Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
iridium53
Semper Fi
01:14 PM on 06/15/2011
Nice summary. Thank you.

So, why is it, you suppose, that Democrats, including Obama, are so very unwilling to confront the Tea-Publican lies with this very information?

Perhaps because Democrats are just as owned as Tea-Publicans? But, more cynical and more hypocritical?

Or, is it because they are unprincipled and politically cowardly?

Or, perhaps some other choice?

Washingon is corruption and kleptocracy.
01:13 PM on 06/15/2011
Here at the Foundation for Innovation in Medicine, we are constantly striving to reduce health care costs. Can you imagine a world where cures and preventative medicines are actually AVAILABLE? Our latest project:
The Doctornaut Act
The act would permit physicians to more freely volunteer for clinical studies than non-physician volunteers.

A Doctornaut is a physician who volunteers for Phase II clinical research with fewer restraints than those of non-physician volunteers, and who is permitted to take greater risks than the former.

Phase II is the early medical discovery phase in clinical research, where a substance(s) is preliminarily evaluated for efficacy and safety. It usually involves small numbers of volunteers.

Among the benefits that will result from Congressional passage of the Act are:

Rapid acceleration of medical discovery followed by:
Reduced morbidity (increased quality of life)
Reduced rate of mortality from disease
Timely application of innovative medical therapies to clinical practice
Reduced health care costs!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a small, but necessary step toward making medical discoveries in this country possible.
Please come to the website and sign the petition today! Google Us! Foundation for Innovation in Medicine
photo
thejazz
I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.
12:55 PM on 06/15/2011
this is a continuation of the Repub vacuuming up of middle class renenue. Where is the extra 6K per year going to come from? Credit? some 90yo grandma has to max out her visa to get her broken hip taken care of? Looking at it from the average person perspective, it looks dumb and mean. I guess looking at it from the corporate perspective, a new profitible cost center is good. It's really messed up.
photo
oafishcad
No Facebook so...
12:55 PM on 06/15/2011
The goal of all conservatives is the destruction or privatization of all government programs, and the transfer of all wealth and power to the few.
12:37 PM on 06/15/2011
Republicans Claim That We Must Destroy Medicare to Save It. Democrats claim we must destroy republicans in order to save them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:27 PM on 06/15/2011
and those few elite in true power, laugh at the pawns (democrats and republicans) who fight amongst themselves.

Keep your focus on the show and you will always remain a slave to those behind the curtains.
Grunty1
Micro-bio this
02:25 PM on 06/15/2011
Rushpublicans also claim that the country must fail so they can have power back. Openly stated
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Lee Morris
04:10 PM on 06/15/2011
Phoenix rising from the ashes?
12:36 PM on 06/15/2011
And the Congressional perks don’t stop with the FEHBP. According to the article “Health care as good as Congress gets,” by John Barry, a staff writer for the St. Petersburg Times, “Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.”

Although members pay extra for these services - Representatives pay about $300 per month, and Senators about $600 - taxpayers end up kicking in another $2 million. That’s $2 million not being spent on those who need it.



Read more at Suite101: Health Care for U.S. Congress: Politicians Receive the Country’s Best Care - at Taxpayers' Expense | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/health-care-for-the-us-congress-a72870#ixzz1PMaXxsx4
12:33 PM on 06/15/2011
http://www.suite101.com/content/health-care-for-the-us-congress-a72870 Great article on Congresssiional benefits. WE PAY 75% of cost as their employer. One error in article, they are covered after 30 days not immediately. Also neither they noor their dependants are denied for pre-existing conditions.
12:26 PM on 06/15/2011
The super rich C-level executives can already afford their attack dogs. $250,000/dog is chump change for a C-level executive.

Dismantling Medicare to fund more tax cuts for the uber-rich and bankrupting the country (as well as the corporations that they "lead") is just another lifestyle choice, part of their religion of greed.
02:42 PM on 06/15/2011
the usual leftist nonsense - what "more tax cuts" are you referring to?
Grunty1
Micro-bio this
03:21 PM on 06/15/2011
The ones in the Ryan Plan, of course. It reduces the top tax rate from 35% to 25% (a 28% reduction).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
apapy
03:21 PM on 06/15/2011
The tax cuts in Paul Ryan's budget, in case you neglected to read the whole plan
photo
NightAdder
Truth should always be heard
12:19 PM on 06/15/2011
The republican history and credibility on social programs undermines all of their messages about trying to reform these programs. Historically, if they could not destroy a government program, they would try to privatize it and make it cost even more. If the republicans want to get any credibility with supporters of reform on any social program, they have to show that they can put people before profits. Programs like SSI, medicare, and welfare are more than just investments, they save lives. I have never seen a republican proposal that looked at these programs in that kind of light. To them, everyone is a crook.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Group 8807
No Masters, No Slaves
12:09 PM on 06/15/2011
These vouchers would introduce a meaningful element into the healthcare system, one currently missing from our single-payer Medicare program: price competition.

