« Let's add something new to the name of "Labor Day"... It should be "Labor & Universal Health Care Day". Or perhaps "Labor & Defeat of The Soul Eating Bastards Day". | O¿O in the crowd's Blog | Has anyone else noticed the ads that are popping up on TPM? Health Insurance Companies et al... »
The answer to "Do you want the government rationing healthcare?" and, I will pay the filing fee for the first person to challenge an incumbent democrat, IN A PRIMARY, that refused to support the PUBLIC OPTION IN THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL!!!
Sorry about that long title, just trying to make a point.
The answer to "Do you want the government rationing healthcare?"
As Opposed to who? If you are talking about the government taking the place of those doctors that the insurance companies pay BONUSES to, to deny coverage. If it is the government taking the place of those assholes, then the answer is not just Yes, but... FUCK YES.
It has become apparent to me that Democrats have lost their nerve.
I will pay the primary filing fee for the first person to take on a democrat, IN A PRIMARY, that refuses to vote for a PUBLIC OPTION IN THE HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL!!!
Sorry for my feeble attempts of late, I have been flat on my back.
Advertisement
Great idea. I'd like to see a fund for challenging every Blue Dog in the primary. If we can't defeat them we can make them pay and if a Republican defeats them we won't be able to tell the difference.
June 12, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
you have a very good point there on not being able to tell the difference anyway:)
June 12, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
um...agreed (although in shock as I say it...)
June 13, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
2b,
Exactly! Spread the word!
June 12, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE NEED A PUBLIC OPTION. I want government's foot in that door.
Then we can yell and scream about more government influence.
I am with you on this Face.
June 12, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for a public "option", but are you OK if I keep my private insurance? And can you ensure that I will be able to have a "private option"?
I don't want to go to a public option where certain procedures won't be paid for that I could have received under the private insurance.
June 12, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The misconception, Bill, is that a public option may decrease your access to health care. It won't. Not only can you keep your private option but you can consider the public option if you think it's even better.
You will have the choice.
June 12, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
tpmgary,
Thanks for this clarification. Please keep 'screaming' this loudly anytime to correct all the disinformation being circulated.
June 12, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. But the public option has recently rationed things like the virtual colonoscopy. Medicare recently decided that they can't pay for such a procedure. That's why I don't to go on the government's plan.
June 12, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And those private companies have "recently" turned down kidney transplants that eventually MURDERED a teenager, and the "doctor" that decided to deny the "coverage" got a bonus for it.
Come on Bill, man-up and just get a real colonoscopy, I have twice and I am only 47. A virtual Colonoscopy can never sees the blood!
June 13, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess if you consider the private insurance companies to be "murderers" then I see why you want a public option. (I refrained from using all caps because hopefully you get my point without them). And that's fine for you to want a public option.
And like I've said above, as long as there is still a private option that I can continue to use, that's great.
I am just not a fan of a situation where the public option is the only option. And private insurance is only for "extended or additional services" as some people on here have suggested.
I want to use my current private insurance going forward for all the same services I am getting today.
June 13, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Germany there's public health coverage for everyone. There's also private health insurance too. You have to make more than 43,000 euros (about $60K US) a year to be eligible to for the option.
June 13, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choice is the word!
June 13, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
BJ,
I agree but the word choice to some in this country is just downright unChristian.
Thanks for the view from your corner of the world.
June 13, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you cite any "public option" proponent who has seriously argued to ban all private options?
No public option will pay for ALL "certain procedures" covered by any or all private plans.
On the topic of rationing, the question is in effect, "Who should ration what care for whom?"
No health care is unrationed. It's rationed by willingness of the payer to pay and scarcity of care resources, when the rationing is not dictated by law or ethics. In the private system, if you are willing to pay more you get more, proportionately or not. If you cannot pay enough to satisfy vultures and vampires, your health care is rationed by money constraints. If you cannot find care in a timely manner the rationing is done by scarcity of resource (or total lack thereof in some cases).
In the public option, taxpayers pay.
