An alternative to Obamacare, starting with advice from Whole Foods

Well, I'm going to admit that I haven't really looked into it too deeply. By that I mean, I'm not going to do a web search then pretend I have an informed opinion here.

All I remember about that time was I was completely focused on getting my Engineering degree. While at SU, I met an Iranian freshman that told me about how his father was a political prisoner in Iran and would eventually be killed. He got his son out just before he was arrested. There was a tragedy and a hollowness to that student. Sure, I thought supporting Iraq was a good idea at the time. But I was in my 20's and easily moved by emotional appeals (of course I was a Liberal at the time).

Willy, I will take a look and give you my honest opinion.

You mean he wanted to go after Saddam because Saddam planned an assassination attempt against a head of state (former President)? I'm absolutely positive that that in and of itself constitutes an act of war.

Add to that Saddam's massive counterfeiting of U.S. currency, which is also an act of war.

I personally believe that not only was Saddam building nuclear weapons, but that U.S. troops found them and Bush classified their discovery.

I remember watching a damning 60 Minutes special that showed U.N. inspectors being delayed entry into an Iraqi weapons facility while the cameras showed a dozen tractor-trailer trucks leaving the back. That, along with the "oil for food" scandal (the biggest corruption scandal in the history of history - EVER!) and Iraq's flouting of U.N. sanctions.

Before Bush II invaded Iraq, the Middle East was a daily mess. You have to admit that things are better now.

 

Corwin: Karl Rove just published his book. He acknowledged Iraq didn't have WMD. Very direct about the admission. Previous to that Bush has acknowledged it and Cheney acknowledged it.

Rove went on to say that had the Bush administration known Saddam had not had WMD there would have been no reason for war. Check it out.

It would have been mighty hard to convince the public to go to war b/c Saddam tried to take out his father.

If counterfeiting US dollars is a reason to go to war then per your suggestion we should go to war against North Korea. They are doing that big time now.

The middle east is one big tinder box...always ready to explode. I wish a force far bigger than I would suck out all the oil in that region and plant it somewhere else. Then nobody in the rest of the world would give a rat's ass about the middle east. All those terrorist madmen could kill one another to their hearts delight.

 

For the supporters of healthcare reform, Stupack looms as the greatest obstacle to its passage - the end game anyway. The precedent under reconciliation that abortion is policy rather obviously than a budget matter gives a ray of hope for passage (following script) and endorses Pelosies position - the bill is about healthcare not abortion. The poison pill is just that and again the conservative mantra to impugn a crusade where there is none to cause grief for the less fortunate whether through restrictions or failure is alive and running.

Whoever heard of Robert Dove - quite a ruling though an obvious one and demonstrates the courage that individuals do possess.

 

And here I was thinking it was the almost 70% of Americans who don't want the bill they are currently pushing.

You've got that backwards. The strategy is to pass the Senate bill as is and fix only budget matters via reconciliation. If Stupak and company insist that the exchange not provide coverage for abortions, it is not language that will be reparable via reconciliation, which could prevent the passage in the house, which could scuttle the whole thing.

Personally, I think they'll get it past the house before the March 29th recess, but the Republicans will stall the bill in Senate long enough to force the senators home to face their constituents. Its already looking like there is going to be a lot of shouting going on.

 

Well, a heart transplant is temporarily rejected as well but soon the public will see the light of comprehensive legislation - will be interesting how Stupack is handled, it is disingenuous on his part to use a wedge issue of small importance to derail important legislation to the parties leadership - hopefully the Democrats will call his bluff and be rid of him....

 

You may be the first person I've heard refer to the healthcare legislation as "Involuntary heart transplant surgery"(on a hemopheliac suffering from anemia). It may be the most accurate description I have heard to date. I hate to bring Godwin's Law into play, but didn't the Nazis perform involuntary surgeries as well?

She(Pelosi) has probably already issued threats, only to discover the Stupack 12 are more afraid of their constituents than they are of Pelosi. That leaves payoffs, which Ben Nelson has already proved can work. Unfortunately, the Ben Nelson example also showed that accepting payoffs comes with its own political price, when his favorability numbers dropped from 73% to 40% for his vote on healthcare. Fortunately for him, he doesn't come up for election again until 2012, though many people will work hard to make keep his behavior fresh in voters minds. Stupak and his friends are ALL up for election this year, so responsibility to the constituency may once again outweigh any potential payoff.

So you are saying we need to elect more people to office who listen only to their party bosses and not to the people who elected them? That doesn't sound too clever.

I'm assuming you are talking about the Democrats who elected him to office. I have no doubt they will be rid of him if he votes for this bill. The same applies to the other 11 congressmen who are standing with him.

 

Like I said - I believe that they found WMDs, but classified their discovery. Anyone involved would have had to acknowledge the same. In light of that, can you understand the denials?

Do you understand the global implications here? Can you take this to the next level? If we had found the nuclear material proving WMDs, what would have been the next step? Can you connect the dots?

