warren buffet

[Ursa Majoris]

Wow . . Palin slams the current attempt and coins the term "death panels" yet was happy to try and take advantages of the same system she is trying to demonize . . .

 

yay politics . . . .

Well, to be fair she doesn't do it any more. What changed? Oooooh, she got into the gubment and then got rich.

[bushwacked]

Sarah Palin on health care.

 

One of the pied pipers of the Have to agree here Socialism idiot contingent. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Azazello1313]

ZMOG!!11!! Sarah Palin!

 

My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ‘60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada.

 

 

hmm, now let's see....when did Canada get their single-payer health care system? (hint: also the title of a george orwell novel )

 

ZMOG!!11!! Sarah Palin!

[driveby]

ZMOG!!11!! Sarah Palin!

 

 

 

 

hmm, now let's see....when did Canada get their single-payer health care system? (hint: also the title of a george orwell novel )

 

ZMOG!!11!! Sarah Palin!

[westvirginia]

ZMOG!!11!! Sarah Palin!

 

 

 

 

hmm, now let's see....when did Canada get their single-payer health care system? (hint: also the title of a george orwell novel )

 

ZMOG!!11!! Sarah Palin!

 

Not to mention she would have been a minor then.

 

I guess when the obamessiah turns out to be the empty suit so many predicted he'd be, you have to grab hold of somethin'...

 

Do you folks even READ what you post?

[Perchoutofwater]

The American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama's new health

care package. The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the

Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The

Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the

Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a

misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea

shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!", while the

Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the

Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash

their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would

indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. The Plastic Surgeons opined that

this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter".

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were

pissed off at the whole idea. Anesthesiologists thought the whole

idea was a gas, and those softy Cardiologists didn't have the heart to

say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up

to the chalupas in Washington.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[driveby]

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

 

What?

[bushwacked]

ZMOG!!11!! Sarah Palin!

 

You're doing it right!

[driveby]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Major business groups say President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is a job killer, and they're launching a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to take that message to voters.

 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and groups ranging from contractors to retailers said Tuesday the Democratic health care bills would raise their expenses, while failing to control health care costs.

 

Advertisements will start airing nationwide Wednesday on cable television and shift in a few days to 17 states, targeting moderate and conservative Democrats whose votes are critical to passing the bill in the House. The campaign is estimated to cost between $4 million and $10 million, with the insurance industry paying part of the cost.

 

[Perchoutofwater]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Major business groups say President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is a job killer, and they're launching a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to take that message to voters.

 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and groups ranging from contractors to retailers said Tuesday the Democratic health care bills would raise their expenses, while failing to control health care costs.

 

Advertisements will start airing nationwide Wednesday on cable television and shift in a few days to 17 states, targeting moderate and conservative Democrats whose votes are critical to passing the bill in the House. The campaign is estimated to cost between $4 million and $10 million, with the insurance industry paying part of the cost.

 

 

It doesn't take a degree in economics to see that.

[Perchoutofwater]

What?

 

The fact that she is the leader of the house Dems should be an embarrassment to all Dems.

[bpwallace49]

The fact that she is the leader of the house Dems should be an embarrassment to all Dems.

 

Absolutely.

 

Can anyone find where anyone on these boards have defended that whack job the way conservatives defended Sarah Palin?

 

TIA . . .

[Azazello1313]

Wow . . Palin slams the current attempt and coins the term "death panels" yet was happy to try and take advantages of the same system she is trying to demonize . . .

 

[Perchoutofwater]

Absolutely.

 

Can anyone find where anyone on these boards have defended that whack job the way conservatives defended Sarah Palin?

 

TIA . . .

 

Didn't like Palin when McCain picked her (I'm on record saying he should have picked Romney), and I really don't care for her too much now. The only defense I've ever given Palin is when libs talked about her inexperience, and I just pointed out that that while she was the GOP vice presidential candidate she had more experience as an executive than did Obama, which is completely true. The big difference between Palin and Pelosi is Palin is no longer an elected official, and hasn't been elected by other elected officials as Speaker. Palin has no power, and yet the left still attacks her (which I have no problem with) and her family (which I do have a problem with), yet sits idly by while the joke that is Pelosi runs around in the House like a court jester. If you are still voting for people that voted her speaker then in a sense you are defending her.

 

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"----Nancy Pelosi on the health care bill.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[westvirginia]

This weeks revelations about the (gasp) EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES will be that they:

 

* Eat puppies.

* Sell their mothers and daughters into prostitution.