One larger question is whether care will improve in both quality and quantity overall, if there is more "public option" than there is now. Those who fear socialism fear that socialized medicine will decrease the "care product" for those who could pay more, and that it will decrease personal profits/income.
June 12, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want an example of a public option proponent who wants to ban private options? Here's one example - Rep. John Conyers' proposal for a single-payer system.
http://conyers.house.gov/
Single-payer to me means just one payer. And that one payer would be Uncle Sam - not United Healthcare or Aetna. So if we move to single-payer, then the private insurance companies will be gone.
June 12, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The private insurance cos will never be gone. There is plenty of room for them to offer the extended and optional coverage that someone such as yourself might desire.
June 12, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why do they call it "single-payer" - doesn't that mean only one payer? And I don't think that the one payer is going to be UnitedHealthcare (for example)
June 12, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try not to be obtuse. I know it's past your bedtime but sleep on this. Let's see if you're processing any more efficiently in the morning.
June 13, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you choose to personally attack people that you disagree with? Calling people obtuse - why not just have a discussion?
I don't believe that I said anything that would warrant that. I just don't want my UnitedHealthcare coverage to be relegated to just extended or optional services. I want to continue using them just like I do today.
Thanks again for the compliments.
June 13, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
We Were discussing a 'Public Option', not "Single Payer". Were you willfully confounding the two or just being obtuse?
June 13, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was asked to provide an example of a "public option proponent". I suggested Rep. Conyers.
You're fine to disagree with me. But why the insults?
June 13, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you were not asked to do that.
June 13, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, why do you choose to personally attack and insult people whose views you don't agree with? Why not take a more civil tone?
June 13, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see a "ban" on people buying additional health services, on that page.
Are you just grasping at straws, Bill?
"single payer" is of course a misnomer. It isn't single at all, it's the taxpayers who pay. But the idea as I understand it is that there would be a single main clearinghouse for all basic medical payments.
I think "single payer" comes from the false notion that private insurance companies are payers, and the true notion that there are many of them out there (not that an individual. It's a contrast to that. In fact private insurance companies are statistical leeches which feed on premiums paid to them, and after they take their slice they pass what's left over on to care providers.
June 13, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grasping at straws? No I am not but thanks for the complement. Once again you show such tact!
Now you're throwing in the word "additional services". You also started using the word "ban" - not me. You love to mince words.
Anyways, I'm not sure what would be included in "additional services" but I want to continue to have private health insurance for all the services I get today. But single payer would change all of that.
Single payer would push out private insurers. That's pretty obvious. Single means "one" - and that "one" will be the government, not UnitedHealthcare or Aetna, etc. Under that single-payer plan I cited, who would make my decisions about what gets reimbursed and what it costs? It would no longer be UnitedHealthcare - it will be some politician instead.
But I'm not going to try to reason with someone who puts words in my mouth. It's back to hibernation for me with respect to sarcastic eds!! Bye bye!!
June 13, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I understand; is MiddleClassBill argueing for a public option as opposed to a single payer option?
I believe single payer, in this context refers to the public option being consoledate, as opposed to the "public option" working by subsidising hundreds of insurance compnaies who have 10's of thousands of employees to pay.
This certainly does not precluded private insurance companies from competing.
In order to get a feel, I'm curious if MiddleClass is interested in addressing the thesis of the orginal post. WHO do you want to ration your health care? It WILL be rationed, whether by your private insurance company, the money in your pocket, or a public insurance system. The question is not whether you want your health care rationed but who will do the rationing.
June 13, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am very happy with mu current private healthcare insurance provider. Hope that answers your question.
June 13, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
You will probably be "Happy" with your current private health insurance until you REALLY need it, say for a transplant. When they tell you it is experimental treatment and therfore not covered what are you going to do then?
See, in the Private arena, the doctor that decided that the transplant you need to stay alive was experimental just got a big "bonus" check for saving the insurance company money. Does this at all sound fair. And imagine if insurers didn't siphon off money to send to their shareholders how much LESS health.... wait for it CARE would be.
