Topic: health care bill

[MRieck]

Last I checked our country was developed becuase we were trying to get away from the ideals of having a government run country.  Our country was built on the idea that we would not have only one religion, and we had freedoms.  Now the government gets to tell us if we get to live by pursuing treatment or die because they don't want to spend the money.  Good bye to all the grandmothers and grandfathers in the United States.  I knew this was going to be bad when the first presidential decision made by Nobama was to shut down Gitmo and invite the terrorists who are in custody for murdering thousands of Americans into our country on our soil.

Welcome to the forum Sarah Palin.  Let's try and stay with the facts and not silly talking points.

Big surprise, an Obama supporter made the first personal insult.  
What you call talking points, hundreds of millions of Americans call core beliefs.
The phrase, "talking points" is also a way to belittle the concepts.  That's what people do when they can't make a valid argument, they resort to distorting the topic and personal attacks.
Are the 10 Commandments also "talking points"?
 

We need less government control, not more, and when you have people like Pelosi saying they'll "do whatever necessary" to pass what they call healthcare reform, and Obama saying that process doesn't really matter, it's clear we need government reform far more than healthcare reform.  
This is a nation founded on laws and beliefs, and to stray from them is to doom the nation.

(p.s.- If this healthcare is in such crisis, why doesn't most of this 'emergency' legislation kick in for four years?)

-K

government gets to tell us if we get to live.....goodbye to all Grandmothers and Grandfathers in the U.S......inviting terrorist into our country..... these are core beliefs held by hundreds of millions.

Sounds like talking points to me.  Where's your sense of humor?  Insults, personal attacks, I guess this is one downside of talk radio.  Everyone's a victim.  It's a bit of a joke and I think patriotictex got that when he called me "Barack" on a later post.

You seem to imply this was passed in some unlawful manner.  The bill was passed like any other voted on by both houses and passed by a majority.  Reconciliation will be used to pass some changes in the bill that the House wanted to the Senate version.   Reconciliation has been used by both parties numerous times and also the "Deem and Pass" which was not used had been used by Republicans numerous times over the years of the Bush Administration.  As long as they stay within the legal framework both sides have used various methods of getting their bills through and the process is less important than the final outcome.

(p.s.- If this healthcare is in such crisis, why doesn't most of this 'emergency' legislation kick in for four years?)
 
 Come on, do you really need this explained.

          I believe Reconciliation was referred to as the "Nuclear Option" in the mainstream media when used by Republicans.

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster.  Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents. This can only be used for bills that have some budgetary component so it cannot be used for everything anytime anywhere.  The changes the House wants in the Senate bill meet the budget criteria and some they wanted to change did not so they were dropped.

 In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes to end a filibuster.   The threat of using this has been used most often for judicial nominees by both parties.  I don't believe it has actually been used in recent times.  It's the threat of ending the filibuster and despite all the noise neither party seems willing to pull the trigger hence the name.

So they are two different things though it is easy to confuse the two.  It is only recently with this Congress that Repubs have been using the term nuclear option in reference to Reconciliation.  Historically and in Bush's term they were and still are two different things regardless of the Republican tactics of confuse and scare.

  You had my interest right up until that bit of rhetoric.

[demon78]

Right on Seaweb you and I both know the government doesn't matter it's how all the citizens are treated. Srust Canada has had a few Communists elected I repeat ELECTED and the reason they were is because they a did good job for their constituents not because of their political leanings.
Bill the demon.

[Jordan]

If my memory has not totally slipped, I think that the people already let the supreme court appoint a president. At least that is what the media clowns were saying when Bush II took office. But that is a side point, On health, care in the US, I do not see how any of this political wrangling is helping anyone, as I see it, until the Insurance companies are removed or limited from the equation absolutely nothing will change. My personal view is that every person from birth to 18 should have 100% free medical care, from 18 to 55 should buy their own and from 55 to passing from this life should have 100% free medical care. And absolutely no one should ever be turned away in an emergency due to inability to pay. This government could pay for it in full without raising taxes with the obscene amounts of money they waste every day. Will they do it? Absolutely not, as it is obvious that big money in this country has almost every politician in their pocket. As far as the ignore button.....so be it. I am sure that people from all over the world hold the same opinion of their country being the best, good for them! It makes me happy to see people stand up and speak their mind in these times of mamby-pamby political correctness, how else will things get changed.

[Laminar]

It is one of my largest gripes that all of the cable media (save one outlet) is horrifying slanted in their political views.  No wonder the "one outlet" has more prime time viewership by over 4 times the next closest competitor.  Oh the horror of the nuclear option... now silence. 