Earl, you keep referring to Bush I as if he wasn't a former President and as if planning to assassinate a former President isn't a big deal. You do this consistently. In relation to Bush I you constantly and continuously refer to it as "Saddam tried to take out his father", inferring that this was a decision made at the family table over Sunday breakfast. To the best of my knowledge Bush I was NOT President Clinton's father but when Clinton uncovered the plot he hit Saddam with a military punch so hard it should have been considered a separate war unto itself.

This isn't "he tried to punch my Daddy in the nose". Consider that, if Saddam had successfully assassinated Bush I there would have been absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the USA's need to invade Saddam. So stop trying to make this sound like an injured child - it's dishonest argument and extremely petty.

I completely agree. North Korea is making Superbills, mostly in the denomination of 50-dollar bills. U.S. military action is needed to stop this.

Unfortunately, North Korea is China's attack dog. Bush II was China's bitch. And now, so is Obama.

 

even if that's the case they would have announced lesser WMD's found. here is a question, we did they go if they were there? Didn't saddam gas his own people?

 

Corwin:

The entire world attacked the US when WMD wasn't found. The administration was desperately panting for a finding. It is both the craziest example of uber right wing proclamations to claim what you do regarding WMD and an outrageous example of how the Right Wing is more interested in political proclamations than reality.

Frankly if they had found WMD they would have proclaimed it loudly to the entire world. They would have been shouting it from the tops of buildings......and Karl Rove himself acknowledged in that book that his biggest political mistake was not to address the loud proclamations that the Bush administration lied about WMD.

Not acknowledging that, as Bush, Cheney and Rove just did is simply the greatest example of Right Wing Political thinking dominating reality. I want reality and the truth. The last thing I and the world want is politically motivated BS that leads to BS. What that kind of BS does is lead to remarkable recessions and unneccessary wars.

Frankly if you go back in history, everyone in the world, led by nations' intelligence offices and the leaders of the world BELIEVED Saddam had WMD. Saddam was actually and actively promoting the concept. After being captured he admitted he faked it over the years prior to 2003 when the US attacked. His main motivation was to keep the Iranians at bay.

2ndly. While you might be articulating a big thing about Saddam going after Bush I and it being a reason for going to war....Rove himself acknowledged that had the US known there were no WMD we would not have gone to war.

Over long history there have been various similar efforts on National Leaders of various nations by other nations. Our own CIA tried to take out Castro. Despite making it sound like the worst thing ever its not necessarily the main reason to send hundreds of thousands of young men and women to war, kill ten's of thousands of people, devastate a nation and run up a trillion dollar bill.

Despite your comments, we aren't going out fighting everyone every day. Frankly the parents of millions of young men and women will put a stop to it.

You seem willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands, devastate nations, run up huge debts, etc. for reasons that most would find lacking. With that kind of perspective I hope I don't see posts from you screaming about national debt.
(now having said all this--this is a thread about health care)

 

No, he is simply quoting Dubya.

You will note that Dubya did not make reference to Saddam planning to take out a sitting (or former) President. Let's rewind and replay for you...

[video=youtube;OC5dfneoHcE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC5dfneoHcE[/video]

 

O.K., let's look at this in some depth.

First, keep this in mind - Saddam was already known to be power-hungry and most definitely wanted to be a major player on the world stage. He wasn't working with Al-Qaida, because Al-Qadia was his competition in the stick-it-to-the-West competition. Saddam & Bin Laden both wanted to be the next Saladin, and on 9/11 Bin-Laden had outdone Saddam. It was now up to Saddam to outdo Bin Laden - how would he top the events of 9/11?

It is not only desirable, it is necessary for a country to have nuclear weapons in order to own serious negotiating power at any global bargaining table - just look at Iran and North Korea.

I once met a consultant in international relations. He told me that, when you look at the actions of foreign countries it is necessary and enlightening to see the behaviors of a country and it's leader as if they are high school students. Some just want attention, some want to be popular, some just want to cause trouble. There's the harried student council president (USA), and the bullies (N. Korea, Saddam's Iraq). Non-democracies are often given too much credit and are often simply childishly seeking power and throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way.

We know that Saddam wasn't building reactors, so that means he couldn't use yellow cake - therefore he was in the market for weapons-ready nuclear material, already processed and raring to go. A country with working nuclear weapons is completely safe from invasion. You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a reason why a megalomaniac like Saddam would NOT want a nuclear weapon!

Now, this is an important point - each and every plant that generates nuclear material has it's own unique signature of impurities. This means that, once the finding of the nuclear material was announced, the next step would have been to analyze it and discover what country sold it to Saddam.

Remember what happened to France when they initially didn't stand by the USA in the war against terror? Remember Americans throwing bottles of French wine into the streets? "French Fries" = "Freedom Fries"? American's stopped buying french wine and french goods. France's economy quickly plummeted. Remember the riots in Paris? France hovered on catastrophe - all because the American public resented France not voting with the USA and temporarily stopped buying French goods.

Now, imagine what it would have meant had the USA announced that Saddam's nuclear material had been bought from France. Translation: The USA just went to war because of France.

I know Jewish friends that refuse to buy anything from Germany - forever - because of a war. We can't accurately predict the economic effect this would have had on France. There is the distinct possibility that the economic effect could have been permanent.

