The Republicans’ health care plan

by Jeff Rosenberg | 52 Comments

As I wrote yesterday, the House Republicans’ health care plan would still leave 52 million without insurance. But don’t worry, there is one way you could still get healthcare:

marriedtothesea.com
 marriedtothesea.com

November 6, 2009, 7:00 pm | Category: General |

52 Responses to “The Republicans’ health care plan”

Feed for this Entry
  • CMan
    November 7, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    The Democratic health plan: Welcome to the federal penitentiary Mr. Rosenberg. We regret you didn't buy your mandatory health coverage. Enjoy your 5 year stay with us. We're sorry for the over crowding. There are so many like you.

  • lojasmo
    November 7, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    There is no criminal penalty in the HC bill that provides jail time for not being insured.

    Please show the text that indicates there is or STFU.

    • CMan
      November 7, 2009 at 3:02 pm

      http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/Do...

      • Won't Be Silenced
        November 7, 2009 at 3:29 pm

        Right on CMan, no pun intended. Jason, facts are a bitch aren't they?

        Why is nobody pointing out that the 52 million uncovered in 2019, ten years from now are representative of the growth in our illegal alien population. Unlike the Dems, the Republicans refuse and understand we cannot afford to cover illegal aliens with government provided health care. Using the Dems number of 47 million uncovered today, 52 million including the illegals in 2019 is not a shocking number at all. I would be more shocked to see that everyone is covered in 2019 including all illegals.

      • lojasmo
        November 7, 2009 at 7:15 pm

        Jail sentence would be for willful failure to pay taxes, dipshit. There is no jail term for not having insurance. (you false claim)

        jail terms for willful tax evasion is nothing new.

  • PBO Fan Not
    November 7, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Why does lojasmo continue to sink to name calling instead of rational arguments on this site. lojamso says if you are against ILLEGAL immigration you are afraid of foreigners (xenophobe).

    I personally have a handful of friends, from Liberia, New Zealand and Germany who legally immigrated to this country. I am not afraid of them. I enjoy their company and love to learn about the culture and experiences. I have taught civic classes to Russicans who are preparing for their immigration exams. But I do distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration. In fact, I discriminate against most people who break the laws in our country, especially if it is the first act they undertake here.

    Take away the name calling and make a logical argument, what say you?

  • Kathy
    November 7, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    It’s a very strange feeling today to watch the Washington party in power decide it has the right to force all American citizens to purchase its legislated model of health insurance and be a part of its brave new health world. Washington will now define that world, regulate it, monitor it, and begin plundering our national economic well-being to pay for it. They’ll subsidize and reward some while financially punishing others, and they’ll leave enough room in the loose language of the bill to be able to do anything else they wish as time goes on. I’ve been around awhile and I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anything like this. We now have 2,000 pages of who-knows-what that has very little to do with the initial campaign rallying cry for improving coverage and lowering costs. The target for the change agents has always been to control the health care system in order to control those who use it.

    If Washington can “make us” bow to this madness, will there ever again be anything that citizens can’t be “made” to do and "made" to pay for under the guise of “for the common good”?

    • Richard674
      November 7, 2009 at 9:47 pm

      Well let's see, recently we citizens were "made" to pay for an illegal war resulting in the deaths of some 3 to 5 million people who had done us no harm and posed no threat to us. Some of you were more enthusiastic then others. Those of us who thought this all might have been a really bad idea were called traitors and terrorist sympathizers. But there were no teabaggers the loss of privacy rights then, no teabaggers protesting the costs. There were no GOP'ers dissenting at all.

      So now, when there is something that doesn't involve murder or mayhem or conquest or exploitation, teabaggers show up and Kathy has got her undies all in a bunch. This will help millions. This will reduce the 46,000 people who die every year from lack of health care.

      The silly twit can misrepresent and lie all she wants but the majority of people want this bill this time and the Republicans are the ones standing in the way.

      • DantheMan
        November 7, 2009 at 10:05 pm

        Our involvement in Iraq was ill-advised. You are right. While our men and women who went over there, and are over there, have done a great job and showed that America cares about freedom, the fact is our premise for spending all of that money on that war was flawed. I was one of those who thought we were right to go in back in 2003, and I fully admit that I now wish we had done it differently.____Iraq will come to an end. We'll pull out, gradually, and can look back on a price tag and life tally and at least say it is all behind us.____What are the odds that would happen with healthcare if it was a financial disaster? History would suggest that our country, once a program is in place, is hellbent to run it indefinately, even if it is obvious to even casual observers that it is unsustainable. If I knew that in 10 years, we could reverse course if the program wasn't working, I'd be all for it. Even without that, I'm saying give it a try as long as the Public Option runs purely on member premiums and not on tax dollars. But my faith that we will be as critical of this program once it is in operation as a responsible manager should be is slim-to-none.

      • Won't Be Silenced
        November 7, 2009 at 11:53 pm

        Ohh that silly twit response really convinced me.

        Show me a statistic not from Daily Kos, Huffington Post or MSNBC that shows more than 50% want the current health care reform bill passed.

  • DantheMan
    November 7, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    1st, I'm very surprised teh Republican plan doesn't include changing the tax incentive system for health coverage. That has been a main tenet of their healthcare platform for a decade.

    2nd, while I'm not surprised it doesn't include Medicare payment reform (I like the idea of not lumping a bunch of random things together), I hope that plan is forthcoming.

    3rd, I'd be interested in what assumptions the CBO made around how states woudl use the newfound powers granted to them. I see the Republican plan having the opportunity to accomplish the exact same things as the Public Option, while keeping the program control at the state level. As a federalist, that appeals to me.

  • lojasmo
    November 7, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    Uninsured of all stripes will continue to be a huge drag on the system, and a huge cost stream.

    xenophobic scum.

  • lojasmo
    November 7, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    Strong work on the stalking, by the way.

  • Won't Be Silenced
    November 7, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Jason,

    This is the specific language of the bill: choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

    This is very specific and not a generalization of fines and jail time for tax evasion in general.

    As long as you brought it up, google is this new thing that allows you to find out information about people. All the stalkers are using it nowadays. When you just name call to draw attention away from your illogical arguments, it gets one to wonder who you are. Try not using lojasmo along with your name on the net.

  • Richard674
    November 7, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Where were the teabaggers eight years ago when the President lied us in an illegal war? Where was the "oh my stars and garters" concern about the future of the nation?

    I see the far right wing extremists out protesting and bemoaning the loss of freedoms, but where were they when the president was knowingly violating FISA laws. Spout your pablam about the servicemen and women doing absolutely fabulous and caring about freedom, but did you take one act to stop the war beyond furrowing your eyebrows and saying, "oh I don't know"? Would that have been more support for the troops, then whatever it was you did? Did you do anything?

    Of course you didn't, because you're a fraud. A comfortable patriot. A phoney. You and Kathy are soul mates and really deserve each other. To bad it can't be in a country more suited to your political leanings. One doesn't spring to mind readily, I guess Fascism is going out of style.

  • Pete
    November 8, 2009 at 4:47 am

    Our involvement in Iraq was ill-advised.

    That wins the award for understatment of the decade, DtM. Don't be a revisionist. Iraq was conceived, planned and implemented by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

    Oh, and that price tag you toss aside so cavalierly? I've written this many times on this blog. It could have paid for full health care for all Americans, rebuilt every road, bridge and school in America, and launched a dozen Manhattan-project type projects on alternative energy sources. Since you're so flippant about that price tag, surely the healthcare bill is a drop in the bucket.

  • Kerosene Hat
    November 7, 2009 at 11:27 pm

    Well Richard there are some people that were strongly against the Iraq war who hold views on health care policy that are fundamentally different than yours. Also, If a party or president which has promoted or supported immoral and unnecessary military intervention invalidates any of their domestic policies you would have to disregard as invalid all of the policies of JFK and LBJ along with those of GWB.

    I am wondering since you so often accuse various ideas as promoting fascism if you could define what that means to you. I am in no way trying to be a smart ass. The fundamental characteristics of fascism in my understanding are those of a strong, authoritarian central state and an economic belief in the "third way". That way between capitalism and communism where the national government organizes and manages the large aspects of the economy. And the motivations said to be behind something are meaningless, all forms of government are promoted as being for the greater good and for the betterment of society. I am talking about the emotionless structural definition you associate with fascism.

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 1:08 am

    I'm sorry you have that impression of me, Richard. I'm going to reserve judgment on you. You may very well be a good person who I happen to disagree with. I'm not prepared to label you.

    What I will ask is that if I am such an extremist fraud and out of touch with the country, why aren't we out of Iraq yet? During the early primary campaign, Obama said he would begin pulling troops out immediately upon his election. Upon election, he said he would have them out by October 2010. A couple weeks ago, he said he will have them out by the end of 2011.

    Am I really the problem here, or is this not all as easy as you believe it to be?

  • Steve
    November 8, 2009 at 1:54 am

    What IS the "current health care reform bill"? Last I heard, the Democrats in the House were still arguing with each other over their bill's details even though Pelosi scheduled a floor vote for tonight, the House Republicans have their own bill that the Democrats said won't get a vote, Baucus wrote his own bill in the Senate and got it out of committee but Harry Reid said a different bill will go to the floor there at some vague time in the future, the Senate Republicans haven't put forth a proposal, and all the bills put together are longer than the Alabama constitution.

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 4:01 am

    Good point. I have a feeling that the final health reform bill will be whatever Olympia Snowe says it is. That should make none of us feel any better. While I respect her moderate tone and willingness to hear all sides of an argument, Snowe is about as predictable as the flight path of a fly.

    We shall see……

  • CMan
    November 8, 2009 at 4:47 am

    Saturday evening 10:30 PM. ObamaCare - 1 Good Guys - 0

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 5:06 am

    I'm starting to get this "Hope" thing that Obama campaigned on.

    God, I Hope this health reform doesn't become a boondoggle on a scale that our country has never experienced before.

    I Hope.

  • Kathy
    November 8, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    Looking at Washington's track record with this sort of thing, I'd say that the chances of "boondoggle" are pretty good. This, of course, is boondoggle on steroids. As one media outlet noted: Worst. Bill. Ever.

    If you listened very carefully, you could hear the sounds of arm bones cracking as Democrat House leaders worked their persuasive magic.

    But, it's not over til it's over. And, even then, it won't be over. We've allowed a big mess to set up shop in Washington and anyone who loves their kids and grandkids needs to keep working to clean things up.

    Keep the faith.

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    I thought it was telling that Obama, in speaking to House Democrats yesterday, said they had a chance to make history just like with Medicare and Social Security.

    Two programs that are on the path to bankruptcy (based on mathematics, not rhetoric) and will require many waves a reform just to stay solvent.

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Finally, a post from Kathy that I can get behind.

    We've allowed a big mess to set up shop in Washington

    And it's called Reaganism. Time to root out the ridiculous notion that the wealthy elite will funnel money back into the economy if only we redistribute money back into their pockets. Time to root out the criminal theft of workers blood, sweat and tears so that the corporations can maximize profits and the expense of workers and the environment.

    I was listening to Sue Jeffers last night and she said something I hope is true and something that, again I hope, the conservatives pursue with absolute enthusiasm. She said when a Republican reach's across the aisle and votes for this bill, she will work to push that representative out of the party. Go for it. Have at it. I encourage all conservatives to remain obstructionist and work your little hearts out, to push all moderates out of your party.

    Yes, Kathy, I agree, keep the faith. The United States will join the 21st century and offer health care to it's most desperate and downtrodden citizens. Just like every other modern industrialized nation on the planet.

  • MrTom
    November 8, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    The biggest problem with the health care bill just passed is that it keeps the insurance companies in place, perpetuating bureaucratic inefficiencies and unconscionable profits that interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Both doctors and patients lose. Government and big business stay in bed with each other.

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    The cost of the entire Iraq War since 2003 (<$700B) is nowhere near the cost of the House Health Reform Bill ($1.3 trillion if everything goes right). That doesn't include "stimulus" which is another $800B and counting.

    But as Rahm says, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." They are taking full advantage of this one.

  • CMan
    November 8, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    C'mon DtM. When you get right down to it, this isn't about who gets health care and how much it costs. It's about government control, period! And, as you point out, if we compare to other government run programs, this WILL go down as one of the biggest boondoggles in American history.

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    KH, I appreciate your honest inquiry and I will give it a go. I have been seeing a "creeping fascism" in our politics since Reagan. Fascist governments use "over the top" nationalism as a tool to unify the majority population, often at the expense of the minority population. These governments need a "enemy", someone or some group that they can point to and tell the majority, "There's where the source of all your problems lie." Simplistic, and erroneous solutions to complex problems becomes the norm. That's how Reagan got elected, that's how he got re-elected.