Oh no. You didn't just insinuate that Fox News is unbiased, did you?

[Caaveman82]

It is one of my largest gripes that all of the cable media (save one outlet) is horrifying slanted in their political views.  No wonder the "one outlet" has more prime time viewership by over 4 times the next closest competitor.  Oh the horror of the nuclear option... now silence. 

Oh no. You didn't just insinuate that Fox News is unbiased, did you?

Hey they are fair and balanced! Balanced like a fat guy on a teeter totter with a little kid. The problem with Fox is that, and they don't really announce this so most of their viewers don't even know, that 90% of their programming is OPINION SHOWS!

[BeSeeingYou]

Last I checked our country was developed becuase we were trying to get away from the ideals of having a government run country.  Our country was built on the idea that we would not have only one religion, and we had freedoms.  Now the government gets to tell us if we get to live by pursuing treatment or die because they don't want to spend the money.  Good bye to all the grandmothers and grandfathers in the United States.  I knew this was going to be bad when the first presidential decision made by Nobama was to shut down Gitmo and invite the terrorists who are in custody for murdering thousands of Americans into our country on our soil.

Welcome to the forum Sarah Palin.  Let's try and stay with the facts and not silly talking points.

Big surprise, an Obama supporter made the first personal insult.  
What you call talking points, hundreds of millions of Americans call core beliefs.
The phrase, "talking points" is also a way to belittle the concepts.  That's what people do when they can't make a valid argument, they resort to distorting the topic and personal attacks.
Are the 10 Commandments also "talking points"?
 

We need less government control, not more, and when you have people like Pelosi saying they'll "do whatever necessary" to pass what they call healthcare reform, and Obama saying that process doesn't really matter, it's clear we need government reform far more than healthcare reform.  
This is a nation founded on laws and beliefs, and to stray from them is to doom the nation.

(p.s.- If this healthcare is in such crisis, why doesn't most of this 'emergency' legislation kick in for four years?)

-K

government gets to tell us if we get to live.....goodbye to all Grandmothers and Grandfathers in the U.S......inviting terrorist into our country..... these are core beliefs held by hundreds of millions.

Sounds like talking points to me.  Where's your sense of humor?  Insults, personal attacks, I guess this is one downside of talk radio.  Everyone's a victim.  It's a bit of a joke and I think patriotictex got that when he called me "Barack" on a later post.

You seem to imply this was passed in some unlawful manner.  The bill was passed like any other voted on by both houses and passed by a majority.  Reconciliation will be used to pass some changes in the bill that the House wanted to the Senate version.   Reconciliation has been used by both parties numerous times and also the "Deem and Pass" which was not used had been used by Republicans numerous times over the years of the Bush Administration.  As long as they stay within the legal framework both sides have used various methods of getting their bills through and the process is less important than the final outcome.

(p.s.- If this healthcare is in such crisis, why doesn't most of this 'emergency' legislation kick in for four years?)
 
 Come on, do you really need this explained.

          I believe Reconciliation was referred to as the "Nuclear Option" in the mainstream media when used by Republicans.

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster.  Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents. This can only be used for bills that have some budgetary component so it cannot be used for everything anytime anywhere.  The changes the House wants in the Senate bill meet the budget criteria and some they wanted to change did not so they were dropped.

 In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes to end a filibuster.   The threat of using this has been used most often for judicial nominees by both parties.  I don't believe it has actually been used in recent times.  It's the threat of ending the filibuster and despite all the noise neither party seems willing to pull the trigger hence the name.

So they are two different things though it is easy to confuse the two.  It is only recently with this Congress that Repubs have been using the term nuclear option in reference to Reconciliation.  Historically and in Bush's term they were and still are two different things regardless of the Republican tactics of confuse and scare.

You had my interest right up until that bit of rhetoric.

That's part of the point that leads to the confusion.  Republicans have been trying to make a bogeyman out of Reconciliation by equating it with another unrelated ominous sounding tactic even though they have used it more themselves.  They are trying to make the impression that this is some awful, unlawful tactic.  If somehow exposing that is political rhetoric then so be it.  

[BeSeeingYou]

It is one of my largest gripes that all of the cable media (save one outlet) is horrifying slanted in their political views.  No wonder the "one outlet" has more prime time viewership by over 4 times the next closest competitor.  Oh the horror of the nuclear option... now silence.  

Oh no. You didn't just insinuate that Fox News is unbiased, did you?

