Lieberman targeted on healthcare stance

Politicians. Gotta love ’em. In an election year they say whatever it takes, and then once they’re re-elected, fuggedaboutdit.

Senator Joe Lieberman, Example A.

Here’s Joe in a primary debate with Ned Lamont three years ago on July 7th, 2006

what I’m saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance.

Fast forward to 2009 and Senator Lieberman has not only come out against a public option, but he and a group of other Senators led by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) are joining the stall brigade.

Read the letter here.

What was that you said again, Joe?

I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance

Yeah, right.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has Lieberman in its sights. He’s one of eight senators that are subject of a voting campaign this weekend to see where the campaign will next focus its pro public option TV ads.

The Tea Party crowd might find that the “public outrage” isn’t on their side. A majority of Americans support the public option.

Advertisements

54 responses to “Lieberman targeted on healthcare stance

  1. Your polling evidence is laughable!

    The Rasmussen poll asked the question the best way and only 41% of the people agreed with it. That’s not a “majority” by any means.

    Remember 1994? I’ll bet you don’t sara.

  2. The “Progressive Change Campaign Committee” can put ole Joe in “their sights” all they want but it won’t matter. Sure, they and the other extreme leftists may be able to deny him the Democratic nomination once again but if he runs as a petitioning candidate, he’ll win again!

  3. Hank Morgan

    Sarmerica = Gabe alter ego?

  4. Bruce Rubenstein

    Joe is a complete hypocrite and a liar….nor do I believe that he is a Democrat.

  5. Joe is a complete hypocrite and a liar….nor do I believe that he is a Democrat.

    The liar and hypocrite part is your call but according to Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, Joe Lieberman is definately a Democrat!

  6. The Rasmussen poll asked the question the best way and only 41% of the people agreed with it. That’s not a “majority” by any means.

    And why is that the best way to ask it, Brenda? Because it gives you the result you agree with?

    Remember 1994? I’ll bet you don’t sara.

    Actually, I do. Here’s a few choice quotes about Joe trying to block healthcare reform back then (h/t to tparty at MLN)

    “Health Reform Needs Resuscitation,” Editorial, Hartford Courant, Jun 18, 1994

    Pinning down Connecticut’s Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman on health care is like trying to hold quicksilver in your hands.

    Mr. Lieberman has said he is not fully behind President Clinton’s proposal or Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell’s alternative or any of the bills that have come from various Senate committees. He’s said little about what he is for….

    Mr. Lieberman acknowledges that he has studied the health care issue for months if not years and has had briefings from all sides. By now, he should have a clear position.

    “‘New Democrats’ Say Clinton Has Veered Left and Left Them,” By Michael Kelly, New York Times, Sunday, May 23, 1993

    After months of posturing, Congress is trying to come to grips with health care reform. But with only about two weeks left before the July 4 recess, the Clinton administration and supporters of universal health care in Congress must move quickly. Although the search for consensus is going badly, it must not fail….

    Conservative Democrats, such as Connecticut’s Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, are becoming equivocating artists. Mr. Lieberman is not being helpful to the case of health care by saying reform may not pass this fall.

    Good old Joe. Almost a decade later, you can still count on him to try and put the kibosh on health care reform.

    Remember 1994? I’ll bet you don’t sara.

    Remember 1994? I’ll bet you don’t sara.

  7. Sarmerica = Gabe alter ego?

    Not unless Gabe has had a sex change operation and decided to start writing YA novels.

  8. All,

    Folks, your poll data is already out-of-date.

    This is from the June 2009 NBC/Wall Street Journal Survey:

    34a. In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance––extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

    Extremely important ……………………… 41
    Quite important …………………………….. 35
    Not that important…………………………. 12
    Not at all important ……………………….. 8
    Not sure …………………………………….. 4

    So 76% of the American public believe that a public option is Quite or Extremely important.

    More than three-quarters.