    The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. This isn't anything new but Reagan's kitchen cabinet was a particularly virulent group. This group, more then any other group, is responsible for disaster that the Reagan regime was from '80 to '86. Reagan should've died in the same jail cell Nixon should've died in.

    We got some reprieve from Reagan under Bush the elder, he being more of a pragmatist then the criminal Reagan. Then, under Clinton the nation retracted a bit further from the idiocy of Reaganism, but Clinton was by no means a liberal or populist. He was, and will always remain a corporatist. Perhaps the greatest Republican President of the 20th century but clearly not a liberal.

    Then came Bush the lesser. And now back to full on, no holds barred, Reaganism and the creeping fascism. Control of the media, demonization of liberals, gays, pacifists, any flavor of dissent you care to name became the norm. Privacy rights destroyed, or simply ignored and the era of HUGE government began. Where were the teabaggers when the Homeland Security Act was being voted on? Where were the teabaggers when the Department of Homeland Security was being created? Kathy? DtM?

    There can be no doubt, Bush the lesser and his creators took this nation to the brink of disaster and a form of government that is repugnant to most.

    are some people that were strongly against the Iraq war who hold views on health care policy that are fundamentally different than yours.

    I am well aware there are differing viewpoints then mine and will be glad to hear them with an open mind but, I am suspicious of the motivations of most conservatives these days. Are conservatives really worried about what they term as big government or are they more worried about liberal success?

  • Kerosene Hat
    November 8, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    The cost of the Iraq war is most likely much, much higher than the direct $700 billion. Obviously it is a hard thing to calculate accurately but is likely multiple trillions of dollars. A study started in 2005 found the cost to be around $3 trillion once all of the long term costs and opportunity costs are taken into account.

    That being said; the United states has about 100,000 public school which if you figure cost about $10 Million a piece would equal about $1 trillion, the U.S. spent about $2.4 trillion on health care in 2007, the original Manhattan project cost about $24 billion in today's dollars ($288 billion for a dozen), and 2.4 million miles of paved roads which at $1 million a mile (which is the cheapest any road gets, no freeways, no bridges, no real hills) which would cost $2.4 trillion. The total for the items Pete lists is about $6-trillion. Realistic roads costs could easily more than double that number.

    So while the money wasted in Iraq could have have made a huge difference if it had been spent properly and not murdering people it could not pay for all of the things in Pete's post.

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    if it had been spent properly

    I would contend that if it not not been spent at all would've been the best use for it, since it was largely borrowed money. Also, I find it telling that when discussing costs, no where, that I can find, is anyone calculating the 3 to 5 million lives lost. What costs will that reap? When will that bill come due?

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    There is another fatal flaw with the bill that was just passed.

    I can get behind changing the healthcare system. Try something — anything — that could improve it. I have my reservations about this plan, but part of me is excited to see if it can be a pleasant surprised. My worry is more about how it is executed, and if anyone will acknowledge that it is failing if that occurs. But the fatal flaw that nobody is talking about is this:

    We've taken a commonly acknowledged problem with our healthcare system — the fact that it is largely an employer-based system where your insurance is tied to your job — and cemented that into place for perpetuity. That is dumb. Both candidates, Obama and McCain, campaigned on the fact that the employer-based system made no sense. And now it is implanted into our nation by law. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment but the reality of the current situation is that we'll have to take steps toward a logical and modern system incrementally. Babysteps in other words. I have always advocated a single payer system where the insurance industry has no presence. Maybe, though, that isn't the best route. Maybe the best route is Switzerland, with a insurance industry presence but that involvement is highly and strictly regulated. Time will tell. But, the House bill is progress in the right direction and now for the Senate. Hopefully, Mr Reid will take this vote and grow a set and begin acting like he's got a huge majority and actually doesn't need a single Republican vote.

  • Kathy
    November 8, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Richard,

    Of all the "isms" out there, perhaps the most dangerous
    is "delusionalism".

  • Kerosene Hat
    November 8, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    I believe the motivations of "conservatives" is as hard to pin down as it is for "liberals" becasue large groups by their nature are made up of individuals who's motivations vary widely. It seems that some of the more libertarian people within the Republican party who started the tea-party groups had generally been very strongly against the war since the very beginning. Like many such things it became co-opted by the most sensational actors in the group and is now primarily viewed as a group of bigots who happen to want smaller government. At this point I imagine many of the original anti-war, small-government types who were in the movement early have since left. Not wanting to be associated with the insanity.

