When Bush talked about Social Security’s purported looming insolvency, Dems booed. Mind you – it was a more a low grumble – not like loud, caterwauling of boos that drowned out Bush’s ability to speak or anything. In fact, it was very similar to the grumbling that you heard from Repubs at times during Obama’s healthcare speech the other night – which would really have been unremarkable.

And then Wilson cried out “liar”. Which was quite remarkable.

I’m wondering if the Republicans would consider this acceptable behavior in any situations going forward. Will every Presidential Address to Congress be susceptible to partisan heckling of such a personal level? Will some future Representative Cheney scream out “Go Fuck Yourself” at some future President when he makes a point that the Representative finds objectionable?

It was absolutely unprecedented, and absolutely wrong. And it is not conservative, in any way, shape or form to defend such bad behavior.

“This quickly devolves into empty rhetoric.”

Doesn’t the crux of this debate revolve on the affordability of health care these days? If people can better afford health insurance, why is it empty rhetoric? We’d be empowering people to have more control over their health care choices.

“Ok. But try that, and you immediately lose most of your support for not going to a single payer system. Seriously, I believe that there would be no faster pathway to a political groundswell for single payer than everyone losing their employee paid policy.”

Whoa, that’s quite a jump! I’m not sure why you’re assuming their health insurance choices evaporate if they don’t have employer coverage—the demand for health insurance would still exist. Does it make sense to you to provide employers tax deductions for health insurance but not individuals? If insurers can compete across state lines, this should bring down premiums. And if individuals can buy affordable health insurance and be satisfied by it, I see no reason they would cry out single payer. Actually, the Senate Finance Committee is now seriously considering limiting the employer tax deduction, and this idea has bipartisan appeal.

“I like the idea of increased portability, but are we going to have insurance regulation via the federal government? In which case, insurance lawsuits will be settled in federal courts, instead of state courts?”

I’m not a lawyer but since Obama opened up the possibility of medical malpractice reform, and the Senate Finance Committee is looking at specialized health care courts like bankruptcy courts to handle this, perhaps these courts can also handle the claims? Or perhaps the federal govt can incentivize states to change regulations concerning out-of-state insurers by conditioning the granting of federal health care $ on it?

I think your idea on incentivizing med school education to drs serving in underserved areas is interesting. I don’t think we need federal schools since public universities are already subsidized, but I would be open to the fed govt incentivizing med student loans (perhaps forgive a portion of it) for the amount of time drs serve in these sectors or in primary care.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the public option and raising taxes for it. But I do appreciate the civil discussion we’re having on this topic.

I know you Lefty’s are history, fact, and reality challenged, but surely you arent google challenged.

All the candidates will have to either lie about whether they think the birthers are nuts in order to survive the primaries, and thus convince independents they are crazy too or they agree with them and achieve the same effect.

Between now and then the militia crazies and birthers frustrated a their inability to bring down Obama will go further and further in their protests, accusations, and disruptions.

Freshmen members of Congress will have no choice but to kiss their behinds to survive their first re-election bids thus driving the party even further out into crazyland. Death panels? Secret detention facilities? It’s only eight months in, what comes the next three years will be pure technicolor.

3 years later, Ronald Reagan was elected president and the Conservative Revolution was on.

Don’t write the obit just yet.

A passer-by forwards this image of a printed sign being distributed at the conservative rally at 13th and Pennsylvania in Washington today.

Of course you know, this means war.

The only that will be buried in 2010 and 2012 is the last vestige of a sane Republican party.

99 came out of African Americans mouths, mostly Music related, but also in casual usage around where I live….

…and one came out of Homosexuals or their Leftist buddies mouths, calling African Americans in California racial slurs for voting overwhelmingly for Prop 8.

That is Federal taxpayers. And spread out over a decade (so really, given the annual basis I was citing, we’re talking $100 billion/year).

Skipping over that – I wasn’t talking about Obamacare. I was talking about how much we are currently as a society spending, per annum, in taxpayer funded healthcare. And my guess is that the number is between 1.5-2 trillion a year. In other words, we’re spending an enormous amount of taxpayer money.

So my question to you would be how would you pay for the public option?

Personally, I’d use taxes. There are many investments that government makes via taxes that end up making our private sector more efficient and better performing – in my opinion, this would do so as well.

What would you do to increase the supply of more drs?

Personally, I’d establish a number of federally operated med schools/teaching hospitals, educating physicians for free with them signing onto a 8 to 10 year committment to work in underserved communities at a set payscale. None of those excuses about the cost of med school making working for less than an enormous salary right away being impossible because of student loans.

You don’t really believe it can be paid for by cutting waste and fraud in Medicare, do you?

Nope. And I think “without waste” should be a baseline, and not a way of paying for other stuff.

We can get premiums to go down through appropriate competition such as increasing portability to increase pooling, and stop abuses from insurers through regulation.

I like the idea of increased portability, but are we going to have insurance regulation via the federal government? In which case, insurance lawsuits will be settled in federal courts, instead of state courts?

When you lose your job, you don’t lose your auto insurance; we should offer more options than keeping people tied to their employer’s health care program since our work force is more mobile.

Ok. But try that, and you immediately lose most of your support for not going to a single payer system. Seriously, I believe that there would be no faster pathway to a political groundswell for single payer than everyone losing their employee paid policy

It seems to bother you that insurers work for profit; not me as long as they are being fair to their customer.

I’m a big fan of profits, particularly by my company, or those I’m invested in. That said, growth of profits in the insurance industry will mean more money being spend societally on healthcare without the money going to actual healthcare. I think this is creating a serious drag on our economy.

I do not believe we’re here to serve the govt—they are here to serve us.

I wholly agree.

And allowing people to keep more of their $ for health care enables them not to be at the mercy of insurers or govt.

This quickly devolves into empty rhetoric.

I said in another post I want an honest discussion of what Medicare projections will cost us. If it’s reformed properly, I may open to paying higher taxes for it since it does serve a vulnerable demographic.

OK, but that’s really not the discussion here, is it?