BREAKING: In OTHER news, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Richard Nixon all release tapes.

Just kidding but if you believe that OBL's "new" tape is real I've got a bridge in Tampa to sell you.

Richard Nixon may actually have a tape or two left to release... :rofl:

I suspect the CIA has a stockpile.

needed. Their fave ace in the hole -- TERROR!

Yeah...the same one Kennedy pointed out would be a windfall for private insurers. I think someone listened to it earlier

Oh yeah, that one.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/april/kennedydingell_medi.php

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=B30A5C7B-35AC-4CC9-8192-1B1E50FC8356

Kennedy never lost his soul. If he did, based on that errant quote you alluded to, I would think he found it when he said: "Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall." (Newsweek, 2009)

Kennedy was right then in the early 1970's and will remain correct today when he said, of such a plan of subsidized and mandated insurance, this plan is "a partnership between the administration and the private health insurance industry. For the private industry, the administration plan offers a windfall of billions of dollars annually. The windfall is not entirely a surplus, since elements of Administration's proposal appear to have originated in the insurance industry itself"

Newsweek, 2009: http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406/page/2

"I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House."

Whoops.

The only mistake Kennedy made was referring to people like you as his "allies." You have made abundently clear that you are perfectly OK with all the deaths and bankruptcies that have occured since 1972, as long as the plan of subsidized and mandated insurance wasn't enacted. After all, to you, those people were simply collateral damage of your larger ideology. Anyone with such an attitude is no ally of Kennedy, or any true Democrat.

Fuck off

Death and bankruptcies will continue with your sacred "reform".

You clearly don't want that to happen, and would rather have nothing happen, if we can't enact a policy that has been impossible to enact since day 1. Sorry you don't like the truth.

You are depending on a government to craft a regulated exchange in the interest of the people, which has displayed a complete lack of trust and benevolence with the entire approach to health care reform. Instead of even openly considering models that have historical track records for success and efficiency, this process has instead opted for a "uniquely American" solution (read: one that includes the maximum amount of private profit while covering the most people). Being that a government, completely controlled by a "liberal" party, will not even consider models that will provide instant universal coverage to all at the lowest costs, it should make the average loyal subject consider the actual intentions of the government--and if those intentions are not altruistic, you may consider their landmark legislation may not work out entirely in the interest of the people, as it may not be crafted to.

It is not I who is stuck on ideology. There are many models around the world (mixed and socialized) that effectively provide care or coverage to their people. They would be acceptable to try and base a model after in my opinion (and we shouldn't start with the disingenuous bullshit that the German model would be anything close to what the US will be getting). But instead, it is the US lawmakers that are bent on ideology. Their "solution" must not only include profit at the delivery end, but also at the coverage end. While people are going bankrupt and the US is paying the highest per capita health costs in the world, some how they have convince themselves that the people AND the country can continue to pay profits to the owners of health insurance companies. Staggering health costs are going to send single-payer budgets in some nations up to 60% of their budgets, and our lawmakers blink at that and insist this nation can shell out even more on top of the nominal amounts for health care? And remain competitive?

Yes, the only people displaying rigid ideology are the American politicians, who are doing anything they can to keep capitalism in the game, despite the sickness and bankruptcy that is a result of the system. And as long as the "bottom line" is the main concern during health coverage, and as long as it is so during the legislative process, I don't predict the status quo will be rocked anytime soon. Subsidizing private profits for inferior service will leave people bankrupt, and will continue to bankrupt the nation. Forcing everyone into the game, and shuttling tax money to pay for private yachts, isn't going to be the magic bullet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6539998

What I want is everyone to get affordable, public, non-profit, subsidized, no-copay, no-deductible universal coverage. And if you don't want that--allow me to create the strawman you already did--you clearly want death and bankruptcy to continue for the American people as a collateral cost of private industry.

I want the best possible legislation that we can get now. Then, when we elect more progressives, I want the best possible addition to the legislation then. What I don't want is to avoid passing something now and waiting 10 or 20 years for another chance. I don't want that now and I didn't want that 40 years ago. I'm not looking for a silver bullet this time around. I'm looking for a way to cover the most number of people possible with the best regulations and subsidies possible (where "possible" means given the numerical make-up of the House and Senate).

Your crituques of our health system (before and after healthcare reform) are accurate. But they simply reflect our failure to elect more progressives. I am disappointed but not surprised that even hybrid solutions like the public option don't have strong support. But the fact that it doesn't have enough support is simply the logical conclusion that follows from the fact that progressives don't hold a majority in either house. I'm not willing to sacrifice the ability to get something done now simply because we don't have enough votes to get what we want.

He's Satan's in-house producer.... "the hottest sounds in Hell" :evilgrin:

Just digitally remastered re-release of old classic material.

Love it :rofl: