Jack & Jill Politics

Am I understanding the same situation here? Literally the proposed tax on "unhealthy foods" was simply an idea. Its has not been indicated that it WILL be implemented in the actual final plan that congress presents.

That said. A beneficial aspect of imposing the tax on all the items that we know aren't 'good for us' (including Starbucks) would be that companies like Taco Bell, McD's etc. would have to be mindfull of what products they are selling to make more items available that are indeed healthy, and as such exempt. It will provoke companies to be accountable in a way that public education campaigns have failed to do so.

delete

Because Hope and Change isn’t free:

[Taxes raised on "unhealthy" foods] would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.And here’s the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as “less healthy” by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation — if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.

In other words, government would decide which foods to “punish”, and which to “reward”. Pop - soda - being un-PC at the moment - will be taxed. But coffee? Being the beverage of choice of those bringing us the Hope and Change? Any guesses?:

Let’s be honest: the more affluent Americans will not feel the effect of a soda tax, nor that of the inevitable tax on fast-food purchases from McDonald’s, Burger King or Taco Bell…But let’s play along with the Ivory Tower bigwigs and self-appointed health gurus who are advocating the tax on “sugary” drinks as a means of off-setting the enormous costs of President Obama’s back-breaking health care initiative, as well as combating bad habits. Why stop at soda? How about a tax on every calorie-laden coffee drink served at Starbucks and its competitors? After all, a vanilla bean frappuccino with whipped cream is more than 500 calories, a beverage that health researcher Mike Adams calls “dessert in a cup.” Throw in a scone or brownie with one of those Starbucks “desserts” and a consumer is approaching, at mid-morning, the daily recommended calorie intake.

No knock against Starbucks, which I patronize, but it’s fairly inconceivable that either Congress or nutritionists would classify that chain’s offerings with the low-hanging taxable fruit of Pepsi and Coke. Taking this argument further: why aren’t the revenue seekers proposing slapping a “sin” tax on the following items that aren’t at all healthy (whether organic or not): butter, cream, eggs, bacon, corned beef, mayo, Godiva and Lindt chocolates, foie gras, triple-cream Brie, the entire dessert tray at a ritzy French restaurant, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, fried clams, squid, shrimp and oysters, entire menus at Chinese restaurants (both cheap and pricey) and fresh-squeezed orange juice? And maybe a tax credit ought to be awarded to those consumers who purchase olive oil instead of butter.

That tax is already in NYC. I say go for it (except for Ben and Jerry's.) But while we're at it, we need to tax porn, viagra, and mega Churches.

Not porn and viaga,I am getting to age now that I may need those "hmm"instruments.Now mega churches I am all for that.

Think of the good of the whole, dj, come on now. Your imagination is rich enough to even ride out the effects of aging.


LOL

lol don't you have any pride?

Reduced to fighting the healthcare battle by advocating against taxing sugary drinks?

Barney Frank and the 'public option'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&eurl...

It's not about competition, it's about control.

control of skyrocketing healthcare prices. control over companies having to decide between dropping coverage for employees or letting go of employees, control of the market and the monopoly created by these insurance companies. control over families going into bankruptcy because of medical expenses, control of families losing their homes because of medical costs.

finally we agree.

"Over at her Daily Beast, our former editor Tina Brown has a very good suggestion for President Obama: unleash Bill Clinton to sweet-talk and arm-wrestle the Blue Dogs into dropping their obstruction of health-care reform. "


Is this a good tactic?
Let's read&discuss:


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhe...

Maybe, wrb. He's one of them, after all.

Nailed it.

It's too late for any of this. While we were distracted with Michael Jackon, Skip Gates, C Street, the never ending obsession with indicting Dick Cheney, the Republicans got on the same page and on message. It seems that Democrats, Liberals and colored folks alike are clueless as to how royally we've fucked ourselves. This shit is done!

This shyt ain't over. This shyt is far from done. I feel your frustration and impatience--which is why i have tuned out the hcr debate altogether. There's way too much minutiae at this point...it seems to have boiled down to public option or no deal period.

Many Ride-or-Die Obamanistas are taking a nap while the hcr details are getting worked out...once the legislative branch finishes and sends the bill to the President, we will all awaken and close the deal.

Should one party, and only one party, impose a new regime of health care on the country — even if that party has the votes, however narrowly? This would be a tremendously big change. Something like a consensus may be appropriate.

When your side isn't winning, ya'll want to change the rules. I like your ideal about consensus, but let's raise it the next time the GOP has the majority vote.

Aint that the fucking truth, evita!! Imposing a new regime.... quite the imagination. What wankers!

And like Webb said "this shyt is far from done."

Should one party, and only one party, impose a new regime of health care on the country — even if that party has the votes, however narrowly?