* Burn churches

* Spray paint swastikas on synagogues

* Don't come to a full stop at stop signs

* Tear tags off of mattresses

* Hunt out of season

* Don't wash before leaving the restroom

* Trade secret recipes for kitten soup

* Hate dogs (like Belinda)

* Wear stripes with plaids

* Cheat at golf

[driveby]

This weeks revelations about the (gasp) EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES will be that they:

 

* Eat puppies.

* Sell their mothers and daughters into prostitution.

* Burn churches

* Spray paint swastikas on synagogues

* Don't come to a full stop at stop signs

* Tear tags off of mattresses

* Hunt out of season

* Don't wash before leaving the restroom

* Trade secret recipes for kitten soup

* Hate dogs (like Belinda)

* Wear stripes with plaids

* Cheat at golf

Insurers Gone Wild!

Why health insurers welcome Obama’s plan to tame them

Jacob Sullum | March 10, 2010

 

"We allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country," President Obama declared on Monday. "We can't have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people."

 

Yet Obama's plan to tame health insurers would boost their business, protect them from competition, and guarantee their profits, all at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. It is therefore not surprising that the insurance companies, while they object to the president’s rhetoric and quibble over some of the details, are happy to be domesticated. Here are five ways in which Obama would help insurers while pretending to fight them:

 

The individual mandate. What industry wouldn't welcome a law requiring everyone in the country to purchase its product? The insurers' only objection to this edict—which would force young, healthy people who don’t want insurance to subsidize the care of older, sicker people who do—is that the penalties for failing to comply are not severe enough.

 

The employer mandate. Requiring businesses to buy medical coverage for their employees brings the insurers more conscripted customers. It also shores up a perverse system of employer-provided health insurance that insulates consumers from prices, limits their choices, and weakens competition.

 

Subsidies. Allocating taxpayer money to help individuals and small business buy medical coverage makes customers less price-sensitive, allowing insurers to charge more than they otherwise could.

 

Regulations. Obama wants to dictate the details of what he considers to be minimally acceptable medical coverage, including the size of deductibles and the extent of benefits. This policy, which forces people to buy pricier policies than they would choose on their own, is like decreeing that all Americans should buy a Nissan Altima with GPS, a sunroof, and leather seats, even if they would prefer a Hyundai Accent.

 

Limits on competition. Obama pays lip service to the idea of letting health insurers, like other insurers, compete for customers across state lines. But his minimum coverage requirements would undermine a major benefit of such competition: the ability to escape a particular state's restrictions on the policies insurers can offer.

 

If Obama's plan works as advertised, it will be a huge boon to insurers. As he himself notes, "they're going to have 30 million new customers" thanks to the government's mandates and subsidies.

 

To distract us from the favor he is doing for insurers, Obama claims to be getting tough with them by demanding that they take all comers and charge them all the same rates, without regard to health. While abolishing risk-based pricing contradicts a basic principle of the insurance business, the industry has to weigh the loss of that freedom against the gain of government-guaranteed revenue.

 

Despite his talk about reining in "excessive" premium hikes, Obama's plan commits him to keeping insurers financially sound so they can provide the coverage he is promising. Federal regulators, like their state counterparts, will find that "you can't separate the underlying solvency of companies from the rates they charge," as Wisconsin’s insurance commissioner recently told The New York Times. "From a consumer protection standpoint," Kansas' insurance commissioner agreed, "the most important thing we do is ensure the solvency of companies."

 

In essence, then, Obama's plan would use money forcibly extracted from taxpayers and policyholders to keep insurers healthy. He says this arrangement means "insurance companies would finally be held accountable to the American people."

 

The collectivist language is telling. I don't want insurance companies to be "accountable to the American people"; I want them to be accountable to me, as a consumer. That situation, which is also the best way to bring costs under control, can be accomplished only by promoting choice, increasing competition, and removing the barriers that prevent consumers from receiving and responding to price signals.

 

Insurers may prefer the security of Obama's domestication to the uncertainty of scrounging for customers in a free market. But why should we bear the cost of their care and feeding?

 

Reason mag

[westvirginia]

But hey, everyone that assumes a de-facto takeover of HC is refuted by such intelligent comments as Have to agree here!!!!1!! Socialism!, so this can't be right.

[driveby]

How the Takeover works

 

The Senate can only pass one reconciliation bill per year, which is why the Democrats — who seem to intuit that they won’t be so numerous next year — are laying the groundwork for a health-plus-education 51-vote omnibus reconciliation package. But in a way, the combination of student loans and health care is very clarifying. On health care, we see the government annexation in its middle stages. On student loans, we see the endpoint of the process: a takeover cloaked in a budget gimmick, private-sector providers vilified as free-riding looters, and a very short memory when it comes to the benefits of competition. The Democrats’ current health-care legislation isn’t the end game, and in their more candid moments, Democrats such as Barney Frank have been open about the fact that maneuvers such as the public option are just an effort to move the ball down the field toward the goal of a total federal takeover. If you want a look at their playbook, look at how they’ve handled student loans.

