Aug. 9, 2009.

We've looked at the inflammatory claims that the health care bill encourages euthanasia. It doesn't. There's certainly no "death board" that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care. Conservatives might make a case that Palin is justified in fearing that the current reform could one day morph into such a board.

But that's not what Palin said. She said that the Democratic plan will ration care and "my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie (Soylent Green, anyone?) than part of an actual bill before Congress. We rate her statement Pants on Fire!

Vapid analysis, lies, fear mongering - how about some honesty for a change, conservatives? Do these people really speak for you?

What are the real issues you have with the health care legislation and what would you suggest we do to address those issues?

Vic

"It's about staying in power and advancing the anti-American socialist agenda." That is my quote not Steyn's. His ended at the quotations to give him credit for what he wrote. It is obvious that before you read what he said, you criticized him for what he didn't say. Nice try.

I'm sorry - did I attribute your trite (it's an evil socialist trap!) vapidity to Steyn?

I apologize -- to Steyn.

Vic

Vic -

Man, you're doing one hell of a job selling ObamaCare. Nothing sells a hideously expensive, vague and undefined program like anger, insults, and ridicule.

Regardless of what is in the legislation, or how it is implemented, it is simply illegal.

The United States Constitution simply does not authorize the Federal Government to control health care.

The Supreme Court on a couple of occaisions has ruled to that affect.

In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925), The court ruled: "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the of states is beyond the power the federal government."

In U.S. v. Anthony, 15 Supp. 553, 555, (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v. Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978), the court ruled: "...The direct control of medical practice has been left to the states."

One of the reasones Hillary Care failed is because the staff advising Hillary came to the conclusion that it would not surve a Constitutional challenge.

If the Government truly wants to fix health care "problems," It should consider the following.

1. Tort Reform
2. Govt sponsored Malpractice Insurance
3. Ease the regulatory/record keeping requirements on health care providers
4. Sponsor a true insurance plan for people to pay premiums for (not owned by govt). An HMO with 30-40 (or more) million participants would have plenty of purchase and negotation power with health care providers. Premiums could be kept down through scale.

OK - a half hour has passed and the chickens still are still clucking and throwing stones but apparently don't have real issues with the legislation.

So let's look at some more issues and questions that have been raised by others and examine

ISSUE: "Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. Employers with more than 20 employees aren't even eligible to participate in the exchange, let alone the public plan, until several years after the exchange launches in 2013. Moreover, no employer will be forced to participate in the public plan.

ISSUE: "Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families."

TRUTH: Employers are required to pay some benefits for part-time employees on a basis proportional to what they pay for full-time employees. No language on this page or the next stipulates coverage for the families of part-time employees.

ISSUE: "Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

But yes, they have to offer health care to their workers. You, me, our spouses and our working-age children will all have health care insurance in this example. Employers with payroll over $500,000 will have to provide something - the public option or a private insurance option.

Vic

I'll send the apology on to Steyn. If a huge government bureaucracy that exists only to take care of a huge segment of the population, is not socialism, I don't know what is. I used to be a liberal socialist so, your trite responses just make me laugh. You are predictable.

Vic:
"Is it that you folks are afraid to raise any real issues you might have with this legislation"

I've RAISED ISSUES over the last several days, YOU HAVE IGNORED ALL OF THEM.

Nice try, now go out and play with the other children.

PS. See past posts, I'm tired of dealing with your ADORATION of The One.

Nice canard: "In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925), The court ruled: "Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the of states is beyond the power the federal government.""

This is no "direct control of medical practice" offered through health care reform, that's just piling on the same lies being told elsewhere, but if you're into "it isn't constitutional" jack-booted "anti-socialism nazi" imagery there's more available here for anyone who is a fan on that flavor of wingnuttery.

It's fear mongering, and I find the use of nazi imagery in connection with this important debate patently offensive to the core - but apparently some parts of the conservative movement just lap it up.

Vic

We clearly understand the problems with the present health care system, what we will not accept is a government solution and its consequences .

