On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> -- > Andrew
Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. Indefensible, really.
On Nov 8, 5:14 am, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
This was in fact the date of Lenin's coup d'état. Lenin was a Bolshevik, a memeber of a group that believed in the "leading role of the party" rather than democratic socialism where every voter had equal influence.
The Communist Party always liked to claim that they were socialists, but in fact they saw real socialists as their most dangerous enemy and underminded them at every opportunity.
Around 1870 Bakunin had already criticized "authoritarian socialism" (which he associated with Marxism) and the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat which he adamantly refused.
“ If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself. ”
which turns out to have been a remarkably prophetic comment.
> On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> > -- > > Andrew
> Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. > Indefensible, really.
So you need to reform your electoral system to make your elected represenetative less susceptible to influence from the well-heeled, such as the insurance companies who are making a great deal of money out of providing a less than comprehensive health care sytem that offers health care no better than that provided by the fully comprehensive French and German systems for around 2/3rds of the price per head.
> On Nov 8, 1:44 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> > > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> > > -- > > > Andrew
> > Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful > > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and > > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it > > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the > > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. > > Indefensible, really.
> So you need to reform your electoral system to make your elected > represenetative less susceptible to influence from the well-heeled, > such as the insurance companies who are making a great deal of money > out of providing a less than comprehensive health care sytem that > offers health care no better than that provided by the fully > comprehensive French and German systems for around 2/3rds of the price > per head.
> -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
It's a travesty on several fronts: a) the process: a massive bill, concocted in secrecy, and passed without review or debate. b) the cost: defies imagination, at a time we can ill-afford it. c) care: is not improved, just diluted--taken from Medicare and spread more thinly over more recipients. d) the merits: the mechanics, the implementation, the intrusiveness tentacles protruding into so many aspects of society; the complexity, and so forth. e) the mandates--compellng citizens to buy a product they may not want, by force of law, enacted by representatives who could not possibly have read it (1,990 page version released late Oct. 29th, with hundreds of pages of amendments since, many appended on voting day).
I chanced upon this surprising piece of sanity w.r.t. the process at the PuffHo site:
Conservatives have expressed outrage for months about the way the health care bill was handled. Their anti-government anger is misplaced because the lets the insurances and drug companies who really helped drive this bill off the hook. But I understand their sense that this bill was passed despite the people.
Progressives should be every bit as upset that President Obama lied to us to get his historic health bill. The citizens of this country did not have a seat at the table. Proponents of the Single Payer didn't have a seat at the table. Under the guise of health care reform, we watched as the insurance industry got a bill passed that entrenches and enriches them.
Don't let anyone fool you that this bill is a good start. It's got a poison pill "Public Option" that is designed to fail. ===========
> On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> > -- > > Andrew
> Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. > Indefensible, really.
> On Nov 8, 9:55 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 1:44 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> > > > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > > > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> > > > -- > > > > Andrew
> > > Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful > > > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and > > > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it > > > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the > > > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. > > > Indefensible, really.
> > So you need to reform your electoral system to make your elected > > represenetative less susceptible to influence from the well-heeled, > > such as the insurance companies who are making a great deal of money > > out of providing a less than comprehensive health care sytem that > > offers health care no better than that provided by the fully > > comprehensive French and German systems for around 2/3rds of the price > > per head.
> > -- > > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> It's a travesty on several fronts: > a) the process: a massive bill, concocted in secrecy, and passed > without review or debate. > b) the cost: defies imagination, at a time we can ill-afford it. > c) care: is not improved, just diluted--taken from Medicare and > spread more thinly over more recipients. > d) the merits: the mechanics, the implementation, the intrusiveness > tentacles protruding into so many aspects of society; the complexity, > and so forth. > e) the mandates--compellng citizens to buy a product they may not > want, by force of law, enacted by representatives who could not > possibly have read it (1,990 page version released late Oct. 29th, > with hundreds of pages of amendments since, many appended on voting > day).
> I chanced upon this surprising piece of sanity w.r.t. the process at > the PuffHo site:
> Conservatives have expressed outrage for months about the way the > health care bill was handled. Their anti-government anger is misplaced > because the lets the insurances and drug companies who really helped > drive this bill off the hook. But I understand their sense that this > bill was passed despite the people.
