Huckleberry is just repeating the Karl Rove talking point "Government Run Healthcare" because they know that it scares the Troglodytes. He has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

Doesn't the bible say something about "speaking only the truth" or some such thing?  This guy supposed to be some holier-than-thou christian preacher type and here he is lying with each breath he draws.  These aren't differences of opinions they are WELL KNOWN, DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOODS.  I'm not really surprised - the louder you yell about Jesus, and the harder you thump the Bible, the less I trust you anyway.  But the hypocrisy is still astounding.

The Republicans have demonstrated, repeatedly, that they do not consider honesty a "Family Value".

Wasn't the Democratic's universal health care plan essentially having the government take over?

 

Now sure, Barack can be against UHC, but I think what the Huck is doing is generalizing Barack's HCP.

 

I really think that health care isn't the issue, insurance is.

Where in Obama's plan does it say that Government will take over health care?

In Obama's Plan For America written by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram, and edited by Karl Rove.

 

But TBH, I haven't seen such an implication or expression from the source itself.

 

... but as we know, the issue about Barack Obama isn't his policies, it's his funny name, his skin color, and his deviation from all those who grace our money. 

Nice dodge, WUSS.

And what was the republican plan again? Oh, I remember, if your town has an ER, you have free health care.

Wasn't the Democratic's universal health care plan essentially having the government take over?

The government would essentially become an insurance company.

See, the Insurance Companies oppose that, because their gravy train would end, and they wouldn't be able to pay their CEOs eight-figure salaries. That's why they bribed Congress to kill Hillary's plan 15 years ago.

The private insurance companies are deathly afraid of government competition.  If they were doing the right thing, they would have nothing to be afraid of.

From what I understand it, the government would end competition and have an industrial monopoly.

Limbaugh told you that?

Not just Limbaugh, but others who agree with his philosophies. And some of those have had insurance horror stories, and apparently things would be much worse under UHC.

 

Now, if it operated under a structure similar to our shipping system, where government competes with companies, that could be a different story.

Who is proposing a system under which the Government insurance would not compete with private companies?

Those who are pushing for UHC

Like Who? (Give names)

One question: How will government do a better job of providing insurance than the private sector? The government can't even handle critical national issues properly!

I mean, come on, could you picture GOP and DNC hacks bickering about whether or not they wanna send you money? "Well, we would send you the money, but we don't want the DNC receiving credit for it." "We wanna' give you the money, but the GOP won't let us!"

 

At least in the private sector, where there are numerous options, I can replace ineptitude. We only have one choice under UHC.

 

I tell you, the best insurance policy is to never get sick. Once you do you're ruined...

Personally, I'd rather have my claim decided by an indifferent Government Bureaucrat than a Corporate Bureaucrat who gets a bonus for denying my claim.

Why would the government have a monopoly? The insurance companies could always lower their prices and stop cherrypicking to compete. Isn't that how the market works?

Of course, if the insurance companies continued to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and raise their rates 50% a year, they probably would be put out of business.

Personally, I'd rather have my claim decided by an indifferent Government Bureaucrat than a Corporate Bureaucrat who gets a bonus for denying my claim.

And what would stop the government from doing the same thing? It's their money and they're allowed to do what they want with it, and we know how difficult it is to sue the government.

Why would the government have a monopoly? The insurance companies could always lower their prices and stop cherrypicking to compete. Isn't that how the market works?

Again, according to what I've heard and assembled, you would have a choice of either the US government, the US government, or the US government.

Of course, if the insurance companies continued to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and raise their rates 50% a year, they probably would be put out of business.

 

Not if they're the only show in town.

Just stay with your private insurer and spare us your whining.

"the best insurance policy is to never get sick"

Isn't that McGrampy's healthcare plan? Actually, his advisor told the press that everybody already has universal coverage: the emergency room. He really said it.

So has my grandfather, who served in Vietnam and likes to have his radio set to WIBC (Limbaugh's affiliate in Indianapolis)

You're missing the point, entirely.

Sure, most towns/cities/burgs have an ER.  Sure, you can go to the ER when necessary.  But paying for it is another story.  Have you gotten an ER bill lately?

Recently, my partner was in the ER.  The bill came to over $7,000 for a four hour stay in the ER (3 hours of which were spent waiting in the waiting room). 

We have good insurance, and thanks to California law, my partner is covered under my insurance.  However, the insurance company is denying most of the claim, as epididymitis (sp?) isn't an emergency, in their eyes. 