Hey they are fair and balanced! Balanced like a fat guy on a teeter totter with a little kid. The problem with Fox is that, and they don't really announce this so most of their viewers don't even know, that 90% of their programming is OPINION SHOWS!

Here is a perfect example of the confuse and scare tactics.  GammaFlat confuses Reconciliation and the Nuclear Option.  Another example of how watching Fox can make you ill informed.

[demon78]

Ok it's signed now maybe my tv will go back to Canadian and international news, grumble.
Bill the demon.

[MRieck]

Last I checked our country was developed becuase we were trying to get away from the ideals of having a government run country.  Our country was built on the idea that we would not have only one religion, and we had freedoms.  Now the government gets to tell us if we get to live by pursuing treatment or die because they don't want to spend the money.  Good bye to all the grandmothers and grandfathers in the United States.  I knew this was going to be bad when the first presidential decision made by Nobama was to shut down Gitmo and invite the terrorists who are in custody for murdering thousands of Americans into our country on our soil.

Welcome to the forum Sarah Palin.  Let's try and stay with the facts and not silly talking points.

Big surprise, an Obama supporter made the first personal insult.  
What you call talking points, hundreds of millions of Americans call core beliefs.
The phrase, "talking points" is also a way to belittle the concepts.  That's what people do when they can't make a valid argument, they resort to distorting the topic and personal attacks.
Are the 10 Commandments also "talking points"?
 

We need less government control, not more, and when you have people like Pelosi saying they'll "do whatever necessary" to pass what they call healthcare reform, and Obama saying that process doesn't really matter, it's clear we need government reform far more than healthcare reform.  
This is a nation founded on laws and beliefs, and to stray from them is to doom the nation.

(p.s.- If this healthcare is in such crisis, why doesn't most of this 'emergency' legislation kick in for four years?)

-K

government gets to tell us if we get to live.....goodbye to all Grandmothers and Grandfathers in the U.S......inviting terrorist into our country..... these are core beliefs held by hundreds of millions.

Sounds like talking points to me.  Where's your sense of humor?  Insults, personal attacks, I guess this is one downside of talk radio.  Everyone's a victim.  It's a bit of a joke and I think patriotictex got that when he called me "Barack" on a later post.

You seem to imply this was passed in some unlawful manner.  The bill was passed like any other voted on by both houses and passed by a majority.  Reconciliation will be used to pass some changes in the bill that the House wanted to the Senate version.   Reconciliation has been used by both parties numerous times and also the "Deem and Pass" which was not used had been used by Republicans numerous times over the years of the Bush Administration.  As long as they stay within the legal framework both sides have used various methods of getting their bills through and the process is less important than the final outcome.

(p.s.- If this healthcare is in such crisis, why doesn't most of this 'emergency' legislation kick in for four years?)
 
 Come on, do you really need this explained.

          I believe Reconciliation was referred to as the "Nuclear Option" in the mainstream media when used by Republicans.

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster.  Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents. This can only be used for bills that have some budgetary component so it cannot be used for everything anytime anywhere.  The changes the House wants in the Senate bill meet the budget criteria and some they wanted to change did not so they were dropped.

 In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes to end a filibuster.   The threat of using this has been used most often for judicial nominees by both parties.  I don't believe it has actually been used in recent times.  It's the threat of ending the filibuster and despite all the noise neither party seems willing to pull the trigger hence the name.

So they are two different things though it is easy to confuse the two.  It is only recently with this Congress that Repubs have been using the term nuclear option in reference to Reconciliation.  Historically and in Bush's term they were and still are two different things regardless of the Republican tactics of confuse and scare.

You had my interest right up until that bit of rhetoric.

That's part of the point that leads to the confusion.  Republicans have been trying to make a bogeyman out of Reconciliation by equating it with another unrelated ominous sounding tactic.  They are trying to make the impression that this is some awful, unlawful tactic.  If somehow exposing that is political rhetoric then so be it.  

    I can insert the word Democrat in place of Republican and the statement will not change....that's my point. All politics aside....I live in Massachusetts and the implementation of "Universal Health Care" several years ago has produced some interesting numbers. The most important is that the projected costs were woefully short of those incurred. Maybe the state hired "actors" instead of "actuaries".
  The projected cost for fiscal 10/11 is very close to 1 billion dollars. The state would be bankrupt if not for the infusion of generous federal dollars.
  The sad part is we went from 93% of the population having insurance to 97%. Not very cost effective.
   It was also predicted that ER use for primary care would rapidly decrease. It has increased. ER use for primary care is often culturally based. By that I mean members of society have become accustomed to this type of medical care and old habits die hard. It will take 3(?) generations to break people of bad habits?
  The national plan mimics the Massachusetts plan (or at least incorporates many of its features and key policies) so I'm a bit apprehensive and I find it understandable that others are as well.
 

[bucky katt]

when i was still at a job that offered insurance it would have been 103 dollars a week for my wife and I, this is when my paycheck came from the department of defense.

[patriotictex]

Canadian Opinion: Not a soapbox rant, just my observations.

I wish you guys and gals South of us well. Having always had family health care, I wouldn't dare tell a Country how to sort themselves out.
I know I pay $114.00 per month for a family of 3, and we are all just fine.

I don't know all the nuances in what actually got voted through, but I believe for the 1st couple of years your new system will see a lot of people of every background, culture, color, income, and yes party hitting the system HARD!  "I can go to the Doctor"

I think it will be fodder for people/pundits/media looking to crap on the new system for a few years,  but I think it will slow down once people understand it won't disappear
If it costs $1500.00 in the US to have a doctor look at a lump on your neck, and rent is due and you have 2 kids , what do people do?  

Makes sense here in Canada to have a person come in as soon as possible to have it looked at before it becomes a much greater strain on the system?

Big govt/ small govt/ what ever, a healthy Country should be more important. You pay for the guy with the massive Cancer on his throat eventually.

   "Comrad" ? seriously?

No offence meant to any posters here who are obviously very emotional about keeping health care from your brothers.

I welcome your input.  So the Earth has not opened up and the fires of hell burst forth? Grandma and Grandpa aren't dying in the streets?  Your economy has not collapsed?  How about the Commies taking over?  I could go on but you get my drift.

I welcome the input as well.  I understand paying such a small amount for a family of three is nice.  However what was not stated was the fact that the health care bill will increase taxes for the citizens who work for a living.  This being said, I may pay a small premium monthly for my family’s personal insurance but I am paying out the rear for everyone else after this health care bill passes.  Personally I would rather keep the money I work my butt off for and spend my time working to help solve unemployment instead. 

My first real job outside of mowing lawns was at the age of 15 years old.  I worked at a Kroger grocery store sacking groceries.  I had health care then at the age of 15 that I paid for myself, I filed my own taxes after my dad taught me how, and I still do today.  I am a psychology major who is actively involved in crisis intervention and I can tell you that the majority of those homeless people on the street choose to be there.  I can’t remember the amount of people I’ve talked to who have been homeless and told me they simply operate better under the conditions of living on the street than they do actively involved in society. 

[Duke McDukiedook]

My, my, Tex, how christian of you to care about the less fortunate so much.

You big softie.

[seaweb11]

Why does the "Homeless" always come up ?

I have a client in Texas who owns a  business worth millions. He can't get insurance period. preexisting issues.....
He employs many people, has a nice home and family. He is not homeless. Recently he had a migraine that would not go away. He finally breaks down pays out $3500.00 for a few scans etc.at Emegency and they sent him home with some aspirin.  That's just #$%*ED UP!
Oh ya, his wife and son are on a plan with a $1500.00+ deductible.  What's the point?

Here is his business http://www.adventureplaysystems.com/ ya, #$%* him, society doesn't need him anyway right.

So lets get off the homeless rant shall we.  What part of (you pay for those people already) don't you get?

Does anyone even know what your premiums will be with what was just passed?

[demon78]

Ok Mr P I think it's got to be a lot different in Texas than it does in say Michigan, New york, or for that matter Ontario winters are just a tick colder I think in the north being homeless caries different bagage and not all homeless people want to be there.
Bill the demon.

[BobbyR]

The use of the ER for primary care occurs mostly in economically depressed areas both Urban and Rural. I live in an affluent suburb of NYC and when I was diagnosed I had my pick of Doctors and Hospitals courting me. I have 3 Professional office complexes filled with Doctors, Dentists, Radiology, and MRI Centers. I have good Insurance right now, it is very expensive and I am currently protected from preexisting conditions. This Bill will ensure that.

My office is in the worst area of our County, and since my clients are Railroads, the best housing is near Rail yards. I don't see the Medical complexes, I see a few shabby storefronts. There is a shabby Hospital down the street. These people don't/can't have a primary Physician, so they go to the ER. I am not sure this Bill will address this. If I went to Med School with several hundred thousands dollars in debt, would I want to practice in a depressed area, or would I go where the money is, where my Patients come in well dressed and smelling nice.