    Doesn’t leave much room for debate: Americans want a quality, affordable public plan that they KNOW will be there for them — if, say, Anthem suddenly decides to raise their premiums by 32%.

    it’s at http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090617.pdf

  9. Boil the fat out of the letter and here is what it says: 1) any health care reform should be bipartisan; 2) any health care reform should not adversely affect those who presently have insurance.

    Which one of these propositions do you disagree with Sarah?

    If a poll were to be taken on both questions, how may respondents do you thing would say: 1) health care reform should be partisan; 2) health care reform should adversely affect those presently enrolled in insurance programs?

  10. sarah you must be too young to remember so you probably need to be reminded about US history.

    In 1993 & 1994 the Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate and the White House. They tried to pass universal health care and the country soundly rejected it by giving the Republicans control of Congress in the 1994 election for the first time since the 1950s and the US Senate since the 1980s.

    You don’t remember, (or don’t want to remember) do you?

    Sure, let the Democrats continue to push this crap on the country and they’ll be bounced out of office so fast, it will make your little head spin. If your sacred public health care policy is indeed passed and fails miserably (which it will) then Himes, Courtney and Murphy are history and who knows, there’s even an outside chance that Larson and DeLauro will have a tough time as well.

    Voters don’t generally vote FOR politicians, they vote AGAINST them, just look Sam Gedjenson in 2000 and Lowell Weicker in 1988.

    Whatever happened to Gray Davis in California sarah, do you remember him?

  11. Obama plans to ram the legislation through the congress by giving up the attempt to win sixty votes in the senate. Instead, he will use a measure designed only for budget bills, the budget reconciliation procedure, to drive it through with only fifty votes.

    The plan, which very few have read, will force employers with payrolls of $250,000m per year – pretty much everybody – either to offer insurance to their employees or pay a tax amounting to 8 percent of their payrolls.

    It will reduce by 5 percent medical fees to the Medicare Schedule Plus. There are plenty of people who think this will derive doctors out of business and lead to rationing of medical care.

    The bill will raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year through a surcharge; $350,000 for couples.

    And it will set up a government owned heath care plan that will do for health care in the United States what Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, two government sponsored entities, did for housing. The public plan, receiving a subsidy, will soon drive private plans from the market, leaving us with a single payer Canadian style system.

    Shouldn’t we take a few breaths before we rush into this mare’s nest?

  12. And speaking of polls, a July 13 CBS news poll places President Barack Obama’s approval rating at a new low, 57 percent, down 11 points from April. Half of Americans think the recession will last another two tears or more. A majority, 52 percent, think he is “trying to accomplish too much.” And 57 percent thing the country is “on the wrong track.

    Economic activity is flaccid; the cap and trade bill is on its death bed in the US Senate, and the stimulus has not stimulated. Unemployment is up.

    How bout them numbers?

  13. Reason magazine generally is not a pit of neo-con vipers. Here is a report by two writers for the magazine that appeared in a recent Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071702093.html
    :

    “According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than 80 percent are concerned that health-care reform will increase costs or diminish the quality of care. Even as two House committees passed a reform bill last week, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned that the proposal “significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs” and dramatically raises the cost ‘curve.’ This sort of voter and expert feedback can’t be comforting to the president.”

  14. Don, Brenda, and your fellow travellers,

    Your mutual parroting of insurance industry talking points is, well, embarrassing. If you aren’t getting a nice salary or hefty consulting fees from AHIP, well, you’re a missing a tremendous personal financial opportunity. I say – go for it!

    First, you seem to have slid right over the most recent – and VERY clear – poll results I cited as if they didn’t exist. I know, I know – never weigh down a good argument with pesky, contrary reality.

    People want a strong, effective public plan.

    They see their premiums rising eight times faster than their salaries; they hear CIGNA’s ex-VP warn them not to trust the industry, their flacks or the politicians who front for them; they know how much the insurance industry has paid (donated to, bought – choose your descriptive) their Senators and Representatives to use every stall tactic, every fear tactic in the book to make sure industry profits are never threatened.

    And they’ve had it.

