NEWS: Dear Republican Friends: Regarding Your Stand On Healthcare…

CULTURE: Dear Republican Friends: Regarding Your Stand On Healthcare…

by Sandor Stern

Dear Republican Friends,

Regarding your stand on healthcare…

This country spends more on health care than any other country in the world. One would expect that fact to translate into the best medical care. I know you believe it does, and you are correct when it comes to medical advances and facilities, but we are not even close to the best when it comes to the medical care of our population. According to statistics from the World Health Organization, we spend almost twice as much per capita than any other nation – $7290 in 2007 and it has increased since then. That amounts to 16% of our GDP. 18.5% of government revenue is spent on health care. And what do we get for that money? Our life expectancy is lower and our infant mortality rate is higher than every other industrial nation. Our system is ranked 37th in the world among 191 nations. And your reaction to those facts is a pledge to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act – the most comprehensive health care reform in 45 years.

You brand it with an Obamacare label in your effort to denigrate it. That is laughable; firstly because it mirrors Romney's Massachusetts Health Care Plan of 2006 (framed by the Republican conservative think tank's Heritage Foundation) and secondly because it does not reflect the single payer plan that Obama would have liked. Though Democrats held a majority in the senate, they fell short of the sixty votes needed to pass a bill unpalatable to the Republican senators. The Affordable Care Act was obviously a compromise. Given its auspices it seemed a safe direction. It's basis is insurance coverage through private companies. Who would have guessed that the Republican party and its presidential nominee would disown a plan like that? In hindsight, considering the Republican about face on so many of your previous legislative bills, this should not have come as a surprise.

What baffles me is your disregard for Romney's turn around. He initially touted his plan (that included mandatory insurance for all) as a model for the nation. Then he waffled by saying his plan was good for his state but not for the nation. Now he avoids the subject. My question to you is: if the plan is good for the state why not for the nation? All this hue and cry goes on about the Romney plan, but nobody seems to ask the pertinent question – is it working for the people of Massachusetts? 98% of Massachusetts residence now have insurance, including 99.8% of children. Two out of three adults in the state support the law and 88% of doctors say it improved or did not affect the quality of care. It seems the proof is in the pudding.

To this date, the Affordable Care Act has improved health insurance coverage in many ways. Children can stay on their parents’ policies until the age of 26. Individuals with existing insurance policies no longer have to pay deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses for certain preventive care services. Children under 19 cannot be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies cannot drop your coverage if you become sick, nor can they place lifetime limits or arbitrary annual limits on coverage. Insurance companies are required to spend more of the premium dollars they receive on health care services and quality. It becomes easier to file complaints about the quality of care in a nursing home. Better access to information on nursing home quality and resident rights is available. Seniors who reach the Medicare doughnut hole receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs and a 14 percent discount on generic prescription drugs. Medicare benefits have expanded to include free coverage for wellness and preventive care. Hospitals that improve the quality of care for people with Medicare can qualify for new payments.

But that’s not all. Yet to come in 2013: Those who reach the Medicare doughnut hole receive a 52.5 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs and a 21 percent discount on generic prescription drugs. Increased funding will be available to help families and children get coverage through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance program (CHIP). Hospitals and doctors can qualify to receive a new type of payment (called a "bundle") to coordinate with each other as they care for patients. Yet to come in 2014: Insurance companies cannot deny anyone health coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Those who reach the Medicare doughnut hole receive a 52.5 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs and a 28 percent discount on generic prescription drugs. Subsidies are available for those with limited incomes who purchase health insurance through an exchange. Children, parents and adults without children who do not have Medicare and who have a limited income are able to apply for Medicaid. Spouses of people on Medicaid who receive care services at home get the same protections for income and other resources as spouses of those on Medicaid who live in nursing homes. Yet to come in 2020: after continuing yearly declines in doughnut hole costs, the Medicare Part D coverage gap or "doughnut hole" will be completely closed.