No one knows where this Bill is going. I expect there will be a lot of noise made about it during the upcoming Elections which could result in it's being amended if the public votes Democrats out of office. It is a start and that is all I can say about it. Probably not a good start, but the US does not like certain changes. I put 9 Gallons of gas in the car and I drove 60 Miles today at 70 Mph in it. The bolts holding the American car together are Metric.

[Rocking-M]

Canadian Opinion: Not a soapbox rant, just my observations.

I wish you guys and gals South of us well. Having always had family health care, I wouldn't dare tell a Country how to sort themselves out.
I know I pay $114.00 per month for a family of 3, and we are all just fine.

I don't know all the nuances in what actually got voted through, but I believe for the 1st couple of years your new system will see a lot of people of every background, culture, color, income, and yes party hitting the system HARD!  "I can go to the Doctor"

I think it will be fodder for people/pundits/media looking to crap on the new system for a few years,  but I think it will slow down once people understand it won't disappear
If it costs $1500.00 in the US to have a doctor look at a lump on your neck, and rent is due and you have 2 kids , what do people do?  

Makes sense here in Canada to have a person come in as soon as possible to have it looked at before it becomes a much greater strain on the system?

Big govt/ small govt/ what ever, a healthy Country should be more important. You pay for the guy with the massive Cancer on his throat eventually.

   "Comrad" ? seriously?

No offence meant to any posters here who are obviously very emotional about keeping health care from your brothers.

thanks for the post Derek, I thought I remember your numbers from asking a few years back but it's nice to have
my memory re-affirmed.   I think the only suggestion I've made to my congressmen is to consider the Canadian plan.
All the current plan seems to do is provide income insurance for health care insurance companies.
Whoever said they pay small premiums here in the uS is blowing smoke.

[BobbyR]

And so it begins:

Senate Showdown over Health Care Reconciliation Begins

Now that President Obama has signed the health care bill into law, the Senate Democrats are putting into motion the final piece of their reform package -- the reconciliation bill.

The Senate this afternoon kicked off debate on the 153-page reconciliation bill that will amend the original "Senate bill" that Mr. Obama signed this morning, and Republicans are ready to offer scores of amendments to draw out the process as long as possible.

"I think it should be noted that this bill that we're dealing with, the reconciliation bill, is the fourth major step forward in the push to drive this country down a road towards a European-style government," Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican in the Senate Budget Committee, said today.

In fact, the reconciliation bill is a measure intended to resolve the problems Democrats had with the "Senate bill," which passed the Senate in December and the House on Sunday. For instance, the reconciliation bill would strip the reform package of many of the specials deals that made the bill politically toxic, like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." It would also, at the behest of lawmakers interested in protecting labor unions, push back the "Cadillac" tax on high-priced insurance plans until 2018.

The House passed the reconciliation measure on Sunday, after it passed the Senate bill, and the Senate had to wait until the main piece of legislation became law before addressing the reconciliation bill. The reconciliation process only requires 51 votes to pass a bill, but it may only be used on provisions that impact the federal budget.

While it is unlikely Republicans will be able to bring down the reconciliation bill, they can at least stall its passage by introducing countless amendments to be considered. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to wrap up the debate by Friday or Saturday, the Hill reports.

Gregg told reporters the GOP will offer "a series of substantive amendments, the purpose of which is to try to correct some of the fundamental flaws" of the main legislation. He added, "I know we can't fix it really because it's such a terrible bill."

A portion of the GOP's objections to the bill will address whether its provisions actually follow the rules of reconciliation, Politico reports, though Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the bill is "completely clean."

Supporters of the Democrats' health care reform package are accusing the GOP of introducing worthless amendments to simply foil the process. The AFL-CIO, the influential federation of labor organizations, said it expects Republicans to introduce amendments that Democrats would normally support, in order to compel Democrats to vote for them and complicate the bill with more amendments.

"Any amendment offered during this process is nothing more than a poison pill," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. "A 'NO' on amendments is a 'YES' on health care."

The AFL-CIO says it will stand behind senators who vote for the bill but against any amendments, even on issues they would normally support.

If any amendments pass and the reconciliation bill is altered, it would have to go back to the House for yet another vote. It is likely the House would be able to round up the votes once again, since they passed the measure once already, but it would slow down the process.

While labor unions intend to support legislators who back the health care bill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said today that trumpeting congressional votes will work in the Republicans' favor. He cited the new CBS News poll showing that few Americans expect to benefit from this legislation.