I don't know where Victory is Ours came from but I suspect a shill from the DNC. Dude you are in the wrong place if you think your ability to argue with these folks will hold any water. Your lies pale when compared with our resident trolls. What part of America does not want socialized medicine is it you cannot understand? Check the polls dude. No. That it and thats all.

"We clearly understand the problems with the present health care system, what we will not accept is a government solution and its consequences ."

Consequences like Palin's "Death Panel" lie?

You do 'clearly understand" that Palin's statement is absolutely "pants on fire" false?

But there it is - the former Republican Vice-Presidential nominee - spreading absolute lies.

If you're relying on the usual right wing sources to tell you "What's Really in the Health Care Reform Bill?" there is a really good chance that you have a grossly distorted view of the "government solution and its consequences".

Look at this post. The writer would have you believe that "If you're a crazy, drug addicted. pregnant woman with a chronic disease this bill is for you. Everyone else appears to be on their own..."

Is that your "clear understanding" too? It's wrong. It couldn't be more wrong.

I think MPR hits the nail on the head. A few conservatives are afraid that if Obama is successful at getting health insurance coverage for more Americans then Democrats will have a better chance of staying in power. So they spread lies and misinformation.

Which means that some conservatives are perfectly happy to see less-fortunate Americans go without health insurance if that's what it takes for Republicans to regain power. They aren't interested in solving this issue at all.

For some, and it's those who are interested in shifting political power in America who are behind this, distorting the health care issue is all about power. All about power - it's not about health care - look again at Sarah Palin's attempt to distort the issue.

These people have learned how to push the emotional buttons of Americans and get them riled up and carrying pitchforks - and they do it because it's all about power.

It's not about "What's Really in the Health Care Reform Bill?" because they aren't talking about what's reallyin the health care reform bill, are they?

Vic

VIC,

Are you stating then, that the Constitution doesn't apply?

How is wanting the U.S. Government to operate within the bounds of the Constituition fear mongering?

I don't see that wanting the government to abide by the Constitution as being anti-social or scary.

Great post. Hey don't forget to look at page 60 lines 1-3. "require timely and transparent claim and denial management process". A denail process? I thought we were all going to be covered, "universally".

Vic, it's not a lie at all, It's Palins interpretation of the bill. She is entitled to that interpretation and its one many of us share. Which by the way is more than the President has done. Not only did he NOT write it, he hasnt READ it. Any major piece of legislation a president has put out in history (Reagans tax cuts, the Patriot act etc etc) the president has clearly and decisively spelled it out for the American people after authoring it. Barry doesnt have a clue whats in this thing. That's what we get for electing a guy who hasnt had a job before.

It's funny as hell that Vic screams "lies", yet his masters have admitted that their intent is government run health care.

Now explain how that is not so Vic. Did your masters "mis-speak". What part of their declarative sentences were "taken out of context"?

And what part of the CBO analysis did you not understand about the proposed reforms "are not sustainable"?

Speak up Vic.

Of course there is a "claim denial" mechanism, just as there is now with your present health insurance, if you're lucky enough to have insurance. If you file a claim asking for reimbursement for a fifth of Jack Daniels your claim will be review and denied, just as it would be under any health insurance claim.

But Palin takes the cake:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

That's "What's Really in the Health Care Reform Bill" Pretzel, so she's either lying or she isn't smart enough to read and understand what she's talking about and has a misinformed opinion as a result.

Vic

Euthanasia? See Russia from her porch? You guys are obsessed with Mrs Palin like no one since Reagan. Tells me something it does.

VIC, you are so deluded I don't know where to start. First you state "people who are lucky enough to have insurance". Lucky? How about resposible enough to dicipline myself to factor in the cost of insurance. That is your problem. You think everyone is a victim that does't have insurance. 20% of americans do not have insurance and 10% of those choose not to have it even though they could afford it. So this "crisis" is about 10% of the population and that makes sense to you that the government should take over the nations 7th largest industry? You are nuts. Healthcare needs modifications and that is it. If the 10% don't care to have insurance, then I don't care either. You lefties are going to have to let people be treated as adults. ww

Vic,
You say, "Which means that some conservatives are perfectly happy to see less-fortunate Americans go without health insurance if that's what it takes for Republicans to regain power."