These are the present and future benefits of the Affordable Care Act that you want to repeal. Why? You claim multiple reasons. You rail against the mandatory coverage. You consider it socialism. Under your definition of socialism that would make mandatory withholding taxes for social security, Medicare, and Unemployment insurance socialism. It would make mandatory driver's licenses socialism. In fact, mandatory income tax would have to be listed under your definition. Yet, there are no socialist aspects to the Affordable Care Act. Individuals purchase their coverage in an open market from private insurance companies. The physicians who provide services work on a fee for service basis. Hospitals and laboratories remain in the hands of private enterprise. So where is the socialism you love to scream about?

You claim that the costs of insurance will go up. Without doubt if there is no mandatory coverage that will be true. That was true before the ACA and was one of the prime reasons to institute the act. When healthy young people are not buying insurance, the price goes up for those older and in poor health. Mandatory coverage keeps the costs down. And before grumbling over that, how many people paying into social security and Medicare die too young to ever collect a dime? How many people pay unemployment insurance and never need to collect a check in return? That's why it's called insurance. It's a necessary price one pays today just in case the day arrives when the need arises.

You seem to prefer remaining with the old "free enterprise" system – which has never been free or even enterprising. In that system, 40% of U.S. citizens did not have adequate health insurance, if any at all. The cost to these people has been that they’ve been avoiding medical care, sometimes until it was too late for a cure, often to the detriment of preventive steps, and for some a cost in dollars that led to bankruptcy. The cost to the nation has been a crush of patients inundating emergency rooms – paid for by the taxpayers. Is that the trade off you really want? Medical costs paid for others through your income tax rather than a small bite out of every citizen's pocket?

There is no doubt that the Affordable Care Act is flawed and that flaw is the same one that exists in the Massachusetts Plan. In Massachusetts, though 97% of taxpayers are complying with the law, the cost of premiums rose 12.2% between 2006 and 2008. One of the main reasons for cost increases is due to the administrative overhead, and that will apply to Affordable care. An apples to apples comparison of plan overheads is best seen in administrative costs for Medicare and Medicare Advantage. According to the Congressional Budget Office, expenses under the public Medicare plan are less than 2% compared with 11% expenditures under the private plans of Medicare Advantage. Meanwhile the General Accounting Office reported that in 2006, Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3% of their revenue on medical expenses and 16.7% for non-medical expenses and profits. That makes sense. Private Insurance companies are in business for profit and they must spend money on sales and advertising to compete with each other. Why do we need them in the health care business? That is why a single payer system gets you the most bang for the buck. We only have to look to our northern neighbor, Canada, for comparison.

In the mid sixties Canada and the USA faced the same issue in health care. As citizens aged, private insurance companies either denied them insurance coverage or asked exorbitant rates. This was an overwhelming humanitarian problem. The USA decided to alleviate the problem through Medicare, a plan that insured citizens above the age of 65 years. Canada decided to institute a Medicare plan that covered every citizen from cradle to grave. This is a system similar to those in almost every industrial nation in the world. There are only two exceptions: the USA and Turkey. Good company, right?

Before you start shouting "socialism" look at the facts. The Canadian system is no more socialist than our own Medicare. Patients choose their own doctors and those doctors are paid on a fee for service basis. Though federally funded, each province and territory maintains and oversees its own separate plan. Spurred, I suspect, by profit seeking private insurance, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies, a mythology about the Canadian Health Plan has taken root in this country.

Myth: taxes in Canada are extremely high. Fact: the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82% of their gross pay. In the USA that average is 81.9%. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy. Fact: the provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with a 1% overhead. That's even better than our own Medicare operating costs. Myth: the Canadian system is significantly more expensive than the USA system. Fact: 10% of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100% of the population. The USA spends 17% of it's GDP but 15% of its population has no coverage, and millions of others have inadequate coverage.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it. Fact: the government has absolutely no say in who gets care and how they get it. Those decisions are left entirely to doctors. In the USA HMO's and private insurers make medical decisions all the time. If they decide they won't pay for a medical procedure like an MRI you won't get it no matter what your doctor thinks – unless you pay out of pocket for it.