[Perchoutofwater]

Final 'reform' push: twisting arms

 

By MICHAEL TANNER

 

Last Updated: 1:57 AM, March 10, 2010

 

President Obama's attempts to ram health- care reform through an increasingly reluctant Congress are starting to resemble a really eventful episode of "The Sopranos."

 

Whether or not you believe former Rep. Eric Massa's bizarre accusations of locker-room confrontations and conspiracies to drive him from office, there is no doubt that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are willing to use every trick in the book to get this bill passed.

 

They've already bought votes with pork and special deals -- the "Louisiana purchase" ($300 million to bolster that state's Medicaid program, which swayed Sen. Mary Landrieu); the "Cornhusker kickback" ($100 million to Medicaid there, sweetening the pot for Sen. Ben Nelson), and Florida's "Gator Aid" (a Medicare deal potentially worth $5 billion, a hefty price for Sen. Bill Nelson's vote). Plus the millions for Connecticut hospitals, Montana asbestos abatement and so on.

Nor were the Obamans willing to let a little thing like election laws stand in the way. They rewrote Massachusetts law to allow for an appointed senator to hold office for several months, hoping to get the bill through before the special election that Scott Brown ultimately won. Their plans spoiled, they even considered holding up Brown's seating to let the appointed senator continue to vote on health care -- until public outrage forced them to back down.

 

And, of course, there has been an unprecedented willingness to ignore congressional rules -- from the failure to appoint a "conference committee" to negotiate differences between the House and Senate bills, to their current plans to use the reconciliation process to bypass a Republican filibuster.

Expect the tactics to get even dirtier now.

 

Those who support the president can expect favors. No sooner had Rep Jim Matheson (D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship.

 

Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) is also on the undecided list. And, purely by coincidence no doubt, the Justice Department just announced that it is dropping an FBI investigation that has been swirling about the congressman. Gosh, if only Charlie Rangel were one of the undecideds.

 

Those who oppose the president can expect the political equivalent of a horse head between their sheets.

 

Some of this is just traditional electioneering: On-the-fence Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln is getting a primary challenger with some backing from the national Democratic machine.

 

But some of it is much nastier. Massa's story may have credibility issues, but other opponents of the bill are also starting to feel the heat. For instance, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose opposition to abortion funding has become one of the bill's biggest hurdles, is now seeing attacks on his ethics.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow recently questioned the legality of the low rent that a conservative Christian group charges Stupak for his DC apartment. She even noted ominously that disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford stayed at the same building. The liberal blog Daily Kos has picked up on the charges and suggested that both the IRS and the House Ethics Committee investigate.

 

"Politics ain't beanbag," as Mr. Dooley noted. Presidents have always twisted arms and made deals. And when two-thirds of voters are opposed to your plans, you may have no choice but to play hardball.

 

But when Obama promised to change the way Washington does business, we didn't think he meant making it a "family" business.

 

NY Post Link

Edited March 10, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bpwallace49]

How the Takeover works

 

How sinister . .

[bushwacked]

[Perchoutofwater]

[Ursa Majoris]

The individual mandate. What industry wouldn't welcome a law requiring everyone in the country to purchase its product? The insurers' only objection to this edict—which would force young, healthy people who don’t want insurance to subsidize the care of older, sicker people who do—is that the penalties for failing to comply are not severe enough.

Just to tackle this for the sake of brevity, a young healthy male of our acquaintance recently broke his leg playing hockey. He has health insurance through his work but are we to assume that young healthy people who choose not to get insurance are all able to pay out of pocket for accidents?

[TimC]

This weeks revelations about the (gasp) EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES will be that they:

 

* Eat puppies.

* Sell their mothers and daughters into prostitution.

* Burn churches

* Spray paint swastikas on synagogues

* Don't come to a full stop at stop signs

* Tear tags off of mattresses

* Hunt out of season

* Don't wash before leaving the restroom

* Trade secret recipes for kitten soup

* Hate dogs (like Belinda)

* Wear stripes with plaids

* Cheat at golf

 

 

Bottom line is if we can throw away billions to rebuild some filthy city under sea level that will flood again, I guess we can throw away billions to keep the homeless insured.

[Perchoutofwater]

Democrat senator on using reconciliation for a health care bill.