June 13, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, you tell me you are happy with your "current private healthcare insurance provider" and the rationing they provide.
Will you PLEASE tell me who your provider is, and how I can gain access to your provider's services?
I was happy with my private provider 9 years ago, but since then my premiums have gone up and my benefits have been cut, primarly through increasing deductables and increasing cost of service.
So Bill, will you please share information on your provider, and how we can all join up with a good provider? Or do you think it's possible that I won't be able to join your plan because I'm part of the wrong group???
That's what the "public option" is. Everyone has access to the "pulic option". If it sucks, no one will use it. If it's better than the private plans. . . well, the private plans are in trouble.
June 15, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should say, "that's what public option is in my mind".
It's tough to know what exactly is going to make it through the legislative process.
That's why I think it is important to hear the warning which I *think* MiddleClassBill is trying to convey.
I don't think any sane person would suggest that we outlaw private insurance as it exists today. But the vested interest who lobby congress do not always act in what we'd consider a rational manner. Or rather, their rational is not always in our best interest.
June 15, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
UnitedHealthcare - www.uhc.com - you can try them and find out.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a public option. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be the only option
June 15, 2009 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I want to continue to have private health insurance for all the services I get today"
Why? What's in it for you, if you can get the same services for less money?
"ban" doesn't appear on the Conyers site, it wasn't attributed to you. You're the one making the pointless distortions here. You offered Conyers link as exemplary, but it's not obviously so.
June 13, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. You're taking a one-sided view of a multi-faceted jewel. There are other countrys that have public health care AND private health care insurance too. So before you go off on a tangent, get your facts first. You may be surprised, but there are other countries that have original ideas on this issue too and have already figured out how to deal with both public and private medical services. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel as the repuglicans are doing on the issue. Unless the intent to to milk the public.
June 13, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, as long as they keep private insurance for basic services and not just "extended or optional" services, then that's fine.
I did not mean to go off on a tangent. I was simply trying to respond to someone's request for an example of an option that would get rid of private insurers.
June 13, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice comment eds
Bill is just being ornery, or riling liberals feathers.
June 13, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ornery? Not really. I just don't want a single-payer system where my only choice for medical insurance is through the government. I'd like to have more than one payer so I can continue to use UnitedHealthcare just like I do today.
If you want a different system that helps everyone who's uninsured today - that's great. But I'd prefer that they don't change what I have today
June 13, 2009 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but as Eds points out that is not on the table. sure some of us around here want a true single payer, but I certainly have no qualms with the rich having their own private insurance. And businesses that provide health care, well I am fine if that becomes an 'extra wage benefit' like it was when it was invented (to circumvent wage controls), rather then the ubiquitous burden on business that it is now.
In my opinion business should concentrate on business, health care has nothing to do with most businesses, carrying it forces them to divert attention and be less efficient at their core industry. Its stupid.
And I did not much care for my United plan through my last employer. My current private plan is much better, but that is because I am relatively young. Once the actuaries change the costs will become astronomical and I will probably yearn for a plan like United. But I am hoping to instead sign on to the public option. We shall see.
June 13, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not trying to rile anyone. But it would be a very boring website if all the liberals on here just agreed with each other.
This whole thing started because I made the comment that I just don't want the public option to eventually become the only option. I don't think that's such a terrible perspective.
And I don't think anything is "off the table" at this point. Things are evolving.
Maybe I was making too much out of my current admiration with UnitedHealthcare (and I'm now being accused on here of having a "sweetheart" deal. That's far from it). I simply like to have choices.
Like you, I agree that your employer should be taken out of the picture. Let individuals go directly to the different private insurance companies and shop for coverage. Let Microsoft stay focused on making software.
June 13, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Sal. Bill is being mindless, not ornery, in my view. He has a dogmatic attachment to his current health care provider/payer. He probably fears that the benefits he gets will go away after a shake-up in the so-called "industry". He doesn't seem to care about the costs to himself or to society, of him keeping his cherished plan. It's a metaphysical conceit on his part, at least as presented in these discussions.
