Morning in America ...a Note From Michael Moore

dignin

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

They are great people working in a broken system.

Gonna have to disagree with you that our system is broken. It's not perfect by any means, it's a work in progress but by no means broken. I personally am very proud of our single payer system. I'm curious if you have any ideas on how to make it better?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dignin wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

They are great people working in a broken system.

Gonna have to disagree with you that our system is broken. It's not perfect by any means, it's a work in progress but by no means broken. I personally am very proud of our single payer system. I'm curious if you have any ideas on how to make it better?

I think it's broken when people are sleeping in beds in hallways. I think it's broken when people are dying in waiting rooms. I think it's broken when staff are being basically forced to work double shifts.

But no, I honestly don't know how to fix it. I think the first step is for our administration to actually address it and not just talk about it in times of politicking.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Ironic that our current president's crowning achievement was modeled after the plan of a slippery used-car salesman who doesn't speak the truth ...

:geek:

Ah, so now you're pretending that Obama's health care plan was poached from Mitt Romney?

What does The Guardian say about it?

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Ironic that our current president's crowning achievement was modeled after the plan of a slippery used-car salesman who doesn't speak the truth ...

:geek:

Ah, so now you're pretending that Obama's health care plan was poached from Mitt Romney?

What does The Guardian say about it?

That's clever. Give yourself a pat on the back for that one.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

What does The Guardian say about it?

That's clever. Give yourself a pat on the back for that one.

Nevermind, I found the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/18/the-real-romney-review?INTCMP=SRCH

So it must be true.

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

What does The Guardian say about it?

That's clever. Give yourself a pat on the back for that one.

Nevermind, I found the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/18/the-real-romney-review?INTCMP=SRCH

So it must be true.

Keep up the trolling. It suits you.

The Juggler

Jason P wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

What does The Guardian say about it?

That's clever. Give yourself a pat on the back for that one.

Nevermind, I found the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/18/the-real-romney-review?INTCMP=SRCH

So it must be true.

hahaha....god romney was a terrible candidate:

from the guardian:
"These flipflops are now coming back to haunt him, especially the biggie: how can he inveigh against Obamacare when it is based on Romneycare, the universal health-insurance plan, complete with individual mandate, he successfully implemented in Massachusetts?"

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

hahaha....god romney was a terrible candidate:

from the guardian:
"These flipflops are now coming back to haunt him, especially the biggie: how can he inveigh against Obamacare when it is based on Romneycare, the universal health-insurance plan, complete with individual mandate, he successfully implemented in Massachusetts?"

This article is a review of a book on Romney by an American columnist for 'The Nation'. It's not a 'Guardian' article.

I guess you both missed that in your effort to appear smart.

The Juggler

Byrnzie wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

hahaha....god romney was a terrible candidate:

from the guardian:
"These flipflops are now coming back to haunt him, especially the biggie: how can he inveigh against Obamacare when it is based on Romneycare, the universal health-insurance plan, complete with individual mandate, he successfully implemented in Massachusetts?"

This article is a review of a book on Romney by an American columnist for 'The Nation'. It's not a 'Guardian' article.

I guess you both missed that in your effort to appear smart.

umm....it's review of a book by katha politt who writes for numerous publications including 25 articles for the guardian...like this one

do you disagree with her assessment that obama care is modeled after romney's efforts in massachusetts? will be you posting a link to wikipedia as your response?

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

umm....it's review of a book by katha politt who writes for numerous publications including 25 articles for the guardian...like this one

do you disagree with her assessment that obama care is modeled after romney's efforts in massachusetts?

Yeah, I do. Because it wasn't.

As for the article, It's not an editorial, and it's not written by someone on the Guardian's payroll. It's the first piece of hers I've ever seen in the Guardian.
I've also seen articles posted in the Guardian written by people like Mark Regev, the right-wing Israeli spokesperson, and by U.S Conservative radio show hosts. These people aren't regular Guardian contributors, and their views don't represent those of the Guardian. So for your buddy to go and cherry-pick this article and then claim that it represents the opinion of the Guardian newspaper is just bullshit. Though I realize that bullshit might not be something you're adverse to.

The Juggler wrote:

will be you posting a link to wikipedia as your response?