Not true.

I maintain that many folks are happy with their private plans because, despite the expensive, they are under the impression that they will have access to quality care more expdiently than under a single payer/ government managed system. There are too many "progressive" voices on record to deny that this single payer system is the ultimate goal and people are uncomfortable with it. The term progressive suggests change and it doesn't matter how fast or slow it is done. Obama is slick enough to realize his heavy-handed push was not well received and his muted/less antagonistic approach the past week is merely re-tooling for his acceptance that his goals are going to take a little longer to push through than he thought. It at least eliminates in my mind that he is naive.

As an American I am proud that this country has access to the highest levels of medical care and has supported the greatest biomedical research initiatives the world has ever known in the past 60 years. I am sensitive to the fact that many of the less fortunate do not have access to this care but it is a bunch of crap to allow people to believe that the most soophisticated level of medical care will be offered to all equally across the board (organ transplants, chemo, etc.)under a government managed system. I am sorry but there is no precedent for this anywhere in any other country with socialized medicine.

Medical care is one of the most important and personal aspects of our lives particluarly during the most vulnerable stages at the beginning and toward the end. They recognize this and having been shafted on TARP and Cap and Trade legislation they would be fools to not pay close attention to this most potentially intrusive legislation to date.

Still waiting Vic.

I have a day job, and don't have enough time right now to go into detail about my concerns with HR3200. Plus, it's sort of a waste of energy, since the final reconciled version may well not look anything like HR3200.

In any event, the way I read the grandfathering provision of Section 102, any coverage initially meeting the definition will be very restricted, cannot take new enrollees, and cannot increase premiums without government approval. Regardless, the grace period will force all employer-based policies to comply with the dictates of "the Commissioner" within five years, even if grandfathered. "Grandfathered" policies will soon fade away.

Therefore, within a few years or months, no policies will exist which have not been forced into the exchange. In order to exist in the exchange, the polices must meet standards dictated by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee established in Section 123, which standards will be adopted into enforceable regulations under Section 124.

In the exchange, all plans will have to compete with the government option created and governed in Section 221 et seq. Under Section 203, and otherwise, of course, the government option and all policies will be forced to provide coverage as dictated by government agencies.

The problem that I see is that no private plan will be able to compete with the government option, which will have unlimited funds. Therefore, even if a private insurer elects to participate in the option, I doubt it will last very long. So, soon all we'll have is the government option, a single payer system, just like Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and others promised we would.

The reference to a "death panel" is clearly a hyperbolic reference to the agencies which will be dictating coverage offered by both private plans and the government option and, eventually, by the single payer system. The agencies in charge will certainly be making health care decisions, through regulations, some life and death decisions, and it's not inconceivable that some of these decisions will be based on things like the patient's age and possible the patient's future usefulness.

Further, the way I read Section 225, the government will also be dictating doctor's fees under the government option (which, as I say, will soon be the only option). I envision that this will force doctors out of practice, and will greatly limit the number of qualified students willing to put up with medical training required to be doctors. As a result, quality will suffer, services will become more and more limited, and rationing will ensue. Rationing will probably ensue anyway, because all the primary physicians will be overwhelmed, and specialists will either have to go into primary care or quit anyway.

That's all I have time for right now.

Willie, a mere 10% of the population is 30 million people. That's about the population of California, Iraq, Australia, or Canada.

Your argument that people ought to take responsibility for their own lives is a fair one to make; however, don't act like it's only a small handful of idiots who gambled away their life savings who can't afford insurance. There are a lot of people that have to choose between saving for their kids' education or insuring their own health; or insuring their home and vehicles rather than their own bodies. It's not as cut-and-dry as assuming that everyone with insurance is responsible, while everyone who doesn't have it is not. That's not a fair way of framing the issue.

"This from Mark Steyn at NRO about what Obamalala's plan is all about."-mpr

Question: why is the New Right (Neocon), which seems to have usurped the American conservative movement in the hearts and minds and cribs of the digital hoi polloi, made up of Canadians and Brits and Israelis in the employ of Rupert Murdoch?

There are a lot of people that have to choose between saving for their kids' education or insuring their own health; or insuring their home and vehicles rather than their own bodies. It's not as cut-and-dry as assuming that everyone with insurance is responsible, while everyone who doesn't have it is not.

That's a fair point. But, why have we been given this huge, absurdly complicated and convoluted bill to address that issue? HR3200 is a lot more than mere overreach--as written, it is going impact the healthcare of everyone, not just "the uninsured." If we are to address the issue of "the uninsured" it seems that there would be a much simpler approach.

Here's a term missed - "regulation". By my count this bill calls for the promulgation of 25 sets of new regulations.

(The word itself, of course, appears many more times than that.)

10% of anything does not make it a crisis. Period. End of story. It requires at most a look and modification. Not an overhaul. ww

Obama and company are not interested in any modifications or overhauls. THEY WANT CONTROL.
Bills could be passed that address problems with the current system; portability, prior health issues, uninsurability, tort reform, and sales across state lines. But Barry et al could care less. 3 other alternatives have been proposed, all have been ignored. WHY? Because they do not advance the agenda of government control (single payer) health care. Never mind that the CBO has stated the program as currently outlined is unsustainable, IT'S AN EMERGENCY! People are dying in the streets! Pass it now!

"If we are to address the issue of "the uninsured" it seems that there would be a much simpler approach."

But it's not about that issue, Iwogisdead. Yes, it's a good cover, but there's ways to handle it in what would be relatively simple and straightforward ways. Instead, what we're seeing is much more about taking away choice in the interests of 'fairness'.

To be 'fair', we'll have to establish a monolithic, convoluted mess of a 'medical establishment' that'll be reaching into every aspect of our lives, essentially impossible to make work in an economical fashion but virtually impossible to effectively reform.

I am trying to read the bill, but boy am I confused. page 333 says and I quote:
"(2) SPECIFIED AMOUNT. The amount specified in this paragraph for an area and year is the amount specified in subsection (c)(1)(D)(i) for the area and year adjusted (in a manner specified by the Secretary) to take into account the phase-out in the indirect costs of medical education from cpaitation rates described in subsection (k)(4).

WTF????? Does this make sense in anybody's language? No wonder the jerks on capital hill want to pass it without reading it. They can't understand it either. This way they think we are stupid enough to believe they read it. We are NOT that stupid!! Just can't wait to dive in and try to decipher the rest of this mess they want us to believe in. GOD, please keep an eye on me and keep me from harm in this pit slime of a democratic nightmare.

Hyper -

"Willie, a mere 10% of the population is 30 million people."

And for those 10% you'd destroy a mostly functioning structure that could be made to cover them with minimal expense, replacing it with a monolithic, unspecified, untried mess?

Come on, Hyper - if you've got a stuck window you want to get open you figure out how to unstick it, not throw a wrench through it and buy a replacement. (Unless you've already budgeted for replacement windows - which the US hasn't.)

We haven't tried tort reform, we haven't tried insurance reform, we haven't even tried to get the $60-$200 billion in Medicare fraud under control. (Nader says $200 - that seems high, but what the hell.)

Shouldn't we be trying THOSE before we tear down the current system?

Dr. epador spoke to tort reform, JL, a day or two ago. I would support it--your tort system is koo-koo-bananas and there are too many trial lawyers making too much money in the United States--but that's not sufficient. It's like trimming "pork" from the federal budget rather than raising taxes or cutting programs. Sure, it would help, but it wouldn't amount to much more than a splash in the bucket.