    We all know what “bi-partisan” means here. It means AHIP has veto power over any legislation. It means no meaningful, effective reforms. It’s a weasel term for killing reform (and, by the way, killing 22,000 Americans/year along the way).

    You seriously think that the 47 million Americans with no insurance, the millions more who are underinsured, and the millions more yet who are a lay-off away from losing their coverage, CARE whether reform is partisan, bipartisan, tripartisan or iPartysan – if it lets them stay healthy and financially solvent?

    And who on Planet Earth is talking about reforms that will adversely affect those who presently have insurance? Indeed, mo such reforms are needed – our status quo free-market is adversely affecting those people every day: raising their premiums, deductibles and co-pays; slicing and slicing and dicing their benefits; denying their claims with gusto and glee; using their pre-existing conditions as profitable excuses to deny them any coverage at all.

    Here’s the crux of the matter (as you likely know) – the more limited the reforms, the more any new public plan must remain tethered to the overhead-bloated for-profit health industry, then the more it will cost and the less likely it is to succeed.

    That’s the “we must-be-bipartisan” ploy – Hammer, hammer, hammer at anything that looks like it might WORK (i.e. help people but threaten industry profits). Look for the weakest points, make-up weakest points, misread the polls, convince the public at every turn that what LOOKS like it’s GOOD for them is really, truly, trust-us-we-care in fact horrible for them (“You’ll never see your doctor again. E-V-E-R.” “Lines will be so long that you’ll have to start waiting in Newark for a clinic in Sacramento.” “You’ll need to become a British citizen.” “All your referrals will have to be personally approved by Joe Biden.”

    It’s almost too horribly funny to believe.

    Luckily, most people don’t.

  15. It’s almost too horribly funny to believe.

    Luckily, most people don’t.

    Because they’re not Canadians — yet. Wonderful that you think we ought to re-invent the health care wheel without a sufficient debate, or that a bill that would fundamentally change the way health care is distributed in the US should be drummed through the most efficient democratic deliberative body in the world without a sufficient debate. And you talk about scare tactics — the fright is all on your side. Your party owns the hobgobblins. Why must this happen tomorrow? What calamity portends if we discuss the issue?

  16. Let’s see, Don. I believe the debate on national health care was first started by FDR. Nixon kept it going. We all remember the Clinton health care reform efforts. And all the different ways we can fix the health care system was probably the single most-discussed topic during the recent 2-year-long presidential race.

    Why must this happen tomorrow? I agree – tomorrow is the wrong time. For the thousands (or more?) of Americans who have died too soon without health insurance; for the millions who lived (and live now) with pain and disease and deformity but did not have to; for all the children who have never seen a dentist — tomorrow is about fifty years too late.

    In Connecticut our uninsured children would fill one thousand school buses. If all you feel like doing is talking, then grab a megaphone and talk to them.

    The rest of us have work to do.

  17. This is a debate about a specific bill, not a general debate about health care. My advice to you is to cultivate a friendship with a few Canadians.

  18. Actually Don, this article started with sara shooting her mouth off about how Lieberman is “targeted” by the extreme lefties AGAIN. They just can’t get it through their thick heads that while they can deny Joe the Democratic nomination, they can’t deny him election to the US Senate, no matter how much they whine and foam at the mouth.

  19. Sorry – I’ll guess I’ll just leave you two to your endless self-involved distractions.

    For now….

  20. Sorry – I’ll guess I’ll just leave you two to your endless self-involved distractions.

    Good! You’re previous post (#14) was so ridiculously long, I highly doubt anyone read it anyway.

    Back to the original topic jimmy d (and away from YOUR “self-involved distraction”), do you agree with sara that if Joe Lieberman continues to oppose the “public option” he will lose support here in Connecticut and not be reelected to the US Senate in 2012 if he chooses to run again?

  21. Brenda,

    PS. You ARE a sweetie!

