Arkansas Blog

Max...Do you actually know what Obama's health legislation is?? I don't, and I downloaded and read through all 1061 pages of the House Bill. I think it would be useful for people in Arkansas to have an experienced journalist, who has the "right" political philosophy, do some research and explain it. I don't find "cut and past" comments and opinions by politicians and their operatives useful.

HenryS, and max, does Obama actually know what his heath legislation is? it sounds like if you're rich, well then you're okay. if you're not.....well, it's life as usual. you're up a tree without a ladder. thank you ever so much elected officials.

OHCPD

Obama's Health Care Plan for Dummies...

"Making sure every American has access to high quality health care is one of the most important challenges of our time. The number of uninsured Americans is growing, premiums are skyrocketing, and more people are being denied coverage every day. A moral imperative by any measure, a better system is also essential to rebuilding our economy -- we want to make health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies."

[LINK] blue bejeeus

My thought on Obama Health Care Plan...
"I will have more to say soon on this very important issue. I encourage you to sign up for my emails so I can keep you updated on this issue and please consider making a small $5 contribution in support of our efforts here at Huck PAC to elect more principled Republicans to Congress." --Huckabuck

OMFG

As much as you all will hate to read this, I trust Ross on health care issues. His background is in the industry, he grew up with nothing so he understands the plight of the less fortunate. I applaud his willingness to ask questions and to say slow down let's get it right. We all want health care reform, but let's get it right. Done right more will benefit in the long run. Ross takes some BS positions (guns) but he's right on this one.

Walter Cronkite died.

Sadness.

He gave us news back when news wasn't entertainment and driven by ratings and, as eL says, MoMoney.

Sorry. Clicked wrong thread.

Ross is running for Governor of Arkansas. What better way to get attention than to oppose Obama's desires on health care? He's not stupid. He knows that Obama got, what?, 40% in Arkansas last fall? Ross and the Blue Dogs are determined that there will not be anything approaching universal care.

No worries, Perplexed, Walter Cronkite was a great news reporter and it doesn't matter which thread you used to report his death. Sad.
Do you really think Mike Ross will run for Guv? Why?
Wouldn't that be a step down? Hell, now he is feeling all important, thinking he can lead the charge to take down the President. These giddy Blue Dogs really piss me off.
Including my dear friend Marion Berry. I plan to have a conversation with him next week.

Ross has about 20% of the people in his area with little or no insurance which means that the hospitals in the area which aren't numerous already are going to continue to have higher and higher uninsured patients but that is okay because they won't be able to buy their drugs from their local drugist also but that's okay because he is standing on principle! I don't think any hospitals in his district offered to get into the trauma program but that's okay because if they get in a wreck or their tractor turns over it's their own damn fault. Go and look at ES's comments on the open line about the number of people who will lose insurance, get canceled or die from lack of medical care because this "christian" (small "C" intended) nation is too damn self-centered to take care of the neediest. What a bunch of schlock!

The key to this mystery is as simple as Deep Throat: "Follow the money."

The cost to the national budget is a simple smoke-and-mirrors ruse. What ot costs is to me as a taxpayer, on the one hand, and as a slave to the wasted profits of the insurance industry and the economic aristocracy that Medicare made of the medical profession back in 1964on the other.

I really, really, want to pay more tax.

Oh dear, poor Mike, he's been running to a lot of meetings... bless his little chunk of black coal heart.

I heard the Blue Dogs met a unreceptive President in the Oval... kind of funny Mike omitted that little tidbit about the meeting.

If Mike gave one care in the world to costs, he would be stomping up and down demanding insurance companies receive the strongest possible competition from government plans like every country in the world who does better at health care than we. He would be demanding that "public" in public plan meant every single person in the USA would have their own choice. Public means everyone, Mike.

His talking points in truth suggest nothing but the fact he wants to protect big insurance by mandating millions of people will have to buy private insurance (with their own and government subsidy money). The lower the trigger, the more folks will be forced by law to purchase private insurance. Talk about a huge waste of money!!! He wants to give doctors a raise ta boot... all while lowering the bar of how many people will be able to choose to participate in a public plan. Which means he wants to pay private insurance, doctors (no doubt his own family pharmacy) more money.