> Progressives should be every bit as upset that President Obama lied to > us to get his historic health bill. The citizens of this country did > not have a seat at the table. Proponents of the Single Payer didn't > have a seat at the table. Under the guise of health care reform, we > watched as the insurance industry got a bill passed that entrenches > and enriches them.
> Don't let anyone fool you that this bill is a good start. It's got a > poison pill "Public Option" that is designed to fail. > ===========
> -- > Cheers, > James Arthur- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
James did you really vote for Obama? I voted for him, but I thought you leaned the other way.
> On Nov 8, 9:55 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 1:44 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> > > > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > > > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> > > > -- > > > > Andrew
> > > Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful > > > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and > > > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it > > > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the > > > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. > > > Indefensible, really.
> > So you need to reform your electoral system to make your elected > > represenetative less susceptible to influence from the well-heeled, > > such as the insurance companies who are making a great deal of money > > out of providing a less than comprehensive health care sytem that > > offers health care no better than that provided by the fully > > comprehensive French and German systems for around 2/3rds of the price > > per head.
> > -- > > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> It's a travesty on several fronts: > a) the process: a massive bill, concocted in secrecy, and passed > without review or debate. > b) the cost: defies imagination, at a time we can ill-afford it. > c) care: is not improved, just diluted--taken from Medicare and > spread more thinly over more recipients. > d) the merits: the mechanics, the implementation, the intrusiveness > tentacles protruding into so many aspects of society; the complexity, > and so forth. > e) the mandates--compellng citizens to buy a product they may not > want, by force of law, enacted by representatives who could not > possibly have read it (1,990 page version released late Oct. 29th, > with hundreds of pages of amendments since, many appended on voting > day).
> I chanced upon this surprising piece of sanity w.r.t. the process at > the PuffHo site:
> Conservatives have expressed outrage for months about the way the > health care bill was handled. Their anti-government anger is misplaced > because the lets the insurances and drug companies who really helped > drive this bill off the hook. But I understand their sense that this > bill was passed despite the people.
> Progressives should be every bit as upset that President Obama lied to > us to get his historic health bill. The citizens of this country did > not have a seat at the table. Proponents of the Single Payer didn't > have a seat at the table. Under the guise of health care reform, we > watched as the insurance industry got a bill passed that entrenches > and enriches them.
> Don't let anyone fool you that this bill is a good start. It's got a > poison pill "Public Option" that is designed to fail. > ===========
> -- > Cheers, > James Arthur- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
James did you really vote for Obama? I voted for him, but I thought you leaned the other way.
> On Nov 8, 2:03 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 9:55 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 1:44 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> > > > > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > > > > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> > > > > -- > > > > > Andrew
> > > > Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful > > > > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and > > > > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it > > > > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the > > > > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. > > > > Indefensible, really.
> > > So you need to reform your electoral system to make your elected > > > represenetative less susceptible to influence from the well-heeled, > > > such as the insurance companies who are making a great deal of money > > > out of providing a less than comprehensive health care sytem that > > > offers health care no better than that provided by the fully > > > comprehensive French and German systems for around 2/3rds of the price > > > per head.
> > > -- > > > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> > It's a travesty on several fronts: > > a) the process: a massive bill, concocted in secrecy, and passed > > without review or debate. > > b) the cost: defies imagination, at a time we can ill-afford it. > > c) care: is not improved, just diluted--taken from Medicare and > > spread more thinly over more recipients. > > d) the merits: the mechanics, the implementation, the intrusiveness > > tentacles protruding into so many aspects of society; the complexity, > > and so forth. > > e) the mandates--compelling citizens to buy a product they may not > > want, by force of law, enacted by representatives who could not > > possibly have read it (1,990 page version released late Oct. 29th, > > with hundreds of pages of amendments since, many appended on voting > > day).
> > I chanced upon this surprising piece of sanity w.r.t. the process at > > the PuffHo site:
> > Conservatives have expressed outrage for months about the way the > > health care bill was handled. Their anti-government anger is misplaced > > because the lets the insurances and drug companies who really helped > > drive this bill off the hook. But I understand their sense that this > > bill was passed despite the people.
> > Progressives should be every bit as upset that President Obama lied to > > us to get his historic health bill. The citizens of this country did > > not have a seat at the table. Proponents of the Single Payer didn't > > have a seat at the table. Under the guise of health care reform, we > > watched as the insurance industry got a bill passed that entrenches > > and enriches them.
