Lieberman

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
We went from full blown public option >>> pseudo public option >>> Medicare+ option >>> some huge waste of money plan to regulate insurance companies.

I seriously thought that with the way things were going, the profession was going to go under before I finished residency. I think his efforts may have bought another 10+ years for health care.
 
I've got flowers en route to Howard Dean, M.D. though not a current member of the Senate, he is rallying democratic senators to vote against the bill.

Hats off to him.
 
Eta Carinae said:
I've got flowers en route to Howard Dean, M.D. though not a current member of the Senate, he is rallying democratic senators to vote against the bill.

Hats off to him.
Click to expand...

That's because it's not liberal enough, and he's trying to save face for them not being able to rally the caucas.

Lame.
 
Coastie said:
That's because it's not liberal enough, and he's trying to save face for them not being able to rally the caucas.

Lame.
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt that Dean, MD, might have preferred a sweeping National Health Insurance (NHI) Canadian-style system, his reasons for opposing the current bill are those that should cause all of us the greatest concern:

A. THE INSURANCE COMPANIES REMAIN KING/CONTROLLER/EMPEROR/DICTATOR OF THE ENTIRE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
1. It still does nothing to reverse the anti-trust protections of insurance companies
2. It does nothing to rein in exhorbitant administrative salaries at insurance companies
3. It provides no requirement for a certain minimum percentage of premiums to cover actual health care costs as oppposed to administrative costs
4. It widens the market for the insurance industry as insurance coverage will now become mandatory
5. It does nothing to address the issue of preexisting conditions:
a. Nominally, insurance companies cannot deny coverage on the basis of "preexisting conditions" but they can set unjust terms and rates (sometimes 3x premiums) for coverage- who wins?

b. The affixation of the term preexisting condition is still unchecked by the bill. Insurance companies get to decide if brunette vs blonde hair is a "preexisting condition"

c. Under the scarlet letter designation of having a preexisting condition, insurance companies are still free to decide what services they will/will not reimburse physicians for
​
B. THE PROBLEM OF THE UNINSURED REMAINS UNRESOLVED
1. Although now by fiat, more people would appear to be insured (in numbers only), really they're just being forced to buy insurance to avoid fines.
2. Premiums will continue to be unaffordable of most to those who are currently uninsured. However, govt subsidies (ie tax payers)- paid to Mr. Insur CEO's fat pocket- will help cover some of those costs.

C. BIG PHARMA NOW HAS MORE POWER, AND CAN CONTINUE UNSCRUPULOUS PRICE FIXING
Which is why instead of gold, hubby and I are buying stock in pharmaceutical companies!😀
 
Last edited:
one cannot help but wonder where the profligacy of the right wrt sensible ideas is...
 
pgg said:
That there is sig line material.
Click to expand...

Isn't it though? But, I'm sure someone would lecture about how they find it offensive... 🙄
 
Narcotized said:
Great article Alex. At least the a few people in the media aren't sucking the Obama koolaide of what a brilliant leader he is. But most of the media continues to give Obama and the left personalized colonoscopies with their tongues; witness Time magazine calling Ben Bernanke Man of the Year simply for borrowing and printing into oblivion.

Nov, 2010 can't come soon enough. This party will end with one nasty hangover.
Click to expand...

As I said in another thread, I'm neither a repub or dem... I just don't like any party controlling all of the government... didn't work for Mexico and the PRI, and it won't work for us. So now we have HilDog over in Hopenhagen telling them we're gonna print even more money to give to the poor nations of the world (mainly Africa) to stem all this "Gore End of All Creation Warming". So do they really think the modern day Idi Amin's of Sub Saharan Africa are really gonna use this money to build a "green" economy? First, is it even gonna get to them from the UN? Sorry... cynicism is causing me to ramble....
 
Was watching this guy on TV yesterday. I had heard about him but never bothered to watch, until yesterday that is.