As for Willie shrugging off the uninsured, it's beyond the pale when you think about it. Would 10% of the world's population dying in an outbreak of plague not be a crisis, Willie? What if someone were to kidnap 10% of your friends and family? Would that require a look and a modification, or would that warrant immediate action? 10% is a hell of a lot of people. Christ, 1% would still be 3 million Americans! Should Obama not care about them? I know you think the guy is a Maoist, but he isn't: he's a liberal, and liberals don't shrug their shoulders at the plight of 30 million of their fellow citizens.

Well, for that particular section you're completely out of luck as it relates to amending the Social Security Act - so it won't make any sense unless you have that in front of you, too. This bill has a LOT of changes to other legislation in it - without them for reference it looks even worse than it already is.

All in all it's pretty standard fare for regulations and laws, no worse or better than most (purely on technical grounds, I mean).

I'd encourage bringing a copy (or printing out relevant pages) to a meeting and politely asking your rep or senator to explain it to you in plain english - there are NUMEROUS instances where the bill requires authorities to develop things in plain english - ask them to do the same for this bill for you. As much as I think he's a toad, a local rep actually had a meeting on this recently and brought a copy with him so he could look stuff up when people asked about stuff on specific pages. He reportedly spent 90 minutes answering questions that were asked civilly.

Hyper -

"there are too many trial lawyers making too much money in the United States--but that's not sufficient."

Let's try that first, see how sufficient it is. NO BIG CHANGES! Make small ones, see if you're on the right track, and don't try to glom onto the whole enchilada at one time.

Fully agree on the koo-koo bananas part, too.

There's a song by Tom Paxton...

ONE MILLION LAWYERS
by Tom Paxton

Humankind has survived some disasters, I'm sure.
Like locusts and flash floods and flu.
There's never a moment when we've been secure
From the ills that the flesh is heir to.
If it isn't a war, it's some gruesome disease.
If it isn't disease, then it's war.
But there's worse still to come, and I'm asking you please
How the world's gonna take any more?

(CHORUS:)

In ten years we're gonna have one million lawyers,
One million lawyers, one million lawyers.
In ten years we're gonna have one million lawyers.
How much can a poor nation stand?

The world shook with dread of Atilla the Hun
As he conquered with fire and steel,
And Genghis and Kubla and all of the Kahns
Ground a groaning world under the heel.
Disaster, disaster, so what else is new?
We've suffered the worst and then some.
So I'm sorry to tell you, my suffering friends,
Of the terrible scourge still to come.

(CHORUS)

(BREAK:)

Oh, a suffering world cries for mercy
As far as the eye can see.
Lawyers around every bend in the road,
Laywers in every tree,
Lawyers in restaurants, lawyers in clubs,
Lawyers behind every door,
Behind windows and potted plants, shade trees and shrubs,
Lawyers on pogo sticks, lawyers in politics!

(CHORUS)

In spring there's tornadoes and rampaging floods,
In summer it's heat stroke and draught.
There's Ivy League football to ruin the fall,
It's a terrible scourge, without doubt.
There are blizzards to batter the shivering plain.
There are dust storms that strike, but far worse
Is the threat of disaster to shrivel the brain,
It's the threat of implacable curse.

In ten years we're gonna have one million lawyers,
One million lawyers, one million lawyers.
In ten years we're gonna have one million lawyers.
How much can a poor nation stand?
How much can a poor nation stand

--------------

According to WikiAnswers, there were 1,143,358 active lawyers in 2007.

I believe we've passed the point of having a critical mass, and are suffering the effects thereof.

"...liberals don't shrug their shoulders at the plight of 30 million of their fellow citizens.

And it appears that many so-called "pro-life" conservatives do, judging from the howling right who aren't offering a plan or solutions, or even participating in the discussion for that matter - just shouting down any discussion -- and yet they call themselves "pro-life".

A modern-day mystery if you ask me.

Vic

Who has a camera handy...I want to see photos
of those stone throwing chickens.
Ot is he's insinuating about chicken lilly livered stoned throwers.
Vic, weak man, weak.

Obama said in his most recent press conference that "the uninsured" are getting healthcare--he said that part of every health insurance premium has a "hidden cost" to pay for them. HR3200 isn't about getting them insured.