> > Don't let anyone fool you that this bill is a good start. It's got a > > poison pill "Public Option" that is designed to fail. > > ===========
> > -- > > Cheers, > > James Arthur
> James did you really vote for Obama? I voted for him, but I thought > you leaned the other way.
No, that quote was from the Huffington Post writer, who shares some of my concerns and disappointments in the development of HR3962.
I did not vote for Mr. Obama. I disagreed with him on policy. I admit I was tempted to give him my vote for the same reasons this writer did--the promised openness & inclusiveness, for which I'd give big credit--but I was very uneasy at the ease with which those promises were made. For me, openness and inclusiveness overcomes a lot, but I didn't believe him. So I went 3rd party.
> On Nov 8, 4:44 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> > > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> > > -- > > > Andrew
> > Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful > > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and > > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it > > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the > > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. > > Indefensible, really.
> What do they care? They have arguably the very best health care > possible on Earth, paid for my thee and me.
> Mark L. Fergerson
I can't speak for them all, but I daresay many in favor were moved by a sincere concern & sense of urgency over what they perceived to be a genuine problem. A problem they have no personal knowledge or experience of, yet have been deluged in a giant litany of testimonials to.
So, being human, they respond.
But, I know for a fact that many were grossly misinformed. Like the President and the amputations.
The blue dog I pressed had clearly not read this bill--he insisted H.R. 3962 permitted states to pass their own malpractice reforms. I told him "yes, they can, but they'll lose their federal funds." He said I was wrong. So I left him a highlighted copy of Sec. 2531 (pages 1431-1432). I was not wrong--see subparagraph (4)(B) on page 1432. It's not complicated, it's plainly there for all to see. Buried deep in the bill, under a deceptive subtitle.
In fact I spoke to about twenty people--including legislative analysts whose _job_ it is to inform the members on these matters--and _none_ of them knew of this issue, that the bill effectively proscribes malpractice reform. And that's a big deal--a potential savings of not less than 1/3rd of total spending, AFAICT, sacrificed as a special favor to a donor, the Trial Lawyers Assn.
The truth is it all happened so quickly none of them had a chance to read it. There wasn't time.
The Blue Dogs have a position paper on their notion of health care reform posted on their website. It's _infinitely_ better than Pelsoi- care. But it got no consideration. Such a shame.
<alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 8, 4:44 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
>> > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist >> > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
>> > -- >> > Andrew
>> Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful >> implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and >> understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it >> in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the >> moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. >> Indefensible, really.
> What do they care? They have arguably the very best health care >possible on Earth, paid for my thee and me.
> Mark L. Fergerson
I would amend section 330 and make it mandatory for not only congress but all their full time staff to enroll in the basic level and pay for anything else themselves. If you want to know what that currently says do some reading.
>On Nov 8, 4:25 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 8, 4:44 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, "Andrew" <andyv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > House just passed the bill. 220:215.
>> > > Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist >> > > Revolution in Russia in 1917.
>> > > -- >> > > Andrew
>> > Whatever one's view on socialized medicine, it's a dreadful >> > implementation. It's not possible for a person who read and >> > understood this bill's measures and ramifications to have voted for it >> > in good conscience. It's one thing to argue we need a rocket to the >> > moon, and another to build it from baling wire and toothpicks. >> > Indefensible, really.
>> What do they care? They have arguably the very best health care >> possible on Earth, paid for my thee and me.
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>I can't speak for them all, but I daresay many in favor were moved by >a sincere concern & sense of urgency over what they perceived to be a >genuine problem. A problem they have no personal knowledge or >experience of, yet have been deluged in a giant litany of testimonials >to.
>So, being human, they respond.
>But, I know for a fact that many were grossly misinformed. Like the >President and the amputations.
>The blue dog I pressed had clearly not read this bill--he insisted H.R. >3962 permitted states to pass their own malpractice reforms. I told >him "yes, they can, but they'll lose their federal funds." He said I >was wrong. So I left him a highlighted copy of Sec. 2531 (pages >1431-1432). I was not wrong--see subparagraph (4)(B) on page 1432. >It's not complicated, it's plainly there for all to see. Buried deep >in the bill, under a deceptive subtitle.
