No, Joe is just representing his constituency. The problem is that constituency doesn't include the people of CT.
Father_Time
· 1 month ago
The majority of the people are represented in the current bill because the majority of the people elected the government that created it. The "tea tax cry babies" are and extreme minority. Though humorously vocal, they are politically irrelevant. Furthermore, since the republican party chooses not to participate, thus alienating the people that voted for them from the process, they are also irrelevant.
Joe Lieberman is simply holding out for pork.
ProfElwood
· 1 month ago
"are and extreme minority"
So the majority of people are socialists?
Father_Time
· 1 month ago
No, the majority of the people are not "tea party tax cry babies".
Socialism was not mentioned.
JeffersonDavis
· 1 month ago
First of all, FT, the "majority" did not elect government healthcare - the majority was tired of Bushes and Clintons - and were ready for something different. The vast majority, as it has been shown on other threads, do not support single-payer, and is split on public option.
Secondly, do you really not care if your taxes increase? I already pay over 50% of my pay yearly to some sort of government (fed, state, county, municiple, not to mention the countless fees and liscenses). You may be really able to afford more taxes. But, my American brother, I cannot. I already pay way too much. I'm tapped. The healthcare bill will not better that situation, it will worsen it with a debt that is nearly insurmountable and an impending tax increase that I cannot afford.
Father_Time
· 1 month ago
President Obama was elected on a healthcare reform platform. It is a major mandate.
The majority has NEVER been tired of Bill Clinton.
Nothing has been shown “proving” what the majority wants regarding healthcare reform, but I can guarantee you they don’t want what the conservatives are pushing…which is nothing.
Tax is irrelevant. It’s what you have after tax and what you get for your tax that is relevant. Right now, we pretty much get 150 million dollar Boeing Aircraft ad’s essentially subsidized by our tax money telling us how patriotic Boeing is. How many of us are in the market for Boeing jet? You see, you only see what you want to see, and you over look what is before your face, even when it is blasted coast to coast in commercial adds. Guess you have already forgot about the 600 dollar toilet seats and 300 dollar screw drivers under Ronnie Ray-gun, the conservative mythic god. Why is it that defense can get away with ripping us off but we have 40 million people without any healthcare, employed or not? We only have about 150 million employable people to begin with. Is that America? Screw the little guy and pat the big guy on the back no matter what?
JeffersonDavis
· 1 month ago
FT... You and I agree more than you may think.
I'm not defending the conservatives. That have done just that - NOTHING. The only thing I proposed to the democrats in control now is to address the problems BEFORE you totally reinvent the wheel.
And tax is most definitely NOT irrelevant!!!!! As I stated, under the 50%+ most of us already pay, we should ALREADY have what is being offered. Half of my pay taken from me by the government should get me much more than what I get right now. Right now, my schools send my children out to beg for cash (by selling crap) to help the school get funds. Right now, I have to pay out of pocket for just about everything I need. Right now my roads are falling apart.
WHERE IN THE HECK IS THE 50% GOING? Not to infrastructure, not to education, not to anything else I see as tangible. It must be going to programs that don't effect the taxpayer. That's just wrong.
Leonidas
· 1 month ago
Joe isn't killing healthcare reform, he is killing a democratic bill so they can come up with something more acceptable to the majority of the people.
JSpencer
· 1 month ago
I'd like to believe that was true - and maybe I could. . . . . if I'd just fallen off the hay wagon. ;-)
dduck12
· 1 month ago
Substitute a donkey for Joe and you have an alternative and appropriate cartoon.
Leonidas
· 1 month ago
The vast majority, as it has been shown on other threads, do not support single-payer, and is split on public option.
The vast majority of Conservatives, a sizable majority of independents (as of the latest polls), but not a vast majority of the American people. The divide is actually too close for me to think of "vast majority" as a realistic description, no matter how hard I might wish it,. A sizable chunk of the American people are for those items and a sizable chunk of the American people are still undecided.