When faced with this, France's government would have been compelled to prevent this from being released. At this point, my analysis concludes.

Just to be clear - I'm not claiming that we definitely found nuclear material. But while it's my opinion that we found nuclear material, it's my position that if we had found it we DEFINITELY would have kept it quiet. This isn't checkers, this is chess.

 

Doing so without Stupack and the Bishops - all hail the liberals...or at least a glimmer of hope one way or another to be resolved soon.

Liberals on a rampage....

 

re student loans. Banks are baled out by the billions, and currently the Fed is virtually giving them money what with the discount rate at 0.75 and the federal funds rate at 0.25.

Student loans are running about 8%. There is no bankruptcy option and statute of limitations. The only way out of a student loan is death.

That is a pretty sweet deal for those "free market' bankers that are so opposed to any kind of financial regulation.

 

I had to go back and review comments to figure out how we got from a thread on health care to a debate on Saddam, Iran, Iraq, and WMD. Couldn't remember how it got there. Then I rescanned some of the arguments. I see a lot of world view differences in perspectives.

I absolutely acknowledge that prior to the war against Iraq the perspective of the world was that Iraq had current WMD and was in development. Nobody could find otherwise and Saddam was actively creating this impression. An absolutely great source about the situation can be found at this source that describes the interrogation of Saddam and statements he made during that process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation_of_Saddam_Hussein

I believe this stuff. It also speaks to how difficult it is for even the most advanced intelligence to provide absolutely hard facts and evidence when the "bad guys" are so intent on hiding.

Bush, Cheney, and most recently Rove all acknowledged no weapons were found. Describing something beyond that is simply speculation. In the latest revelation...Rove's book...he acknowledges that had we known there were no weapons...we would not have gone to war.

As to some of the other comments; Al Queda attacked the US, has declared war on the West, on Saudi Arabia's government, etc. We were/are at war w/Al Queda. Saddam was a different animal; a dangerous tyrant within Iraq...but not at direct war against the US.

If one makes the effort to put Saddam, other beasts, etc. in the same realm as Al-Queda...then we are essentially at war with, (oh I don't know--maybe 1/3 of the world--and our leaders have an opportunity to send our people and troops anywhere at any time to fight anyone...all under the rubric of some twisted political perspective that takes 1/3 of the world and paints them as bad guys.

We already have clearly shown we haven't the volume of troops on the ground to have been succesful in a ground war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frankly, I rather get back and discuss health care.

 

If you really want to see why the US needs a significant change in health care policy consider the following two extraordinary pieces of news and facts:

Over the past decade worker's share of insurance premiums simply soared at incredible rates...while their incomes stayed flat... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/BA751CBPMG.DTL These are the people with insurance, primarily provided by their employers, so that group buying enables lower overall costs. Despite that..the working individuals have paid rapidly increasing amts of money while their own income has been stagnant.

Now with the recession...look how it is driving people out of insurance coverage: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/16/business/la-fi-uninsured16-2010mar16

The basic Republican/ Right Wing perspective on health care has been the following:

1. If you are a working American, still working in the midst of the recession, We Right Wingers don't give a flying f*ck that year after year you will pay more in insurance coverage...but your income won't go up.

2. It you are an American that lost his/her job because of the recession that was caused by our policies...we don't give a flying f*ck that you don't have insurance. Go ahead...get sick, lose your home, be miserable. Our rich guys that run insurance companies are flying around in private jets, eating and drinking off of expensive china, raising insurance premium policies, and conspiring with the Radical Right to tell you that "the government is going to get between you and your doctor".. Oh right. You don't have a job or insurance. You don't have a doctor anymore.

3. Finally if you don't like abortion consider the following interesting article and research: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html

Holy crow. Full health coverage results in fewer abortions. Maybe the Religeous Right should look hard at that information.

 

Interesting. My income has gone up, and my insurance has gone down. Go figure. I currently have the freedom to shop around, which is what I do. Now imagine if I could shop across state lines? I cut my health care costs in 1/2 this year alone by simply shopping around. I'd be willing to bet I could have cut it even more if I could shop outside my own state.

The Republican perspective is and always has been: COMPETITION/FREE MARKET.

The Democrat perspective is and always has been: COMMUNISTIC/CONTROLLING.

 

This might give some pause for thought:



One might conclude that insurance rates (malpractice in this case) have little to do with risk or payout and much to do with market conditions. There is ample evidence this is true with insurance in general, including auto and health.

 

Found this article rather interesting the subject: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medic...trong:+stock+market+drop+not+a...-a0197803299

 

Show Time, and looks like the Democrats just may pull it off. Have not heard what the Senate thinks about the changes the house has made and whether they will go along....oh, of course the way it will be passed they need just 50 votes than 60. And by the way does anyone anywhere know what the changes are for passage?????

The bill still / most likely reflects the more conservative Senate version but the liberals will have their day as surly a new gov't sponsored program and bureaucracy is always the best solution.

 

I kinda wish people would take the time to actually read these bills.

The bill contains a lot of things that have NOTHING to do with health care.

But that's the way it always goes with a spend happy democrat.