Obama, Kennedy and health care

" .. the hope shall never die.." sounds familiar. I think some where along the way, the late Senator Edward Kennedy may have said those words. That hope, of affordable, efficient and real healthcare, is still alive for millions of Americans, who are uninsured and underinsured. The real problem with the denial of that dream, that hope, is the minions of the Healthcare Corps, from the toadies in the town halls, to those elected officials, bought and paid for, by those corrupting Corps !! Everyone is entitled to speak their mind, but not at the expense of some one else's free speech. It isn't okay, though, for those that are supposed to be working on behalf of the sick, the infirm and the uninsured, to be taking money from those corrupting Corps. They are denying good, real and non-rationed healthcare. It is these corrupting Corps and their paid minions, who would shut down our democracy, rather than allow national healthcare to be realized. Remember, as the late Senator Kennedy had stated, time and again: " Real healthcare is a right, not a privilege " !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Invoking the dead, before the corpse is even cold... Is their anything that President Obama and his shameful media allies won't do to promote Obama and his policies?

So who thinks the Dems & President Obama should use this moment to pass a public option? Discuss it: http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/08/question-of-the-day-82709-kennedy-and-healthcare.html

Invoking the dead, before the corpse is even cold... Is their anything that President Obama and his shameful media allies won't do to promote Obama and his policies?

Posted by: Community Organizer | August 27, 2009 9:54 AM

Ted Kennedy fought to the very end of his life for healthcare reform. Continuing his work is a tribute. Ted Kennedy wouldn't want his death to slow the fight for quality healthcare for all americans for a single day. It is the shameful right that would try to use his death to fight against a policy that he held so dear.

NO CO-OP'S! A Little History Lesson

Young People. America needs your help.

More than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% of republicans). Basically everyone.

According to a new AARP POLL: 86 percent of seniors want universal healthcare security for All, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. And 79% of seniors support creating a new strong Government-run public option plan, available immediately. Including 89% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans, STUNNING!! Senator Max Baucus, You better come out of committee with a strong government-run public option available on day one.

The History:

Our last great economic catastrophe was called the Great Depression. Then as now it was caused by a reckless, and corrupt Republican administration and republican congress. FDR a Democrat, was then elected to save the nation and the American people from the unbridled GREED and profiteering, of the unregulated predatory self-interest of the banking industry and Wallstreet. Just like now.

FDR proposed a Government-run health insurance plan to go with Social Security. To assure all Americans high quality, easily accessible, affordable, National Healthcare security. Regardless of where you lived, worked, or your ability to pay. But the AMA riled against it. Using all manor of scare tactics, like Calling it SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! :-0

So FDR established thousands of co-op's around the country in rural America. And all of them failed. The biggest of these co-op organizations would become the grandfather of the predatory monster that all of you know today as the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry. And the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry.

This former co-op would grow so powerful that it would corrupt every aspect of healthcare delivery in America. Even corrupting the Government of the United States.

This former co-op's name is BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD.

Do you see now why even the suggestion of co-op's is ridiculous. It makes me so ANGRY! Co-op's are not a substitute for a government-run public option.

They are trying to pull the wool over our eye's again. Senators, if you don't have the votes now, GET THEM! Or turn them over to us. WE WILL! DEAL WITH THEM. Why do you think we gave your party Control of the House, Control of the Senate, Control of the Whitehouse. The only option on the table that has any chance of fixing our healthcare crisis is a STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION.

An insurance mandate and subsidies without a strong government-run public option choice available on day one, would be worse than the healthcare catastrophe we have now. The insurance, and healthcare industry have been very successful at exploiting the good hearts of the American people. But Congress and the president must not let that happen this time. House Progressives and members of the Tri-caucus must continue to hold firm on their demand for a strong Government-run public option.

A healthcare reform bill with mandates and subsidies but without a STRONG government-run public option choice on day one, would be much worse than NO healthcare reform at all. So you must be strong and KILL IT! if you have too. And let the chips fall where they may. You can do insurance reform without mandates, subsidies, or taxpayer expense.