DLS
· 1 month ago
Most people want reform. About a half want the "public option" (an explicit federal government role as "payer" and intermediary-provider), and half of these (about a quarter of the population) support the public option substantially. This is, along with the actual events to date, why I have said the public option is not yet dead. There is less support for this in the Senate than in the House, but I suspect support for it is potentially greater than it may superficially appear, given the grossly over-claimed and hyped, but nevertheless significant amount of support the public option retains currently.
Father_Time
· 1 month ago
I think All of America wants a successful healthcare system that covers everybody and no one has to worry about losing everything they have just to pay for it.
Plenty of examples around the world to analyze and adapt a similar but suitable system for America. But we can’t because the conservatives cannot stand the idea or even allow it to be spoken without scream asshat “socialismo” communist stupidity and scaring all the people.
It’s ALREADY BEEN DONE FOLKS, it’s just a matter of adapting it here.
Good grief talk about stuck on stupid.
ProfElwood
· 1 month ago
"It’s ALREADY BEEN DONE FOLKS, it’s just a matter of adapting it here. Good grief talk about stuck on stupid."
Sorry, I don't think that that's as easy as you believe. You see, America is a much bigger market than any other country in the world. Where in Germany, gambling 10 million Marks of lobbying money might give you a 10% chance of getting a law worth 30 million Marks of return, in the US, 100 million dollars would give you a 10% chance at a 10 billion dollar return. We've already have perverse incentives to use more expensive therapies, because insurance allows people to afford the more expensive therapy, which makes it more profitable to push those therapies, and makes it harder to find the cost/benefit analysis for different therapies. I just can't believe that anyone is going to be able to design a system that can separate politics, and corporate influence, from government.
Also, we've already seen what wage and price controls do to a market, and we're seeing it again in the doctor market under the government's RBRVS (medical reimbursement scale used for Medicare, Medicaid, and now many private insurance companies). The AMA set the prices (I got that information off of their own web site) to favor specialists, which has slowly pushed most of the incoming doctors to specialize (fewer hours and higher wages), so that now we're facing a severe shortage of family doctors, most of which will be retiring soon.
An small electric motor may work in toy airplanes, but that doesn't mean that big electric motor would be good for jetliners.
Father_Time
· 1 month ago
Uh no, there are 750 million people in Europe. they all have socialized medicine. Every single one.
The problem is cost. All the other country's do not pay the medical people or medical businesses near what they get here because we have no system at all, it's just an open market without competition. Supply and demand without competition just goes up and up in cost. Within a decade our healthcare industry will collapse under it’s own greed because nobody will be able to pay the skyrocketing costs. Not even collectively through insurance companies. So it’s not a matter of adding more money from taxpayers, it’s a matter of government control of cost by force of law.
ProfElwood
· 1 month ago
Europe isn't a country, or at least it wasn't when they socialized.
And I'm not quite sure what you mean by open market, but the fact that it doesn't have competition is proof that it's not a free market. You're proposing that the government fix the problems that it created by addressing the end result, rather than reversing its mistakes that caused the problems. The results of wage and price controls that have been implemented before have always been problematic.
Father_Time
· 1 month ago
Well it's the European Economic Community, (EC), with common currency and common economics. Size of country is completely irrelevant anyway. NONE of those country's or any part of the EC as a whole wants our system what-so-ever. No body does except illegal aliens. German doctors demonstrate for more money from their government, but otherwise the Europeans, (and the Japanese), are very happy with their healthcare systems.
With regard to markets, your assessment is a massive error. It is absolutely a free market, but nothing can complete against healthcare. You cannot generate competition. The market grows, it never declines. Price controls are not problematic in a socialized medicine environment. The Europeans, Japan and Taiwan, (and others), all have socialized medicine and it works great. Costs are low and quality is better than ours.
