Liberal Supermajority

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.

WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.
President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.

Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.
WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.

Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.

Do you work for a union? Unions are the downfall of this country. There once was a time and place for unions but in today's day and age the only thing that a union does is protect the LAZY worker. The union is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in my opinion. I work in the automotive industry and have been in many union factories and its the same at each factory you see people sitting on their asses and expecting to be paid like kings. The union is bad for this country...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

Do you work for a union? Unions are the downfall of this country. There once was a time and place for unions but in today's day and age the only thing that a union does is protect the LAZY worker. The union is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in my opinion. I work in the automotive industry and have been in many union factories and its the same at each factory you see people sitting on their asses and expecting to be paid like kings. The union is bad for this country...

Oh get'off'it. Last time I checked the unions didn't cause the Wall St. meltdown nor were they the reason why GM and Chrysler failed. Better quality product, customer care, and poor management is what killed them but you go ahead and believe what you want about unions.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

1) It's about time.
2) Good news--the middle class never thrived more than when union membership was hearty.
3) "Chicago-style" politics. You mean the Obama administration is going to be aggressive? Gee, White House administrations NEVER act like that. ("If you can't stand the heat, boys, . . ." )
4) Amen. The country remains strong because of them.

1) No matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect the vast majority in the U.S.
2) The years of unions taking advantage of the auto industry are definitely a major contributor to the failure of GM & Chrysler.
3) Chicago style politics is more of the Blago/R. Emanuel style certainly a lot worse than "being aggressive". The WH Chief of Staff dropping F-Bomb laden tirades in meetings with Congressional leaders is just the tip of the iceberg.
4) Voter registration fraud definitely makes the country stronger.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by slingin sammy 33

1) no matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect for the vast majority in the u.s.
2) the years of unions taking advantage of the auto industry are definitely a major contributor to the failure of gm & chrysler.
3) chicago style politics is more of the blago/r. Emanuel style certainly a lot worse than "being aggressive". The wh chief of staff dropping f-bomb laden tirades in meetings with congressional leaders is just the tip of the iceberg.
4) voter registration fraud definitely makes the country stronger.

glad to see that i am not the only one!!!

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

1) No matter the financial cost or reduction in health care quality/benefits/delivery that will affect the vast majority in the U.S.

That's just FUD. We have the 37th ranked health-care system in the world, and most evidence points to a single-payer system providing better benefits at cheaper total cost and with more freedom to doctors than our system.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

We have the 37th ranked health-care system in the world, and most evidence points to a single-payer system providing better benefits at cheaper total cost and with more freedom to doctors than our system.

My statement is FUD??? Did you just watch Sicko or are you just following the socialized medicine talking points?

Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

Evidence from countires with socialized medicine show higher mortality rates than the U.S. for cancer and significantly longer wait times for treatments. Do some research and don't drink the Obam-Aid.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

My statement is FUD??? Did you just watch Sicko or are you just following the socialized medicine talking points?

Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

Evidence from countires with socialized medicine show higher mortality rates than the U.S. for cancer and significantly longer wait times for treatments. Do some research and don't drink the Obam-Aid.

Yes, FUD. Our current system does not work:
NEJM -- The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United States

Your response is typical of the "I'm in the pocket of a lobbyist" movement attempting to stifle true healthcare reform that is good for everyone - "I can't really refute the facts or the polls, so I'll call it socialism" (or maybe even fascism!).
Political Irony › Like a jealous lover, the insurance industry doesn’t want you to be able to get health insurance from anyone, even if they turned you down

Most polls support the public option:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Public Support for the Public Option

But many Rs and Dems are beholden to special interests:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option

So, yes - FUD.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Yes, FUD. Our current system does not work:
NEJM -- The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United States

Your response is typical of the "I'm in the pocket of a lobbyist" movement attempting to stifle true healthcare reform that is good for everyone - "I can't really refute the facts or the polls, so I'll call it socialism" (or maybe even fascism!).
Political Irony › Like a jealous lover, the insurance industry doesn’t want you to be able to get health insurance from anyone, even if they turned you down

Most polls support the public option:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Public Support for the Public Option

But many Rs and Dems are beholden to special interests:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option

So, yes - FUD.

A NEJM poll, Nate Silver from 538, and an accusation that anyone against Obama's plan of healthcare reform must be on the take, WOW you came with both guns fully loaded and blazin'. The Obam-Aid must be real good. Put on your Air Jordans and wait for the Reid/Pelosi-bop comet to wisk you away to a Marxist worker's paradise.

When the national debt is + $20T in 2017, when crap & trade increases the average family's energy costs (taxes) by over $ 1,500 / yr., when SS & Medicare are closing in on being insolvent, when the employee cost of private health insurance has doubled and quality/access to care is significantly reduced.....I'll blame you.....and saden.....and the homosexuals.


Note: Before I get the homophobe response, the last part is a running joke from the Guard at Holocaust Museum thread.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Yes, FUD. Our current system does not work:
NEJM -- The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United States

Your response is typical of the "I'm in the pocket of a lobbyist" movement attempting to stifle true healthcare reform that is good for everyone - "I can't really refute the facts or the polls, so I'll call it socialism" (or maybe even fascism!).
Political Irony › Like a jealous lover, the insurance industry doesn’t want you to be able to get health insurance from anyone, even if they turned you down

Most polls support the public option:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Public Support for the Public Option

But many Rs and Dems are beholden to special interests:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option

So, yes - FUD.

This ia a clip from one of your 538 links:A major, though by no means the only, substantive point of debate regarding health care reform is whether the plan considered by Congress will include a "public option" -- a government-run insurance program that would compete with private plans. Barack Obama's plan on the campaign trail included a public option: "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan," it said.

So what will be these approved private plan's. I'd bet they will be the expensive ones forcing everyone to the goverment run health care. For the plan to even work they have to get a large number of healthy americans to join the plan to offset the cost of all the people with health issues. Look at what is happening with the state run health ins in Massachusetts and now the state run ins is more expensive then private coverage. Its the same old thing. The goverment has this great idea on how to run something and make it cheaper and before its said and done it drives up the cost instead of driving them down. Here is a clip from an article and a link to the article.

The proponents of the Massachusetts reforms
also promised that those reforms would
reduce health care costs. Governor Romney
said that “the cost of health care would be reduced”
and the plan would make health insurance
“affordable” for every Massachusetts citizen.

27

Supporters suggested that the reforms

would reduce the price of individual insurance

policies by 25–40 percent.

28

In reality, insurance premiums rose by 7.4

percent in 2007, 8–12 percent in 2008, and are
expected to rise 9 percent this year.

29 By comparison,

nationwide insurance costs rose by

6.1 percent in 2007, just 4.7 percent in 2008,
and are projected to increase 6.4 percent this
year.

30 On average, health insurance costs

$16,897 for a family of four in Massachusetts,

compared to $12,700 nationally.

31

Boy that sounds just like what the Dems and Obama are saying right now.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp112.pdf

Oh, your first link was a study done over 6 years ago.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

That's just FUD. We have the 37th ranked health-care system in the world, and most evidence points to a single-payer system providing better benefits at cheaper total cost and with more freedom to doctors than our system.

Based SOLELY on health care, what are the 37 countries you would prefer to live in other than the US if:
You currently carry standard indemnity based insurance?
You have employer provided HMO insurance?
You are a healthy uninsured single?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Based on what? Quality of care? Coverage? Cost?

Also, based SOLELY on health care, what are the 37 countries you would prefer to live in other than the US if:
You currently carry standard indemnity based insurance?
You have employer provided HMO insurance?
You are a healthy uninsured single?

I get the impression you think people pile on the US system. One can also make the same argument with respect to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.

Put me down for Japan.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I get the impression you think people pile on the US system. One can also make the same argument with respect to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.

I think that there is a misperception that the US has a horrible health care system. I believe it is not horrible, that it has its issues (mainly as to cost and the associated negative consequences) and that, as an individual with good, affordable healthcare, I would not choose to live anywhere but the US based on healthcare. The US provides state of the art treatment and high standards as to quality control. I also believe that the vast majority of Americans would agree with my position.

I do not understand the point of the bolded sentence. Is it that all health care in the developed world has its issues? that "people" can legitimately attack the healthcare in any developed country?

Originally Posted by saden1

Put me down for Japan

That's one. Got 36 more?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Thought this thread deserved a bump since it's now effectively happened with Franken winning the Senate seat in MN.

Let's look at the original predictions from the WSJ, and where we are right now:

WSJ predicts: Medicare for all
Current Situation: Universal Health Care being pushed through Congress, likely approved without bi-partisan support in late summer/early fall.

WSJ predicts: More government control of private economy
Current Situation: Gov't already strong-arms bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM leaving private investors with virtually nothing. Gov't control of GM is 60%, Canadian gov't 12%, IAW 17%. Bail-out $$$ has given the federal government deeper control into the financial industry, to the point of determining executive pay.

WSJ predicts: Union supremacy
Current Situation: Employee Free Choice Act will likely pass easily.
President Tells Unions Organizing Act Will Pass - WSJ.com

WSJ predicts: Cap and Trade (Tax/Regulate)
Current Situation: Crap...ooops...Cap & Trade narrowly passed the House. The Obama Admin will likely use Chicago-style politics to force passage in the Senate on a party line vote. Our only salvation from this will be either Dems in blue-collar states or the two Independents. EPA suppresses Climate Change report that questions (correctly) the junk science of Global Warming.

WSJ predicts: Voting Rights will be stacked towards Dems, led by ACORN.
Current Situation: Bureau of Census will allow ACORN workers to be census-takers. Stimulus bill provided over $ 4B in funding that ACORN is eligible to receive.

Great summary of what would happen with a Dem supermajority IMO:
"In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

It's not much of a prediction if all they're doing is reading off of the Democrat's agenda book. It's amazing what is being passed off as insightful predictions these days.


p.s. Don't tell anyone this folks but you too can get a piece of that 4 billion dollar pie.