  22. PS. You ARE a sweetie!

    Hugs and kisses to you jimmy d, xoxoxoxo

    Here’s my photo, click the link and tell me you love me:

  23. Here’s my photo, click the link and tell me you love me:

    Interesting that the same photo shows up here:
    http://www.acorn-online.com/news/uploads/2/wf-LWV-Belaga250w.jpg

  24. Interesting that the same photo shows up here:
    http://www.acorn-online.com/news/uploads/2/wf-LWV-Belaga250w.jpg

    Doug, you’ve been stalking me for years, you still sore about that primary in ’86?

    Let it go Doug, let it go……

  25. Let it go Doug, let it go……

    In seven generations……and then only “maybe”.

    For the record – I’ve never “stalked” anyone.

  26. Think “Big Tent” Doug.

    There’s PLENTY of room for the both of us, let’s not dwell on ancient history. I hear the Gov needs a new DEP Commissioner. I’ll be making my comeback any day now, I can’t wait!!

    See you at the next State Central meeting on the 28th. Introduce me to some of the newer members will ya? I always knew I could count on you!

  27. James,

    Glad you got all that out of your system. The chief point ought to be this: The US Congress is prepared to pass into law a bill on health care. A bill is a series of specific propositions, orders, readjustments, that have the force of law. Republicans – and apparently Joe Lieberman – want a public vetting of everything in the bill before it becomes law. You don’t. President Barack Obama doesn’t. Why not?

    Second point: It is your party, the Democratic Party, that is now seeking to force this bill through the Congress without a reasoned debate on its many propositions. Why? What pig in this poke do you believe will be exposed by a reasoned debate in the congress? You cannot answer that question.

    You, James, cannot answer that question. And I know why – you have not read the bill, thousands of pages long.

    You are not alone. Very few people in congress have read this legislation.

    So, you haven’t read the bill; you do not want a reasoned public debate on its measures before the bill is passed.

    Why?

    I’ll wait for your answer. And don’t give me any BS about the “urgency” of the matter.

    You and your party have been throwing around that word like a hand grenade on most of the measures presented over the last 100 days to the congress.

  28. According to this story in Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25112.html
    , the bill seems to be less “urgent” after the Lieberman letter than before.

  29. Don,

    “Republicans – and apparently Joe Lieberman – want a public vetting of everything in the bill before it becomes law.”

    OK, OK, I’ve stopped laughing. You are a lot funnier than you look, friend. That’s Seinfeld-quality yucks.

    Republicans – and apparently Joe Lieberman – are no more interested in the content of this bill than they are in the health and welfare of non-wealthy Americans. They’d be perfectly happy reading aloud the phone books of every major city in America on the House and Senate floors – if it helped them kill any meaningful health care reform for another 20 years or so.

    I hear “30 Rock” is looking for new joke writers. Don – I’d give Jack Donaghy over at NBC a call. No – seriously!

    Oh – and now, on live nationwide television, I will reveal the “pig-in-the-poke” of this bill that I have been sworn by the Nights of Masonic and Ceramic Temples to keep forever secret.

    On page 612: footnote 12e:

    “See footnote 12d”

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  30. No answer from you yet, James. But it probably won’t matter because in a few days orders will come down from on high abandoning Obama’s August deadline for passage of the bill, at which point we’ll see what’s in it. One of the more amusing parts is a provision that forces old geezers to consult with counselors who may provide the old and feeble with termination advice – very funny.

  31. One of the more amusing parts is a provision that forces old geezers to consult with counselors who may provide the old and feeble with termination advice – very funny.

    Kidding there, but I’ll bet it sent you racing to the bill: http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/kennedy-draft.pdf

  32. Here’s the New Atlantis’ diagnosis of the bill: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis

  33. What was that you said again, Joe?

    Sara, Lieberman’s comments are completely consistent, and easily reconcilable. I can’t speak for the Senator, but have you considered that he might think that the “public option” is NOT the best way to achieve universal health care coverage?

    Doesn’t leave much room for debate: Americans want a quality, affordable public plan that they KNOW will be there for them — if, say, Anthem suddenly decides to raise their premiums by 32%.