Their simply is no valid argument against Socialized Medicine except the fear of anything labeled “social”. However it “Socialism” does not seem to be of concern to us when we do business with Socialized countries. Business that our country would completely collapse without. Fact is, they are beating us at our own game and taking care of their people too. We, the “Capitalists” are the inefficient ones, not the Socialists.
ProfElwood
· 1 month ago
"It is absolutely a free market, but nothing can complete against healthcare. You cannot generate competition." I've pointed out specific laws, such as McCarran-Ferguson, that were explicitly meant to destroy competition. You're argument is akin to saying that circus elephants are free because you can't see the chains. You've even agreed with my lists of laws that could be repealed to increase competition. That's because those laws are killing competition. The only way that you can claim our medical system to be free market, is to assume that the government and businesses are supposed to be colluding like they are now.
And yes, all of our systems are experiencing problems, including the typical overages and shortages that price controlled systems experience.
keelaay
· 1 month ago
The cartoon isn't implying what y'all are arguing about. And the "orderly" analogy is a riot.
Anyway, it's wonderful that "the majority of the people" are on your side Leonidis... Funny that the same majority voted for candidate Obama who said very clearly that one of his first term priorities would be health care reform with universal coverage and that without such reform, one could not solve the financial crisis. Yes, Obama is a indeed a liberal (was that in question??) ... he ran as one, and now is trying to deliver his platform.
I respect you for your views, but please spare us your declarations about what the American public thinks. They might indeed have some buyers remorse, but you get what you pay for...
All Comments
No, Joe is just representing his constituency. The problem is that constituency doesn't include the people of CT.
Joe Lieberman is simply holding out for pork.
So the majority of people are socialists?
Socialism was not mentioned.
Secondly, do you really not care if your taxes increase?
I already pay over 50% of my pay yearly to some sort of government (fed, state, county, municiple, not to mention the countless fees and liscenses).
You may be really able to afford more taxes. But, my American brother, I cannot. I already pay way too much. I'm tapped. The healthcare bill will not better that situation, it will worsen it with a debt that is nearly insurmountable and an impending tax increase that I cannot afford.
The majority has NEVER been tired of Bill Clinton.
Nothing has been shown “proving” what the majority wants regarding healthcare reform, but I can guarantee you they don’t want what the conservatives are pushing…which is nothing.
Tax is irrelevant. It’s what you have after tax and what you get for your tax that is relevant. Right now, we pretty much get 150 million dollar Boeing Aircraft ad’s essentially subsidized by our tax money telling us how patriotic Boeing is. How many of us are in the market for Boeing jet? You see, you only see what you want to see, and you over look what is before your face, even when it is blasted coast to coast in commercial adds.
Guess you have already forgot about the 600 dollar toilet seats and 300 dollar screw drivers under Ronnie Ray-gun, the conservative mythic god. Why is it that defense can get away with ripping us off but we have 40 million people without any healthcare, employed or not? We only have about 150 million employable people to begin with. Is that America? Screw the little guy and pat the big guy on the back no matter what?
I'm not defending the conservatives. That have done just that - NOTHING.
The only thing I proposed to the democrats in control now is to address the problems BEFORE you totally reinvent the wheel.
And tax is most definitely NOT irrelevant!!!!!
As I stated, under the 50%+ most of us already pay, we should ALREADY have what is being offered. Half of my pay taken from me by the government should get me much more than what I get right now. Right now, my schools send my children out to beg for cash (by selling crap) to help the school get funds. Right now, I have to pay out of pocket for just about everything I need. Right now my roads are falling apart.
WHERE IN THE HECK IS THE 50% GOING? Not to infrastructure, not to education, not to anything else I see as tangible. It must be going to programs that don't effect the taxpayer. That's just wrong.
The vast majority of Conservatives, a sizable majority of independents (as of the latest polls), but not a vast majority of the American people. The divide is actually too close for me to think of "vast majority" as a realistic description, no matter how hard I might wish it,. A sizable chunk of the American people are for those items and a sizable chunk of the American people are still undecided.