Actually, no tax payer funds should be use to subsidize any private for profit insurance plans. So, NO TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES TO PRIVATE FOR PROFIT PLANS. Tax payer funds should only be used to subsidize the public plans. Healthcare reform should be 100% for the American people. Not another taxpayer bailout of the private for profit insurance industry, disguised as healthcare reform for the people.

God Bless You

Jacksmith — Working Class

Twitter search #welovetheNHS #NHS Check it out

(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)

Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)

American HEROES!! :-) Click replay to play http://bit.ly/j31oU

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o) CYBER WARRIORS!! - TAKE THIS VIRAL

Doesn't "jacksmith" get bored by posting the same cut and paste on different threads? Besides, the 77% number he quotes came off a MoveOn.org sponsored poll.

rick

How you tell when politician lie?

Comrade Pelosi blink

Slick Willy rub nose

Comrade Obama open mouth

Dumb Donkey Gibbs laugh...Hehaw..he..haw..he..haw!

Is this really health care "reform"?

Compare Obama Care vs Igor Care at Obama vs Igor Care

I Igor produce Barrack Milhaus Hussein Obama Birth Certificate at www.igormarxo.org

I would like to put forth the republican plan for healthcare.
Marxist, communist, socialist, death panel, government take over. Thank you.

Why is there no mention of Tort Reform in HR 3200???

Want to reduce health care costs - how about capping the amount of money that trial lawyers can make from malpractice suits?

Of course ObamaCo will have nothing to do with it.

bill r, there are a bunch of proposed alternate plans and suggestions. However, none of them will get much of a hearing as long as the liberal Democrats are pushing the current House proposal.

Once, this crazy proposal is voted down, then you will see the alternatives. Unfortunately, it looks as if this current plan is going to drag on for the rest of the year and maybe longer. Most of the Democrats seem to realize holding on to this plan is a political loser. The House committee chairmen, as is Pelosi, however, are very liberal and come from safe districts. For the most part, we are watching the start of an intraparty war. It seems to get messier by the day.

Rick

Hey, rick, don't sell the Republicans short. There's McCain's plan to allow insurance companies not to cover people with pre-existing conditions, there's Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan to stop all aid for healthcare to poor children, and there's alway the popular Republican plan to limit how much juries can award the victims of medical malpractice.

The Republicans as a whole always have a plan to "reform" healthcare by going after the weakest and most needy amongst us in favor of the large, for profit insurance companies. Isn't that something you Republicans are proud of?

Here's another take on "Kennedy Care" (God help us):

http://scootersreport.com

Jim, pay attention. I already covered that. McCain never said don't cover those people. The question is how to do so. If you force insurance companies to take all companies, the premium goes up for everyone. You also have to find a way to prevent someone from "cherry picking": singing up for coverage when they are sick and dropping it when they are not. Massachusetts already has that problem.

There multiple ways to handle pre existing condition without a total takeover of the health care system.

Rick

Chris,
Missouri passed Tort Reform. Please share with us how much health care premiums decreased.

I hopethe dems use the memory of Teddy to try and pass gov't run health care. I guess they have short memories of when they tried to use the Senator Wellstone memorial in Nov, 2002 to try and rally the troops for the midd-term election. It back-fired big time

Is it any wonder why WE THE PEOPLE are sick and tired of Washington politics?

These results speak for themselves:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can't compete with private sector FedExp and UPS services.

Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.

The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.

AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it's been used to increase the size of governments across America , and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America's health care system - - 17% of our economy?

Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, and then help remove from office those who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future.

simply the truth,

Perhaps the health insurance premiums in Missouri would have decreased had not the courts been flooded with medical malpractice suits prior to the law taking affect.

How's that universal healthcare working out in places like Canada and Great Britian?

Tort reform works. Socialism fails everywhere it has ever been adopted.