    The nationalism, xenophobia and creation of "enemy classes" are tools used by most any authoritarian system and is not unique to fascism. These strategies manifest in many forms of which I would include the demonization of certain businesses, outsourcing, free-trade and opening our boarders to all people who want to come here and work.

    While I agree with much of what you say about fascism and the destruction of our liberties I feel you are leaving out some very important actors. Despite the variations in rhetoric (the motivations presented are immaterial) the structures promoted and put in place are the responsibility of both parties since well before Reagan. From the government providing military support to take land for the railroads (and the common man settler as well), to the creation of the Federal Reserve, to the current round of bailouts for GM, Chrysler and the banks the blend of business and government has been creeping forward.

    The same regulations and controls put in place to "protect the people" are the ones used to pick the winners and losers based on political influence. This power is also used to build loyal constituencies and punish political enemies through variations in taxes, subsidies or regulations. It doesn't matter if it is called socialism or fascism, the tools, structures, and therefore results are likely to be the same.

    I would prefer to separate government from business and would be fine eliminating the current form or incorporation. A government created entity which has allows owners of a business to avoid the risk while maintaining the potential for reward. Part of that would be the elimination of all "group rights". No more special status for unions either.

    In the end I just don't see any meaningful difference between the proposals of GWB, FDR, JFK, LBJ or Obama. The fact that Obama has an economic team straight out of Goldman-Sachs and has for the most part continued the bail-out and "stimulus" plans started under Bush seem to back this up.

    Again, I am communicating completely in good faith here and appreciate the fact that you have done the same.

    -Cheers

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Another post from Kathy that progressives can agree with. The delusion the conservatives have been laboring under for 30 years concerning their Saint Ronnie has wreaked havoc on our nation and finally shows signs of waning. In fact, something conservatives rarely trouble themselves with, Reagan was a happy idiot, untroubled by morals or core beliefs. Thankfully, and hopefully, conservatives will purge any dissent from the Republican party so that like any drug addict or alcoholic that party can hit rock bottom and admit to itself, it has a problem. At that point, and only at that point can the recovery program for the party can begin. Then in 10 to 20 years, it will again be a viable party.

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Agreed, it is a starting point.

    Continued Democratic control will likely add more regulation to insurers and refine the public option, I hope. Eras of GOP control can take this bill, and decouple the employer-link and add more malpractice reform.

    Gotta start somewhere and then work with it.

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    Eras of GOP control can take this bill, and decouple the employer-link and add more malpractice reform.

    I have to ask, "What in the past GOP behavior would lead you to believe they will work to do anything but enrich the insurance industry?"

    De-coupling the employers from Health care reimbursement is purely and simply single payer health care. No other way of getting around it assuming universal coverage is required. Universal single payer health care is what HR 676 is and the primary sponsors of that bill are John Conyers and Dennis Kuchinich. Glad to have you on board the extreme left wing bandwagon DtM. I always knew you were capable of rational thought.

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    As much as I would love to de-construct your entire reply, I will only concentrate on the following excerpt:

    I would prefer to separate government from business and would be fine eliminating the current form or incorporation. A government created entity which has allows owners of a business to avoid the risk while maintaining the potential for reward. Part of that would be the elimination of all "group rights". No more special status for unions either.

    I agree with all of the above with the following. There must be strong environmental and labor standards put in place. We cannot depend on the "kindness of strangers" when it comes to our environment and wages. The fallacy of free markets and the myth of unrestrained capitalism proves this. Also, there must be some protection from corporations getting "too big to fail". Clearly in these past 30 years there has been an abject failure of government to enforce anti-trust laws.

    So, to sum up. Removing government from business is a great idea as long as government remains involved.

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    De-coupling the employers from Health care reimbursement is purely and simply single payer health care. No other way of getting around it assuming universal coverage is required.

    Wrong. Single payer would be one way of doing it, and in my opinion the wrong way. Instead of people being reliant on businesses for their healthcare, they'd be reliant on a government. We could debate until we're blue in the face as to which is the lesser evil.