And who the heck are these people from OU and Tx? Paid buddies of Ross and Big Coal... who try to inject the fear of Pelosi (not) into the conversation in a manner that makes no sense.

Shame on you Mike Ross. Physically conservative is one thing you and your Blue Dogs definitely are not...

Mike is murder.

Oh dear, poor Mike, he's been running to a lot of meetings... bless his little chunk of black coal heart.

I heard the Blue Dogs met a unreceptive President in the Oval... kind of funny Mike omitted that little tidbit about the meeting.

If Mike gave one care in the world to costs, he would be stomping up and down demanding insurance companies receive the strongest possible competition from government plans like every country in the world who does better at health care than we. He would be demanding that "public" in public plan meant every single person in the USA would have their own choice. Public means everyone, Mike.

His talking points in truth suggest nothing but the fact he wants to protect big insurance by mandating millions of people will have to buy private insurance (with their own and government subsidy money). The lower the trigger, the more folks will be forced by law to purchase private insurance. Talk about a huge waste of money!!! He wants to give doctors a raise ta boot... all while lowering the bar of how many people will be able to choose to participate in a public plan. Which means he wants to pay private insurance, doctors (no doubt his own family pharmacy) more money.

And who the heck are these people from OU and Tx? Paid buddies of Ross and Big Coal... who try to inject the fear of Pelosi (not) into the conversation in a manner that makes no sense.

Shame on you Mike Ross. fiscally conservative is one thing you and your Blue Dogs definitely are not...

Mike is murder.

MIKE GETS IT.. WHY DONT YOU BOZOS GET IT.
PROUD OF YOU MIKE ROSS. GO FOR IT.. JUST DO IT.
DO THE RIGHT THING. JUST LIKE YOU ARE.
AND BY THE WAY... WHICH ONES OF YOU DEMBOS WANT THE "COUNSELING" TEAM TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE TO SHOW YOU THE "WAY " YOU CAN SAVE THE GOV MONEY WHEN YOU DONT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR HEALTH CARE.. JUST TAKE A PILL. JUST DIE. YOU ARE NOT SAFE IN THE WOMB, OR AT THE END OF YOUR LIFE. WHAT THEY ARE PUSHING IS A GLORIFIED ELDERLY EUTHANSIA. PURE AND SIMPLE..DOESNT TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE IT.. YOU KOOLAID DRINKERS ARE DRUNK WITH IT.
WAKE UP.. YOU TOO WILL BE OLD SOME DAY.. AND "JUST NOT THE ECONOMICAL WAY TO TREAT YOU" TAKE A PILL AND WAKE UP, BEFORE YOU CANT WAKE UP.
LORD HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO GET, TO UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU ARE THE TROLLS. AND I GUESS YOU DONT WANT TO FEED YOU EITHER.

Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
July 17, 2009, 8:28 pm
The six deadly hypocrites

"Will the destructive center kill health care reform? It looks all too possible.

What's especially galling is the hypocrisy of their claimed reason for delaying progress - concern about the fiscal burden. After all, in the past most of them have shown no concern at all for the nation's long-term fiscal outlook.

Case in point: the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which denied Medicare the right to bargain for lower drug prices, locked in overpayments to private insurance companies, and did nothing, nothing at all, to pay for its proposed outlays. How many of these six self-proclaimed defenders of solvency voted no on the crucial procedural vote? One. (Joe Lieberman, to my surprise.)

And let's not forget that Ben Nelson, who appears to be the ringleader, has fought tooth and nail against competition from a public option - which would almost certainly save a significant amount of money, as well as providing much-needed competition.

If the Gang of Six really does kill reform, remember their names; they will bear the responsibility for vast, unnecessary suffering over the years to come."

[LINK] bejeeus

Hey Mr Ross,

If you really want to cut costs and give more accountability, amend the damn thing to force all health insurance companies to become mutual companies with the policyholders as the voting members. They could vote on retention of management and any bonuses. Remember, getting rid of the insurance companies cuts US healthcare costs by 30% immediately. That is fiscal responsibility!

