Comments on: 44 Years Later…

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:04:26 +0000

If the paper pushing jobs that exist right now in for-profit insurance and pharma companies are eliminated 100 years down the road because Americans eventually choose a better and lower priced form of public health care insurance…..then the remaining for-profit workers can work for the office of the government handling the public insurance.

Your concern is not for the workers, it's for the greedy handful of corporate profit-takers. That's your ideological bent.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:43:12 +0000

Simple-minded, you mean. I think I'm safe to say that 99% of the people who work for insurance companies AREN'T in that top 5%. They are just regular working folks trying to support their families, like everyone else in America. And you want them to lose their jobs.

The Reverend hates the working man ! The Reverend is anti-job !

As long as we're keeping it simple.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:37:35 +0000

King is against a public option. A bill without a public option rewards insurance and pharma CEO's who are in the top 5%. By being against a public option, King is favoring the top 5%.

Simple, really.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:29:04 +0000

Rev says, "the Baucus bill is a Republican bill."

Um-hmmm. A Republican bill WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATS. Whatever you say, Rev.

Rev says, "King believes that the more prosperous the top 5% of Americans become, the better off our country is."

WTF ? Where'd that come from ?

Stop the insanity. Promote mental health.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:50:45 +0000

King believes that the more prosperous the top 5% of Americans become, the better off our country is.

Americans who don't have health coverage, or are buried under medical bills, or are now bankrupt because of medical bills…..disagree.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:48:06 +0000

The Baucus bill is, as I've said repeatedly, a Republican bill. Here's why I say that…

Baucus and Conrad, both Democrats, are beholden to health insurers and big pharma. The Finance Committee is the place where anti-reform forces decided to drown any healthcare bill. That's why Baucus made it appear like he was appealing to Republicans, why he delayed a committee vote back in August, and why he will entertain over 500 amendments by anti-reform Republicans this month.

The politics involved here are transparent. Baucus is making it look like he's after some bi-partisan illusion, when what he's really after is the death of any reform. The longer Baucus allows this to drag on, the more chance nothing will be passed.

If something does eventually pass out of the Finance Committeee, Baucus wants it to bring a windfall for his constituency, insurers and pharma. He doesn't care whether it turns out to be a disaster for Americans and the Democratic Party. His allegiance is to those who brung him to the dance.

larry, Franken challenged the medical device maker tax.

The House has the bill that needs passing.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:53:47 +0000

I hear the Baucus bill has a provision to levy a tax on medical devices over a hundred bucks. Taxing medical devices to lower healthcare costs makes as much sense as cutting waste in one massive government healthcare program so you can establish another massive government healthcare program.

By: Da King

Da King — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:47:49 +0000

Make that four times as large as ours.

By: Da King

Da King — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:46:19 +0000

America is 40 years behind the foreigners ?

The second leading economy behind ours is China's, at about half our size.

And China's population is over three times as large as ours.

Keep slingin' it.

By: Da King

Da King — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:42:57 +0000

Why would Republicans vote against the Baucus bill ?

For the same reason Democrats should vote against it. It sucks, in about every way possible.

I'm surprised you couldn't reach such a simple conclusion.