I couldn't have stumbled on a more classic presentation of a patient in the middle of a full-blown psychotic episode, replete with flight of ideas, meaningless associations, paranoia- "the government's out to get you", "we're all going to die", "the end is near"-

you know the sort of thing you only see in the county psych ward or on a New York street by a disheveled old man with an unkempt beard growing (God only knows what insect's) larvae.

Somebody REALLY needs to write him for Haldol. If you're out there, don't be kind enough to use quetiapine or olanzapine. Please, use haldol. The tardive dyskinesia and pseudoparkinsonism would be beneficial to society.




AND


Trolls. Nothing useful/substantive/entertaining/engaging to say.
 
Last edited:
I still love you, though, you know who you are😍
 
LSU Alex said:
As I said in another thread, I'm neither a repub or dem... I just don't like any party controlling all of the government....
Click to expand...

Don't mean to insult anybody, but I don't see how any intelligent independent thinking person can possibly like either one of these parties. I only want 2010 to hurry and arrive so we can have some good ol fashion gridlock again, not because I think either party gives a crap about us or the country.
 
Just remember boys and girls - ain't nuthin settled yet.
 
Narcotized said:
Don't mean to insult anybody, but I don't see how any intelligent independent thinking person can possibly like either one of these parties. I only want 2010 to hurry and arrive so we can have some good ol fashion gridlock again, not because I think either party gives a crap about us or the country.
Click to expand...

👍
on that point I can actually assent
 
Last edited:
jwk said:
Just remember boys and girls - ain't nuthin settled yet.
Click to expand...

...said the young whipper snapper to billy bob and emma sue mae and all 'em people whose momas and poppas been a-feuding fer gin-a-rations

*spit*
 
Last edited:
😀
sorry, just could not resist finishing that line.
 
Here's hoping 2010 brings a big, fat, Donald Trump style "you're FIRED!" to the vast majority of these "representatives" up for re-election!

They need to be reminded just who works for whom.
 
OK Cloture vote passed, 60-40. Now I can head to bed.
so much for bipartisanship.

so much for Lieberman!

(Dean wasn't too helpful either)
 
notinkansas said:
Here's hoping 2010 brings a big, fat, Donald Trump style "you're FIRED!" to the vast majority of these "representatives" up for re-election!

They need to be reminded just who works for whom.
Click to expand...

The problem here is "picking the other side" won't necessarily help anything. A choice between two is not really a choice at all. George Washington didn't like the idea of parties because he thought they essentially pit American against American in the most divisive ways. I know in those days the electoral system was not as accessible to the common people, but do you think he ever thought that the parties would breed apathy among Americans at large? When the people have to fit their values into someone else's box, isn't it more likely that apathy will ensue? Isn't it the usual thing that those in power exploit apathy and ignorance?

Please do not take this post as sarcastic or an attack of any kind. It is definitely not intended as such. Tell me. For whom do the representatives to the US Congress work? Hasn't there always been a disconnect between the Washington politician and the common person (you and I)? The relatively "new" twist is that we (the commoners) get them in the door, but they still answer to the power of the parties, right? This condition is not as strong on the state/local level where they are in our lives more frequently and are more answerable to us. But again, disappointment with Washington brings apathy into the state and local level as well. Fighting for good representation at every level should be our goal. I know this is a Liebermann thread so I'll stop rambling/hijacking now. Y'all enjoy Christmas or whatever holiday y'all celebrate. Making it through another year is always a blessing...
 
LSU Alex said:
The problem here is "picking the other side" won't necessarily help anything. A choice between two is not really a choice at all. George Washington didn't like the idea of parties because he thought they essentially pit American against American in the most divisive ways. I know in those days the electoral system was not as accessible to the common people,The relatively "new" twist is that we (the commoners) get them in the door, but they still answer to the power of the parties, right?
Click to expand...

👍
I couldn't have said it better myself. Each party is concerned with political gain, not the interests of the country.

Ron Paul, anyone?

Ok, how about Ralph Nader?🙂
 
Lieberman, right or wrong and above all else, is living proof that popularity can trump the deeply flawed two-party system in this country.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
-Sir Winston Churchill

-copro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top