Myth: there are long waits for care. Fact: there are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care and longer waits for elective surgery. Despite the waits, Canada is ranked 7 points above the USA in patient care by the World Health Organization. Canada boast lower incident and mortality rates than the USA for all cancers. Life expectancy in Canada is 81.3 compared to 78.1 in the USA. The infant mortality rate in Canada is 4.5 and in the USA 6.9. Per capita expenditure in Canada is 3,895 dollars per year and in the USA it is 7,290 dollars per year. Fewer Canadians (11.3%) than Americans (14.4%) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the USA for medical care. Fact: If a Canadian goes outside the country to get services deemed medically necessary, not experimental or are not available at home for whatever reason, the provincial government where they live fully funds their care. Those patients who do come to the USA for care and pay out of their own pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than their Canadian doctors believe. In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents it was reported that 0.5% sought medical care in the USA in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the USA expressly to get care.

Perhaps the best example of furthering the myth is that of an Ontario resident, Shona Holmes, who traveled to the Mayo Clinic after deciding she could not wait for medical care at home. She characterized her condition as an emergency; she was losing her eyesight and portrayed her condition as a life-threatening brain cancer. Her Ontario insurance refused to reimburse her for medical expenses and she sued – and lost. In 2009, at the peak of the Republican fight against the Affordable Care Act, she appeared in ads on American TV warning of the dangers of the USA adopting a Canadian style health plan. After the ads appeared critics pointed out discrepancies in her story: the Rathke's cleft cyst for which she was treated was not a form of cancer and was not life-threatening. In fact, the mortality rate for patients with a Rathke's cleft cyst is zero percent.

The facts are available to anyone with the inclination to pursue them. In the face of those facts, how can you take a stand to repeal The Affordable Care Act? If anything, you should be working to improve it. I don't find evidence of that in the Republican Party Platform.

Just asking

Your friend

Sandy

Related Posts
Dear Republican Friends: Regarding Your Stand On Taxation…

Yada, Yada, Yada, and Obama swore before the American people he would not sign a bill that exceed 900 billion in cost. The most recent updated cost estimate from the CBO for Obamacare (a term Obama himself likes and uses) now tops 2.8 TRILLION Dollars!! Just in case you haven't been keeping up with current events, the United States is now running a deficit in the 16 Trillion dollar range, or just about 100 percent of annual GNP. Additional the U.S. is facing over 60 Trillion dollars in deficits for future unfunded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid mandated cost. Is any of this sinking in? We don't have the money, and the majority of the American people don't want what Obama and the Democrats are trying to shove down their throats, as evidenced by the world class ASS WHIPPING the Democrat Party took in the November 2010 elections!! 67 days from today, Obama is going to lose his bid to be reelected to a second term. The Republicans will expand their majority in The House of Representatives and take back the Senate. From that point, the Republicans will do what Republicans do, clean up the mess Democrats make every time they find themselves in a temporary position of power. We will kill Obamacare, balance the budget and get America back on the path to greatness. That is all.

Jesus strider57... You are sucking that koolaid dry aren't you. Did you forget Bush started a war sending us into the debt we are in? Did you forget the last time we did well fiscally as a country was with Clinton? Or is that just liberal media being shoved down your gullet? You think Romney's history as a swindler to business is a fallacy I'll tell you now, i isn't... You think Romney destroying planned parenthood is a good idea? We really need more debt with people trying to take care of children they can't afford? You didn't say anything remotely intelligent or useful... You just spouted off bullshit you undoubtedly heard from your local retard-fest. But good job, no matter who wins, it is still going to be a bane on society, but either way, I'm sure you'll be right there to bitch about something.

Your rebuttal of the points made in the article is certainly, um, concise.

Yes, it's funny how the price tag for Obamacare skyrocketed after the GOP gutted many of the provisions intended to keep costs down. Also funny how Social Security and Medicare have a hard time remaining in the black when politicians like Boehner keep pulling money out of it.

Oops, sorry, what I meant to say was "Yadda, yadda, yadda."

