Posted by: Wellescent Health Forums | November 16, 2009 12:19 AM

Hopefully, Lieberman will see from these vigils that many of those with whom he claims to share common ideals believe that his decision to kill a bill with the public option is not serving his fellow citizens.

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 16, 2009 7:45 AM

It's painfully clear that Lieberman cares little if at all for the concerns of his constituents.

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 16, 2009 9:36 AM

Why do liberals continually insist on marching on the HOMES of politicians with whom they disagree? This has been a disturbing pattern for many years. Lieberman's former New Haven home has been the site of protests, as well as the homes of other (mostly conservative) politicians. This tactic has been used by ACORN. It is aggressive, coercive, and intimidating. It violates personal space. It is threatening. It bespeaks mob action. It is particularly shocking that members of the clergy would participate in such an act of forceful bullying and harassment. Politicians have offices. Choosing someone's HOME as a protest site is a deliberate threat.

As for their message itself, I would ask these clergy members to read an article appearing in the (left-leaning) Politico today, which effectively eviscerates the Democrat Health Bill by outlining some inconvenient truths that Sen. Lieberman is probably aware of, but that the Left-wing zealots are apparently not. True health care "reform" would allow true "choice" --- which this bill does NOT:

Health Reform's Hidden Land Mines

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29555.html

Conservatives want health care "reform" too -- REAL reform. SHAME on the bullies.

Posted by: Walt | November 16, 2009 9:47 AM

Stick to your guns , Joe.

Protect the old folks, from whom the Obamacrats plan to take insurance and benefits by killing Medicare Advantage Plans and seriously wounding, if not killing Medicare itself.

Remember when Dems were the champions for old people? Now they are our enemies,

Work for us , Joe!

Posted by: jim | November 16, 2009 9:54 AM

Hey westville,
You didnt seem to have a problem with neo-cons like yourself desending on politicians like crazed animals at town hall meetings, screaming over people, threatening normal everyday citizens who wanted to hear thier representatives speak.
And what the heck does ACORN have to do with any of this. Tell your right wing nut job friends they need new talking points.
As for going to his home we the people have the right to assemble and voice our concerns. And maybe if this senator would meet with his constiuents rather that Anthem and Aetna we wouldn't have to.
And where was Faux News during this???
Where was Sean Hannity to inflate our numbers like he did for the teabaggers?
There were more people in Stamford than there were in Washington last week for the Bachman nut jobs.
When will you realize that November of 2008 really happen and YOU LOST!!??

Posted by: Egna Citna Ink | November 16, 2009 11:01 AM

Remember who loves ya and who pays ya, Joe.

Good boy.

Posted by: Blue Dog Dem | November 16, 2009 11:37 AM

As this legislation comes closer to being enacted, less and less of the population are for it. That's why they have to try and intimidate our Congressional delegates.

The current version of the plan stinks and if he wants to get re-elected, he shouldn't vote for it. The Dems already primaried him out, so what are they going to threaten him with this time?

Being fiscally responsible is the only way that Lieberman will get the support of the independents and republicans who returned him to power in the last election.

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 16, 2009 12:17 PM

Hey jim, your incoherent cliches do not an argument make. Study up on the term "neo-con" because I'm not one and never was.

WHO lost in Nov. of 2008??? The "independents" and "moderates" who THOUGHT they were electing a gentleman and a statesman ... not a radical ideologue. (Although I CAN say now that I warned them.)

They will NOT make the same mistake twice.

Posted by: Paul Burke - Author Journey Home | November 16, 2009 12:47 PM

The fact remains that big insurance by refusing care to patients and reimbursement to doctors over typos has ticked everyone off. They have a monopoly over the whole process and a well financed lobby team (including Lieberman's wife) and representatives on both sides of the isle.

A friend of mine recently laid off just he and his spouse is paying $2,500.00 dollars a month for his COBRA. Health insurance costs more than his mortgage. Anyone taking up the insurance industry's cause doesn't know what they are talking about.

If you think the insurance companies are going to voluntarily lower their cost while having a monopoly over the process - you are being disingenuous ...Over 60% of all US bankruptcies are attributable to medical problems. Most victims are middle class, well educated and have health insurance - (The American Journal of Medicine)

The insurance companies and their representatives in Congress would love to perpetuate a business model that is crippling our overall economy - a bunch of great Americans aren't they?

90% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the population is no way to run a country but a heck of a way to establish a royalty ruling class. Yacht sales can not sustain 350 million people. I'm for the public option, competition and a level playing field or break up the big insurers like we did AT&T.

A slavish focus on profit margin might be good for the individual or a business, but it is one helluva lousy way to "govern" a Country. The GOP being a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America has a hard time with that concept.

Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home

Posted by: Stephanie Hunter | November 16, 2009 1:28 PM

The moral imperative to provide some sort of access to healthcare for those who are impoverished is clear. The public option does this and can do it very well if it's set upon a model that's well thought out and proven to work. Here's one that could do just that. http://cli.gs/23yYaM/

Posted by: Sean | November 16, 2009 3:07 PM

Christine Stuart wrote that, "clergy from all dominations informed the junior senator that he no longer holds the moral high ground.." Yet clergy from only two denominations are noted in the story: Unitarian and Jewish.

What were the other denominations that were represented by clergy, and who were the clergy who appeared and spoke? I think that if there were many represented, it would be an important part of the story.

Posted by: christine | November 16, 2009 3:54 PM

Sean, There were Christians, Jews, and Muslims etc. I have a lot of video of them all and not all of it is great since it was dark outside. I didn't have time to upload all of it, but would be happy to forward you the raw footage to play with if you have the time.

Posted by: Sean | November 16, 2009 4:24 PM

Don't need the raw footage, Christine. But perhaps updating the article to include the names of the clergy and their denominations would be particularly helpful and revealing. "Christian" covers a lot of ground, so it would be interesting to know which parts of our local Christian community participated, and, perhaps, who among the Muslim community also came out. It's the internet, so page count isn't a constraint.

Posted by: christine | November 16, 2009 6:06 PM

Time is time. Sean.
But just for you here is the list:

Dr. Tommie Jackson of Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church; Rabbi Herbert Brockman of Congregation Mishkhkan Israel; Pastor Ignacio Avila of Iglesia Evangelica Bethania; Rev. Lois Happe, United Church of Christ; Chaplain Bilal Ansari of the Muhammad Islamic Center of Greater Hartford; Rev. Kate Heichler of Church of Christ Healer; Pastor Abraham Hernandez of Christian Coalition for Social Change; Pres Majeed Sharif of United Mosque of Waterbury; and Rev. Bonita Grubbs of Christian Community Action.

Posted by: Dave | November 16, 2009 6:27 PM

Westville Mom- You are concerned about citizens showing up on on politicians doorsteps? They were there offering prayers and petitions-not torches and stones. No pitchforks were displayed- though perhaps there should have been. I suggest your ire is misplaced. What about the entrenched special interests and its surrogates like Joe Lieberman who are invading the very lives of millions of Americans. We know that the home sanctuaries of one million Americans are destroyed annually through health care related bankruptcies, and that tens of thousands die annually due to a lack of health care insurance and regular access to the health care system. And you speak of ACORN-the GOP scapegoat for losing the election. I don't recall any folks from Acorn bringing exposed weaponry to voice their opinions-anywhere. But there were plenty of these right wing, teabagger-birther-deather-912ers locked and loaded at public events across the country. Their disgusting placards showing immense disrespect as they portrayed president Obama as a Hitler/joker/nazi/socialist/racist/and foreign agent. Those were the bullies- not the respectful group that held their vigil across from Lieberman's home. I attended a rally outside Lieberman's home right here in Westville, when he was still a democrat and announced candidate for Vice president. The right wingers-egged on my conservative former radio talk show host TOM SCOTT, showed up at Lieberman's doorstep spewing all kinds of hateful rhetoric, bearing placards with disrespectful anti-Lieberman imagery. In hindsight, those hostile Republicans must have recognized something in Lieberman that I did not see at the time. Lieberman stands in opposition to the will of his constituents and to the reform this nation needs if it is ever going to get its financial house in order. You and Lieberman are simply on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of what is best for the American people.

Posted by: Jim | November 17, 2009 6:47 AM

Dave, one word AMEN!!!

Posted by: Matt Taylor | November 17, 2009 8:28 AM

This is a great article Chris, I am very proud of you. You are doing exactly what you want to do in life...and that is pretty cool. As for the debate: While healthcare is an important issue it is not a fundamental human right. It does not even rank in Maslows hierarchy of needs. I do believe we need some kind of reform, but does the reform need to look like this? I don't know the answer to that question. However can you name me one social program we have currently that has been funded effectively? The answer is no. Even medicare, the program that liberals hold as the standard for government run healthcare will be in the red in 8 years according to Barrack himself. You must all ask yourself one question: Do you trust the government with your life, and the lives of your family?

