Yuku free message boards

The health care debate has become a convenient distraction, for both political parties, from the far more pressing issues surrounding the banking meltdown. As important as health insurance is as an issue, representing 16 percent of the economy, and with so many uninsured, no sane person can deny that the current system is a sorry mess that needs to be changed. But why now and not after a growth economy has returned?

The answer is that politicians from both parties just love the health care game because it allows them to assume reflexive but irrelevant postures in that tired old debate about "socialized medicine" versus "free-market choice" although it has nothing to do with either ideological fantasy. Consumers do not have meaningful choices as it is-many have no coverage and others are frozen into some company-sponsored plan-and it is insulting to the social democracies of Western Europe to suggest that anything comparable is even under consideration in the U.S. Congress.

The health care issue should never even have been brought up at a time when the economy is reeling and we are running such immense deficits to shore up the banks. Instead of fixing the economy by saving Americans' homes and jobs, we are preoccupied with pie-in-the-sky rhetoric on a hot issue that should have been addressed in calmer times. It came up now because, despite all the hoary partisan posturing, it is a safer subject than the more pressing issue of what to do with Citigroup, AIG and General Motors, which the taxpayers happen to own but do not control. While Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner plots in secret with the top bankers who got us into this mess, we are focused on the perennial circus of so-called health care reform.

There is an odd disconnect between the furious public debate over health care reform, with its emphasis on the cost of an increased government role, and the nonexistent discussion about the far more expensive and largely secretive government program to bail out Wall Street. Why the agitation over the government spending $83 billion a year on health care when at least 20 times that amount has been thrown at the creators of the ongoing financial crisis without any serious public accountability? On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that employees of the financial industry that we taxpayers saved are slated to be paid a record $140 billion this year.

More here..

Watching the documentary "Sicko" (Michael Moore)

I highly reccomend you see it, if for nothing else (and this is a revelation) than to get a first hand look at the patients, doctors, and hospital buildings in countries that have "socialized" health care.

You always hear the horror stories (from talking heads and pols) about Health care in other countries on television news here, but you never see patients, doctors, and citizens interviewed ever, to his credit, Moore does this.

You should see how puzzled people are that we pay one dime for any procedure, and even more revelatory, all the myths of long waits and inferior care are dispelled.

Example:

One American guy sawed off two of his fingers in a table saw accident, the insurance company gave him a choice of a 60,000 dollar reattachment on one finger and a 12,000 reattachment of his other finger.

This is what he would have to pay that is not covered.

A Canadian guy sawed of all five fingers and had them all reattched sucesfully in an emergency 48 hour long procedure.This included four surgeons and two attending physicians and nurses.

Cost to him, nothing.

Everyone against real reform tries to act as if all the Health industry is America, so when you advocate reform in the industry,you are somehow trying to "reform" America.

The movie also flashes back 19 years ago, when Clinton was proposing Universal care.

I swear, you would think you were watching the news today, same arguments about socialism etc.

Great movie.

Means asking tough questions, and if your interview gets a little hot under the collar, so be it.

This lady is one of the smartest, toughest journalists out there.

She threw out all journalistic standards and ethics and made herself look bad as she admitted this was about her and Mr. Phillips. She ought to rise to a higher standard herself before attacking others on matters that pale in comparison.

Sorry, that is just silly, even Phillips admitted that factually, in terms of her research, Rachel Maddow was dead on.

That is, she had her facts correct about AFP.

That reflects high journalistic standards.

She was also unfailingly polite (unlike the screaming heads Chris Matthews and Bill O Reilly),

Maddow in the context of the interview,, admitted her bias, which is really less "bias" than frustration at AFP detaching itself from the guy who compared government health care to Hitler's "Final Solution" and Pol Pot's exectution orders..and AFP detaching itself from doing PR for a Sweatshop in years past.

She was trying to establish a pattern on the part of AFP, that they are actually working for corporations with a corporate agenda.

Phillips also wasn't transparent about funding, which, if AFP is truly a grass roots organization, there would be no problem in stating that all their funding comes from average people, but he couldn't , or wouldn't admit where the money comes from.

Mandating that you purchase insurance or be fined, as an individual or a business, is just wrong.

These people do not work for a living, and don't appreciate that millions of people are unemployed or will soon be.

The biggest overhaul of America's medical system since Medicaretook a big step forward Saturday night, narrowly passing the House with a controversial amendment to restrict coverage of abortion.

Democrats cheered and high-fived each other in the House chamber after lawmakers voted 220 to 215 to pass the landmark measure at 11:12 p.m. A lone GOPer, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, backed the bill, while 39 Dems defected.

"Oh, what a night!" declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was forced to make major concessions to conservatives, including adding a controversial abortion restriction.

"Tonight, in a historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people," President Obama said after the vote.

The bill nearly failed when a deal with conservative Dems collapsed and Pelosi was forced to let them bring up an amendment to restrict abortion coverage.

The move enraged liberals, but most agreed to stay onboard and Obama traveled to the House Saturday to seal the deal with a personal plea.

The bill proposes to spend $1.055 trillion to add 36 million Americans to the insurance rolls, largely paid for with a 5.4% surtax on the top 0.3% of earners and cutting Medicare Advantage programs.

It would create an exchange where small businesses and the uninsured could buy coverage, including a government-run public option. The abortion amendment bars anyone who gets federal subsidies from abortion coverage unless they pay extra. The public option does not cover elective abortion.

Under the bill, no insurance company could consider preexisting conditions, out-of-pocket expenses would be capped, there would be no co-pays for preventive care, and the so-called donut hole would be closed in Medicare prescription drug coverage.

Republicans argued the measure was too expensive, too tax-heavy and a threat to jobs and American freedom.

Liberals ripped the anti-abortion provision. "This amendment threatens the health and rights of women to seek a legal procedure," said Westchester Rep. Nita Lowey, calling it "unnecessary and reprehensible."

But pro-choice Democrats voted for the overall measure nevertheless, helped along by Obama, who implored them to be on the "right side of history" and invoked the shootings at Fort Hood in his appeal.

"He was absolutely inspiring. In a very moving way, he reminded us what sacrifice really is," said Rep. Rob Andrews, a New Jersey Democrat who estimated Obama turned several votes. "It made a lot of people feel a little less sorry for themselves, about their political problems."

A $61 billion GOP substitute bill failed after Democrats mocked it, noting that nonpartisan number crunchers found it did little to help people get insurance.

The next step is for the Senate to pass its bill.

"The United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version," Obama said. "I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/07/2009-11-07_health_care_reform_bill_nears_vote_in_house_amendment_restricts_abortion_coverag.html#ixzz0WHwQe0T7

Who was it that said to first kill the politicians and lawyers??
Of course they are screwing it up!

With intelligent and dignified debate on a serious topic.

Excuse me but, what a douche..

In this past weekend's health care debate, Arizona Republican John Shadegg bravely opened a new frontier by using a live baby as a visual aidto complain about health care reform. The infant, Maddie, was introduced as Shadegg's grand-daughter, which Shadegg quickly corrected, saying, "I wish this was my granddaughter." I wish most Congresspersons demonstrated Maddie's level of cognitive development, but no!