That's clever. But if you're trying to insult me then you'll have to do better than point out the fact that I back up what I say with source material.

Jason P

My source material are my eyeballs.

To deny that Obamacare is not modeled after Romneycare, even though the are extremely similar, and key contributors worked on both programs, and that the Democrats were attacking Romney because the plans are nearly identical, and Romney never attacked Obamacare even though the GOP base hates Obamacare because if he did the Dems would call B.S. ... To say with a straight face the are not close to the same is completely ludicrous.

So, to be clear ...

Obama's #1 achievement was modeled after the plan made by a slippery used-car salesman.

Forward.

The Juggler

Byrnzie wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

umm....it's review of a book by katha politt who writes for numerous publications including 25 articles for the guardian...like this one

do you disagree with her assessment that obama care is modeled after romney's efforts in massachusetts?

Yeah, I do. Because it wasn't.

As for the article, It's not an editorial, and it's not written by someone on the Guardian's payroll. It's the first piece of hers I've ever seen in the Guardian.
I've also seen articles posted in the Guardian written by people like Mark Regev, the right-wing Israeli spokesperson, and by U.S Conservative radio show hosts. These people aren't regular Guardian contributors, and their views don't represent those of the Guardian. So for your buddy to go and cherry-pick this article and then claim that it represents the opinion of the Guardian newspaper is just bullshit. Though I realize that bullshit might not be something you're adverse to.

The Juggler wrote:

will be you posting a link to wikipedia as your response?

That's clever. But if you're trying to insult me then you'll have to do better than point out the fact that I back up what I say with source material.

she's written 25 articles for the guardian...including this one. the fact that you personally have not see any of them is meaningless.

and if you disagree with her, please back that up with source material.

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

To say with a straight face the are not close to the same is completely ludicrous.

I didn't say they weren't close to the same. I said Obamacare wasn't modeled on Romney's plan.

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

she's written 25 articles for the guardian...including this one. the fact that you personally have not see any of them is meaningless.

and if you disagree with her, please back that up with source material.

Ah, so now you're o.k with me backing up my statements with source material?

Byrnzie

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 ... form-plan/

What’s clear from the history is three things: (1) Romney’s plan was designed to solve the specific problems that had arisen in Massachusetts’ health-care system, such as individual-market dysfunction; (2) Romney favored allowing individuals to buy low-cost catastrophic insurance, whereas the succeeding Deval Patrick administration forced individuals to buy costly, comprehensive coverage; (3) Obamacare is modeled after Patrick’s implementation of Romney’s reform, more than it is modeled after what Romney actually sought to achieve.

Romney’s plan did succeed in driving down the cost of individual-market insurance in Massachusetts, by moving that state’s health care system from a left-wing morass toward the center. But that doesn’t make Massachusetts a model for more market-oriented states which never suffered from Massachusetts’ problems.


..............................................................................................................................


The Heritage Foundation being credited by Obama for the basis for ObamaCare, replied: "The Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there."

RomneyCare and the individual mandate are based on conservative principles:

Only mandated cost sharing by free riders. (ObamaCare adds huge extras into individual mandates)
ObamaCare added the employer mandate, a huge problem. (Romney vetoed any employer fees)

RomneyCare: No new taxes (ObamaCare huge complex of extra taxes and costs

RomneyCare: No intrusion on private companies. (ObamaCare requires 85% payout of companies, plus, plus, plus)

RomneyCare: Brilliant use of monies already there. (ObamaCare adds and adds and adds huge costs)


Let's compare the two and see what we can learn: Note RomneyCare is not the same as the modifications added by the legislature and the courts!

Designed specifically for a state's situation
Massachusetts - Yes
ObamaCare - No, imposed without choice

New taxes (Romney specified: No new taxes)
Massachusetts - None
ObamaCare - 4% on higher income, ++ Loss of medical deduction for 2.5% of income, Medical devices tax, etc.

