Mandatory Healthcare?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not so much on the op-ed page since Rupert Murdoch bought it in 2007. You know Rupert - owner of Fox News?

You're the only guy I know who quotes op-ed pieces as if they were fact.

As if you have been a regular reader.....

Simply refute all the lies and made up stuff in those op-eds. What alot of columns and op-eds do is breakdown complicated issues down to plain english. Perhaps if you protested specific items in those pieces you could enlighten us to all the bias and untruths being spread.

We all know that wont happen...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

"Dr. Gottlieb ... He is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies."

Naw. This guy would have no interest at all in looking out for the financial interests of healthcare companies, first and foremost, in any healthcare reform. Not part of that lobby. Nope.

Of course, why wouldnt we want to hear from experts? They are all just biased. LOL. His involvement is fully disclosed. Perhaps you want to argue a point he made?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

As if you have been a regular reader.....

Simply refute all the lies and made up stuff in those op-eds. What alot of columns and op-eds do is breakdown complicated issues down to plain english. Perhaps if you protested specific items in those pieces you could enlighten us to all the bias and untruths being spread.

We all know that wont happen...

Why is he saying it's bad for Doctors to join places like Kaiser? Do you realize how much easier it is when you go to a clinic that's in a hospital? E.R., Doctors Offices, and Hospital all in one complex. That was one of the problems with that guy's colon cancer last summer. His primary care Doc was in one place. Everything else was in other places around town. She kept saying she didn't get his reports back to send to the insurance company. That wouldn't of happened if he had Kaiser. He would of most likely have gone to the E.R. at the same complex where the primary doc is. Whatever they found in the E.R. would instantly be available to his primary care Doc. If it was bad enough to go to E.R., then he would probably have next been referred to a gastroenterologist in the same complex. The colonoscopy wouldn't have been delayed waiting for paper work to be sent from E.R. to his DOC in another part of town, and then sent to an insurance company. In the Kaiser situation, the insurance company is on the premises. The one excuse they never have is "we're still waiting for your records." Both my parents are doing well under this situation. Both fat n' happy. 50 years together though is a lot. He is so desperate for a break from her that he asked me to take him to Anita on opening day (he's told me a thousand times that he hates the crowd on opening day.) Anyways, they used to go to Kaiser doctors offices that weren't close to a hospital etc. Going to one "medical complex" is easier for everyone involved. B.T.W., even if some of what Gootlieb is saying actually happens, how does that come anywhere close to the good results (31 million new insured, n' consumer protections that are well overdue.) People like this just have totally different values than the majority that voted for Obama. Conservatives never wanted MEDICARE in the 1st place, but now they act like they care about it. Let me tell you something. Do you really think Progressives are gunna be o.k. with Medicare getting as underfunded as you're claiming? The Progressives will try to improve the funding for it. The Conservatives will fight that. Right now they're saying they're worried about cuts to Medicare. WHO DO YOU REALLY THINK WILL END UP BEING CONCERNED MOST ABOUT MEDICARE? CONSERVATIVES, OR PROGRESSIVES? Won't be the Conservatives. They are only appearing to be interested in it (as a way to fight something else.) The Progressives won't let it get messed up as badly as is predicted. It will be Conservatives that will fight against improving it(if it needs to be worked on.) I'd be thrilled if Conservatives were really interested in improving the Medicare System. The new concern for it is so obviously disingenuous.

[Smooth Operator]

Good to see BO getting some well-deserved r&r on that lovely rock in the Pacific.


Be there myself in about seven short weeks.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

theme song for his first and only term

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sep27sMmG-0

Who?s to know if your soul will fade at all?
The one you sold to fool the world
You lost your self-esteem along the way, yeah

Good god, you're comin? up with reasons
Good god, you're draggin? it out
And good god, it's the changin? of the seasons
I feel so right, so follow me down and just

Fake it, if you?re out of direction
Fake it, if you don't belong, yeah
Fake it, if you feel like infection
Whoa, you?re such a ****in? hypocrite

You should know that the lies won't hide your flaws
No sense in hiding all of yours
You gave up on your dreams along the way, yeah

Good god, you're comin? up with reasons
Good god, you're draggin? it out
And good god, it's the changin? of the seasons
I feel so right so follow me down and just

Fake it, if you?re out of direction
Fake it, if you don't belong, yeah
Fake it, if you feel like infection
Whoa, you?re such a ****in? hypocrite

I can fake with the best of anyone
I can fake with the best of them all
I can fake with the best of anyone
I can fake it all

Who?s to know if your soul will fade at all?
The one you sold to fool the world
You lost your self-esteem along the way, yeah

Good god, you're comin? up with reasons
Good god, you're draggin? it out
Good god, it's the changin? of the seasons
I feel so right, man, follow me down and just

Fake it, if you?re out of direction
Fake it, if you don't belong, yeah
Fake it, if you feel like infection
Whoa, you?re such a ****in? hypocrite

Fake it, if you?re out of direction
Fake it, if you don't belong, yeah
Fake it, if you feel like infection
Whoa, you?re such a ****in? hypocrite

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB3000...049537744.html

i don't have any issues with the themes of this article. it's a fairly factual summary.

i do wonder what part you think proves your point and not mine.

citibank shouldn't have been allowed to become too big to fail citigroup. the government failed in it's role as regulator of the banking sector. that was a decades long process.

i'm unclear how the fact that the bush admin decided not to allow another major bank failure after lehman (the right decision in my opinion) proves that the free market is the answer to all economic problems.

should citi and aig been allowed to fail? what do you think the unemployment rate would be now if that happened?

i think we need a free market. i also think history has taught market's work best with some regulation. where the line falls is open to debate. what's not is the extreme idea that market's need no regulation whatsoever. which seems to be what the republican right is currently preaching.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i don't have any issues with the themes of this article. it's a fairly factual summary.

i do wonder what part you think proves your point and not mine.

citibank shouldn't have been allowed to become too big to fail citigroup. the government failed in it's role as regulator of the banking sector. that was a decades long process.

i'm unclear how the fact that the bush admin decided not to allow another major bank failure after lehman (the right decision in my opinion) proves that the free market is the answer to all economic problems.

should citi and aig been allowed to fail? what do you think the unemployment rate would be now if that happened?

i think we need a free market. i also think history has taught market's work best with some regulation. where the line falls is open to debate. what's not is the extreme idea that market's need no regulation whatsoever. which seems to be what the republican right is currently preaching.

I am not exactly clear on what regulation you are pushing for? If you want to argue that banks should have not been allowed to expand into so many other non-banking areas like insurance, i would probably agree to some degree though obviously with 20/20 hindsight.

However I dont see how any of this proves your point???

But it pays to remember what a bad idea TARP capital injections were in the first place.

The nature of the problem was first apparent, ironically, in the rush of healthy banks to join Citi and friends under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program, fearing the lack of an imprimatur as a bank Washington had decided would not "fail."

That dynamic ran in reverse last week as banks rushed to pay back TARP money and shed the onus of government support. Bank of America had to be hurried out because Bank of America was looking for a CEO and couldn't find or pay one as long as it was laboring under Washington's populist pay restrictions.

Acknowledging TARP's perverse impact on Bank of America's CEO dilemma, Treasury and FDIC could hardly pretend it wasn't deleterious for Citi and Wells Fargo's ability to run their own businesses. Terms were quickly hammered out to let them escape, too.

Voila, a scheme designed to strengthen confidence in the financial system had become the opposite, in compounding fashion.


Let's have a moment of realism: Policy toward these giant banks always had as its primary goal saving the government from having to take them over and run them, as it has (wretchedly) AIG. It was to avoid the disaster of nationalization.

Legs one and two (plus the FDIC's guaranteeing of bank debts) were always sufficient to meet this goal and keep the giant banks stumbling along under private management and control. TARP capital injections were not only superfluous but invited the calamity they were meant to avoid, with politicians running rampant in the hallways. Take the cautionary example of Fannie and Freddie, which today are not being "conserved' in federal conservatorship but are being used to prop up home prices. For the banks, exiting TARP at least reduces the risk of similar corruption.


Washington chose not to dismantle Citi, so it should have expected no less. Oh well. In a crisis, politicians will look around for businesses "too big to fail," and any conceivable Citi would likely fit the bill, as it has since the 1970s. This problem may not be fixable, but what are fixable are the deeper antecedents of last year's troubles.

Fewer banks would have inflicted such damage on themselves if not for the government's role in encouraging Americans to incur housing debt, with direct subsidies, tax incentives and the use of Fannie and Freddie to channel China's surpluses into a U.S. housing boom.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not exactly clear on what regulation you are pushing for? If you want to argue that banks should have not been allowed to expand into so many other non-banking areas like insurance, i would probably agree to some degree though obviously with 20/20 hindsight.

However I dont see how any of this proves your point???

But it pays to remember what a bad idea TARP capital injections were in the first place.

The nature of the problem was first apparent, ironically, in the rush of healthy banks to join Citi and friends under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program, fearing the lack of an imprimatur as a bank Washington had decided would not "fail."

That dynamic ran in reverse last week as banks rushed to pay back TARP money and shed the onus of government support. Bank of America had to be hurried out because Bank of America was looking for a CEO and couldn't find or pay one as long as it was laboring under Washington's populist pay restrictions.

Acknowledging TARP's perverse impact on Bank of America's CEO dilemma, Treasury and FDIC could hardly pretend it wasn't deleterious for Citi and Wells Fargo's ability to run their own businesses. Terms were quickly hammered out to let them escape, too.

Voila, a scheme designed to strengthen confidence in the financial system had become the opposite, in compounding fashion.


Let's have a moment of realism: Policy toward these giant banks always had as its primary goal saving the government from having to take them over and run them, as it has (wretchedly) AIG. It was to avoid the disaster of nationalization.

Legs one and two (plus the FDIC's guaranteeing of bank debts) were always sufficient to meet this goal and keep the giant banks stumbling along under private management and control. TARP capital injections were not only superfluous but invited the calamity they were meant to avoid, with politicians running rampant in the hallways. Take the cautionary example of Fannie and Freddie, which today are not being "conserved' in federal conservatorship but are being used to prop up home prices. For the banks, exiting TARP at least reduces the risk of similar corruption.


Washington chose not to dismantle Citi, so it should have expected no less. Oh well. In a crisis, politicians will look around for businesses "too big to fail," and any conceivable Citi would likely fit the bill, as it has since the 1970s. This problem may not be fixable, but what are fixable are the deeper antecedents of last year's troubles.

Fewer banks would have inflicted such damage on themselves if not for the government's role in encouraging Americans to incur housing debt, with direct subsidies, tax incentives and the use of Fannie and Freddie to channel China's surpluses into a U.S. housing boom.

i don't think i'm pushing for any specific regulation. i think it's more pushing back against the right wing meme of all government involvement in the economy being bad.

the article suggests that the regulation could have been different. other decisions could have been made. things could have been done better.

i can't argue against any of that.

i'd just like one of the fox poster's here to acknowledge that there's a legitimate role for government in the economy.