Public option is dead. It's official.

[_Simpson_ 250]

This comes down to the fact that the Right Wingers don't give a sh!t about the poor in this country. If you're poor and unable to afford health insurance premiums for you and your family, it's just because you're too goddam lazy.

I do give a sh!t about the poor(not all of them) and I often find that people are poor because they consistently make bad decisions. I dont think that giving those people gov. help like health care is going to change there behavior but only encourage it, sometimes paying for things is the best medicine. What about the unfortunate that truly needs help, I care about them I just dont think socialized medicare(with this reform bill the way it is that is the direction it will go) is the way to go about it, we need to bring cost down and keep the gov. out of it.

Some on the right may act like all poor people are lazy but you have agree that some on the left act like all poor people are noble citizens that cant get a break. We need to find that happy medium.

[_Simpson_ 250]

This comes down to the fact that the Right Wingers don't give a sh!t about the poor in this country. If you're poor and unable to afford health insurance premiums for you and your family, it's just because you're too goddam lazy.

I do give a sh!t about the poor(not all of them) and I often find that people are poor because they consistently make bad decisions. I dont think that giving those people gov. help like health care is going to change there behavior but only encourage it, sometimes paying for things is the best medicine. What about the unfortunate that truly needs help, I care about them I just dont think socialized medicare health care(with this reform bill the way it is that is the direction it will go) is the way to go about it, we need to bring cost down and keep the gov. out of it.

Some on the right may act like all poor people are lazy but you have agree that some on the left act like all poor people are noble citizens that cant get a break. We need to find that happy medium.

fixed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well surely its only polite to give people some benefit of the doubt, rather than write them off as leeches or parasites right off the bat.

Painting them that way only has one purpose - to demonise people and to suggest that there are no ways a person can't be poor or fall on hard times without it being entirely their fault, and as a result - deserved.

Doesn't seem in tune with the Christian traditions this country supposedly exemplifies.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This comes down to the fact that the Right Wingers don't give a sh!t about the poor in this country. If you're poor and unable to afford health insurance premiums for you and your family, it's just because you're too goddam lazy.

I do give a sh!t about the poor(not all of them) and I often find that people are poor because they consistently make bad decisions. I dont think that giving those people gov. help like health care is going to change there behavior but only encourage it, sometimes paying for things is the best medicine. What about the unfortunate that truly needs help, I care about them I just dont think socialized medicare(with this reform bill the way it is that is the direction it will go) is the way to go about it, we need to bring cost down and keep the gov. out of it.

Some on the right may act like all poor people are lazy but you have agree that some on the left act like all poor people are noble citizens that cant get a break. We need to find that happy medium.

Nope. It's time to cull the herd. We need more predators. More wolves and bears and lions to pick off the weak and infirm. It's natures way, right? All all, evolution is a fact, right? Natural selection is not only a good idea, it's the law!

By being merciful, aren't we falling into the warped thinking of the extreme Christian Right? You know, "If you did it for one of the least of my children, you did it for me." How dare they teach religion in schools!

[LaL 418]

I do give a sh!t about the poor(not all of them) and I often find that people are poor because they consistently make bad decisions. I dont think that giving those people gov. help like health care is going to change there behavior but only encourage it, sometimes paying for things is the best medicine. What about the unfortunate that truly needs help, I care about them I just dont think socialized medicare health care(with this reform bill the way it is that is the direction it will go) is the way to go about it, we need to bring cost down and keep the gov. out of it.

Some on the right may act like all poor people are lazy but you have agree that some on the left act like all poor people are noble citizens that cant get a break. We need to find that happy medium.

wow you are so right. why the hell is anyone thinking providing a helping hand to those who sooo deserve their lot in life - temporary or not.

/sarcasm

Edited August 17, 2009 by LaL

[_Simpson_ 250]

Well surely its only polite to give people some benefit of the doubt, rather than write them off as leeches or parasites right off the bat.

All depends on what poor people we are talking about, some dont deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Painting them that way only has one purpose - to demonise people and to suggest that there are no ways a person can't be poor or fall on hard times without it being entirely their fault, and as a result - deserved.

Your only dealing with one painting here, so how does painting them as all noble people who cant get a break help anything. You only addressed half of this issue I was making.

Doesn't seem in tune with the Christian traditions this country supposedly exemplifies.

Generalizations nice!

Edited August 17, 2009 by looking_up

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well surely its only polite to give people some benefit of the doubt, rather than write them off as leeches or parasites right off the bat.

Painting them that way only has one purpose - to demonise people and to suggest that there are no ways a person can't be poor or fall on hard times without it being entirely their fault, and as a result - deserved.

Doesn't seem in tune with the Christian traditions this country supposedly exemplifies.

Well surely its only polite to give people some benefit of the doubt, rather than write them off as leeches or parasites right off the bat.

All depends on what poor people we are talking about, some dont deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Painting them that way only has one purpose - to demonise people and to suggest that there are no ways a person can't be poor or fall on hard times without it being entirely their fault, and as a result - deserved.

Your only dealing with one painting here, so how does painting them as all noble people who cant get a break help anything. You only addressed half of this issue I was making.

Doesn't seem in tune with the Christian traditions this country supposedly exemplifies.

Generalizations nice!

Its a lot simpler than you're making out - since we have no way of telling who is lazy or dishonest and who isn't we operate on the basis that there is a genuine, honest need.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I often find that people are poor because they consistently make bad decisions.

wow you are so right. why the hell is anyone thinking providing a helping hand to those who sooo deserve their lot in life - temporary or not.

/sarcasm

I find that its better when you post all of what I said and then put the part in bold that you want to take issue with, what happens here a lot is that people dont read the whole thread and then there going to start addressing just that one line and not the whole point I was making.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well surely its only polite to give people some benefit of the doubt, rather than write them off as leeches or parasites right off the bat.

Painting them that way only has one purpose - to demonise people and to suggest that there are no ways a person can't be poor or fall on hard times without it being entirely their fault, and as a result - deserved.

Doesn't seem in tune with the Christian traditions this country supposedly exemplifies.

Well surely its only polite to give people some benefit of the doubt, rather than write them off as leeches or parasites right off the bat.

All depends on what poor people we are talking about, some dont deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Painting them that way only has one purpose - to demonise people and to suggest that there are no ways a person can't be poor or fall on hard times without it being entirely their fault, and as a result - deserved.

Your only dealing with one painting here, so how does painting them as all noble people who cant get a break help anything. You only addressed half of this issue I was making.

Doesn't seem in tune with the Christian traditions this country supposedly exemplifies.

Generalizations nice!

Its a lot simpler than you're making out - since we have no way of telling who is lazy or dishonest and who isn't we operate on the basis that there is a genuine, honest need.

Let the lions decide

[LaL 418]

There - I changed it. It doesnt change what you said - nor the overall meaning.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Its a lot simpler than you're making out - since we have no way of telling who is lazy or dishonest and who isn't we operate on the basis that there is a genuine, honest need.

I disagree, especially with what were addressing here, health care reform. If we want to come up with a solution that will be excepted and worthwhile we need to factor in human nature, good and bad. To come up with a reform bill that assumes all people are honest and genuine is a huge mistake.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its a lot simpler than you're making out - since we have no way of telling who is lazy or dishonest and who isn't we operate on the basis that there is a genuine, honest need.

I disagree, especially with what were addressing here, health care reform. If we want to come up with a solution that will be excepted and worthwhile we need to factor in human nature, good and bad. To come up with a reform bill that assumes all people are honest and genuine is a huge mistake.

How... exactly... would you do that?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I just dont think socialized medicare health care(with this reform bill the way it is that is the direction it will go) is the way to go about it

Which reform bill calls for socialized health care? What portion of which bill proposes to socialize medical services? Which provision of which bill makes doctors, hospitals and other medical service providers part of the government?

[_Simpson_ 250]

There - I changed it. It doesnt change what you said - nor the overall meaning.

but what it leaves out is that I do concur that some people on the right act like all people are lazy and thats why there poor. It also leaves out the fact that I realize that there are poor people out there that need help and arent consistently making bad decisions.

Some by seeing that one line wouldn't react the same had they seen all of what I written.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I just dont think socialized medicare health care(with this reform bill the way it is that is the direction it will go) is the way to go about it

Which reform bill calls for socialized health care? What portion of which bill proposes to socialize medical services? Which provision of which bill makes doctors, hospitals and other medical service providers part of the government?

House vote on single payer will be historic first, doctors' group says

Hailing last week’s pledge by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a floor debate and vote on single-payer health reform this fall, a group of 16,000 physicians is launching an intensified campaign to educate lawmakers about the urgency of a “Medicare-for-All” solution to the nation’s health care crisis.

Leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) say their campaign includes a stepped-up program of visits by doctors to House members in their home districts during the August recess.

Last Friday’s commitment by Pelosi (D-Calif.) to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) to put his single-payer amendment to H.R. 3200, the House leadership’s health reform bill, to an up-or-down vote before the full House has set the stage for first-ever floor vote of its kind. The House debate on the amendment could begin as early as September.

“Single payer has gone from being ‘off the table’ to ‘on the floor,’” said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of PNHP. “This dramatic turn of events is a striking indicator of our success. It shows the House leadership recognizes the strong public support - including among doctors - for removing the wasteful insurance company middlemen from our health system and redirecting the resultant savings into care.”

Weiner’s amendment would delete most of the language in the House bill and instead substitute language from H.R. 676, the single-payer bill introduced by Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

The Weiner amendment, unlike the House leadership’s bill, assures universal, comprehensive, and high-quality coverage, free choice of doctor and hospital, and no co-pays or deductibles through a publicly financed system similar to Medicare. Young said that because of massive savings on private insurance overhead and paperwork, the amendment would entail no increase in U.S. health spending, in contrast to the House bill’s $1 trillion price tag over 10 years.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/house...e_on_single.php

“By recapturing the administrative waste associated with our present multi-payer, for-profit private insurance system, estimated to be $400 billion annually, a single-payer program would have more than enough resources to cover everyone who lacks insurance now and to upgrade everyone else’s coverage,” he said.

“A single-payer system would also possess strong cost-control tools like bulk purchasing of drugs, negotiation of fees and global hospital budgeting, controls that are notably absent in the House bill,” he said.

Young says many union, civic and faith-based groups will be watching how lawmakers vote with an eye to the 2010 election cycle. “Lawmakers now have a golden opportunity to stand up for the best interests of their constituents, to rebuff the private, for-profit health insurance industry, and to assure the health of our nation,” he said.

He continued: “Many members of Congress - including Speaker Pelosi - have told constituents that they personally support a single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach, but claim they can’t vote for it because it’s not politically feasible. Yet polls that show they would have the public’s support for such a stand. Now we’ll be watching to see whether their votes match their words.”

Single-payer bills have been introduced in Congress repeatedly over the past 60 years - starting with the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill in the 1940s, and including the Kennedy-Griffiths bill of the 1970s and the Wellstone, McDermott and Russo bills of the 1990s - but none has ever reached the floor of the House or Senate.