Whatever.  The symptoms were much like appendicitis.  <sarcasm on> Wanna risk not going to the ER with symptoms of appendicitis?  Who needs treatment for appendicitis anyway?  <sarcasm off>

A person should be able to access health care without breaking the bank.  It's disgusting the way these insurance companies work.  See you in court, Cigna.

Work with us, DaWUSS.  You might learn something.

The government can't even handle critical national issues properly!

Add the words: "republicans in" before government  and you would be correct.

It doesn't matter anyway.  Stay with your private insurer if you don't want the government to insure you.

Under UHC I apparently wouldn't have a choice!

Says who?

Says the Universal Health Care policy.

Show me.

Getting a direct answer from WUSS is akin to nailing jello to the wall.

If you listened to Obama's speech last night, you would remember that he said that those of us who choose to continue with our private insurers would see a drop in our premiums.  There's a six letter word in there which most Republicans don't like:  CHOOSE, as in CHOICE.  You have the choice of staying with your private insurer or going with the Government's plan.

PAY ATTENTION!!

Not true.  All other westernized nations with universal coverage give you the option of going with a private provider if you so choose to pay for that.BTW:  What do you think Medicare is?  It's govt run healthcare and done so much more efficiently than our current system.

"Let's not talk about taxing the wealthy; that's not what the issue is"

Since that is what Obama is proposing, it is the issue, Dingleberry.

This reminds me, I saw Huckleberry a week or so ago on Fox, and he provided a great example of that GOP projection and constant building of the fantasy world that suports their party. To be fair, it was really just an excuse for the Huckster to get in his "A" material joke, but it's what he does, with his "Aw Shucks" (I think that's Jeter's description) persona.

His comment was about Obama's inexperience, and his joke was that a president needed to kow that an invasion of Georgia did not threaten Alabama. I think he was with Hannity, and they laughed and laughed.

Sure, the Georgia/Georgia connection was already made by every late night monologuist days earlier, but it wasn't just that the joke was obvious and tired. It's that it was directed at the candidate that had not had trouble with geography (let alone different groups of foreign people).

What I'm getting at is what was being discussed on another thread, that most of this BS isn't blatant BS, but little jokes and off-the-cuff remarks that, while having no basis in reality, are pounded into the average American's head.And the average American starts to confuse it with the truth.

That is why the Corporate assimilation of the Media has proven so helpful to Republicans. That steady drip, drip, drip of subtle propaganda eventually becomes conventional wisdom.

You do have to admit that Huckabee did a good job of filling in for Paul Harvey.

A Chia Pet could do a pretty good job of filling in for Paul Harvey.

I know Paul Harvey and Huckleberry Hound is no Paul Harvey! Page TWO!

You're on a roll today, oh Great Defender of the French Skies (and Root Beer gourmet). What will Friday bring?

It's that it was directed at the candidate that had not had trouble with geography

As my public service for the day I will now spare the Gang of The Collective IQ of 14 from having to post a followup.

57 States!!!! St. Louis/Kansas City!!!!!!  57 States!!!!!!

Hitler socialist commie muslim America hater!

Thanks, Moonbat. Isn't it a little scary when you have to pre-empt this stuff? I know ithe wingnut reflexes are predictable,I do it too, but just the idea that we can think like them...

It's not really thinking though.  It's more like how a parrot mimics human speech by merely imitating sounds it hears with a high frequency.  The parrot has no idea of the meaning of the words coming out of its mouth, it just likes making noise.

If you want a look at what government run health care would look like, just walk into your local VA Hospital and see the way they treat the men and women who protect our nation. Before you blame George Bush for this mess, ask an old time veteran from WW11 or the Vietnam War or a Korean vet and they will tell you the story. Not one administration has ever put the proper funding into these hospitals. Why would they they make it any better for the average person?

Also, if Obama is going to just tax the rich, why would they keep their money and business here? Won't they just pass that along to the average consumer or move their business and money off shore? Why would corporations expand and employ people if they are going to be taxed at higher rates? Most people who have 401k plans and pensions are invested in the stock market, won't these tax hikes effect them as well?

"why would they keep their money and business here? "

Gee, why did they keep their money and businesses here before the Reagan Tax cuts, or the Kennedy tax cuts, or the Bush tax cuts? How did they ever create the U.S. industrial juggernaut with such high taxes? Why didn't they just pack up and leave after Clinton's "biggest tax cut in history"? If this old Republican myth were true, the U.S. would have lost all its rich people decades ago.

For some reason, our manufacturing jobs continue to disappear, even after President Numbnuts cut taxes on these benevolent rich bastards. Why is that?