Posted by: jim | November 17, 2009 8:49 AM

Matt,
Seeing what we have in place now which is corporate run health care I most certainly take the government plan over Aetna and company.
As for medicare the problem is the bloated part D which pays big Pharma and insurers billions to provide NOTHING.
I saw a program on CPTV where in countrys where they have a government run system they are healthier live longer and more happy and productives lives than here in system number 37.
As for the program on CPTV
everybody and I mean everybody involved eluded to the fact that good health care is a basic human right and most certainly NOT a privalige to bestow upon only the luckiest of citizens and as for Maslow apparently he don't get it.There are plenty of examples where the government runs more effieciently than the profiteers. Medicare is one the VA is another and don't forget Social Security.
I know the fear mongers are screaming to the elderly that we are going to take away thier medicare. But it was one of the fear mongers himslf Newt Gingrich who said in 1994 that medicare should be ended and the best way would be to not fund it and let it die on the vine.

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 17, 2009 10:43 AM

Dave--Funny you should mention the rally outside Lieberman's home when he was still a Democrat! I was there ... on YOUR side. I was upset at the group of cranks that were protesting at Lieberman's HOME and I counter-protested WITH YOU. I went with my daughter and as I recall it was a pretty cold day (darn that global warming!) I hope you aren't too creeped out by thinking that you might have been standing right next to me. It's called b-i-p-a-r-t-i-s-a-n-s-h-i-p ... look it up in the dictionary. One thing that protest taught me--those Dems sure are organized! They know how to turn out a crowd.

Which brings me to ACORN. Two excerpts from a paper published by Foundation Watch (http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1225222922.pdf) . . .

[In 2001, ACORN protests outside the home of the chairman of San Diego Gas & Electric were so disruptive (demonstrators handed out fliers with a picture of the chairman below the word "WANTED") that the company got a temporary restraining order forbidding pickets and requiring demonstrators to stay 1,000 yards away from the homes of SDG&E employees. The company's legal complaint alleged that the protesters shouted derogatory comments outside the chairman's home, banged on his windows, and pounded on his front door. (San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec. 20, 2001.)]

[In 2002, ACORN activists dumped garbage in front of Baltimore's City Hall and demonstrated outside the home of then-mayor Martin O'Malley, who had dismissed the group as "professional protesters." O'Malley said, "They unloaded a busload of people shouting pretty ugly things and scared the daylights out of my wife and kids. I thought it was a pretty cruddy thing to do." (Baltimore Sun, Oct. 7, 2002)]

And how could you forget the busloads at the CT homes of AIG execs? If you want to find dirt on ACORN to supplement your faulty memory, all you have to do is google. Cyberspace is chock FULL of info on them and their escapades. Decent people would do well to distance themselves from these practices, not copy them.

But as to health care reform, what do you have against allowing all insurance companies to operate in all states? What do you have against portability -- so that all people can carry their insurance with them from job to job or during unemployment? What do you have against assisting in the formation of groups other than employee groups (such as club groups, church groups, groups of all sorts) so that people can get lower insurance rates based on actuarial tables -- which of course, is how rates are calculated? What do you have against capping "pain and suffering" awards (not the injury, itself) so that doctors can have lower malpractice insurance and can eliminate tons of redundant and unnecessary tests, thus lowering costs overall? The "public option" is NOT FREE CARE. People will have to pay. Lower income folks will get subsidies (as they should) and they could just as well take them to an ins. co. as to the govt. We can do reform WITHOUT massive govt. takeover.

Demonizing those who advocate for a bi-partisan approach to this issue just makes you look like those cranks at Lieberman's house. You don't want to look like that, now do you Dave?

As for me being on the "wrong side," I am on whatever side I think is best for the people of our country and I don't worry too much about appearing "right" or "wrong."

Posted by: jim | November 17, 2009 1:37 PM

Westville,
all of the things you say your for most people would say OK to 90% of and there is nothing in there stating why the public option would be bad except for your people don't want it.
what do you have against competition along with your ideas to help drive down costs? As for ACORN the AIG execs demostration was engineered by the Working Families Party and not ACORN and the San Diego Gas and Electric demostrations? If you look close at that one you see corporate corruption at its finest.
And if your into that googling so much google the teaparty protesters and who is backing them then google the 2000 presidential recount and see who backed the protesters who were trying to burn down voting precincts in Fla to stop the recount. SAME PEOPLE.
Huh! what do ya know!
And 500 people praying with candles seem alot more peaceful than a bunch of tea party guys dressed in cami's with automatic weapons out side a venue in NH with the president of the united states inside making the case for healthcare. So before you look at ACORN look in the MIRROR.

Posted by: Matt Taylor | November 17, 2009 2:54 PM

Jim

You must be joking if you think that social security and the VA run effectively, both programs are rife with fraud, waste and abuse. I love how the "left" immediately starts characterize anyone who disagrees with their utopian nanny state vision as a fear monger. Get over your self, the fact that you believe the government is agile and flexible enough to handle this task is what is scary. Perhaps you heard today that the G believes that woman does not need mammograms at age 40, which contradicts what the American Cancer Society and the AMA recommend. The foundation for the rationing has already begun.