This site:
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp
says that defensive medicine costs $1,700 to $2,000 per year per American.

This site:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/wasted-medical.html
says that defensive medicine costs $210B/year.

VIO - "And it appears that many so-called "pro-life" conservatives do, judging from the howling right who aren't offering a plan or solutions,..."

Ok which is it, are you ignorant, or willfully ignorant?

This looks like a Rep plan.

And that's only the latest, there have been many others.

You may not agree with their plan but to claim none exists, or have existed in the past is pure partisan hackery at its finest.

In a grad seminar on human welfare/well-being and its implications for public policy, the prof explained the difference between your tort system and whatever ours is called. In Ontario, if you lose, say, your right ring finger, there is a formula that produces how much money you are owed, assuming you are not at fault. (In this example--industrial accidents--the company is almost always at fault, but that's fine because the payout is insignificant compared to what it would be in the U.S., even when you add in the amount they are then forced to spend upgrading the safety systems of whatever machine ate the finger.)

This guy was a social democrat, like me and everyone else in the class, so we were surprised to hear him argue that our system for compensating victims is actually more conservative than in the U.S., but better for business and better for society in that we're less litigious and more communal as a result. Japan is the least litigious, I believe, in that people sometimes accept apologies rather than suing those who have done them harm. Can you imagine?!

Again Hyper, the 10% shrugged themselves off you idiot. They have the ability to pay for coverage but choose not to. Get it? No, I don't think so. ww

"Ok which is it, are you ignorant, or willfully ignorant?

This looks like a Rep plan.

And that's only the latest, there have been many others.

You may not agree with their plan but to claim none exists, or have existed in the past is pure partisan hackery at its finest."

What's the H.R. number of the Republican-proposed health care reform legislation?

Hint: You won't find it, it doesn't exist.

OK - just link to the "plan" referred to in the article - you know with specifics, so we can compare the Republican plan to H.R. 3200.

Good luck with that as well.

You linked to a news story that says there's a plan...

Now good luck showing us the plan.

And after you try and fail to link to any senate or house bill from the Republicans that provides any degree of comprehensive health care reform for Americans, feel free to link to one of the past "many others" that you refer to.

Surely you're not guilty of partisan hackery?

Vic

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090811/REG/908119998

To Vic regarding post #20: What Americans are going without ANY health care? Let me give you an example of true life: A friend of mine had a stroke (he is insured). His wife took him to the emergency room at 8:12 AM. The waiting room was full of (shall we say mostly spanish speaking only) patients. He was put on a gurney after sitting in a chair for 3 hours and left laying in the hallway, while kids with runny noses and earaches, etc. were treated before he was. He laid in the hallway for over a total of 11 hours before being seen by a doctor. He was constantly stopping nurses, aides, etc to try and get help. He had no food, no water and had to get off the gurney 3 different times on his own to go to the bathroom. They were too busy pandering to the ones who couldn't pay. He was paying for them out of his taxes. This was not in a foreign country either. It was in Ventura, California. If you are wondering how he knew the kids and most of the people treated before him were not emergencies, he speaks spanish fluently. I have seen some of the same kind of things myself. So Vic, please show some proof about what you are speaking. I saw with my own eyes. Now it's your turn.

Brilliant methodology. Let me borrow it.

Here's the number of mentions I found for various terms:

death panel -- 0

euthanasia -- 0

rationing -- 0

socialism -- 0

fascism -- 0

Jim: hahaha, nice.

Willie: I'm not talking about the 10% who choose to go without healthcare. I'm talking about the 10% who don't have a choice because they can't afford health insurance and food; or health insurance and rent. They aren't shrugging off coverage themselves.

It makes me laugh pretty hard, though, that you would call me an idiot. A lot of liberals are a lot smarter than you. Doesn't mean that they're always right in their opinions--but it does mean that they understand concepts more easily and in general have a better grasp of their mother tongue. Pick an insult that isn't dripping with unintentional irony. Here, I'll even give you one: pretentious Canuckistani a-hole. No charge.