    I advocate more of a consumer-driven approach, with patients in charge of their coverage and the first chunk of their healthcare expenditures. For those who cannot afford, you provide vouchers that are in many cases equal to the entire cost of obtaining a health policy, which becomes de facto universal care.

    We share the goal. We disagree on the methodology.

  • Kerosene Hat
    November 8, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    I would only to ask you to consider how much we have actually seen of free markets and how often what is considered a free market has fact been government supported oligarchies. Corporations being the prime example of these structures. My feeling is that without artificial government support it is nearly impossible for a business to get to big to fail. The banking system is a completely a government construction and GM and Chrysler only developed as they did due to direct and indirect government subsidies.

    I am a strong personal advocate for many environmental causes including local and sustainable food. I also ride my 20 year old Schwinn to work for a god chuck of the year and appreciate environmental issues. I also believe there should be a social/economic safety net. At another time and in another thread maybe my views on these will be more appropriate to bring up.

  • Richard674
    November 8, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    And here I thought you were capable of rational thought. Would your methodology require strict price controls on insurance policies? Would it require covering people with pre-existing conditions? Would there be no caps on coverage, either for a single illness or over the lifetime of the customer? Would there be a break up of the largest health care providers smaller units that would truely compete with each other? I'm curious how you envision a health care system that would work and provide coverage for all?

  • DantheMan
    November 8, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    No, yes, undetermined, no. See the Zeke Emmanuel plan for the details, rather than me rewriting. I agree with about 85% of his brilliant plan. Dr. Emanuel's plan is far superior to that of his brother, Rahm's.

  • Kathy
    November 9, 2009 at 12:09 am

    For the "progressive left", truth is whatever serves the cause.

  • Richard674
    November 9, 2009 at 12:19 am

    If you're talking about "Free Markets" as Libertarians define free markets then it's a complete fiction. Libertarians are as guilty as communists and unrestrained capitalists in saying, "If only the world would play to our rules…"

    Trouble is, the world, and all things in it, are shades of gray. And therein lies the rub.

  • Richard674
    November 9, 2009 at 12:37 am

    How is that germane to the topic? What facts do you bring to the table? Other then annoyingly smarmy snark, do you have anything of substance to offer? I am absolutely sincere in this request, "Convince me."

  • Kathy
    November 9, 2009 at 3:21 am

    Our topic, Richard, is an exchange regarding your all-encompassing hatred of conservatives as delineated in great detail in several comments attached to this post and, in fact, in all of your contributions at this site.

    This emotion seems to consume you and has caused you to create delusional "truths" that you then repetitively preach with much hyperbole and name-calling in hopes of eradicating evil conservatives from the political landscape. Many of your truths have little connection to reality but you believe them because they suit your purposes.

  • Kerosene Hat
    November 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    I completely agree that the state "free markets" come in shades of gray. But if the term is to be used with meaning it has to have some definition that is commonly understood. That is equally true if it is going to be used as the villain as it is for those who think of it as the hero.

    The idea that any individual holds is to a degree fiction. I hold the beliefs I do becasue they are to the best of my knowledge correct, I assume you would same the same thing. Expressing and promoting those ideas can always be viewed as wanting the world to play by those rules. The disaster that is our current system, the one developed by both Democratic and Republicans, is often excused with a claim that "it would have worked if not for…". Having my tax dollars not go to fund war often seems like an impossible dream but that does not make war the correct or moral path.

    We need to reach for true radical reform at this point, not continual deck chair rearrangement being worked on by Democrats and Republicans. My guess is Richard that despite our differences you and I could agree on a vast majority of those reforms.

  • Richard674
    November 9, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Many of your truths have little connection to reality but you believe them because they suit your purposes.

    Wow, if this is how you convince people, my guess is you aren't involved in any kind of a sales function. Can you be a little more specific about which truths I have, that have no connection to reality? Let's start with the topic at hand, Health Care Reform. What have I proposed, and how it that wrong? Where is my error?

  • Richard674
    November 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    If the first answer is No and the second answer is Yes, then what is to prevent the Insurance Industry to simply raise prices to the point where their obscene profits are still intact. You don't know about caps for coverage but the last answer disturbs me the most. Breaking up the giants in the insurance industry is absolutely necessary for any kind of competition to take root. Otherwise what you're describing is the current situation.

  • Kerosene Hat
    November 9, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Could you define "obscene profit" as you understand it applying to health care. Thanks.

Leave a Reply