Oops, that should read "Clinton's biggest tax increase in history". I just find it fascinating that the Republicans predict all these dire consequences if we raise taxes on the wealthy or raise the minimum wage.... but history just doesn't support their predictions.

I agree. Where is the emperical evidence that when taxes are raised on the rich the country goes down the toilet?

Better check yer facts. The VA's have been outsourced by republicans. That's why Walter Reed was such a huge stink. It wasn't the Gov't that caused those conditions, it was poor management to save a buck by republicans. Nice try at rewriting history though.

Also, if Obama is going to just tax the rich, why would they keep their money and business here?

#1 General Accountability Office, Congress's investigative agency, has a report out today that says most corporations didn't pay taxes between 1998 and 2005. Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. 

Won't they just pass that along to the average consumer or move their business and money off shore?

#2 More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, and the Economic Policy Institute estimates 59 percent—or 1.78 million—of these jobs have been lost due to the explosion in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit over the period.

Goldman Sachs estimates 400,000–600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period. A Deloitte Research survey found one-third of all major financial institutions are already sending work offshore, with 75 percent reporting they would do so within the next 24 months.

States are outsourcing public sector jobs as well, though most state governments do not know exactly how many. At least forty states contract out administration of electronic benefit cards for the food stamps program offshore. In one audit, the state of Washington found 36 out of 41 agencies were contracting out work overseas. A recent study by INPUT Research projects outsourcing of state and local government technology contracts will grow from $10 billion last year to $23 billion in 2008.

Why would corporations expand and employ people if they are going to be taxed at higher rates?

See #1 & 2.

Pearlene, in regards to #1 above, is there any data showing the average size of Corps not paying taxes?  Have to be a little careful here, there are a lot of LLCs, Family Corps, etc, set up to limit tax liability. Are the GEs, Exxons, GMCs, etc avoiding taxes or is it John Farmer Inc, etc that are in the majority of non-taxpaying corps?  Inquiring minds would like to get a little deeper into the above.

No need to get more detailed here. The GOP/Fox News folks have no trouble saying that raising the capital gains tax would hurt almost everyone because almost everyone owns stock.

If they don't have to mention that most folks own very little stock and, the stocks we do own are in 401(s) which aren't entitled to favored capital gains rates (they are taxed as ordinary income) why should we make their arguments for them?

Aren't most VA hospitals located in the back door of university medical schools?

No Rep is going to give any credence to a govt run health plan no matter how watered down it is.  If they had thier way I'm sure they would totally deregulate both the insurance industry and the mediacal profession and "let the maket work it out."

Oh, I have no illusions. Barack Obama will have no better luck than Hillary did. Too many people are making too much money on the current system to allow it to change. It would require a total housecleaning in Congress and elimination of all lobbyists. That just ain't gonna happen.

But we can always hope.

Snoops,

w

Snoops,

Way back in the late 60's or early 70's my gramps, a WW11 veteran would fight with my mother about going to the VA in Brooklyn. The place was a filthy mess and he always complained about the care he recieved there.I do believe since then we have had a couple of DemOcratic Administrations as well as Republicans and NEITHER has put in the money and resources that our men and women deserve. For once let's agree that both sides are lacking in this area. Again,ask an old time veteran about the VA from any era and they will most likely sing the same song as my gramps.

The fact that VA hospitals weren't as good as public hospitals has nothing to do with them being run by the government and everything to do with both the desire to make people who could afford health care to go elsewhere and a lack of respect for poor vets AND the lack of competition.

Both of those root causes are removed when everyone has health care, whether they get it through one of many private providers or they get it from the government.

Besides, FISH is arguing with the typical Republican StrawMan.... "Government Run HealthCare." I don't think anyone is seriously advocating the government taking over management of the healthcare system. What progressives want is a better way to pay for it, and some way for uninsured people to get insurance. The magical free market has failed to rectify this problem, so we, as a society, will have to fix it. The Insurance Company lobbyists have done a masterful job of scaring the Social Darwinists, since the insurance companies have the most to lose. They've been vacuuming money out of our pockets for years, and they have no intention of stopping.

That is a better argument to make, at least I can see eye to eye with you for doing that. I wll always argue about this claim that the government isn't as efficient as big business though. I've worked for plenty of companies that had so much largess they were very innefecient, and I've worked for companies who had government cost plus contracts and they purposely bloated the budget because there was no oversight. Like companies, it's not the government that's the problem, it's the ethics of the people running it that are.

A good example can be found in the contractors who are getting rich off of the Iraq War. Watch the documentary "Iraq for Sale". It will make you throw up. For those of us old enough to remember the "$400 hammer", it all sounds too familiar.