Slashdot Mirror

They're not really good arguments. It seems like anything less than letting everyone in the country get a chance to personally examine the birth certificate won't be satisfactory. Did you ever see Reagan's birth certificate in person or McCain's or anyone else other than your own or someone in your family? Where the heck is this even coming from? They even announced his birth in one of the local Honolulu papers at the time of his birth for crying out loud. I've yet to hear the conspiracy theory to explain that one away.

FYI, here's the account of a group that has personally examined his birth certificate: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Thank you. Would mod up if I could.

Hawaii's freakin' head of the Department of Health has verified Obama's birth certificate exists. AND Hawaiian state law forbids the release of this certificate to anyone BUT the person or their parents.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html

So even if Obama felt the need to release his original to others i.e. the press, it seems unlikely that he legally CAN. I believe the only specific exceptions in Hawaii are for court cases revolving around whether persons are entitled to reparations for land taken from the original Hawaiians.

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact they're lying about reasons for the premium increase.

See here.

It looks like the health care law may be responsible for a small change. Like 3% instead of 2%, or 14% instead of 10%. It's hardly 'skyrocketing'.

Incidentally, AC, are you with Regence Blue Shield? They are known to have sent out a lying letter blaming the rate increases on the new health care and were forced to send out a correction by regulations.

And a lot of companies are shifting more costs of premiums to the workers due to the recession, which has nothing to do with the health care law.

Even with non-group care, the area that should raise the most (Because it's those people with children that can now get insurance) has roughly one third of the premium change from the law, and two thirds just from normal cost increases.

Why does no one actually ever calm down when you tell them to calm down ;-)

Example 1
Example 2

Michael Moore spins highly sensationalized versions of the truth and uses them to imply massive corruption. This is exactly Glenn Beck's Modus Operandi. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Glenn Beck told more outright falsehoods than Michael Moore, but it's clear he tells his share as well. Hence my interest in a comparison.

Also, your post (intentionally?) is a perfect example of making a point badly. You're attempting to point out I provided no evidence previously, which is true. But the way you do it is by using what most would consider a personal attack that makes it sounds as if you view Michael Moore as an idol and Glenn Beck as a demon drawing the focus away from any fault of mine and onto yours.

You are either one of the most partisan-blinded people I have ever responded to, or an elaborate and subtle troll that was somehow modded insightful.

You're welcome to make yourself a martyr, but some of us would rather hold to account those who abuse even the broken laws we have. Maybe we can prove that the people who promote and enforce the copyright laws have no intention of following them themselves, a clear sign of an unjust law. (I'm looking at you, Congress-whose-federal-pay-never-gets-frozen.)

I'd take you more seriously if you had your facts straight. Congress froze their pay for 2010, excluding themselves from the federal pay raises, and will likely do so again for 2011. These guys spend millions trying to get elected, do you really think they are doing it for the $174,000/year salary, or would risk voter ire by giving themselves a $3k raise?

Here's a clue, most of the political BS you receive in the mail has as much to do with reality as Nigerian royalty asking your help too extract their millions. The pundits make money by making you angry, its in their best interests to twists facts to make you irate.

And regarding the current President, I find the scariest things about him are not what the loony right charges, but the things that are unquestionably true but ignored, like his 20 years with a racist "church", his unprecedented efforts to suppress his own paper trail, the associations and politics of many of the "czars" and other advisors he surrounds himself with. The list goes on.

They're ignored because the first is a personal attack unrelated to policy, "guilt by association" style. The second is an unverifiable claim. The third is a trick of words because Obama has not had more "czars" than past presidents.

The scariest thing about him is that he's done hardly anything to change the course on 4th amendment rights. We still have the Patriot Act, he's expanded the attacks using drones to include U.S. citizens, and right would rather talk about the stuff you bring up and "death panels" than have substantive discussion.

The US average for rail freight is 436 ton-miles per gallon.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_freight_train_really_move_a.html

Plus, trains don't go in straight lines from the source to the destination, and have to make intermediary stops. Not true with ships.

Ahh... another edition of blame Gramm-Leach-Blily. The problem is that it arguably softened the crisis, and the banks which diversified weathered the storm better.

Your argument about the needs of the many is 51 wolves and 49 sheep deciding what's for dinner. After 49 days, you just have starving wolves... There's only so long the cannibal pot solution can go on.

Yeah, except bush wasn't actually lying about yellowcake. There is no evidence that he altered a report there. Try again.