By introducing competition for consumers into the insurance market, the voucher system will pressure insurers to compete on cost while maintaining a high standard of care.

Competition is why your tv gets better every year and costs less.
12:30 PM on 06/15/2011
Seriously? You are comparing TV prices to the healthcare insurance market? There is a huge piece missing from your typical, standard corporate-approved right-wing talking point. People don't have to have TVs. I don't know of anyone who doesn't need healthcare at some point in their lives. A voucher system (glad you admit that's what it is) will not "pressure" insurers to "compete on cost". Are you kidding me? What possible incentive would they have to do that, and what possible recourse would an average person on a fixed income have to protect themselves? Especially if insurance companies just took all of the so-called "premium support" to issue a policy, and then denied coverage to anyone they didn't want to pay out claims on. That's what they do in the private sector now, so existing "pressure" to "compete on costs" hasn't worked so far. TV manufacturers are forced to compete BECAUSE people don't have to buy TVs. Better go back and ask how the corporate-approved talking points/Fox "News" propaganda responds to that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:12 PM on 06/15/2011
we don't 'need' medical care either. What about 'food care' - don't we 'need' food? and food is quite effectively provided by the market, right?

and you can stop with all the insults like 'corporate-­approved talking points/Fox "News" propaganda' - if your only method to discussing ideas is by calling them names, you really should be back on the playground.
photo
thejazz
I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.
12:49 PM on 06/15/2011
TV'S? So we should get our health care from China?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:50 PM on 06/15/2011
as long as we have a choice through the market: I would consider whatever a Chinese company might offer in terms of healthcare, and I would apply the same economic vetting to it as I would to any other offers, foreign or domestic.

Meaning, if a Chinese company offered me medical care that was of a quality I desired, for a price I was willing to pay, then what is the problem?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:08 PM on 06/15/2011
...and Democrats believe they must CONTINUE to destroy the economy with Bush bail outs instead of restoring Glass-Steagall.

You won't be able to 'save' Medi-care without restoring FDR'S Glass-Steagall.

In fact, you won't be able to save the global economy without adopting a universal Glass-Steagall.
02:28 PM on 06/15/2011
So the Republicans were pushing for the restoration of Glass Steagall?

Unanimously the Republicans rejected any type of regulation or reform after the financial crisis.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:25 AM on 06/16/2011
no, and neither are Democrats and Obama.

and the 'financial crisis' is ongoing, not 'after' but ongoing until Glass-Steagal restored.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janylaw
12:03 PM on 06/15/2011
'receiving a quarter-trillion-dollar subsidy out of the public purse' - those poor, impoverished pharmaceutical companies, they need that welfare subsidy to survive, right? More than we need jobs, money for utility bills or healthcare. It's the American way. After all, corporations are people too - right?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Appleblossom
12:57 PM on 06/15/2011
They are the important people...the rest of us are just cannon fodder.
02:48 PM on 06/15/2011
Well lets remember that they own enough of the Congress to have prevented the big stupid Medicare bureaucracy from even having the right to negotiate prices. How stupid is that.
And its not just Republicans who allow it.
12:01 PM on 06/15/2011
All I know is that I was I notified today my health insurance rates will be going up next year at the small business I work at. When I asked why I was notified that 80% of that increase is due to Obamacare....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
Named after a great play by Clifford Odets
12:18 PM on 06/15/2011
Then you should be demanding a public option alternative to for-profit insurance.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:59 PM on 06/15/2011
if there is something wrong with 'for profit', then lets abolish the whole concept: down with 'for profit' shoes, beds, cars, food, housing, etc. Let the government provide all these things for free and we can all relax on the beach.

Those of you who rail against 'profit' really have no concept of what it is, or what the alternative implies: slavery.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Appleblossom
12:55 PM on 06/15/2011
Last time mine went up they said it was because the sun was yellow instead of a golden yellow.

In other words-insurance companies will use any excuse to raise your rates and rarely have good cause.
photo
TitaniumAvatar
Sinister yet Dexterous
11:55 AM on 06/15/2011
The GOP will do the first half of Creamer's claim, and not the second half.

Then they'll claim 50% success.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Durham
Just a guy who tries to stay informed and stand fo
11:52 AM on 06/15/2011
With life expectancy rising in the world and the medical necessities that accompany this rise we have to ask ourselves how we are going to pay for such treatment. It will include drugs, surgeries, counseling and other costly measures. Even without profit applied to these costs societies all over the world will be hard pressed to meet the needs of their citizens. With profit added to the health care dynamic it will be even more difficult to supply the necessary treatment that arises when people simply age. We have reached a point where maintaining one's health is a matter of affordability. If you can't pay for a life saving operation then you will die. Is that how we want it to work in this country? Pay or die?

It's often said that the Constitution doesn't guarantee health care. Well, it was meant to be a malleable document that would change as the country's challenges evolved. The health of our society is one of the premiere challenges facing us in the future. I believe health should be a right not tied to the profitability of sickness. That is the practical way to move forward. And the moral way.