It took one party, and only one party--The Republican Party circa 1865--to grant an enslaved people it's freedom. Maybe it will take one party, and only one party in 2009 to make healthcare a right and NOT a privilege in 2009.

SO FUCKIN BE IT BYTCH!

If it takes Texas, Georgia, Alabama & South Carolina seceding from the Union AGAIN for the rest of the country to get universal healthcare, then LETZ make that SHYT HAPPEN.

Under no circumstances.

Unfortunately, though, elections have consquences.

So, until next year's midterms, the avenue we have is telling our reps why this is a bad idea, because most of them probably haven't read the bill (I just finished this afternoon).

Then you just have to pray for a decent turnaround in '10.

We should do more than pray.

Early Read on 2010 Suggests Midterms Could Be Competitive
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121946/Early-Read-20...

Uhh, Let me think. HELL YES!!!.When you come out of the land of wingnuttia and back to reality we won.Our President campaign on Health insurance reform.72% of the American people want reform.We have the votes, we have the people and we have morality.For 8 years we were fed a sh*t sandwich by you lying corrupt idiots otherwise known as the republican party.Instead of saying no and I hope he fails try coming up with some concrete ideas other than protecting the CEO of AETNA salary of 18 million dollars.I doubt it because you rethugs are just as immoral and corrupt as the people you whore for.

They are NOT buying the reform you are selling. You do not have the votes or else it would be law already and folks like NMP1 wouldn't be so dispirited.

What happened to our promise of 'post-partisanship'.

Not so long ago were were all riding high on Hope and Change, reading stories like this:

"Exploiting a deep well of voter revulsion over partisan gridlock in Washington, Sen. Barack Obama is promising to do something that has not been done in modern U.S. politics: unite a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents behind an agenda of sweeping change. "

As for your claim the GOP has no ideas, you simply choose to look the other way.

Post-partianship? (sic) When did the ReThugs EVER practice partisanship? Yep - when you on the outside looking in, then yu'll want to play nice until you get what you want. And, all I see that that GOP has to offer is absolutely nothing. I'm not interested in ANYTHING offered. The interests of this country and her people are not in their interests - so, fuck 'em.

Post partisanship to me died when you bigots started denigrating my President.It died when you want him to fail and in essence the country I serve to fail.Your obstructions may have won a skirmish, a delaying action but make no mistake, history is not on your side and neither is time.We may not get where I want to go and I suspect NMP1 which is single payer this time.But we will not let the vultures that you hold in high regard get what they want.Which is the status quo.

What promise of post-partianship? Please. You mean the one that suddenly materializes when the Republicans are out of power?

LOL!!.

Yes, they agree on reform, but that does NOT necessarily need to include a public option that will, as written in the House bill, allow employers to switch employees out of a plan they currently like and into the government-run public option.

Further, the AMA opposes the public option.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/1...
I know few who advocate 'doing nothing' but to be sure the competition-killing, public option will ultimately lead to a single-payer system that will be forced to raise taxes to keep costs low, or limit access to care and limit innovation.

Until I can be convinced that the public plan will not be forced upon me by my employer, or that the public plan will be equal to or better than what I have now, I think that further review and debate of this bill is essential.

450,000 doctors are entitled to their opinion. BTW are these the same doctors who would seek to take out your child's tonsils in order to turn a quick buck? Angels or demons...the Dems can't decide.

Some of them are, yes- just like those doctors here in Texas who, even with "tort reform", continue to practice what you call "defensive medicine"...in order to line their pockets.

Under the public plan you can KEEP YOUR DOCTOR.

Will ultimately turn into a single payer system? So you are against something that was not proposed by the fear of what MIGHT be? These assumptions will ultimately hurt the public discourse by confusing what is for what is NOT.

The public option will SUPPORT and ENCOURAGE small businesses to stay afloat financially. There are many small businesses who cannot afford the cost of healthcare. Do you not support small business?

Tell me HOW that works. It is my understanding that your employer can choose at any time to change or drop your existing coverage. When that happens you will automatically be enrolled in the public option.

Tens of millions of employees could find themselves in a new insurance plan with new rules about what is and isn't covered, and new doctors in new networks. It will be up to the doctors to decide whether to accept patients with the new coverage, and doctors don't know if they will or not because they don't know the details of the pay schedules. Many doctors already refuse or limit the number of Medicare patients they accept because of low reimbursement rates. If doctors cannot pay their bills by seeing government plan patients, they won't see them.

And it isn't known yet what basic services the government plan will cover.

Why do you want your employer to have a hand in your benefits. There ain't no company store to go to til you retire. It is a quick change world and the jobs with benies are going going almost gone.

You are so stupid it hurts. There is nothing, repeat nothing, to make an employer keep healthcare now.
I'll bet the governement can employ as many doctors as it wants by paying for school like it does for the military.

An employer who wants to retain the best talent will provide the top notch health care. Lose the perk, the talent flees to a company that will provide. Unions also demand that employers provide the best plans to keep workers from striking.

Sheesh.

They want the cheapest talent, dickie.

Aren't you arguing against yourself now?:)

*snicker*

Its their way.We are for the free markets till they fail then we love socialism.We are against teen pregnancy till one of their own has one then its beautiful.We are against nation building till they want to enrich their friends like halliburton.We are against sex without marriage till they get caught then its the lord has forgiven me.I could go on but republicans are immoral,lying,two face assholes.

I think the lack of porn and viagra makes you channel your thoughts better. You have been on fire. Think of the greater good, dj.

New rules about what is and isn't covered is ALREADY up to insurance companies NOW. There are no guarantees with any insurance company they do what makes financial sense for themselves, not the patient. Your fees can change, your doctor list change, your list of services can change and all they have to do NOW is send out a letter indicating the changes. That is a fact of life.

It is not reasonable to say that the need to learn about what is new or different with your coverage is a fact enough to warrant not changing the system. I can understand your point about Medicare and reimbursement rates, but get this Veterens have the most efficient healthcare, so perhaps in the works is push to be like the Vets and not like Medicare. I'm just saying we examples of where it doesn't work and where it does.

I'll tell you this. As a consultant who hasn't had health insurance for nearly 5 years my quality of life as suffered while my debt has climbed. I fear sinus infections. Everyrtime I get sick (3 times a year- usual seasonal,) it costs me upwards of $200 for antibiotics, $100 for doctor's visit plus the time I lose from not working. My colleague (also uninsured,) broke his leg- BOOM! 6,000 for office visits, etc! So from my vantage point, anything covered is better than nothing I got right now.

I empathize with your situation and appreciate your view that anything is better than nothing. And I agree that many are at the mercy of their insurance providers. But for those of us in the vast majority who like what we have and can afford it, we need more than vague promises. Especially when the language of the bill is in direct conflict with this promise.

If you were given a voucher from the government for X number of dollars to purchase your own care, if you could be assured that you could not be turned down by any company for any reason, would that benefit you?

Costs could be reduced sharply by repealing state regulation mandating the guaranteed issue of health insurance, regardless of how sick the buyer is; by implementing “community rating” that would require insurers to charge the same for everyone regardless of health condition; and by repealing the state health insurance mandates — there are some 1,900 of them — that now force consumers to buy health benefits they may not want.

There are many options out there waiting to be debated and examined.

Also, should one party, and only one party, impose a new regime of health care on the country — even if that party has the votes, however narrowly? This would be a tremendously big change. Something like a consensus may be appropriate.

Again you are being stupid. There is nothing to keep those 85% w/ insurance. They are at the mercy of their employer.

See my response above.

(See my response above).
See my idiocy above. (FIXED)

Profits are a good thing.

Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter writes:

"High profits are excellent news. When corporate earnings reach record levels, we should be celebrating. The only way a firm can make money is to sell people what they want at a price they are willing to pay. If a firm makes lots of money, lots of people are getting what they want.

To the country, profit is a benefit. Record profit means record taxes paid. But put that aside. When profits are high, firms are able to reinvest, expand and hire. And profits accrue to the benefit of those who own stocks: overwhelmingly, pension funds and mutual funds. In other words, high corporate profits today signal better retirements tomorrow.

Another reason to celebrate profit is the incentive it creates. When profits can be made, entrepreneurs provide more of needed goods and services…

We want health care to be cheaper, and the for-profit health-care industry has every incentive to make it so. Supporters of the public option tout Medicare’s cost advantages over private insurance, but those are largely obtained by setting below-market reimbursement rates for medical services (meaning that private patients subsidize Medicare patients). Moreover, the costs of compliance with the hundreds of pages of Medicare regulations are also transferred to the providers, and thus, again, to private patients."

Your family did a good business in lamp shades made of skin, pillows stuffed w/ human hair in the 40'w didn't they?

OH NOES!!! No....you didn't.

Oh NOW she says it. WTF. I want someone to check out the Blue Dogs for their ties to insurance companies.

Dems have been demonizing big business and corporate profits for years now. While the insurance industry may need reforming, is a public option that serves as a vehicle to a single-payer system the best solution?

You can't start at point A and end up on point Z without navigating through the other letters. There is a long between points A and Z, and when going down that road there are numerous hurdles and challenges to overcome. We are dead last of all modern nations as it relates to healthcare. You want to kill this debate because of what YOU anticipate coming down the line? With this language debate over of notions of "socialism bad, capitalism good," a single payer option is just around the corner? Be rational.

If we do nothing, millions of uninsured and underinsured people will continue to die. Insured people will continue to be controlled by fear and pay exorbitant fees for services that are not necessarily better because of it.

I am not advocating doing nothing. You want to try only one option, a public plan, that as it is now written, and by the Dems own admission, is a mechanism to move us to a single-payer system.

I do not want to kill the debate. I want us to take the time to thoroughly examine the options available and the reasonable timeline available to move us forward.

I do not ascribe to the notion that everything is a crisis and we must jump in and do something right away.

We allowed the 'stimulus' bill to pass because we were assured that it would ease unemployment. It has not.

We have incurred unprecedent debt and see the government expand into the private sector as never before.

We are being asked to blindly trust the government that the government will do better, for less. But when has THAT ever happened? My goodness, the Post Office can't even keep itself afloat. The new 'Cash for Clunkers' program is already a bureaucratic mess.

Tell me, what do YOU hope to personally gain with this proposed bill. How do you see it working for you in a way that is better and less expensive?

"We allowed the 'stimulus' bill to pass because we were assured that it would ease unemployment."

Have you no shame Conserv? the stimulus bill was passed simply to ease unemployment? Lawd ha mercy!

shame, shame, shame
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32211343
Smearing the Stimulus #4

You must have missed this chart.

http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagef...

Conserv. You said the reason the stimulus was allowed to pass is because we were assured that would ease unemployment.
How do you lie so easily? and to yourself at that. shame shame shame

Deleted remainder of the comment. I meant it but. . . I will just let it go.

Politics. They leave, then the insurance companies have 1 month to run fear based ads to kill the bill. Old ladies think a living will is a drive to kill old people. It is repulsive how the fear mongering targets the sick and elderly for their profits!

It took us 8 years to get into this economic mess and conservatives want the mess cleaned up in 6 months. The audacity. Bobby Jindal is handing out checks and slapping high fives with the people he told he wouldn't take the cash for... Interesting but not a reasonable expectation.

US Postal may not be the Lexus, my friend, but I trust it like I trust my Chevy. It may not be as fast but it costs less and gets the job done.

I answered your last question in another post. I am uninsured and have been for 5 years. I have debt I can't afford for this things that are just basic needs. I am a small business if you as I work for myself. I cannot afford to get sick. I haven't had a regular old check up for 5 years. I haven't gotten a mamogram- ever. I have been wearing the same glasses for 5 years though I know my prescription has changed. I have a roof over my head which is better than many people, so I won't complain, but I would be lying if I didn't say that I fear for the illness/ injury that ends up making me homeless.

get that mammogram. early detection is the best offense against breast cancer. contact the susan g. koman foundation and see if they know how to help you to get a mammogram for a lower price.

Evita, please do whatever you can to get a mammogram, even if you can't afford it right now.

I had my annual last Friday, and got a call yesterday, that I need to come back for further follow-up, that means a sonogram.

I'm high risk genetically because my twin sister died of breast cancer. It's nevre-racking, but early detection is crucial for a greater survival rate.

You know i'm praying for you Spirit.

By all means get yourself a mammogram.
http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/

I am happy with the level of care I receive, the premiums I pay and I want to protect that.

We just happen to disagree on the extent to which we trust the Federal Government.

Damn, I forgot ...if conservo is fine then we should all be happy.

You know what? I am tired of worrying about middle class families that the media mentions at every turn. There aren't that many. I am worried about working class individuals whether they be under or over majority. I worry that the kids on my block have old textbooks and mold in their schools. I am not worried if people who don't want to pay anymore taxes cannot get enough money to send their glee club to Germany for spring break. So I care about the small businesses that employ one or two people, I care about the single woman who has to live with an asshole roommate in a dangerous part of town. I care about some woman who says no to having another child and cannot find a person to perform the abortion she cannot afford to have. I care about the twenty year old who survived childhood cancer who now is about to find out how easy it will be to self insure.

Fuckity fuck fuck...people who have a bit are the stingiest bast*rds in this nation.

Where's the bad chair?

If I had 875 I would.

Free mammograms are provided by the organization I linked to. You can contact them to find a hospital near you.

Thank you all for sharing info, inspiration, and motivation

Conserv I looked into a number of free services a few years back. They are for the poor, and am in the middle where I can't afford it yet I make too much to benefit from most if not all assistance programs.

I prefer to extricate the implications of my story to a policy discussion. There are millions of women who won't have the direct blessing of having all you to share these bits with.

Evita email me at my screenname at yahoo dot com and I'll figure out how to get you your mammogram. I know lots of people and I work in prevention.

Evita - thanks for sharing your story. That is why I will fight for the public option.

Thanks

The only doctors NOT supportive of this are the ones resistant to change- which is a personality type, not a professional opinion.

Every time that congressman from Wyoming who is a doctor starts spouting his shit, I want to slap him. He' s such a prevaricator. Big Ed has had him on his show and the man won't shut up. John Barrasso

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John...