Google's relationship with the Obama administration is nothing like Cheney and Halliburton. I mean, has Biden or Obama held large amounts of Google stock like Cheney and Bush held stock in Halliburton?

Neither Cheney nor Bush held large amounts of stocks in halliburton that would benefit them. Your claim otherwise here is either made out of ignorance or complete malice.

I don't remember anybody calling for an investigantion into Cheney and Halliburton during the Bush administration.

You must have a selective memory or are making statements out of malice again.

This is more like the Bush ties to Microsoft; the Bush Justice Department pretty much let MS off the hook after Clinton had them by the balls. I didn't see any investigations into that, either.

And as far as I know of, there weren't any fundraisers hosted by Microsoft or it's CEOs in the weeks leading up to the Bush administrations relaxation of antitrust prosecution on Microsoft. Something else you are leaving out of this is that the court ultimately approves of and made the ruling in the MS antitrust case. A court is a separate body from the administration entirely. This is notable here because it wasn't a court, it was a department under the administration that directly regulates the perceived actions. This is before another branch of the government (the courts) even begins to take it up. So no, it's not like the Bush ties to Microsoft that don't exist outside of your head.

This smells to me like nothing more than dirty politics; kind of like Clinton's forty million dollar blow job.

Ah.. So here is the truth. Your just a complete and total tool, a useful idiot who can't tell the difference between lying under oath and what the lie was about. This makes much more sense now. First you make shit up, take it out of context, then attempt to bury it in someone else that's completely out of context. Well, good for you, you are probably one of the most useful idiots out there.

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html

Actually, that is a common misconception. Cheney never got donations from Halliburton when in office, and they pledged to take any profits from their stock options and donate them to charity.

However, it certainly could be that Cheney took care of his old buddies that he knew in a company he used to work for. But he didn't necessarily directly profit from it.

we've dedicated trillions to a healthcare system which will bankrupt employers and be unaffordable to citizens.

How do you figure that?

So, have you never read this, or were you being ironic with your signature?

A little digging finds that factcheck.org got the original and certified it, but that wasn't widely reported when it happened so without looking it up I wouldn't know that.

A clarification: FactCheck didn't actually obtain an original on their own. They were allowed to examine and photograph an original that was provided to them by the Obama campaign.

Further, FactCheck didn't "certify" anything. They don't have that authority. They simply published their opinion about the authenticity of a document that was provided to them.

FFS:
Snopes has it.
Factcheck.org has it.

Seriously, short of you personally examining the birth record yourself, or a time machine so you can be in attendence (in Honolulu, HI, USA) at the time of the birth, what would convince you?

When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left.

This is true to an extent, but the popular left-wing media outlets generally don't LIE about what's going on. They have a liberal bias, but while they may try to lead their audience in a particular direction, they don't deliberately try to deceive their audience. I've seen several examples of Fox News doing just that.

Obama on taxes
Nuclear proliferation treaty
Video footage of protest
Ground Zero mosque funding

Then of course there's this:
Funding the GOP

And then there are other Republicans lying, not necessarily through Fox News:
Alan Grayson lying about his opponent (more)
Jan Brewer lying about decapitated bodies
Andrew Breitbart quotes Shirley Sharrod out of context

Please, show me where Democrats are lying this blatantly. Am I just not aware of it because I only get my news from liberal biased sources? If that's the case, then show me.

"green" showman whose mansion burned 20x the national average

[citation needed]

You should check your facts, especially about what has changed since the original brouhaha.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/

Here you go. About 100 years since Republicans garnered the significant majority of black votes, and about 70 years since the Democrats began claiming that majority. Racially speaking, Republicans shot themselves in the foot with Goldwater and still haven't recovered. They're doing it again with the Arizona immigration issue.

You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but should probably ask yourself why most minorities vote for the "racist" party.

Quoting media matters? Enough said about your bias.

The truth of the matter is that he does support infanticide, in that a baby born alive after a botched abortion could still be killed. I don't know how could possibly support this stance. Obama defended it saying it was an encroachment on abortion rights.

Here's a more reputable source for you to read:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

>>WTF are you talking about. A restriction on xyz guns affects everyone.

What I'm talking about is the various Hollywood liberals who support gun rights, except not for themselves, exactly as I stated it.

>>Just one slight problem for you....liberal != Democrat.

Yeah, no shit. But let's conflate them for now. They have all sorts of great phrases like, "I might disagree what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it", until, you know, Ann Coulter or someone comes to their campus. Then they do everything they can to stop her from speaking.

On my first search for "Limbaugh" at factcheck.org.

I read through your link, and it isn't just from a left-leaning watchdog, it reads as if it is from the campaign page of a politician running for office. (IE: it only 'corrects' negatives, and doesn't address any myths and falsehoods that exist which may appear to be positive for her).

I agree. That site, Media Matters, is pretty much only reactionary to messages from Republicans. You've got to look elsewhere for research in the other direction, e.g. Newsbusters for a right-leaning watchdog, and Factcheck for a centrist/even-handed watchdog.

Unfortunately, too often, it is up to citizens to read all the sources and attempt to extract the truth from the pile of bias.

Obama topped Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP for the 2008 Election cycle. Even though he swore he would would not take money from oil lobbyists.

I seem to recall W saying that it was just a "goddam piece of paper."

You seem to recall that, do you? I suggest you check your facts.

Clinton never ran a budget surplus. He got close though, but only because he robbed from the Social Security trust fund (just like every president has for the last half-century).

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

GWB got his campaign paid for by the oil industry. With Obama, there is at least a reasonable doubt.

Well, NEITHER candidate could legally accept contributions from oil corporations, but Obama's denial is a little slick according to FactCheck. (And Hillary Clinton called him out on it.)

No reasonable doubt there.

Either way, you haven't seemed real interested in a productive dialog about this issue. You've told me to "go away", you've put words into my mouth and you've leap to conclusions that aren't supported by my writings. Perhaps we should call it here and just agree to disagree, hmm?

I told you to go away because you make stupid statements about how the left should support corporatism in the name of the workers. I told you to go away because you don't have any scientific basis for your arguments. I told you to go away because you haven't offered a serious and workable alternative to the incentive that Carbon Taxes would provide. I can get behind agreeing to disagree, and you can have your conclusion that I was the one not interested in productive dialog about the issue when it was you who really wasn't offering any defensible ideas in detail nor positions supported by science.

One thing though, don't conflate the American People with people who make up 2%-3% of the households in this country. citation provided.

Hrm. I had not heard this, but a quick google search turned up that it's a little different than implied. Seems like an urban legend. That link is from 2008 though - got anything newer?

"Scientists" scared of goofy analysis are priests, not scientists. Take their funding away and use their PhD parchment for toilet paper.

Big business has a long history of setting up think tanks and foundations in order to churn out disinformation.
In the past I've brought up the tobacco industry as a prime example of business producing bad science in order to stave off regulation.
Less pernicious, but equally anti-science, are creationists, anti-vaxxers, and those pushing abstinence only.

I disagree with locking the data behind university walls, but it's amazingly naive to think that scientists shouldn't be scared of "goofy analysis".

It only takes a few morons in a hurry to poison what could be an otherwise rational debate.
See: Death Panels

Sorry kid. I've had this argument before.

Correction, April 22: We originally concluded that Obama’s 90 percent figure was “not true” and based on a “badly biased” sample of recovered guns. We are retracting both those characterizations, and we apologize to our readers for this error. We have rewritten the article throughout to correct this.
Our error was to think we had confirmed that Mexican officials submit for tracing only those guns they believe likely to have come from the U.S. Law enforcement officials say they don’t know if that’s the case.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

Of all guns that can be traced that were submitted, with no selection bias (the Mexican officials didn't send information that makes them think they were of American origin), 90% came from the United States.

The high murder rates in the U.S.A. occur in areas with subcultures that have breakdown of family structure. No father to raise and keep young males in line means a sufficient number of them act as savages to turn a neighborhood into a lawless war zone.

Your thinly veiled racism fails to impress.

http://factcheck.org/2010/03/all-those-in-favor/

So, I take it that you're a Republican. Do me a favor and look at this. The bottom section has a nice graphic that compares two Republican healthcare bills, a bi-partisan bill, and the Senate and House bills. Between the five of them, there aren't that many substantial differences.

If you truly believe the people who are telling you that the government is taking over healthcare and will be able to decide you aren't worth treating, do me a favor: ask those people which bill they would prefer. Then try to find out which one of the minor differences in the bills removes death panels. Here's a hint - there is no such thing. The major differences between Republican healthcare plan and Democrat healthcare plan involve how wide coverage will extend, where the money comes from, and how much it will cost.