Yes, let's have Government control 1/5 of the economy because they do such a good job of everything and are so efficient. I know from many veterans that the VA is run in typical Government clusterfuck style, can't wait till it goes Nationwide. When will you Marxist idiots learn there is No Free Lunch?

Facts 0 - Ideology 2 and counting, I guess.

When will conservatives learn that blatant lies are easy to fact check? There is no "government control of 1/5 of the economy" taking place. It's just not happening--not under Obamacare, not under any plan currently being implemented or proposed.

Nor is anyone claiming that a single-payer system or Obamacare would be a "free lunch". Of course they would cost money and that money has to come from somewhere - i.e., the American taxpayer. But it would be so much less money than we're paying right now, and that less money simultaneously buys more benefits and better, more comprehensive coverage, because our current system is about as retarded and wasteful as systems get. It's not like this stuff is some sort of risky, untried novel proposition. It's already operating successfully in DOZENS OF COUNTRIES WORLDWIDE.

First of all, I'm going to point out that I am not a Republican in an attempt (what i'll assume to be a vain attempt) to side step the childish objectification of someone's entire view based on their broad political affiliation.

Most Western countries with socialized health care systems don't relate to America on any level. Take Norway for example: they have a universal health care system so everyone will be taken care of and no one will end up on the street or perpetual debt because they had the misfortune of ending in an accident. That's fantastic, it's the way it should be. They have been rated as having the top quality of life on earth for years with good reason. BUT, they have a tiny population, they have a small amount of illegal immigration, they have a small amount of legal immigration, they are on expansive oil fields that they drill the shit out of and make huge profits and they are well entrenched in all levels of global energy production. In essence they have jobs, there's no panhandlers on the streets so they have the capacity to, and can afford to, take care of the misfortunate. America isn't so fortunate. It's like shopping at Trader Joe's or Hubble and Hudson and saying "why can't Walmart sell certified angus grade beef, organic free range chicken eggs or foi gras?" Well, because those other 2 stores cater to the more advantaged portion of the population, take their profit and provide better goods. Walmart has to provide for a much larger and diverse portion of the population, take their profit and supply a much larger and more easily attainable set of goods. Plus you can't take food stamps to a Trader Joe's where Walmart will cash your welfare check.

America is a Walmart economy. We have sacrificed general quality of life in order to cater to the massive population we have and mass influx of immigration we sustain. We can't provide jobs for everyone because we don't have enough jobs period. Plus many of the jobs we could have are being outsourced (thanks Romney).

Now to Obama. When you buy a used car, if it's fucked up, you fix it. He hasn't fixed it at all but rather added fucked up components. He didn't assume an economy in perpetual debt, he created well more than half the debt on his own. More than any president before him. He's made horrible decisions like bailing out GM. Billions of our tax payer dollars thrown away because his administration didn't even have the where-with-all to assure that the money was used properly and efficiently which is against the principles of free commerce in the first place. Guess where GM is now? Going back down the hole. Billions of taxpayer dollars in a pile on fire.

Everyone here realizes that in Obamacare you have given up your right to decide when your loved one will be pulled off the plug right? It's up to the all knowing all wise government. Why would you subject yourself to that? I served in the military and have dealt with the VA. Want an appointment? Yeah, they can fit you in next month. Is it serious? So is everyone else's. I believe everyone has a right to treatment. I believe medical treatment is a racket. But this is not the right way.

Now I can move to Norway if I want, I'm a citizen. I could say fuck this shit, up and leave. But I don't want to. Because Norwegian's fly here to get healthcare that will save their lives. They don't have the level of care we do. Kind of throws off my earlier food store analogy but that's the way it is. I love the foundations of this country. I love the constitution and what it stands for. I just hate where we are now, with a president who says "if you find it unconstitutional I will side step your ass." If it was a bill that made sense, was truly affordable and actually provided fair service to the whole population it would make sense. But it doesn't even end up providing for everyone. This presidency has been a long drawn out fumble. All I can hope is that if Romney can be so good at swindling, maybe he can figure out how to set this economy right. I wouldn't depend on him for anything else. But this wrecking ball Obama is going to dismantle America's foundations.

By the way, Clinton's economy was just a coincidence that he was in during the tech boom. It had nothing to do with his fiscal policy.

Well, you're certainly full of shit, aren't you? First, death panels? Really? You actually believe the most easily (and often) debunked part of the republican lie?

Second, on the debt, here's a picture, in case words don't work:

Er, no, that's completely incorrect. While it would be nice to, in healthcare terms, serve certified angus beef to everyone, that's not what's being attempted here. What's being attempted, here, is to serve everyone beef that has, at a minimum, been rated as safe for human consumption.

And, actually, you can take food stamps to Trader Joe's.

Uh, GM is not in any danger of bankruptcy at this point. GM has strong sales; it also has a number of internal problems that are currently preventing those sales from putting the company even further into the black (it's currently sitting on $33B in cash, versus only $5B in debt), but it's hardly a sinking ship. And since we're bringing up bailed-out car companies, why not talk about Chrysler as well? Why not talk about Ford, which technically avoided a "bailout" but still secured a very cushy line of credit from the US government? Both companies are now doing very, very well, and the simple fact is that neither company would be doing well without the bailout--Chrysler because it wouldn't have been able to cover operating costs, and Ford because it would have had no one to sell cars to if Chrysler and GM's bankruptcy had been allowed to fully impact the US economy.

Are you fucking serious with this shit? Do you really believe that? Can you show any manner of reputable documentation for it?

Romney wants to go back to making all of the same mistakes that led us to the 2007 crash. Obama wants to continue making many of the mistakes that led to the 2007 crash. The changes Obama has wrought aren't nearly enough, but they're better than what Romney is bringing to the plate, and on top of that Romney is bringing a whole host of social conservative initiatives.

at long last a good debate

"The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office." -http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

That's uh...more than bush and certainly not inline with your graphic up there.

And

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

By the numbers that's more on Obama's plate.

Plus your chart is from 2011 and w're 3/4 through 2012 now.

To the analogy, I don't know Trader Joes fucking in and outs, wow, but you should at least get my point. But you don't, seeing as you're arguing with me and its the same thing you just said. It's a waste of time, it's not going to remedy the situation. It's unconstitutional as well but that's another story.

GM is not on the brink now, but it's only sustained by bailout money. It's own policy can't sustain it. Also, it was just nonsensical. It was 20-23 billion in the shitter.

"We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW." - U.S. Treasury Department.

How would Ford not have people to sell cars to in that event? That would monopolize them. And a line of credit is far different than a bail out. That's something you earn because of your competency. That's how it's supposed to work.

The IPAB will be able to technically ration health care. Will they be able to say they are rationing it? No. But when they make cuts and someone is on life support, they can cut the funding to them. That's rationing health care. They will have to take a case by case basis. That's a panel. They will decide who lives or dies. That could be called a death panel. That's not debunked. It's strode around. It's reworded into "it says you can't ration healthcare." But it literally, quite literally is rationing health care.

I'm hoping with Romney's fiscal know how, his ability to take advantage of the system, his experience in actual business and that he knows the ins and out of economics are enough for him to know what's right. He built business, he did horrible things but he has experience. Obama has never done anything but talk. I'm not endorsing Romney, he's a crook, but Obama frightens me way more. Plus his fiscal policies aren't concrete enough to even make a decision on. It's not possible to even say what he's going to do. It's very broad at this point.

BTW, back to GM. I work in the oilfield, we drive lots of trucks. All the companies out here are now going from Dodge to Ford. Huge blow.

Your point is in factual error. Your analogy is also bad, but that doesn't affect the inaccuracy of your point--which is why I spent a paragraph discussing the fact that you're in error, and one sentence pointing out the flaws in your analogy. If you don't like being told you're wrong when you're wrong, maybe don't be wrong so much.

If by "sustained by bailout money" you mean "working towards paying off its bailout debt while remaining solvent", then yes, you're right.