Anything that the bill does that does not pull back on insurance company profits and bonuses will keep the healthacre induistry in the same focus as the banks are doing with their bailouts and now million dollar bonuses. The rich (and that included Ross) protecting the rich.

We already have that in this state with two groups-the rich, politicians, and business leaders beings sure that the rest of us continue to pay so they can keep up their lifestyle.

So I take that almost none of you are swayed by the fact that this we the Congressional Budget Office (which works for a Democratic congress) concluded that the reform bill in its present form will dramatically increase government spending but will *not* lower health care costs?

Theo, Mike said it himself in interviews this week.. a bill will pass. it should be perfectly clear that the Blue Dogs success in protecting insurance companies with triggers si the reason why savings will be minimal at best. He know wants t5o take what little there is and reduce potential savings further.All while demanding millions more be forced to buy private insurance is the reason the cost reductions will not happen.

Killing or ignoring private insurance is the path to real cost reduction.

SIngle payer ( or very close to it) is the only way more than 37 other countries have reduced costs in the past. And single payer is the one thing Ross refuses to consider as he fights like hell to keep the system from approaching the only proven success models in the rest of the world.

He's the reason the CBO numbers are what they are... and he's not finished yet.

[Rules For Commenting On The CBO's Judgments]
By Ezra Klein
July 16, 2009

"In the least surprising revelation of the day, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't see much in the way of savings coming from health-care reform in the next 10 or so years. This is because the bills under consideration do not save much money in the next 10 or so years.

I would, however, like to propose a couple of rules for commenting on this story. Politicians who are going to use this CBO report against the existing health-care reform proposals must do some combination of the following:

a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance;

b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth say you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare's rates;

c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare;

d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services;

e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates.

I would also like to propose a related rule: any reporters who receive a quote from a politician referencing this CBO score should be required to ask the politician which of these policies -- or which alternative cost-saving policies -- they support. And that should be on the record. I think it's perfectly legitimate to criticize health-care reform for not saving enough money. In fact, I think it's important. Health-care reform should save more money. But it's not legitimate to do that if you also oppose any and all measures for saving money."

[LINK]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/rules_for_commenting_on_the_cb.html

One of the Blue-Dogs selling points on the Health-Care issues is Americans don't want a "socialized medicine" like the Canadians and Brits! According to a blog on Fox News earlier this year. Just ask them? So a Gallup organization did just that, when Canadians were asked if they had confidence in "health care and medical systems" in their country. In Canada 73% answered this question affirmatively, Coincidentally the same percentage of Britons answered with same percentage. While in the US, despite their spending much more on health care, the figure was 56%.
One out of every six dollars spent in this nation goes to health, by 2035 it will be one third of the national earnings.
So does anyone think we still can sit around and hope these so in so's gobble so much they burst?

I am convinced the only way to counter these politicians who work counter to the will of the people is to defeat them in the next elections.

I think it is time for a "Democrats Against Mike Ross" organization. Let's see how his re-election goes when he loses 20 or 30 or 40% of his support.

Better an honest Republican in office than a Democrat in name only.

It wouldn't hurt anything to slow down a little and put more thought into it. The only reason for the August deadline is strictly political. When Congress gets in a hurry they usually create a monstrosity. Witness the Patriot Act.

It wouldn't hurt anything to slow down a little and put more thought into it. The only reason for the August deadline is strictly political. When Congress gets in a hurry they usually create a monstrosity. Witness the Patriot Act.

It wouldn't hurt anything to slow down a little and put more thought into it. The only reason for the August deadline is strictly political. When Congress gets in a hurry they usually create a monstrosity. Witness the Patriot Act.

Oops, I didn't realize I had posted the same thing three times. Sorry.

>>>"They want us to slow down and get it right and actually have time to read the bills we're voting on."

So, Mike's constituents think he's such a slow reader that he has yet to get through the bill that he is so intimately involved with? Or do they think that everyone reads as slowly as the average South Arkansan?