    James, why did Anthem raise its premiums by 32%? Insurance companies aren’t stupid. They’re aware of the public’s sentiments regarding health care costs, and they exist in a highly competitive environment, so for them to have increased premiums in times like these can only mean that they are encountering increased costs. Even if the government was to become as efficient as Anthem (and that’s theoretically impossible) in providing health care, who’s to say that the government wouldn’t encounter increased costs in the future — and what will it do then? More simply, assuming the “public option” passes, what do we do when its costs increase?

  34. More simply, assuming the “public option” passes, what do we do when its costs increase?

    TAX THE RICH!

    “They don’t need all that money anyway.” This is a quote from a liberal State Representative who said that to me directly before she became a State Rep. Now that she’s in office, I’m sure she hides her real views completely now.

  35. James, why did Anthem raise its premiums by 32%? Insurance companies aren’t stupid. They’re aware of the public’s sentiments regarding health care costs, and they exist in a highly competitive environment, so for them to have increased premiums in times like these can only mean that they are encountering increased costs.

    Or that they lost a lot of money in the stock market and are squeezing their customers to pad their bottom line.

    Even if the government was to become as efficient as Anthem (and that’s theoretically impossible) in providing health care, who’s to say that the government wouldn’t encounter increased costs in the future — and what will it do then? More simply, assuming the “public option” passes, what do we do when its costs increase?

    First, the government health insurance programs that exist now are already more efficient than any domestic private insurance company, so your ideology crashes on this point.

    Fortunately, since medical care is such a huge part of our domestic spending already, there’s a lot of good information about how to spend a dollar most effectively, and a lot of historical information about where costs will go in the future, all of which is being built into the CBO projections. And on the margins, as with any healthcare plan, doctors will accept or decline to take those covered by particular plans based on the payment rates and their personal situations, so the cost of insurance will lag the changing costs in the practice of medicine enough so adjustments can be made without a “surprise” 30%+ increase.

    But if the cost of medical care increases, here’s a quick preview of what will happen: rates will go up on everyone covered by the plan. For most of the people covered by the public plan, that will be paid mostly by an employer and partly out of pocket (the developing exchange rules all point in this direction.) For those receiving a subsidy, the government costs will increase, which will result in higher taxes somewhere in the system. Then, the politicians who raised the taxes to pay for healthcare will either be re-elected or replaced by politicians who think it’s better to have less healthcare than it is to have more taxes.

    In a democratic system, we have the ability to self-correct. The public plan is not single payer: if it fails, the old system is still hanging around, and all we’ve done is burn up a lot of oxygen on a stupid debate. If it succeeds, private insurance companies (often local monopolies) will either fall in line with the public option’s practices, shed most of their customers to become a high-end / luxury class service, or die.

    If you believed what you were saying, you’d be secure that the efficient and totally non-wasteful private insurance market would make mincemeat of a lumbering government healthcare program. But you’re flailing around as if giving people a choice to have public healthcare is the end of the world. Why?

  36. Brittanicus

    THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE?

    It is a shame that some Americans are so gullible, to the outlandish propaganda and lies spat in the newspapers, television and radio about Obama’s health care agenda. They have demonized the British, Canadian and other worthy plans. Hidden under a disguise cover, these radical entities are determined to keep the special interest organizations in absolute power. Comprising of the money-draining profitable insurance companies and their rich stockholders. They don’t want any changes to the broken system of medical care, because it will hurt the status quo. I was born in England, in the county of Sussex and until the inception of the European Union and the European Parliament dictating to Britain. That they must accept millions of foreign workers, the nations medical system was exemplary. I never had to wonder if I would have to file bankruptcy, to pay my medical bills, or listen to the incessant ring of debt collectors on the phone.