>In fact I spoke to about twenty people--including legislative analysts >whose _job_ it is to inform the members on these matters--and _none_ >of them knew of this issue, that the bill effectively proscribes >malpractice reform. And that's a big deal--a potential savings of not >less than 1/3rd of total spending, AFAICT, sacrificed as a special >favor to a donor, the Trial Lawyers Assn.
>The truth is it all happened so quickly none of them had a chance to >read it. There wasn't time.
>The Blue Dogs have a position paper on their notion of health care >reform posted on their website. It's _infinitely_ better than Pelsoi- >care. But it got no consideration. Such a shame.
Yep, they learned from the flaps over HR3200 to bury that kind of stuff much later in the text. The first 100 pages or more of HR3962 are mind numbing minutia of harmonizing it with existing statute.
On Nov 13, 10:23 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:11:51 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Andrew wrote: > >> House just passed the bill. 220:215.
> >> Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist > >> Revolution in Russia in 1917.
> >Wouldn't it just have been easier to provide govt healthcare insurance > >for the lowest earners based on federal taxation?
> That is just part of what is being proposed. Have you even been > paying attention?
Have you? We already do that--Medicaid. Medicare, if you're older.
What's being proposed is to expand M&M--the thing that Barack Obama said is breaking our budget--4x, to cover everyone, basically. You know, quadruple it, thus saving money. Funding? Takes from Medicare, plus a few taxes, plus a big chunk 'o deficit.
You can keep your existing plan, as long as the government approves it first and you never change any of its terms or conditions. Ever. (They call that feature "SEC. 202.(a)(2) PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE," pg. 91 line 23-24.)
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:17:43 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com > wrote: > >The blue dog I pressed had clearly not read this bill--he insisted H.R. > >3962 permitted states to pass their own malpractice reforms. I told > >him "yes, they can, but they'll lose their federal funds." He said I > >was wrong. So I left him a highlighted copy of Sec. 2531 (pages > >1431-1432). I was not wrong--see subparagraph (4)(B) on page 1432. > >It's not complicated, it's plainly there for all to see. Buried deep > >in the bill, under a deceptive subtitle.
> >In fact I spoke to about twenty people--including legislative analysts > >whose _job_ it is to inform the members on these matters--and _none_ > >of them knew of this issue, that the bill effectively proscribes > >malpractice reform. And that's a big deal--a potential savings of not > >less than 1/3rd of total spending, AFAICT, sacrificed as a special > >favor to a donor, the Trial Lawyers Assn.
> >The truth is it all happened so quickly none of them had a chance to > >read it. There wasn't time.
> >The Blue Dogs have a position paper on their notion of health care > >reform posted on their website. It's _infinitely_ better than Pelsoi- > >care. But it got no consideration. Such a shame.
> Yep, they learned from the flaps over HR3200 to bury that kind of > stuff much later in the text. The first 100 pages or more of HR3962 > are mind numbing minutia of harmonizing it with existing statute.
I've read through pg 170 solid, and lots of interesting bits selected by topic. I'm making a highlighted, bookmarked .PDF.
It's all dreadful, really. Everywhere you go. It reads like a catalog of handouts to special interests, memorialized in bureaucracy. Like a proto with all the chips in backwards, haywired to make it work, but no bypass caps.
>On Nov 13, 10:23 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:11:51 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>> <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Andrew wrote: >> >> House just passed the bill. 220:215.
>> >> Symbolically it happened on November 7th, the day of the Great Socialist >> >> Revolution in Russia in 1917.
>> >Wouldn't it just have been easier to provide govt healthcare insurance >> >for the lowest earners based on federal taxation?
>> That is just part of what is being proposed. Have you even been >> paying attention?
>Have you? We already do that--Medicaid. Medicare, if you're older.
>What's being proposed is to expand M&M--the thing that Barack Obama >said is breaking our budget--4x, to cover everyone, basically. You >know, quadruple it, thus saving money. Funding? Takes from Medicare, >plus a few taxes, plus a big chunk 'o deficit.
>You can keep your existing plan, as long as the government approves it >first and you never change any of its terms or conditions. Ever. >(They call that feature "SEC. 202.(a)(2) PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP >CURRENT COVERAGE," pg. 91 line 23-24.)
I am paying enough attention to have a copy readily available. And what you say is really there. Some of the other things i have read scare me nearly as bad. Is what i said is there not actually there?
I say the that there are many more poison pills hidden elsewhere in the text of this massive bill.
|