You people are so far removed from reality that it isn't amusing anymore. Educate yourselves.

(Note: The figures for the bi-partisan Wyden-Bennett bill and covering the uninsured comes from a dubious source. I personally doubt this one, but the others are all quite credible.)

Why do you think the birth record issue is BS?

Because it is.

He does have to prove that he is eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States which may well mean that he needs to show the records

See you're living up to your name again. Obama has proved it, over and over and over and over again.

It's better that people think your head is lodged deep in your ass, than start spouting the most debunked conspiracy theory in history and remove all doubt.

Depending on which side of the Laffer curve you are on, cutting taxes actually RAISES revenue. This happened after GWB's tax cuts took effect. Bush cut taxes. Government took in record receipts (and then spent them!).

You're oversimplifying. Most of the increase in tax revenues came from corporate taxes, which didn't get a major cut in that period.

See: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

>>>Please explain how mandatory health insurance is "clearly unconstitutional", because all of the lawyers I speak to (which are many) have somehow managed to miss that argument.
>>>

Google has many lawyers who says its uncosntitutional: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=mandatory+health+insurance+is+unconstitutional

And here's Judge Napolitano's opinion. He repeats in almost every show that he considers mandatory *anything* to be unconstitutional, unless specifically granted by the Constitution's list of power. http://www.freedomwatchonfox.com/

And then there's the Constitution itself, which makes clear mandatory health insurance, if it even exists as a power of the government, belongs to the STATES not Washington D.C. See Amendment 10.

The first three results for your search include two news sites and one conspiracy theory site. The fourth result is factcheck.org which declares it a novel issue.

And the argument has been made successfully for a great number of federal programs in the interest of "the pursuit of happiness", among other provisions in the constitution. This is not new, and is well established in precedent. In fact virtually all government bodies are justified by similar arguments where not explicitly defined in the constitution and its amendments.

And I doubt a Fox News legal analyst is the most reliable or un-biased source for information here. As a judge, Neapolitano worked on a state level, and has no federal experience.

Finally even if the law were possibly unconstitutional, it is still the duty of the Congress to pass it if they see fit, and for the Judicial Branch to review it if challenges are brought.

" Liberals want you to not be allowed to have a gun,"
FalseSorry I know too many liberals that own guns, and even HUNT! shocking~

" and want teenagers to get abortions without informing the parents"
False They want the teen to ahve that right. There is a difference.

"please never fight back,"
False. I have no idea where that comes from. It's the Neo - Cons the equate fighting back with being a criminal. Try exercising your rights to homeland security.

You have fallen into conservatism group think. Current conservatives(neo-cons, actually) Expect everyone in there party to hold the same opinion, vote the same way, and uphold the same belief.
There have been examples of Republicans going against some of the primary neo-con tenants and then being ostracized for it.

Note I specifically list republican and neo-con as different.

Liberals have a wide range of philosophies, think everyone is untitled to there own. This is also why the democrats get ran over by neo-cons so often. Neo-con can use it for divide an concur tacts and FUD.

Your sig is misleading. Is that an accident or are you using the play book that says to take quotes out of context?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_say_we_cant_be.html

I remember when republicans ran the Republican party. Fiscal Conservative, Social moderates.
Fucking Reagan killed that.

I remember when most republican consider Rush Limbaugh to be a loon, and the idea of Ditto heads insulting. Now there are all Ditto heads.

If you take the issue of 'death panels' with an open mind, for example, you will find that there is some substance to the fear that underlies it. In a given system with limited resources, someone has to decide who lives and who dies. In a capitalist system this decision is based on who can pay for the treatments and who cannot. In some other system it would be dealt with in some other way, but with limits on the resources it will have to be dealt with.

Of course this is true that there is always rationing going on. Right now your coverage gets decided by insurance company bean counters and lawyers with profit in mind. In a government-run system it would be a bureaucrat with financial solvency in mind (assuming the system is required to pay for itself like it was proposed).

However, that's not what the "death panels" term referred to when it was started by Palin. She was referring to the end-of-life counseling that was to be covered by Medicare. Betsy McCaughey took this idea of allowing patients to be covered for time spent discussing their wishes for end of life treatment and living wills with their doctors and turned it into some kind of government push for euthanization. It was completely baseless and had no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Palin was referring to this analysis when she first used the term "death panels". So the term is not about rationing, but about the coercion of old and sick folks to consent to euthanization.

I don't have any problems with rationalizing medical liability, but the savings aren't all that likely to amount to much (the article references a CBO study):

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/

Now, find 20 ways to save 0.5% of medical costs and you are getting somewhere, but this single issue isn't going to solve the whole thing.

It can vary some based on the field the doctor is practicing. There are some surgeries, where malpractice is so crazy high, because the insurance companies are afraid to defend the people performing the surgery. (This sentence should be read: the insurance companies anticipate big losses by covering the surgeons.)

"Tort reform" covers only one part of the hysterical increase in malpractice insurance. That insurance companies see it as a non-lucrative business to be in, means that they demand higher premiums to ensure that they meet their desired profit margins. If these insurance companies were run as co-ops where the premiums were collectively held as a non-profit to pay out for doctors without generating a profit for shareholders, then the malpractice premiums would not exceed what is actually paid out.

If you think medical insurance for the consumer sucks, the malpractice insurance does the same exact stuff. Insurance companies want to shaft everyone in the equation. If they mark a particular surgery as "experimental" then not only does the medical insurance for the patient not have to pay, but the malpractice insurance doesn't have to cover it... or the malpractice premium for it goes up, and the doctor has to replace the cost by putting the cost onto the consumer, thus raising the price.

I think any insurance company running for-profit is a generally bad idea... they will always be driven to deny claims, raise rates, and add no real to the benefit of the consumer (beyond what a non-profit insurance company would provide) except an extra middle-man, or two, or three.

I don't have any problems with rationalizing medical liability, but the savings aren't all that likely to amount to much (the article references a CBO study):

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/

Now, find 20 ways to save 0.5% of medical costs and you are getting somewhere, but this single issue isn't going to solve the whole thing.

I find it more interesting how the argument against climate change has been evolving.

First we have "there's no such thing as global warming"

Then it's "okay, there is global warming but it's not man-made"

Then it was "okay it is man-made but there's nothing we can do about it now"

THEN it was "Wait- it's a lie after all. This is all about MONEY. Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people. If by get-rich-quick you mean don't get particularly rich or quick, and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20+ years for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly recruited into the mass hoax. I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists.)

Now it's taken a real conspiracy twist: "Climategate!!!" followed by "The Telegraph quoted a russian free-market lobbying press-release!!"

Sorry, but when the truth threatens the profits and practices of major industries, we should just expect these obfuscation and lies. And ignore them.

(And yes, smoking really does cause cancer. That wasn't a hoax either.)

Yeah...sorry, but this offers pretty persuasive evidence that the "goddamned piece of paper" quote is bogus.

There is his birth certificate, with place of birth "Honolulu", a raised stamp, stamped by the registrar that made the certified copy "Alvin T. Onaka" If you read the article, you will see how factcheck.org personally handled the document, and WHY the document IS REAL. Any other required information that is needed.. parents home towns or whatever, is not on the birth certificate, and the state gives out a short form birth certificate, there is no way to ask for a "full" one. The only time that information is on a birth certificate, is the one that is filled out by hand at the time of birth, and you cannot get that version of the certificate. so that "quasi-birth certificate" IS THE ONLY ONE HE CAN GIVE YOU.

The prostate cancer stats aren't comparing the same thing.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html

Wait times are real, but when you get the operation it's free so it's a trade off, but unlike what the right says the single-payer Canadian system will not let you wait until you die.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/dying-on-a-wait-list/

neither will the nationalized UK system (right Dr. Hawking?)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/how-to-not-prove-a-point/

Not that any of this really matters, the US is not adopting a Canadian or UK style system. The public option is a vague notion at the moment. We don't know what it will cover or even who it will cover. We'll have to wait and see. The big changes are regulation and allowing companies to compete nationally instead of state by state-The National Health Insurance Exchange. That is, break state monopolies by insurance companies (Hawaii and North Dakota only have one insurer available and other states, like New Hampshire, one company has almost 90% of market).

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf (Warning PDF)

The NHIX is the most important part so much so that the regulation may not even be necessary because with increased competition the company that gives better service and doesn't deny for preexisting conditions will/should get more business. However, I trust the insurance companies as much as I trust the cable/telco companies. The regulation should preempt the underhanded dealing to keep markets as they are and block out competition.

The prostate cancer stats aren't comparing the same thing.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html

Wait times are real, but when you get the operation it's free so it's a trade off, but unlike what the right says the single-payer Canadian system will not let you wait until you die.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/dying-on-a-wait-list/

neither will the nationalized UK system (right Dr. Hawking?)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/how-to-not-prove-a-point/

Not that any of this really matters, the US is not adopting a Canadian or UK style system. The public option is a vague notion at the moment. We don't know what it will cover or even who it will cover. We'll have to wait and see. The big changes are regulation and allowing companies to compete nationally instead of state by state-The National Health Insurance Exchange. That is, break state monopolies by insurance companies (Hawaii and North Dakota only have one insurer available and other states, like New Hampshire, one company has almost 90% of market).

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf (Warning PDF)

The NHIX is the most important part so much so that the regulation may not even be necessary because with increased competition the company that gives better service and doesn't deny for preexisting conditions will/should get more business. However, I trust the insurance companies as much as I trust the cable/telco companies. The regulation should preempt the underhanded dealing to keep markets as they are and block out competition.

The prostate cancer stats aren't comparing the same thing.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_bogus_cancer_statistic.html

Wait times are real, but when you get the operation it's free so it's a trade off, but unlike what the right says the single-payer Canadian system will not let you wait until you die.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/dying-on-a-wait-list/

neither will the nationalized UK system (right Dr. Hawking?)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/how-to-not-prove-a-point/

Not that any of this really matters, the US is not adopting a Canadian or UK style system. The public option is a vague notion at the moment. We don't know what it will cover or even who it will cover. We'll have to wait and see. The big changes are regulation and allowing companies to compete nationally instead of state by state-The National Health Insurance Exchange. That is, break state monopolies by insurance companies (Hawaii and North Dakota only have one insurer available and other states, like New Hampshire, one company has almost 90% of market).

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf (Warning PDF)

The NHIX is the most important part so much so that the regulation may not even be necessary because with increased competition the company that gives better service and doesn't deny for preexisting conditions will/should get more business. However, I trust the insurance companies as much as I trust the cable/telco companies. The regulation should preempt the underhanded dealing to keep markets as they are and block out competition.

Dude, get a clue !!! The bill has no provision that the recipient of health care be a legal resident. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, unwelcome aliens will take full advantage of the U.S. taxpayers.

That is a flat-out lie. YOU get a clue.

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That's simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can't get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we've said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.

First, that poverty line INCLUDES ALL PPL LIVING HERE.

Right, that's why I was looking at what proportion of the 39 million might be illegal immigrants.

Second, most of the #s for illegals in the states show 15-30 million, not the low 11 million that you claim.

What's your source for that? I was drawing my number from an NYT article, but it seems consistent with numbers from other sources. It does look like these higher numbers are claimed out there (I actually haven't found anything much higher than 20 million, though), but they seem to be the outliers not the consensus estimate.

When you can not check the legal status of a person, then the law is worthless (and the dems know that). All that is required is to simply require hospitals to call in ICE for every person that does not have insurance or public options, and require a legality check on ppl signing up for public options...

I think maybe you're conflating two different issues. 1) Can illegal immigrants get emergency medical care at the hospital. 2) Can they get federal help on paying for insurance. The current bill does not affect question #1. Illegal immigrants will be able to get emergency care after the bill is passed only to the degree they could before. Also it's estimated that about 1/2 of illegal immigrants have health insurance, and could presumably already pay for their care. So issue #1 is a red herring. One point #2, though, the bill says that illegal immigrants can't get aid for buying health insurance and says that enforcement measures should be setup.

ANY reform on medical costs is worth it. several OB-GYN and and an anesthesiologist that I know (none with any previous issues) are paying over 100K/year for malpractice. That is outrageous.

I'm saying that research says it will not significantly, so it's not relevant to this discussion. It's another red herring.

All this did was offer up some competition to Insurance (not necessarily a bad thing), but will fund the indigent, which is mostly Illegal aliens here.

On what basis are you concluding that? A quick look suggests that a good estimate of the poor (by official poverty line) in the US is 39 million, while the illegal immigrant population may be something around 11 million. That says that at the most about a quarter of the poor are illegal immigrants, and that's assuming that all illegal immigrants are poor (which isn't strictly true, though I don't know how far off it is). In any case, the bill bars illegal immigrants from getting aid in buying health insurance, although it remains to be seen how that would be enforced.

What is really sad is that it had NOTHING TO LOWER COSTS. We are in need of tort reform (how much money is paid out for lawsuits); costs of the docs eduction; costs of the drugs; costs of the hospital; etc.

While the situation with malpractice suits may be unreasonable, it's probably not a major contributor to health care costs. It sounds plausible on the surface that it would be, but apparently the total expenditure on malpractice insurance is less than $7 billion per year, which is totally dwarfed by total healthcare spending (something like $2.5 trillion). The cost of doctors practicing defensive medicine is, of course, harder to pin down, but it sounds like most studies still peg it as small. In any case, the CBO is estimating the savings on healthcare spending from malpractice award caps at 0.5%. I think this gets talked about a lot by politicians because it sounds plausible, there are some legitimate problems with malpractice suits, and, most importantly, people making malpractice claims are a convenient scapegoat since most of us won't ever be one or probably even know one.

In terms of the other costs I agree, though. We pay an absurd amount for drugs and a lot more for medical procedures than most other developed democracies. I'm not certain of all of the reasons for that, but the most likely major reason is that in most of those places the government collectively bargins with providers on behalf of all citizens, setting prices for drugs and medical procedures (even in many countries where insurance is still provided by private companies, like Japan and Germany). You can certainly debate the merits of such a system, but its one indisputable advantage is cheap prices.

...neo-cons forbid negotiations for LOWEST PRICE. This is expected to costs something like 400 BILLION dollars, instead of 50 BILLION over the ten years that it was looked at. This is a nice and easy 350 billion dollars to be save. So, did the dems include that in this bill? Nope. They are leaving us at paying the TOP DOLLARS for this.

I don't know what the will was among the Democrats to change the rules on drug purchasing by the government, but I'm sure that even those who supported it would not have lobbied for inclusion in this bill only because this bill had uncertain prospects in the first place, so adding something else potentially controversial probably would have killed it. It's bad strategy. If they want to make that change, it should come in a different bill.

All this did was offer up some competition to Insurance (not necessarily a bad thing), but will fund the indigent, which is mostly Illegal aliens here.

On what basis are you concluding that? A quick look suggests that a good estimate of the poor (by official poverty line) in the US is 39 million, while the illegal immigrant population may be something around 11 million. That says that at the most about a quarter of the poor are illegal immigrants, and that's assuming that all illegal immigrants are poor (which isn't strictly true, though I don't know how far off it is). In any case, the bill bars illegal immigrants from getting aid in buying health insurance, although it remains to be seen how that would be enforced.

What is really sad is that it had NOTHING TO LOWER COSTS. We are in need of tort reform (how much money is paid out for lawsuits); costs of the docs eduction; costs of the drugs; costs of the hospital; etc.

While the situation with malpractice suits may be unreasonable, it's probably not a major contributor to health care costs. It sounds plausible on the surface that it would be, but apparently the total expenditure on malpractice insurance is less than $7 billion per year, which is totally dwarfed by total healthcare spending (something like $2.5 trillion). The cost of doctors practicing defensive medicine is, of course, harder to pin down, but it sounds like most studies still peg it as small. In any case, the CBO is estimating the savings on healthcare spending from malpractice award caps at 0.5%. I think this gets talked about a lot by politicians because it sounds plausible, there are some legitimate problems with malpractice suits, and, most importantly, people making malpractice claims are a convenient scapegoat since most of us won't ever be one or probably even know one.

In terms of the other costs I agree, though. We pay an absurd amount for drugs and a lot more for medical procedures than most other developed democracies. I'm not certain of all of the reasons for that, but the most likely major reason is that in most of those places the government collectively bargins with providers on behalf of all citizens, setting prices for drugs and medical procedures (even in many countries where insurance is still provided by private companies, like Japan and Germany). You can certainly debate the merits of such a system, but its one indisputable advantage is cheap prices.

...neo-cons forbid negotiations for LOWEST PRICE. This is expected to costs something like 400 BILLION dollars, instead of 50 BILLION over the ten years that it was looked at. This is a nice and easy 350 billion dollars to be save. So, did the dems include that in this bill? Nope. They are leaving us at paying the TOP DOLLARS for this.

I don't know what the will was among the Democrats to change the rules on drug purchasing by the government, but I'm sure that even those who supported it would not have lobbied for inclusion in this bill only because this bill had uncertain prospects in the first place, so adding something else potentially controversial probably would have killed it. It's bad strategy. If they want to make that change, it should come in a different bill.

Replying to your signature: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_say_we_cant_be.html Does it seem fair / accurate to only include the first portion of that quote?