No system will generally satisfy or support everyone equally well. Bill is simply making himself into an outlier. He feels entitled to what he's got. Well, if he's truly entitled to the benefits, they won't go away even if some things do change. If by contrast he simply feels entitlement, then he's as bad as the worst Welfare Queens of 20 years ago.
June 13, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I agree. I think Bill is engaging in one of his favorite pastimes- Riling liberals. Keeps the cafe interesting.
June 13, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to engage in good faith. You seem to prefer to assume he's just a troll out to rile up liberals. Maybe you're right but the topic can be discussed without making personal assumptions about his motives. That is, MCB is not the topic, he posts as a mouthpiece for one or more positions on the topic. The position he represents is summarized in my previous comment.
If he wants to defend that position personally or merely hypocritically, that is fine with me. I think all reasoned topical positions deserve a chance to be aired in a public discussion. The problem is that MCB doesn't offer well-reasoned articulations of the positions he fronts. Whether that's because he's incompetent to discuss them or because he's trolling, [shrug].
June 13, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB,
OPTION!!! IT IS CALLED AN OPTION NOT A REQUIREMENT! Jesus BILL you are really really thick most of the time.
All that a "middle class" public option will provide is a check on those thieves called INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Why do you bother buddy, Really why do you find it necessary to just take the contrary opinion when I SO OBVIOUSLY Gave you a REAL topic to latch onto and you flew right by it.
June 13, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And like I said in my first comment above, I'm supportive if it's just an "option" for public care and I am not forced to use it if I want medical insurance.
But I tried to also point out that some proponents of public healthcare would like to see a single-payer system. Under a single-payer system I don't see how I would continue to use UnitedHealthcare for my medical insurance. If single-payer is forced on everybody including me, then I am not supportive of it.
And thanks for all the kind words
June 13, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You like to let market forces "force" your choices?
Fine, but that's not the issue of banning private payment plans. What's so special about your current plan that you'd prefer not to save good money using another plan or plans? Do you have a sweetheart deal with United? That could be a reason, for instance.
June 13, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, even if Democrats had the guts to push for single-payer no one has ever said that you could not buy supplemental private insurance, as people do with Medicare, to expand your options.
June 13, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
But why take away what I have right now? I don't want to use private insurance for just "supplemental" services. I want to stick with what I have right now.
June 13, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the adminstrative assistant at your insurance company provide your healthcare? Don't you go to a doctor? Why do you care who pays the bill if you can go to the same doctor?
I don't know how it works for you but when my mother fell on a Friday night and needed an emergency hip replacement, she had them call the doctor she knew was a great surgeon and he did the surgery at 7 on Saturday morning and Medicare paid the bill.
You have a problem with that? Why can't the same be true for the 40 year old guy who needs emergency knee surgery so he can keep working and provide for his family?
June 13, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of questions - I'll try to answer each one:
1. The "administrative assistant" does not.
2. Yes I go to a doctor.
3. As long as I can go to the same doctor and continue to pay roughly the same costs, then I don't care. But there's a lot of changes being discussed and it's not clear how that will impact the ability for me to continue to go to my doctor for roughly the same cost.
4. I don't have any problems with your mother using Medicare.
5. If a 40-year old guy wants to sign up for Medicare, that should be his right to do so.
Do you have a problem with me wanting to stay with UnitedHealthcare for all my coverage needs?
June 13, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
Are you willing to keep that policy when you could get the SAME coverage for less? A National Health Plan would put 30% more money towards health care with NO cost increases. At what point would you decide that your private policy is no longer worth the extra "dividend costs"?
June 13, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not convinced that I would be getting the same for less. And I don't understand your point about "no cost increases". If there's no cost increases then why is everybody in Washington trying to come up with ways to increase revenues that can pay for the healthcare overhaul?
June 13, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
Come on... answer the question. IF you could have the same coverage in a national plan that you have in your private plan at a savings of 30% would you still keep the private plan?
June 13, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If coverages, deductibles, doctor choices, etc are all the same then I would go with the cheaper option. But I want to have options.