Posted by: jim | November 17, 2009 3:28 PM

Matt,
First the Social Security and VA programs have been hailed as successes from both sides of the isle.
The Republicans may not like Social Security because of ideology but as a practical measure can never muster the votes to kill the most widely popular program this country has ever had.
Next time your in a VA hospital ask a vet if he or she wants the program stopped. As for the mamograms it was stated in the news today that it was a group of doctors that want this and thier was zero mention of the government doing this in the report, but there was talk of fear that the all powerful Insurance companies would use this report to DENY coverage to woman under 50 who want mamograms once again putting the burden on the citizen to pay.
Your frquent rants that always coincide with terms of "left" or "Liberal" clearly show you may just be a little full of Faux News or some other right wing organization. Can't you guys have an honest debate without going strait to slurs.
Although I know how you feel it stinks to lose (especially a presidential election)

Posted by: Aurelle Locke | November 17, 2009 7:07 PM

To Westville Mom. I was at the prayer meeting at Senator Lieberman's. The clergy represented many faiths as did the rest of the participants. We all wrote prayers for the Senator. It was a peaceful, moving experience.
Health is certainly a fundamental human right. We cannot leave it to for-profit companies. It is not profitable to cover someone with a preexisting condition, so companies deny coverage. Where are those people supposed to get health care?
Everyday insurance companies deny legitimate claims. They delay payment, sometimes for 6 months or more, which means the doctors and hospitals haven't money to pay their bills while the insurance companies invest that money.
I have both Medicare and private insurance. Of course, Medicare is not perfect but it is better than the private insurance.
Let there be competition - including a plan put forth by the government.
ACORN was not part of this vigil and isn't part of the conversation with Senator Lieberman about health care.

Posted by: Matt Taylor | November 17, 2009 8:00 PM

Jim...I like it, you gave me a lot to work with here. The frequent rants comment I find amusing considering today is the first time I have commented on this site. As to your other points, I do have close relatives that have experience with the VA, and their experience varies from place to place. They lack consistency of care from facility to facility. As for social security there is nothing wrong with the philosophy behind the measure. However any program that can not fulfill it's obligations to repay the very people it was designed to pay. I do not know your age, but given your idealism I will assume that you are in your early 30-40s, but you will not get a check either. How is this program successful? For the record Jim it was you who threw the first stone with your "Fear Mongering" comment. I would like to debate without the names too. I wish my partner was also so inclined.

Posted by: jim | November 18, 2009 9:06 AM

Matt,
Welcome to CT News Junkie!
did not mean to offend you but the facts are what they are.
As for Social Security as of today it is actually OVER funded and will not experience under funding till somewhere between 2042 and 2049 depending on who you believe.
The fact is that in 2017 the Social Security administration will walk across the street to the US treasury and hand them some government backed treasury bonds and ask for payment. they will continue to do that till 2042 at which time they will exhast thier investment.
Heres the problem the Republicans don't want to repay all of US that put our money into SS hence thier 2017 doomsday predictions. They started borrowing from SS in 1982 during the Reagan years stopped in 1996 and restarted in 2001. Taking the money from SS was a great way to hide deficits. Funny that Bush 2 thought that the surplus should be giving back to the wealthy when he could have choosen to pay back SS. On the funding side if you raise the ceiling for contributing to lets say $250,000 it would make SS solvent for another 50 or so years.
I am planning my someday retirement and it WILL be based on SS and a FIXED pension plan not some stupid 401k or some other so called free market gimmick, i'll leave those to the Madoff's of the world.

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 18, 2009 11:41 AM

Aurelle--Think a little more deeply about your own logic. You say health is a fundamental human right. So is FOOD. We (the taxpayers) pay for basic food for low-income people so they don't starve. We likewise pay for their basic healthcare. Do I think this works perfectly? No. It needs to be IMPROVED--we need MORE choices, not fewer. This bill limits our freedom to choose. We MUST keep our employer insurance. We MUST do this, MUST do that, MAY NOT do the other.

Do you buy your food from government-owned food companies? Do you REALLY believe food companies should only exist in an economic environment where they have government competition? Since when has government competition in free markets been the answer to anything? Do you REALLY want cereal boxes stamped "US GOVT FLAKES" next to the Kellogg's Corn Flakes on the shelves of Stop & Shop?

"Competition" means having many choices -- Kellogg's, Post, General Mills, Quaker, etc. etc. etc.

"Compassion" means assisting those who cannot afford the cereal to purchase it. They may need govt. MONEY, but they don't need "GOVT FLAKES" !!!