Free market based (Romney required it to be)
Massachusetts - Yes (no infringement)
ObamaCare - Some, but...(requires 85% expenditure on benefits of health care premiums)

"Mandate" - Individual
Massachusetts - "Mandate" - Individual
ObamaCare - Tax based on income

Mandate - Employer, for not covering
Massachusetts - No (Romney vetoed employer penalties )
ObamaCare - Large penalties

Minimal cost
Massachusetts - 1% of Mass. budget
ObamaCare - Some huge number (And $500 billion from Medicare)

Pages
Massachusetts - 70 pages
ObamaCare - 2700 pages

The Juggler

:arrow:
How Mitt Romney's Health-Care Experts Helped Design Obamacare:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/1 ... obamacare/


an excerpt from "inside national health reform:"
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520270190

As it happens, McDonough has just published a book on that experience called Inside National Health Reform. In it, he describes just how consciously, and closely, reformers in Washington followed the example Massachusetts had set.

Among the stories he recounts is an October 2008 meeting in the Dirksen Senate Office building. In a presentation to key “stakeholders” — consumer advocates, lobbyists for the health care industry, and so on — HELP staff outlined three possible approaches to reform. There was “Constitution Avenue,” meaning a wholesale change to single-payer or some other new system, along with “Independence Avenue,” meaning an incremental, go-slow approach to reform. And then there was “Massachusetts Avenue,”

“Meaning reform based on the key elements of the near-universal coverage law enacted in Massachusetts in 2006. Those elements include deep and systematic health insurance market reform, a mandate on individuals to purchase insurance, subsidies to make insurance affordable, and an insurance “exchange” to connect people with coverage.”

The group’s overwhelming favorite was Massachusetts Avenue, which, McDonough notes, was hardly surprising:

“By October 2008, this approach had become the accepted direction among nearly all major Democratic officeholders who wanted health reform to be a top priority in 2009, including the three major Democratic presidential candidates. … Before the election, before the congressional process was actively engaged, a 2006 Massachusetts law had already become the essential template for national reform.”If you want to read more about the many connections between Romneycare and Obamacare, by the way, I highly recommend Brian Mooney’s series in the Boston Globe and Ryan Lizza‘s essay in the New Yorker — along with McDonough’s book.

The Juggler

Byrnzie wrote:

..............................................................................................................................


The Heritage Foundation being credited by Obama for the basis for ObamaCare, replied: "The Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there."

RomneyCare and the individual mandate are based on conservative principles:

Only mandated cost sharing by free riders. (ObamaCare adds huge extras into individual mandates)
ObamaCare added the employer mandate, a huge problem. (Romney vetoed any employer fees)

RomneyCare: No new taxes (ObamaCare huge complex of extra taxes and costs

RomneyCare: No intrusion on private companies. (ObamaCare requires 85% payout of companies, plus, plus, plus)

RomneyCare: Brilliant use of monies already there. (ObamaCare adds and adds and adds huge costs)


Let's compare the two and see what we can learn: Note RomneyCare is not the same as the modifications added by the legislature and the courts!

Designed specifically for a state's situation
Massachusetts - Yes
ObamaCare - No, imposed without choice

New taxes (Romney specified: No new taxes)
Massachusetts - None
ObamaCare - 4% on higher income, ++ Loss of medical deduction for 2.5% of income, Medical devices tax, etc.

Free market based (Romney required it to be)
Massachusetts - Yes (no infringement)
ObamaCare - Some, but...(requires 85% expenditure on benefits of health care premiums)

"Mandate" - Individual
Massachusetts - "Mandate" - Individual
ObamaCare - Tax based on income

Mandate - Employer, for not covering
Massachusetts - No (Romney vetoed employer penalties )
ObamaCare - Large penalties

Minimal cost
Massachusetts - 1% of Mass. budget
ObamaCare - Some huge number (And $500 billion from Medicare)

Pages
Massachusetts - 70 pages
ObamaCare - 2700 pages

Personal comment removed by Admin. Discuss the subject and not other members discussing the subject.

is the reason why you didn't source this piece of material because you found it on a pro-romney website? http://www.whoromneyis.com/Issues/Romne ... aCare.html ....i'm guessing yes.

of course a pro-romney website, who wants to distance their candidate away from obama as much as possible, is going to put out a bunch of stats without siting sources (which were probably indirectly obtained from fox news). here is a quote from the guy who runs that website you found: "Once a person truly knows who Mitt Romney is, I think he will see that he is the most qualified and that he will benefit both sides of the political spectrum." so, you're either a fraud who just cuts and pastes the first article he finds on google without actually reading the article....or you are secretly a romney fan.