"You're going to see this become I think one of the signature issues in the November 2010 election," he said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the GOP's campaign slogan will be "repeal and replace."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001018-503544.html

[MRieck]

 I believe the ultimate goal of this bill is to establish a single payer system. If the current plan (whatever it truly is) is successful Democrats ( after all ...it is their bill) will point to that success and say it can be even better with single payer. If the system turns out to be fiscal black hole Democrats will point to the single payer system as a cure. Disingenuous but that is how politics work. I have personally heard 3 democrats from Massachusetts say single payer is their ultimate objective.

[BobbyR]

I believe the ultimate goal of this bill is to establish a single payer system. If the current plan (whatever it truly is) is successful Democrats ( after all ...it is their bill) will point to that success and say it can be even better with single payer. If the system turns out to be fiscal black hole Democrats will point to the single payer system as a cure. Disingenuous but that is how politics work. I have personally heard 3 democrats from Massachusetts say single payer is their ultimate objective.

You are probably correct Mike about the ultimate goal. You are 100% correct about how Politicians operate.

[tramp]

what is the single payer system?

[Bob Wessner]

what is the single payer system?

A single healthcare system funded and administered similarly to Medicare.

[LWATCDR]

Yes I agree that we need to do something. ERs are a mess and I don't blame the doctors.
I spent 8 hours waiting in an ER because I didn't look sick enough and didn't complain enough.  I thought I had the flu so I tried to go to my doc. It would take two weeks to get an appointment. Fine I went to an instamed clinic. They checked me out and gave me Tamaflu and said to come back if I didn't feel better in two weeks.
Well I didn't. I tried to get in to see my doc but still not luck. I finally went back to the the clinc and it turned out I had pneumonia. I was working on about half of one lung.
They didn't have rights at the hospital so I had to go to the Emergency room. They gave me a DVD with my X-Ray but they couldn't read them.
After 8 hours they finally got me into see the doctor and he about freaked.
My blood O2 levels where at the toxic stage. I spent a week on O2 in the hospital.
The problem was the staff wouldn't let me in to my doctor.
The hospital ER was full of people with headaches and needing stitches.
Since I didn't have chest pains and could walk and talk I was kept in order.
I just happen to be one of those people that tend to keep doing and going so I just didn't look as sick as I was.

My doctor has told his staff that if I say I need to see him I need to see him. I have never said that I need to see him right now because I have not been that sick again.
Over all I think the Doctors and Nurses are trying to do their best.
Now I don't like that I have never been to my doctors building and have not seen a drug company sales person. And boy do they seem friendly with the staff.
Just don't like that at all... And they often seem to be pretty women.....
Just seems a bit suspect if you know what I mean.

[tramp]

what is the single payer system?

A single healthcare system funded and administered similarly to Medicare.

just what we need

[BobbyR]

On the Lighter Side

Biden drops f-bomb on open mike:

It's a good day for Vice President Biden, but the veteran Democrat is the latest public figure to get caught cussing on the open mike.

After introducing President Obama today to a group of whooping Democratic lawmakers at the health care bill signing, Biden could be heard telling his boss, "This is a big f------- deal!"

Fox News tweeted out the comment, MSNBC played it over the air, and folks at the White House got a good chuckle over the whole thing.

And, believe it or not, you can already buy a T-shirt featuring Biden's now-immortal phrase.

Given the landmark nature of the health care law, the comment is likely to join the open mike Hall of Fame. (Uttering the f-bomb in mike range used to be the biggest non-golf thing for which Tiger Woods was known.)

And remember this political classic from 2000? Candidate George W. Bush spoke to running mate Dick Cheney about a critical reporter, calling him "a major league a------," to which Cheney responded, "big time."

Obama administration officials didn't seem too concerned about Biden's latest entry.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs tweeted, "And yes, Mr. Vice President, you're right."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/03/biden-drops-f-bomb-on-open-mike/1?csp=hf

[BobbyR]

Interesting Fallout

Revenge of the white men
Victims of the 'he-cession' are turning against the Democrats, and that could sway the November elections.

March 22, 2010|By David Paul Kuhn

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38% -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting but also pulled in 41% of white male voters. Suddenly, there were millions more white men voting the Democratic ticket.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but rather because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38% ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35% of men and 43% of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But over that same period, white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46%, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38% of white men approve of the president, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent won 52% of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60%-to-38% margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling. Once again, Democrats could not win enough other votes to compensate for the white male gap.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/opinion/la-oe-kuhn22-2010mar22