Because without GM and Chrysler providing a hundred thousand or more jobs, there would be a hundred thousand jobs' worth less money in the economy, meaning a hundred thousand jobs' worth of cars and other products not being bought.

Uh, no, the IPAB will technically not be able to ration health care, because rationing health care would be a violation of their mandate to find savings that do not affect quality or coverage. That's kind of the opposite of rationing; if they find savings that don't reduce quality or coverage, that means there will be more money available to increase quality and/or coverage. Everything you just said on this topic is in direct contradiction of actual facts.

Yes, he has experience doing horrible things. That makes me really excited.

Romney has experience making money for rich people, regardless of the consequences that enrichment may have for the people who work for the companies he manipulates. That kind of experience is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Really? Really? This crap again? You know, it would be much easier to take you seriously as an independent voter if you didn't repeat the same repeatedly-disproven bullshit that the GOP has been shoveling. I mean, honestly, what's next? The "$200 million per day trip to India" gag? The "voter fraud is a thing that actually happens with a frequency that could have any measurable effect on outcome" hoax? Or are you going to go for broke and question Obama's birth certificate?

Off base again. But we're too off base here to recover so I'm abandoning this point in regards to not caring if you see my side.

"GM has been selling cars in the U.S. at deep discount, and while it’s making money in China — and is outsourcing operations there and elsewhere — it’s bleeding losses in Europe. It’s spending billions to ditch its Opel brand there in favor of Chevrolet, including $559 million to put the Chevy logo on Manchester United soccer-team uniforms — and it just fired the marketing exec who cut that deal.

It botched the launch of its new Chevrolet Malibu by starting with the green-friendly Eco version, which pleased its government shareholders even though the car got lousy reviews. And it’s selling only about 10,000 electric-powered Chevy Volts a year, a puny contribution toward Obama’s goal of one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

“GM is going from bad to worse,” reads the headline on the analysis of Automotive News’s editor in chief, Keith Crain. That’s certainly true of its stock price.

The government still owns 500 million shares of GM, 26 percent of the total. It needs to sell them for $53 a share to recover its $49.5 billion bailout. But the stock price is around $20 a share, and the Treasury now estimates that the government will lose more than $25 billion if and when it sells." -

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314694/bad-worse-obama-s-gm-bailout-michael-barone

The smoke and mirrors may allude you to believe that's solvency. That's because the hit is going to the government and not GM. If GM was going to lose that 25 billion, that they should be accountable for, they'd go under. As I said it's a money pit. A big gaping hole we're dumping taxpayer money into and I pay a fuckton a year in taxes so maybe it just affects me more than you. People would get the cars they needed or retain the ones they had. That would have been much less debilitating to our economy.

The provisions IPAB follow don't extend to nursing homes until 2020. If they cut the spending the nursing homes won't be able to retain patients.

I don't care if you take me seriously. I can tell you, cause logic and mathematics say, you have a 90% chance of making less a year than I pay in taxes. Maybe that's why I get ornery about where tax payer money is going. And that's probably why you aren't so upset about it and affected personally.

Dodge is part of Chrysler, not GM.

Company fleets don't typically display any sort of brand loyalty. They buy in bulk, so when they go to purchase new vehicles for a fleet, they go to whoever will give them the best deal at the time on the largest number of vehicles and sometimes service plans, if they don't want to keep their own fleet mechanics. - That's from my automotive instructor, who has 30 years worth of experience as a fleet mechanic for Exxon-Mobil.

Yes, all of which can be summed up by my first post on the topic of GM: "GM is not in any danger of bankruptcy at this point. GM has strong sales; it also has a number of internal problems that are currently preventing those sales from putting the company even further into the black..."

And again, even if GM ends up failing, it makes sense--and, especially, it made sense in 2009--to let it down easy and spread the impact as much as possible. But the fact is, GM has plenty of room to go before it's in danger of failing, leaving plenty of time and opportunity to get its act together the way Chrysler has.