    On several occasions I ended up in the cottage hospital and their was never a cost applied to it, never a ream of paperwork. Incidentally, I choose my own doctor where I Lived. The longest I waited for surgery was three months, as it was not an emergency. No doctor, no hospital or specialist asking me for my Social Security number, drivers license or if I was covered by a predatory for-profit insurer. No premiums, no-cops and pre-existing condition clauses. Yes! Didn’t have a private room, but who cares? Today the British Isles is being submerged under a barrage of legal and illegal immigrants, who have never paid into the system, have caused some rationing. Prior to the importation of foreign labor my trips to doctor, to hospital, the eye or a dentist was paid from my taxation. Unless we pass a national health care agenda, Americans will never know what it’s like to breeze through their lives, without worrying about paying for health care? Tell your Senators and Congressman you want an alternative to the–GET RICH– insurance companies, before a Universal health care is killed. 202-224-312 REMEMBER THE INVESTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS DON’T WANT THEIR PIECE OF THE $$$TRILLION$$$ DOLLAR PIE DISTURBED. EVEN SOME POLITICIANS HAVE THEIR DIRTY FINGERS IN THE PIE?
    AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE, A GOVERNMENT SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM WILL ASSIST IN REVITALIZING THE WILTING US ECONOMY.

  37. Jack Dobb,

    “James, why did Anthem raise its premiums by 32%?”

    Hmmmmm….

    I know that I KNOW this one.

    Could it be . . .

    … Because a 26% percent increase would have bought Angela Braly only half a Gulfstream 200?

  38. More bad news James: The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=1
    , not a hotbed of conservatives, is reporting that the governors who attended the National Governors Association’s summer meeting in Biloxi, Miss. “could not have been more consistent, regardless of political party. The governors said in interviews and public sessions that the bills being drafted in Congress would not do enough to curb the growth in health spending. And they said they were convinced that a major expansion of Medicaid will leave them with heavy costs.”

  39. First, the government health insurance programs that exist now are already more efficient than any domestic private insurance company, so your ideology crashes on this point.

    You’re just wrong here. Have you ever received health care from the government? I have. “Your ideology crashes on this point.”

    But you’re flailing around as if giving people a choice to have public healthcare is the end of the world. Why?

    See above. Or see this: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBEUG0&show_article=1 or this: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

    … Because a 26% percent increase would have bought Angela Braly only half a Gulfstream 200?

    You sure love demagoguery, don’t you?

  40. “In Connecticut our uninsured children would fill one thousand school buses. If all you feel like doing is talking, then grab a megaphone and talk to them.”

    Why, because their parents choose it. Anyone can buy insurance, they would rather have the fancy cellphone, big TV, etc I see signs on exit ramps all the time selling “Affordable Insurance”. It’s out there if you want it.

    Not that I’m a Joe backer but he is right if he is trying to stop PBO’s plan because what we pay today is cheaper than PBO’s plan.

    If you want true polling data put the price tag in the question.

  41. It is a shame that some Americans are so gullible

    Boy I’ll say!

    They have demonized the British, Canadian and other worthy plans.

    No – those plans have done it to themselves.

    Their own press has taken them to task.

  42. Lieberman lived through the 93-94 health care fiasco — he has no interest in reliving that nightmare.

  43. Brittanicus, From your post:

    “Hidden under a disguise cover, these radical entities are determined to keep the special interest organizations in absolute power. Comprising of the money-draining profitable insurance companies and their rich stockholders.”

    I cannot comment on most of your post since I do not have your experience with the healthcare system you speak of. But I do have enough experience to question your statement above.

    Do you think that the majority of people who are stock holders in these “money-draining profitable insurance companies are all rich stock holders, as you seem to suggest?

    Virtually anyone, rich or other wise, who owns a 401k, or a mutual fund, or even the state workers of this state (who just a year or two ago saw some of their retirement funds invested in the stock market in hopes of closing the billions of dollars in under funding of their retirement fund) are also stock holders of these companies. I suggest that you consider that the vast majority of these stock holders are not
    “rich” they are just very average Americans. Do you think they are special interests?

    We don’t live in caves any more. When we get sick we expect that there is some sort of medication beyond some flower, or herb, we can take to help. When our cars or homes are victims of some unfortunate event we expect to have our losses mitigated by the insurance companies most of us all employ to that end.