Now please answer my question - why do you have to personally attack people that don't agree with your point of view? Why not just debate their points rather than say things like "Jesus BILL you are really really thick most of the time...Why do you bother buddy, Really why do you find it necessary to just take the contrary opinion when I SO OBVIOUSLY Gave you a REAL topic to latch onto and you flew right by it."
Can you please answer my question, "buddy"?
You sound so offended that someone (God forbid) is happy with their private insurance. And I've spent my fair share of time seeing doctors and in the hospital with surgeries over the years.
June 13, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
In the last 3 months I have had 3-20 minute throat surgeries and 1 60 minute one. I have had 2 stress tests, one with nuclear imaging. I have seen a cardiologist a pulmonologist a laryngologist (an ear nose and throat doc) and I am REQUIRED to see my pain doctor EVERY month and have been required to for the last 12 years. I have not slept more than 3 hours at a stretch going on 10 years now.
Now the throat crap is new but if I could afford the co-pay for back surgery I could stop knowing my doctor on a first name basis, as it stands I am invited to his kids graduations and now weddings, all the while dropping $100.00 a month for 12 FUCKING YEARS because Insurers won't make it easy for pain docs to take insurance.
I am about to have to chose between paying my mortgage or my 12 thousand dollar insurance
co-pay for the last 3 months.
If I were a citizen of ALMOST ANY OTHER COUNTRY I would be fixed and back at work.
THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES they are by law required to care more about their shareholders than me or you.
Now, I could write on and on and on if you like but I think this pretty well sums up my problem with these Soul Eating Bastards called insurance companies.
June 13, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am trying to respect your opinion - but why are you taking it out on me? I should be allowed to express my view on healthcare insurance without receiving a personal tirade from you. No?
June 13, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you on number 3.
As to UnitedHealth - I figure any company that gave it's CEO $2 billion in compensation before the board was shamed to force him out, isn't likely to be charging me a fair insurance premium.
June 13, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
$2 billion? I missed that number. But it doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately excessive CEO pay isn't isolated to the healthcare industry.
You're not paying a fair price for lots of things - cars, dishwashers, computers, trips to Disney, etc. because of the outlandish CEO pay. Unfortunately shareholders of these companies for years have just rolled over and not tried to do anything about it. Thankfully shareholders are starting to become better activists.
June 13, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
'face'
Hope you are doing better.
Thanks for this post. Support and will chip in.
Rec'd.
June 12, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
AS,
THANKS FOR THAT! I'll have more soon.
June 13, 2009 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great suggestion, Face. I like a simple solution to a simple problem. The so-called 'moderate' dems never face enough pressure from the left. People tend just to be happy that they've slapped the Dem label on. It would be good to see this suggestion get some traction.
Hope you're well. Is that Another operation you're having?!
June 13, 2009 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
O,
Yep, That's the reason I'm SO WORKED UP ABOUT this Health Care crap.
I will, in the VERY NEAR FUTURE, have to choose between mortgage payments, and paying my
"20% unlimited co pay" that my so called insurance requires.
You know those people you hear about that file bankruptcy even though they have health insurance? Well.... I could very well be one of them and worse still... I'll be dragging my wife down too.
June 13, 2009 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry to hear it, Face. What an awful decision to have to make. You know, I think I like many others are upset with the administration for a lot of things, but are willing to let it slide as long as serious health care reform passes. This really is a dealbreaker. That's also why I think it will pass! Hang in there!
June 13, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but you have a CHOICE O! You wouldn't want to be deprived of that choice would you?
June 13, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
bb,
god no.. Don't know what I would do if I didn't have to worry about healthcare, I do so love all those late night infomercials.
Completely off subject would you understand if I started calling you "red ryder"?
June 13, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure but considering the state of the estabishment I'd be proud to be part of the lunatic fringe.
June 13, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
bb,
Follow my thinking here, NOPE brain dead me... It's the drugs I swear it... or lack thereof...I'm not sure.