* * * * *
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | August 27, 2009 9:28 AM
.
Don,
.
You meet George Santayana’s definition of a fanatic: One who redoubles his effort after having lost sight of his aim. The people you are rooting for (i.e. Obama and the Democrats) have already abandoned the idea of ridding the health care world of the healthcare corporations you so love to vilify. To the contrary, the House health care bill will effectively enshrine health insurance companies in the health care industry along with a government controlled rationing system. In short, those for whom you cheer are out to defeat your aims. Your continued support for them is inexplicable other than in terms of partisan fanaticism.
.
Your fanaticism also blinds you to practical reality. Do you really take Kennedy’s dictum at face value when he said, “Real healthcare is a right, not a privilege”? You mean, you really don’t realized that was rhetoric and not literally true? You can test this yourself, Don. A “right,” as opposed to a “privilege,” can be asserted against another, including governments, and even over their objection. A real right can’t be taken away except by consent of the holder, or unless some compelling governmental interest overrides it in a given instance. So if real healthcare were a “right,” rather than a privilege, you could sue SOMEONE (i.e. the health industry, state government, or federal government) to provide “real” healthcare. Go for it, Don, and see how far you get. Your fanaticism might solve everyone’s problems. The Democrats in Congress aren’t getting the job done. The Nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

John W if healthcare isn't a right, would it be legal for Congress to pass a law saying that people with a net worth of less than $100,000 cannot see a doctor? How about if they passed a law saying that guys named John can't see a doctor? Would you not sue to enforce your equal right to see a dcotor?

Of course your legal theory also demolishes the concept of a "Right to Life" since your cannot successfully sue for the right to be born.

* * * * *
Posted by: Rob | August 28, 2009 1:12 PM
.
Rob,
.
With all due respect, I think you’ve jumped into the deep end of the pool without your water-wings this time. Many reasons exist - having nothing to do with the so-called “right” to health care - that would prevent Congress or a State legislature from passing the laws you pose in your hypothetical examples. In the first place, Congress and State legislatures are barred from enacting legislation that irrationally discriminates against an identifiable group of people. Your two hypothetical laws would fail under this rule alone - as the distinctions based on income and first names bear no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental interest. These laws would also fail because they would interfere with the interests of individuals to seek to preserve or enhance their life and health, and thus violate their substantive right to due process of law.
.
But the latter is true even without a “right” to health care. The right to life is the negative power to force others to refrain from unreasonably interfering with one’s efforts at self-preservation. As of today, people do not obtain health care as a matter of “right” based upon this power. They get health care as a result of private contractual relations between workers and employers, doctors and patients or insurance carriers and their insured. One who is denied care or dropped from a health care program has no recourse to enforce a right of access to health care services unless the provider dropped the patient in breach of contract. Even in the case of a breach of contract, a party may have to seek health care services elsewhere while seeking remedies for the breach. And, of course, the ability to insist upon access to health care services only exists as long as one is able to pay the premiums. Even those who are afforded health care services through government programs due to their age or indigence acquire only a statutory “entitlement” to health care services - which exists as long as they remain statutorily eligible and the government chooses to fund it. If health care were a “right,” then access to health care services could not be extinguished by breach of contract, the non-payment of premiums or, in the case of entitlements, by an administrative agency’s decision to terminate benefits or Congress’ decision to repeal the program under which the entitlement was created.
.
You second point also doesn’t follow from your premises - and you appear to confuse (again) the right to health care (which doesn’t exist) with the ability to seek health care services (which is different) and the right to life (which is different still). A person can have a right to “life” that is enforceable against the federal government, state governments and everyone else with whom he or she comes in contact - without also having a right to health care. If the right to life were a positive power to insist that government take action to preserve life (rather than the negative power to keep from interfering with it), then not only could one insist on government funded health care, but government funded food, clothing and housing as well. The latter is clearly not the case.
.
Finally, the issue of “right to life” for unborn infants has no relevance to this discussion. That question centers on whether an unborn fetus is a “person” and, thus, in possession of the negative power to keep others (including its mother) from interfering with its efforts at self-preservation. As of today, the courts have answered the question in the negative. If the courts change their mind, it will only mean a child has the right to be born - and thereafter to insist that others refrain interfering with his or her life. It would still not give a child the positive “right” to health care services.