Jesus christ. Yes, the provisions the IPAB follows won't extend to nursing homes or hospitals until 2020--WHICH MEANS THEY CAN'T RECOMMEND CUTS AFFECTING NURSING HOMES AND HOSPITALS UNTIL 2020. Seriously, read up on the IPAB. It is basically the exact opposite of what you seem to think it is.

Good for you. Having money doesn't give you a pass on having to know what you're talking about before you open your mouth, though. You can get as ornery as you like about where taxpayer money goes--just get your facts straight first.

Besides which, right now? Making less money in a year than a rich man pays in taxes isn't a very high bar, what with taxes on the rich being at pretty much their lowest point in US history.

The only halfway strong point you've made, here, is the GM thing, and even there you're blowing things way out of proportion. Everything else--the idea that the US is attempting European-style public health care, the "death panels", Obama's job history--is one hundred percent, no fooling, easy to look up on Google, utter horseshit. And I wouldn't keep hammering you on it except that I've been putting up with it for four fucking years and and I'm fucking sick of not being able to have a reasonable debate without the same tired, repeatedly disproven GOP outrageous, bald-faced lies brought up over and over and fucking over again.

Chrysler was bailed out too. The fact that they can't offer lower bids to the fleets only shows things aren't peachy, since Dodges are supposed to be one of the more economical options.

We're obviously polar opposites on the healthcare plan so I'm going to propose we just agree to disagree. I'm going to dig deeper into IPAB, I'm pretty uncomfortable when I'm on line with Sarah Palin but honestly how the fuck am I supposed to delve into 2,000 pages of lawyerly rhetoric and fully comprehend it? I can say from what all I've heard the side I'm taking seems to hold more water to me. Extreme? Yes. But it's designed for extreme situations.

On a "progressive" board I'm wrong and on a conservative board I'm right. My perspective comes from that no, I'm not rich. January to April I had 4 days off working 12 hours day. I'm a hand in the field. I earn every dime I make and I can't write 1 penny off. I pay 28% of my hard, really hard earned dollars in taxes, I'm not on the downward slope. Imagine getting a third of your money pulled away and Obama wants to raise that more. But it also comes to that I believe in the constitution and seeing Obama kick it's legs out pisses me off. I swore an oath to uphold it with my blood. And I wouldn't have brought it up insultingly if it wasn't for these rib jabs I've been taking while trying to have a deliberate, factual, decent discussion.

When I see the healthcare reform it reminds me of my family back in Norway that give me and my mom shit about America. I was trying to say our system will be a Walmart system of not getting the best shit, but shit you can eat or wear but that isn't even coming to fruition because it's detrimental to as many as it's good for, and still leaves millions shit out of luck. The only bit of it I like is the fee for service bit. I am not sticking my nose up and saying it's pinko commie bullshit, but it doesn't make sense. It's not streamlined enough at all. Plus it's flat out unconstitutional the way it's supposed to run. As much as I wish it was possible, we can't get the homeless off the streets, we can't take everyone that gets hurt in our arms and help them unless it was a European style system. But that is way too extreme to even propose and when Europeans get here they are awed at the care they get because they get paid damn good money if they do a damn good job. But I'm also in Texas which is a whole other republic on it's own.

"Agree to disagree" only works when there are two valid points of view being debated. When one side has nothing more than faked numbers and Death Panel lies, it is not a valid point of view; it is simply wrong.

Ah... I see you're a believer in Worthington's Law.

As for my thoughts on Romney, do I really make a difference by picking Ron Paul? No. It's one of those situations where I have to grit my teeth and bare it. I can bare Romney's plans more. I have more confidence in him. And if I didn't it wouldn't matter because it's him or Obama and I'm going to be celebrating either decision by shaking my head.

Obviously you don't fucking know me. Maybe you should read my thoughts on my money.

It works when people see things two different ways. And the faked numbers are real numbers. All I've heard here is rhetoric with not one ioda of it cited. The pie chart was dated. I've cited up to date numbers from reliable sources. So I'm upheld by validity.