Maybe I know a little bit more about the old Soviet Union than you do (and I bet I do.) Injecting the government "option" into all facets of life will lead this country into financial rot and ruin.

As for socialized health care (which is where all this is heading), what separates the US from countries like Sweden and Germany is demographics. If you superimposed OUR demographics on THEIR socialist system, their system would crash and burn. It wouldn't be able to handle us or sustain itself. They rely on higher literacy, lower illegal immigration, and having their military budgets heavily subsidized by the US. Some European countries also "fudge" their health statistics by, for instance, not counting babies who die soon after birth in "infant mortality" numbers.

You are using the pretext of religion as a justification to set this country on a path to self-destruction. GOVT FLAKES FOR ALL! This is not compassion--it's totalitarianism.

[And "peaceful" harassment is still harassment. If everyone did what you are doing, no politician would ever have a safe refuge anywhere. Maybe this would all stop if 500 abortion opponents showed up on Rosa DeLauro's doorstep to have a "peaceful, moving experience?"
Think about it.]

Posted by: jim | November 18, 2009 1:37 PM

Westville,
You are comparing health care to food??? Really??
First off thier are probably over 1 million food providers in the USA and each is regulated by the FDA. In health care thier is less than 100 and they are let to run virtually regulation free by the USA, matter of fact they are also provided protection from anti-trust laws by a law passed in the 40's because thier were only 2 health insurance providers at the time. This has nothing to do with totalitarism although in some peoples minds(Rush Limbaugh) it is.
Funny I don't remember you protesting the Iraq war which cost us 2 trillion and counting. So your assumption is its ok to have our children die in vain for 1 presidents vendetta but don't expect health care???

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 18, 2009 7:52 PM

Not to nitpick, but there are 268 health care companies linked on this website ALONE:
http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?bc=31|42|55

Jim, you toss out wild, outrageous statistics and accusations off the top of your head, so I'll leave you to stew in your own enraged, leftist, pseudo-righteous juice.

Posted by: BDD | November 18, 2009 11:44 PM

First of all, the word is either "there" or "their".

Second, there are over 1,300 health insurance companies operating within the US and each and every one is regulated by the states within which they operate. If you want competition and lower costs, all Congress has to do is repeal the law from the 1940's disallowing interstate commerce, then these companies could compete across state lines and bring premium costs down similarly to auto insurance.

Unless the couple mentioned above is in their 90's, there is no way that they are paying $2,500 per month on COBRA. If they have three or more children, the number will be high, but still not that high.

There are approximately 10 million people in the US that currently do not have health insurance but should be on a gov't plan due to their low incomes/poverty level, but the rest of us should not be forced into a plan that is doomed to fail, such as Massachusetts' or Washington's.

The head of the Canadian healthcare system said a few weeks ago that without substantive changes in their system, it was doomed to fail. That wasn't a Faux News talking head, but the director of their health system.

There is no gov't agency that operates at a profit. NONE. All have had bailouts, and most have had them repeatedly. Medicare/Medicaid are not going to be in the red in a few years, they are in the red now. They will be completely insolvent in a few years without another bailout.

The reason that most, not all, unions are behind these plans is because they are becoming insolvent and need the gov't plan to increase the amount of union members paying dues. Ask yourself why the SEIU is for the plan, but against taxing Cadillac plans like the ones their members have? Most of the more politically active unions are close to becoming insolvent without a major income boost, due to their mismanagement of union funds (e.g., extravagent political donations, such as over $400 million in the 2008 election).

There is a passing mention in Pelosi's bill that both doctors and all medical practitioners need to become unionized. If that happens, that will bring millions of new dues payers into the fold.

Last, why does England, which is one-sixth the size of the US have the third largest employer in the world? Care to guess what entity that is? Its their healthcare system. How large will ours become if indeed this actually comes to pass and, more importantly, do you really think that the burden of paying for all of this will only fall on the rich?

Posted by: jim | November 19, 2009 9:18 AM

Gee Westie and BDD one of you say 238 the other says 1300 what is the real number.
If Aetna has an office in evey state does that mean they are 50 different insurance companies? Do they have 50 different CEO's? And Westie, wild accusations?? Really??
So there were no gun packing right wing nut jobs at these town hall meetings?? I guess that would make a liar out of faux news again.
As for England BDD their health care system ranks way higher than ours and its cost is half of our per capita and no Westie I didn't make those numbers up PBS did.
The top 10 countries in the world for health care ALL have government sponsered Health Care and if you tried to take it away from them their citizens would declare war.And BDD it was Walter Ruether late president of the UAW who said Health Care should be right and not a privilage and the worst thing he ever negotiated for was Health Care benifits in a contract and some day the Insurance companies would bankrupt us all.
That was in 1963!!!!
Unions have said for over 40 years that this needed to happen but people like you and Westie decide to let Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh tell you what to do. The rest of you are led around like dogs by the 15 right wing wackos that control the US Chamber of Commerce.
I will take one small step right now and declare I will no longer buy anything from a company that pays dues to the Chamber. And as for all those insurance companies only a handful are major players the rest are bit players in a game run by the big fish.

Posted by: BDD | November 19, 2009 6:49 PM

jim,

Anyone can compile rankings, but that does not make them correct. The fact that the mortality rates (not to mention the quality of their dental plans) are far worse than ours means nothing. As an Englishman I know said, "people don't die in our streets, they just never leave our hospitals." And the CEO of Whole Foods relating the story that most of his employees in England use Health Spending Accounts, deducting pre-tax money from their paychecks to buy better care than what is offered through the state. Last, that almost all of the wealthier Brits have private insurance so that they can get better care rather than state-run and the extremely wealthy getting their procedures done in another country. So I really don't care who compiled your "list" but I'll take the care given in this country over anyone elses.

BTW, I don't get led around by Fox News or anyone else. The fact that you regurgitate all the leftist propaganda and act like it is original is nothing new, and spilling vindictives at WM and myself just shows how poor your arguments really are. It always amazes me when people "respond" to my posts, yet never answer my questions. When you can answer the previous posts then maybe we can really have a discussion re healthcare.

Posted by: jim | November 19, 2009 10:12 PM

BDD,
First you say rankings mean nothing then you try to use them to make your point. Whats up with that?
I did some checking and among the countrys with gov. sponsored health care Englands is not the best which is one reason why right wingers like yourself try to use them as the poster child.
The #1 system in the world is France but we know how you guys hate them.
As for mortality rates we are behind just about every industrialized country in the world including England.
Our infant mortality rate is atrocious as well as our life expectancy.
And if you want to talk about dental try Canadas in 4 of the 5 provinces there are dental hygenists in every school which helps them live longer healthier lives. the only people who don't like it is the dentists because with healthier teeth there are less need for fillings root canals and extractions.
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings but when your wrong your wrong and you and Westie and Lieberman are WRONG.
There was an article in this weeks newsweek that totally rips Lieberman and his agenda apart and if you look at the history and integrity of the writer he almost never goes on an attack like this.
Gets ya thinking huh?

Posted by: BDD | November 19, 2009 11:23 PM

jim,

There is nothing that I have read that would change my mind and obviously the same can be said for you. To me, the system needs fixing, but not a complete overhaul, and especially not with the gov't running it. It is doomed to failure when pseudo-intellectuals hire morons to run anything.

BTW, you didn't hurt my feelings as I am a capitalist, you know, the cold-hearted son of a bitch that oppresses the masses. If this plan comes to fruition, it will mean a greater disparity between the masses. While you are on the gov't plan, waiting over 2 months to see a doctor (like they currently are doing in Massachusetts), I'll buy private coverage for my family and really not miss a beat. The only difference between then and now is that I really don't want to see the masses suffer, as they do in every country that has socialized medicine.

In countries such as England & France, they are accustomed to a class system, whereas in this country, we were a meritocracy. I don't think many who have grown up in a system that has allowed them to live beyond their means will really want to accept that that is no longer the fact.

Last, when you have to tax more and cut benefits for ten years to pay for five years of benefits, how is it going to be paid during the second decade? Twice as much tax or half as much service?

Posted by: jim | November 20, 2009 8:32 AM

BDD,
Your assumption that something is doomed to failure is YOUR opinion but entirely based on YOUR gut feelings along with your political beliefs.
As for Massachusetts that is total fabrication. From a person whose has a large family connection to Mass. my relatives have no idea at all where you got 2 months wait. As for being a capitalist what does that have to do with this argument? some of the stanches capitalists in the world come from countrys that have government run health care and don't see it as a threat to capitalism at all.
And in this country staunch capitalist like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates believe that this plan will fuel growth and profits for companies across the US as for you assumption of higher taxes the non partisan CBO says that it not only will not raise taxes but will help to pay down the debt.
This patient is beyond a stich or 2 it's on life support and requires major major surgery and seems like it will get it.
Also in countrys that have government run health care the cost is less than half per capita that the US and theirs covers everyone not just the elite.
If you didn't want to see the masses suffer maybe you should have come out against the Iraq war which is one of the major factors in our current economic climate, but I understand if that would not be politically prudent.
But it would have been morally correct but as you said yourself pure capitalists tend to be cold hearted with little to no moral compass.

Posted by: BDD | November 20, 2009 10:18 AM

jim,

I actually dislike the Republicans more than the Dems because of them pretending to be Dems. I did not support the war, but did support our troops in harm's way. I'm glad you know everything about me because you definitely are one of the more enlightened people on our planet. I have no moral compass, so if you don't mind, if you could post something daily that I may live by, I would really appreciate it.

In regards to Buffet, Soros, Gates, etc. I think they have enough money to buy their own personal staff of physicians, much less better care, so the idea of them telling me that its a good idea is preposterous. I'm sure I would see them sitting next to me in a doctor's office just like the rest of us have to do.

Very few small businesses or physicians support this mess and it is amazing that only 18 months ago it wasn't the key to our economy, but now chicken little, the sky is falling.

I'm glad your family is doing well in MA, but the doctors that I know that practice in that state are the ones who told me about the delays in service. They said that they can't see everyone who comes in and that they are reducing their hours because they are not going to kill themselves to make less money. Wait til they get organized and cut back even further. So you go by what they tell you, and I'll go by what I'm told by people that I trust. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between.

This is the link to an op-ed written by the dean of Harvard Medical School, who I am afraid to guess, might know a little more about this issue than you. I'll take the expert's version rather than yours, and he even knows how to use spell check.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html

Posted by: jim | November 20, 2009 1:46 PM

BDD, I notced you put Soros in the, funny I never mention him as for your Harvard Doc he is of one opinion and there are many doctors and doctor organizations including the AMA among others that are firmly in support of the legislation. In Ct there is a small business group which boasts over 25,000 small businesses as their members who are firmly in support of this legislation yet you cite one or two as the ones you trust. Little short sided ain't it?
Sorry bout the spel chek but just love to drive you guys crazy.
Did you read the newsweek article on your buddy joe? and healthcare has been a drag on the economy for 30 years and you just noticed it recently??
Really??

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 20, 2009 2:16 PM

BDD--I'm glad you took up the argument with jim because he wears me out.

In case ANYONE is still reading this other than the three of us, they (and you) might be interested in an article I came across today.

It seems that NPR (aka "lib" radio) has done a major study of the health care bill and is less than enamored of it.
[I think the three of us could actually do a better job crafting a bill than this administration.] The following is a synopsis of the NPR project with links to other info.

Enjoy!

Welcome to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy---
A team of NPR reporters unearths the truth about health care.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDlhOWMxMWM0NjI0Y2RmYTUwNzQ4YmJjMTIyYTA5MWE=

Posted by: BDD | November 20, 2009 2:47 PM

WM,

I doubt anyone would admit to following the three of us on this site as it seems that whenever I get involved, the discussion ends shortly thereafter.

We Westvillians need to stick together. It's amazing to me that if you present a moderate point of view, all of a sudden you become a right wing nazi. It tires me as well, but I am more tired by regurgitated bullet points being spewed as facts when they are so far from the truth its disgusting. Remember in the primaries, our current president was ridiculing Clinton as the one who would make us buy health insurance. Now we are racists if we don't kowtow.

Enjoyed the link. NPR also has a good one regarding Holder's testimony yesterday when he couldn't answer whether or not Bin Laden should be Mirandized if caught. I'll leave that for another discussion.

Posted by: jim | November 20, 2009 8:58 PM

You westies make me laugh,
You try to portray your selfs as normal I love america citzens but can't help but expose yourselves as the upper crust I have mine the heck with the rest of you hippocrites.

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 20, 2009 9:18 PM

BDD--Thanks for your link also. I passed it on.

We become "right wing nazis" only because we (collectively) allow the bullies to label us so.

Speaking up has gotten me in hot water in some circles, but I am becoming increasingly vocal and have re-connected with former (conservative) friends in other states. We are tired of the oppression and discrimination.

"Stealth" conservatives are everywhere---even at Yale.
(Shhh! You didn't hear that from me.)

They will hear us in 2010--I have no doubt whatsoever about that.

Posted by: jim | November 20, 2009 10:36 PM

LMAO!!!

Posted by: BDD | November 20, 2009 11:00 PM

WM,

I agree. The irony for the left is that if this passes, it still will take five years of taxation and benefit cuts to pay for it. Do you really think that those still on the fence (approx 20%) who will be paying these new taxes and feeling these cuts will vote for any incumbent, Rep or Dem, who votes for this bill in 2010 or in 2012?

If the tide sweeps similarly to 1994 (and I actually think it will be even more so) then much of this socialism hopefully can be repealed. I would need to research this, but I would think that anyone left standing in Congress would vote down this bill prior to its coming into effect out of fear of losing in 2014.

My wife & I have experienced the same exclusion you are feeling, and the good thing about that is you get to know who your friends are. You annoy the others because they can't dispute the facts. Good luck and maybe our paths will cross one day.

Posted by: Walt | November 21, 2009 7:04 AM

JIM

As a former business assn exec in this area, memory says there is no such small business assn in CT with 25,000 members as you claim.

Experience says that if such an assn really existed they would be fighting as hard as they could against just about everything in the Obamacrats' disasterous plan.

Intuition says your claim is completely bogus.

Can you name the group?

Thanks

Posted by: jim | November 21, 2009 8:32 AM

This group has testified in front of the public health committee at the capitol in favor of the Sustinet bill as well as the realtors assn. and many other ones.
I will try to attain the groups name but am sure you could get it thru public records at CT.GOV and the writing as well as verbal testimony will be on file. This is far from bogus but if you are REALLY a small businessman you must have a computor.
My parents always told me do your OWN homework.
I gave you the sites now get to it. By the way this small business group has more members than CBIA which is nothing but a insurance company posing as a business group. But I am sure YOU already knew that.Your intuition seems to be very wrong then again you didn't claim to be successful now did ya. LOL

Posted by: jim | November 21, 2009 8:37 AM

Also the only business group that is spending 10's of miilions against it is the US Chamber of Commerce which by the way is an insurance company also.

Posted by: BDD | November 21, 2009 10:35 AM

Jim,

I mentioned Soros because he champions the same argument.

The AMA represents 14% of all doctors and many cancelled their membership after the endorsement. Moreover, the endorsement came at the price of the $200 million package just passed.

The economy has been terrible for 30 years, so much so that someone with a third grade education like yourself probably owns his own home. One maybe two cars and at least one computer (used to post annoying, grammatically incorrect and false posts).

The economy is so bad that the poorest of the poor in this country are still wealthier than 60% of the world's population. So yeah, I've had a hard time recognizing that my generation's wealth has been better, not worse, than my father's (the greatest generation) and that the habitually unemployed still drive Escalades, have cell phones and don't seem to have missed any meals. Yeah, the economy sucks. So how has the economy been so bad? You going to tell me that it would have been better if something was done, kind of like the mythical "saving" jobs stat that no one, including the stimulus czar, knows how to measure. Both you and your argument are a joke and this is my last post.

I've got better things to do this weekend than prove you're wrong. I'm off to a football game.

Posted by: Matt Taylor | November 21, 2009 12:34 PM

Jim

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.

But in June, the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent.

In the past week, the administration has acknowledged its projections were wrong.

At least the administration admits their projections were wrong, can you? If they were wrong about this what makes you think the "savings" are going to happen.

Posted by: jim | November 21, 2009 8:35 PM

Matt, BDD,
You buds are so comical but I really don't care whar either of you right wing nut cases have to say. BDD I knew it would'nt take a slug like you long to engage in personel attacks and yes I do own my home.
But I am very comfortable in my own skin and you seem to feel rather threatened like someone may get something you already have.
Go see your shrink get some meds and sleep it off.
Oh yeah the senate just voted 60-39 to go to debate LMAO!!!

Posted by: jim | November 21, 2009 10:07 PM

BDD,
You mentioned Soros because you have no answers and must resort to mudslinging to get the job done.
You and good ol' Matty are quite the pair.
Two white males clinging to dead end jobs looking for anyone to blame their lot in life on.
Your guys got pumped in November of 2008 and you don't like losing.
Well boys get used to it the Senate has voted 60-39 to go to debate on Health care and the bill will pass by Christmas.
That will be Obama's present to the country and to that all I can say is thank you.
As for your asertion Matty it sounds to me like you just did a practice run on what your boy Limbaugh would call if you say it enough times people will see it as truth.
Those unemployement numbers you talk about NEVER came from anyone in the administration...EVER.
The administration did say the numbers would be worse without a stimulus but NEVER gave what the numbers would be.
As for the promises on job creation the words were to create or SAVE jobs with a stimulus than without.
So BDD are you saying we as americans should be happy that your president tanked our economy because we still have more food than the average Ethiopian?? Really??
What ever happened to that we can do better attitude that america had pre-Bush?
Well you can settle for 37th but the rest of us don't have to. You see WE WON and to the victor go the spoils, when Bush wanted to give all of the surplus to the rich and the country said no he did it by reconsiliation in the senate and when he wanted to increase spending for Iraq and the Dems threatened a filibuster he used reconsiliation again.
Fact is he used it more than 30 times during his presidency because as he said I WON!
So your buddy Joe will either vote with the majority or it will happen by reconsiliation but it WILL happen because YES WE CAN!!!