I meant to say blue ryder... ANYWAYS did you ever see A Christmas Story? Remember what Ralphie wanted for Christmas? A "BB" gun... Now I normally end up addressing folks with initials or a combination of a number and a letter.
Oh never mind.... blueryder?
June 13, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, yes I remember Ralphie.
June 13, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Face, I'm so sorry to hear you're still laid low. We haven't heard from you in a while and I was wondering what was going on with you.
I would say you are filled with righteous anger and I agree. Rec'd.
June 13, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRd,
THANKS buddy I really appreciate all the good vibes that were sent my way. Still kind of a grump as my wife calls me now days but on the up swing.
June 13, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'm a biddy, not a buddy...er, the female of our species. The dogs is a he, though. Everybody assumes I'm a he.
June 13, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I did, Fala. Don't worry, it happens a lot around here...just ask Rowan or Bwak.
:)
June 13, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had figured out about bwak, but didn't know about rowan. Live and learn *;o)
June 13, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRd,
Don't know how this didn't get in the right spot so I'm putting there again...I think. SO
FDRd,
No, you are a buddy of mine.
In hillbillyese (like I talk) "buddy" is not at all gender specific. It just means I got your back if you EVER need me. Besides "biddy" sounds like a bathroom fixture. Don't it!?
June 13, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRd,
No, you are a buddy of mine.
In hillbillyese (like I talk) "buddy" is not at all gender specific. It just means I got your back if you EVER need me. Besides "biddy" sounds like a bathroom fixture. Don't it!?
June 13, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Face. It's a comfort knowing you are here.
June 13, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prowled down to the bottom of the comments to see if I could be the second one to volunteer to pay the filing fee...but maybe I missed someone. But as somebody way way upstream remarked, this needs organization. I'm wondering if Jim Dean over at Democracy for America might be interested in mounting a campaign of this sort?
Oh, btw, I'll also be up for paying the filing fee for anyone who is willing to challenge a republican opponent for the public option.
June 13, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
am,
Let me know how I can help! I can be quite antagonistic if need be. Even though I can't spell worth a crap.
June 13, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's wonderful having you here, Face. Thanks for this very pungent post. We need to kick up the dust on this issue just the way you are doing. Hope you are able to keep your spirits up so you heal faster. Please post whenever you feel like it.
I'm with double D. I want the government's foot in THIS door. Maybe a medical billing czar would help the situation since the government will now be minding the top salaries of the top corporations through the agency of a pay czar. He is doing it pro bono by the way, and that is one piece of good news for the week.
June 13, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
2l,
Thanks for that! I agree with 2D, but we need something bigger than a foot in the door.
I have laid in bed too long listening to limp dicked democrats INCLUDING the Prez to stay horizontal too much longer.
Hope that wasn't to harsh....?
June 13, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
TO ALL:
I have done a bad bad thing to this post just so I can get a response from MCbill to my answering his question why I was so against Insurance Companies. (those that followed the 2d thing know what I am talking about)
IF ANYBODY wants me to fix this I will do so happily, just say the word. Otherwise I'll undo the bad bad thing when my friend Bill and I are done arguing.
June 13, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you insist to speak to me with such an insulting tone and personal attack? Why can't you debate the points without telling somebody they are "thick most of the time" and asking "why they bother"??
June 13, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB,
No you are wrong on this. In my answer to your last question I related my reasons and said nothing about you or your opinion.
As a matter of fact I would imagine that I might be the only person to ever have given you a
heads-up when I block quoted you in a new post. That happened back in the day.
Ok maybe saying you are really really thick sometime was one really too much but I wonder where your logic comes from on this issue.
Anyway sorry if I EVER offended you it will not happen again.... uh... I hope.
But keep taking dumbshit positions like this on healthcare.... lol hahahah
I'm sorry just couldn't help that last friendly side trip
June 13, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - I guess that's as close as I'll ever get to an apology from you.
I am trying (and I hope others are too) to not make these discussions into personal attacks and start calling people stupid, illogical, dumbshits, shallow, etc.
June 13, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink