Yes, We LIBERALS Are TIRED Of "Compromise"!! (Iraq, polls, health care system)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well tehn liberals had better egt to it as it doesn't look like they are doing so good right now.That is why they have a win then fail to stay in power.
Just sent a letter to my rep. Got an email from my rep. asking for comments and to do a survey. I guess because I'm republican I got the email or maybe because I emailed him already to do reform, or maybe just plain old unsolicited email. I congratulate him for asking for a response. However,his message was loud in clear a typical propaganda letter about having the gov't between me and my dr and to much gov't involvement .
Started my response with what are you kidding do I want a public plan, do I want gov't involvement hell yeah just like the insurance I pay for you, just like medicare, just like social security just like unemployment insurance. All things gov't got involved in and all good things and things I think most Americans won't give up. Why do I want to line the pockets of CEO's who not only makes huge salaries but then gets giant bonuses while people will die or be sick without health care. Wake up and smell the coffee one lay off, one devasting illness, one illness in which you can't work anymore will make you wish something was done now. No one no one no matter how careful, no matter how healthy is going to avoid an illness in their lifetime.
That is very nice and thoughtful of you, seriously. But if we get into the habit of starving free markets for government run programs, where does that lead us in the end?
WASHINGTON – Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?
Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_analysis - broken link)
Actually the Dems don't need one Republican to vote for this to pass it. To say they need to compromise anything is just wrong. They don't.
Democrats problem is that President Obama isn't very smart. He can't even get his own party to vote for his main issue. LOLs. What a moron.
WASHINGTON – Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?
Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_analysis - broken link)
Liberals and compromise are oxymorons... they are some of the most intolerant people in the world, intolerant people don't compromise...
Wow, looks like the writers at Associated Propoganda have outdone themselves. See, the Democrats are firmly in control of Congress.
The real problem is that the far left whackos want to take this bill much further left than the more reasonable Dems are willing to go.
There is not bipartisan support for any of the bills being pushed so far. There is however, BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION.
The Associated Propogandists would rather lie for the far left than report the facts, but we are used to that already.
I've rarely seen either side compromise on anything in the past. As far as the health care bill goes....they wrote the whole thing (and everyone always says on here, what do the republicans have to offer as an alternative....nothing!) so, even if the do make some compromises, comparatively that still would be very few.
The article says, "isn't it time the other guys gave some ground".....what other guys are they talking about? They have the white house, an overwhelming majority in the house and fillibuster proof control of the senate so, who are they talking about that needs to give some ground? How much more ground do they need? Obviously some of the other guys are they're talking about and complaining about, are actually their own guys. It's that thinking both extremes seem to have....if you're not completely with them, you're against them.....and I repeat BOTH extremes seem to have.
I'm still not sure what concessions they've been giving that they're talking about....here's a quote from the article:
"Sen. Charles Grassley, a key Republican negotiator on health care, was on a winning streak as Congress recessed for August, having wrung important concessions from Democrats, including an agreement to back away from a government plan to compete with private insurers".
How have they backed away from it....it's only been mentioned that they could and not decided that they will so, what's the concession? A little further down in the article it says:
The continued outreach to Republicans, meanwhile, is testing Democrats' unity. This week, more than 50 House Democrats issued a letter saying: "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable."
How is that a concession....it only confirms what everyone is already concerned about.....how private insurers will be able to realistically compete with a government option (that gets to play by different rules that the mandates it's placed on them). Doctors have said that because private insurers pay more than Medicare, it makes it possible for them to accept Medicare's payment....otherwise they wouldn't be able to operate as they are now or possibly at all.
The president keeps saying that private insurers "should " be able to compete with a government options that funded through premiums and "other" non-tax revenue. What does "should" mean? It means he's not saying, private insurers "will" be able to compete with a government option....that's what it means. In other words, when they all go out of business, it means......I guess they couldn't compete, they were all too greedy.....the government option turned out to be the most efficient way to do it.....see I told you so.
Private insurers will only be funded by premiums but, the government plans gets funded by premiums and other non-tax revenue......like the penalties people and businesses might be paying if they choose voluntarily to not take coverage or provide it to their employees. All of that revenue from penalties that will be coming from people that choose not to cover themselves now and possibly then, are healthy people that no claims are being paid out for now and won't have to be paid out for then either.
If a business has to pay penalties for not providing coverage, then will their employees also be paying premiums to whom ever they get coverage from as well? If so those penalties will also be revenue that no claims will have to be paid out against. The employees of those companies that don't provide coverage to them, may or may not be responsible for some of the claims now being paid out (or will be getting paid out) and if they still have to pay premiums for coverage, the government option will not automatically inherit all of the those claims that will have to be paid out because, some portion of them will choose to get coverage through a private insurer. Even though they'll be paying premiums, it undoubtedly won't cover the cost of the claims they're submitting (if it did, no one would need the insurance in the first place).
Are there going to be penalties then and will they amount to two additional sources of revenue that the government option will be able to operate on that the private insurers will not be privy to?
Private insurers have reserves they have to meet and set aside for, in case of insolvency.....when they begin to operate in the red, they go out of business. Does the government have that problem.....NO. Everyone gets made aware of the fact that the program is operating in the red (like the post office is now) but, they don't go bankrupt....they just keep printing money and some time when congress is in session they have to find a way to fund it with more money from some place.....like cutting payments to providers even more....again.
Private insurers won't be able to pay providers what Medicare pays them....they can't negotiate deep of a discount with providers, if they could they'd be doing that now. The government can with Medicare because they provide coverage for every person in the country age 65 or older....period. If providers want any of those patients, they don't have much of a choice but, to accept those payments (and as I mentioned they still have the higher payments they get from private insureres to make up the difference they need to operate at the level they are now).
So who is really going to have to make any concessions for the bill to go through....them or the other guys....or will it actually just be all of US (as in all of the U.S.).
They don't need any republican votes. All they need is the intestinal fortitude to go against the will of the nation.
lol...A few folks sniping at town halls = will of the Nation?
Comedian
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.