Plenty of examples around the world to analyze and adapt a similar but suitable system for America. But we can’t because the conservatives cannot stand the idea or even allow it to be spoken without scream asshat “socialismo” communist stupidity and scaring all the people.
It’s ALREADY BEEN DONE FOLKS, it’s just a matter of adapting it here.
Good grief talk about stuck on stupid.
Good grief talk about stuck on stupid."
Sorry, I don't think that that's as easy as you believe. You see, America is a much bigger market than any other country in the world. Where in Germany, gambling 10 million Marks of lobbying money might give you a 10% chance of getting a law worth 30 million Marks of return, in the US, 100 million dollars would give you a 10% chance at a 10 billion dollar return. We've already have perverse incentives to use more expensive therapies, because insurance allows people to afford the more expensive therapy, which makes it more profitable to push those therapies, and makes it harder to find the cost/benefit analysis for different therapies. I just can't believe that anyone is going to be able to design a system that can separate politics, and corporate influence, from government.
Also, we've already seen what wage and price controls do to a market, and we're seeing it again in the doctor market under the government's RBRVS (medical reimbursement scale used for Medicare, Medicaid, and now many private insurance companies). The AMA set the prices (I got that information off of their own web site) to favor specialists, which has slowly pushed most of the incoming doctors to specialize (fewer hours and higher wages), so that now we're facing a severe shortage of family doctors, most of which will be retiring soon.
An small electric motor may work in toy airplanes, but that doesn't mean that big electric motor would be good for jetliners.
The problem is cost. All the other country's do not pay the medical people or medical businesses near what they get here because we have no system at all, it's just an open market without competition. Supply and demand without competition just goes up and up in cost. Within a decade our healthcare industry will collapse under it’s own greed because nobody will be able to pay the skyrocketing costs. Not even collectively through insurance companies. So it’s not a matter of adding more money from taxpayers, it’s a matter of government control of cost by force of law.
And I'm not quite sure what you mean by open market, but the fact that it doesn't have competition is proof that it's not a free market. You're proposing that the government fix the problems that it created by addressing the end result, rather than reversing its mistakes that caused the problems. The results of wage and price controls that have been implemented before have always been problematic.
With regard to markets, your assessment is a massive error. It is absolutely a free market, but nothing can complete against healthcare. You cannot generate competition. The market grows, it never declines. Price controls are not problematic in a socialized medicine environment. The Europeans, Japan and Taiwan, (and others), all have socialized medicine and it works great. Costs are low and quality is better than ours.
Their simply is no valid argument against Socialized Medicine except the fear of anything labeled “social”. However it “Socialism” does not seem to be of concern to us when we do business with Socialized countries. Business that our country would completely collapse without. Fact is, they are beating us at our own game and taking care of their people too. We, the “Capitalists” are the inefficient ones, not the Socialists.
I've pointed out specific laws, such as McCarran-Ferguson, that were explicitly meant to destroy competition. You're argument is akin to saying that circus elephants are free because you can't see the chains. You've even agreed with my lists of laws that could be repealed to increase competition. That's because those laws are killing competition. The only way that you can claim our medical system to be free market, is to assume that the government and businesses are supposed to be colluding like they are now.
And yes, all of our systems are experiencing problems, including the typical overages and shortages that price controlled systems experience.
Anyway, it's wonderful that "the majority of the people" are on your side Leonidis... Funny that the same majority voted for candidate Obama who said very clearly that one of his first term priorities would be health care reform with universal coverage and that without such reform, one could not solve the financial crisis. Yes, Obama is a indeed a liberal (was that in question??) ... he ran as one, and now is trying to deliver his platform.
I respect you for your views, but please spare us your declarations about what the American public thinks. They might indeed have some buyers remorse, but you get what you pay for...