at this point, i'm not sure what your point is with this thread other than to argue for the sake of arguing. you don't live in canada, yet you are telling canadians how great their healthcare system while ignoring their first hand reasons why there are problems with it.

then you fail to acknowledge what most people in this country have been aware of regarding mitt romney since day 1: the guy flip flops on multiple issues for the sole purpose of getting elected president. there are plenty of similarities between obamacare and romney care as my post pointed out. he was a terrible candidate.



and here is the president himself confirming that it is partly modeled off of the success in massachusettes.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 28178.html


"We know," Obama said, "because the guy I'm running against tried this in Massachusetts and it's working just fine."



thanks for playing.

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

sorry man but you are a fraud.

I'd love you to say that to my face.

The Juggler wrote:

is the reason why you didn't source this piece of material because you found it on a pro-romney website? http://www.whoromneyis.com/Issues/Romne ... aCare.html ....i'm guessing yes.

You guessed wrong, genius. Are the points I posted correct, or are they not?

The Juggler wrote:

at this point, i'm not sure what your point is with this thread other than to argue for the sake of arguing. you don't live in canada, yet you are telling canadians how great their healthcare system while ignoring their first hand reasons why there are problems with it.

Did you even bother to read the original post in this thread? It says nothing about Obamacare.

The Juggler wrote:

and here is the president himself confirming that it is partly modeled off of the success in massachusettes.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 28178.html


"We know," Obama said, "because the guy I'm running against tried this in Massachusetts and it's working just fine."

This doesn't mean that Obama based his health care reform plan on Romney's plan in Massachusetts. It just points out that there are similarities. Big difference.

Who's the fraud?

The Juggler

i'd love to say it to your face.

if i guessed wrong, please post the link (i'm guessing you won't...however if you do, and it's different than the one i posted, i will take back my fraud claim. ball's in your court here.).

that's kind of what i'm getting at...you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

yes, similarities (shocking). and the links i provided in my other post (the one in which you conveniently forgot to address) shows that his admin "followed the example massachusetts had set." obviously it is not 100% carbon copy. nobody said that. but mass provided them a template to work with. this is not even an argument to anyone here...except you.



---
at this point, you might as well get off you're high horse. you try to portray yourself as the smartest person in the room when, in fact, you're simply just a cut and paste jockey. you could at least read the article before you hit "submit" next time though :roll:

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

if i guessed wrong, please post the link (i'm guessing you won't...however if you do, and it's different than the one i posted, i will take back my fraud claim. ball's in your court here.)....

Like I said, is what was posted from that source correct, or was it not? If not, then what is your fucking problem, genius?

The Juggler wrote:

his admin "followed the example massachusetts had set." obviously it is not 100% carbon copy. nobody said that. but mass provided them a template to work with. this is not even an argument to anyone here...except you.

I said Obama's health care reform plan wasn't based on Romney's plan in Massachusetts, which it wasn't. Though there are similarities. The only one here arguing for the sake of trying to look smart is you. Shame it hasn't worked out for you.


---

The Juggler wrote:

at this point, you might as well get off you're high horse. you try to portray yourself as the smartest person in the room when, in fact, you're simply just a cut and paste jockey. you could at least read the article before you hit "submit" next time though :roll:

So it's o.k for me to back up what I say with sources when it suits you, but when it doesn't suit you then I'm just a 'cut-and-paste jockey?
I realize that in between posting on the AET about American football, t.v sitcoms, and picking your nose, you may not understand what the Moving Train is all about. But this section of the forum is where people discuss political issues, environmental, and social issues, e.t.c. And if people didn't back up what they say with source material, and 'facts', then it'd be nothing but people throwing opinions around, which would be just hot air, and a lot of bullshit, much like you can see on Youtube's comments section.
So I'll continue supporting what I say with links and sources, and I don't give a toss if you don't like it.

Also, I don't try and portray myself as anything.

Personal comment removed by Admin. Discuss the subject and not other members discussing the subject.