    I sometimes wonder exactly what kind or world people wish for, who are so quick to trash our insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. and any other industries here in America that provides not only the products we could no longer live without, but also the very jobs that our economy runs on?

  44. You’re just wrong here. Have you ever received health care from the government? I have.

    So have I, Jack Dobbs. And like Brittanicus, I find it a far superior system to the one we have here, where as I self-employed person I have to worry every year if the insurance company is going to continue to cover me and my family, where they raise the premium between 18-30 percent per annum, and continue to come up with new ways not to pay for things that they are supposed to cover.

  45. Why, because their parents choose it. Anyone can buy insurance, they would rather have the fancy cellphone, big TV, etc I see signs on exit ramps all the time selling “Affordable Insurance”. It’s out there if you want it.

    Don’t believe everything you read on a bill board, mate. I searched high and low for affordable insurance. And I struggled to even GET it. And when I did get it, it costs, just for me, a single mom and my two teenage kids, over $2,000 A MONTH. Call that affordable? Well, you must make a heck of a lot more than I do.

  46. So have I, Jack Dobbs. And like Brittanicus, I find it a far superior system to the one we have here, where as I self-employed person I have to worry every year if the insurance company is going to continue to cover me and my family, where they raise the premium between 18-30 percent per annum, and continue to come up with new ways not to pay for things that they are supposed to cover.

    We can agree to disagree, but I’ve received health care from the United States Government for about half my life and I’ll never go back. The difference between private and government health care is worth the cost, and then some, to me — and it’s not even close.

  47. We can agree to disagree, but I’ve received health care from the United States Government for about half my life and I’ll never go back. The difference between private and government health care is worth the cost, and then some, to me — and it’s not even close.

    The thing is, in the UK, everyone who could afford it always had the option to have private health insurance in addition to their NHS coverage, which enabled them to choose which specialists they wanted to see, jump the queues for operations, etc. But at least everyone had access to health care. It seems inconceivable to me that in 21st century America that this isn’t the case. And it isn’t, contrary to TMan’s astonishingly ignorant view, because everyone’s off buying fancy cellphones and big screen TVs.

  48. The thing is, in the UK, everyone who could afford it always had the option to have private health insurance in addition to their NHS coverage, which enabled them to choose which specialists they wanted to see, jump the queues for operations, etc. But at least everyone had access to health care. It seems inconceivable to me that in 21st century America that this isn’t the case. And it isn’t, contrary to TMan’s astonishingly ignorant view, because everyone’s off buying fancy cellphones and big screen TVs.

    I suspect you didn’t realize it, but you’ve touched on just about every issue, concern, fear, etc., of people (like me) who oppose public health care.

    I presently fall into the category of those “who could afford it,” meaning private care. I am afraid, and many others are afraid, that because of bills like the ones floated by the President, that I will soon be unable to afford “it” — and I’ll be stuck in queues for operations, etc.

    In short, I am afraid that I will be priced out of private care (which I prefer), and forced into public care (which I loathe), through no fault or choice of my own — and that’s bulls__t.

    I agree with TMan that there are some (but not all) people who choose to spend their money on expensive consumer items instead of on their own health care, but that’s not the point. The point is that private health care is a priority to me, and its availability will be severely threatened if a “public option” comes to pass. Take a look at Hawaii and Massachusetts as examples: this result isn’t mere speculation, or insurance company “talking points”: it’s legitimate, and it affects my family and me.

  49. You might find this view of an actual Brit interesting, Jack. Andrew Neil was actually a Conservative who was editor of the Sunday Times and a colleague of Rupert Murdoch.

  50. You might find this view of an actual Brit interesting, Jack. Andrew Neil was actually a Conservative who was editor of the Sunday Times and a colleague of Rupert Murdoch.

    The link isn’t working. Can you re-post?

  51. Or, now that my seriously overtired brain has had few more minutes to think, this:

    http://tiny.cc/734dn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s