Conyers: No Public Option, No Passage

The Washington Independent » Conyers: No Public Option, No Passage…

Thank you for submitting this cool story – Trackback from PunditKix…

You loose those 100 Votes if you *do* put it in, so your point is? This is intended as a threat, and a very ham handed one at that. He must be taking lessons from Pelosi…

Melford,
I believe the word you're looking for is “lose,” like in “loser”…

Otherwise, thanks for your insightful commentary and impeccable argument. It's good to know there are people out there intelligent enough to parrot back phrases learned from talk radio.

Hey man, I'm not sure if you've seen the polls, but the VAST majority of people want a public option.

LOL!!!

You are correct. But my spelling sucks. Thankfully, I am not an English Teacher, although sometimes I wonder if that would disqualify me as much as I think it should…

:'{)

Hey man,

Sounds like the sixties were very good to you. What backwater corner of the country do you live in?

Read:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/…

Look down near the bottom. 32% favor single payer option. 57% oppose it. Only 11% are not viewing it as good or bad.

I am pretty sure you fall into that camp of 32% with that throwback regressive avatar. Yes, that is not the only way to do the public option. But look here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/…

41% to 41% does not strike me as a VAST majority. Go smoke another George Washington Rope, DUDE!!!

BTW, before you start attacking this as rightist media, they correctly predicted Obama's victory and wer less than 1% off in their predictions. They were only matched by one other polling organization and beat out most of the mainstream, leftleaners like Gallup, which is loosing luster rapidly with their constant spin doctoring…

ROFL!!!

;'{P~~~

Rasmussen still oversampling Republicans, I see…

Mel, I don't know how to tell you this because you believe nothing I say. But. first off Obama was born in Hawaii and Hawaii was then and is now one of the 50 United States. ,Whine, scream and cry all you want. And a single payer system has NO relationship to what most understand as the public option or for that matter any public option. A single payer plan has a whole lot of a relationship to the Canadian health care system, because, duh, it is a single-payer plan. You go to any doctor and the government handles the bills. The doctors do not work for the government. That's something else entirely. It's called socialized medicine and is what the NHS is in the UK. Having been a user of all three systems, I prefer the Canadian system, with the UK ma close second. The US isn't even in sight. If Ras really asked the question as single-payer versus public option, they need to have their business license revoked. Or the more likely, the insurance company bribes are truly spectacular. Let me suggest a couple of health care experiments.Go the the nearest toilet, stick your head WAY down and flush – twice. That might clear you brain. Send me the bill, that'd be single payer. If your brain is still not functioning, call the carpenter's or union's hall and have them send a crew over. ,They should then extend your head up your and hold it there. That might work, but if not the gene pool will be improved.

Actually, dude, I'm an electrical engineering student in a major city whose wasn't born until the 80's. And it depend on how the questions is phrased as to what answer you get about the public option. If you put the word “choice” in the question, then its an overwhelming majority. And the reality is, there would be a choice. If you “mistakenly” leave out the word choice, then you get results on par with the polls you cited.

This article should clear up any discrepancy you have concerning the polls:
http://washingtonindependent.com/55830/polls-sh…

Here's the article I was looking for earlier but couldn't find. It also mentions the “choice” wording phenomenon.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/h…

Half my relatives are Canadian. Actually many of them are more pissed off about this than most Americans. For a couple of them, American Health care is the only thing keeping them alive. In Canada, they are already considered dead and a waste of limited resources. Sure, they are not categorically denied treatment. Its just that they are put on a waiting list for funds/doctors/whatever to become available that far exceeds their ability to survive untreated. You go ahead and love the Canadian System. Why don't you go there and offer to flush their brains as well. And how is Obama's birth on subject?

As for Ras, I wish they were wrong about the Zero Man, but they had that one pegged closer than anything you would read. You can keep your brand of enlightenment. I see no value in it. And your comment about the gene pool? Well although I take note that you don't think I improve the gene pool, I can see that as an upside. Even if mismanaged as badly as I think it can be, public health care “option” is likely going to end up killing a lot of the lower class people who could never afford to go to India or even Mexico to get care that they might need. If they do it badly enough, it might just take the pressure off the illegal immigrant issue more effectively than building a big wall between here and there to stop them from just walking in. It might even just take care of someone on your family tree if they are say bipolar, and commit a crime because you can't get effective medication. I'd feel for the victim of that crime, but not for the people wrecked by the system they asked for.

Ah, double E. Ok, so you have a pragmatic side. Good!

As for the poke at your avatar, don't change it. I just am used to being relentlessly attacked by the likes of Steven Bobker et al, so it was a kneejerk response on my part you didn't deserve.

Interesting article. So you are correct in the way you phrase it. The key word is “choice” and I see that as well. Another key word above is “strong” and I will explain my logic.

“Strong” conceptually you and I might agree means that on its own merits, it might be better than what it replaces. However, I will argue that based upon the history of Congress, “Strong” is actually a key word meaning to “Weaken anything that is optionally compared to it.” That does not imply “choice” even though that word is bandied around. So “choice” and “strong” are diametrically opposed, based upon history.

True choice, for basic preventative care and care that would be provided in an ER room anyways? Yes, for such a choice even I'd be in favor of. Such a choice could reduce healthcare costs in truth. Have you read any of the several drafts out there? First of all, “Holy Porkbarrels, Batman!!!” It is truely amazing what congress can stick into a bill that does not belong there. They will argue that such wasteful spending is their version of “stimulus” but I see it for croneyism and corruption. What do you make of that stuff?

The choice I would favor would not cover Cosmetic Surgery. Some coverage for that is in these bills. I would favor covering Cancer Treatments, that despite being expensive and having maybe only a 25% chance of doing anything more than extending a life by a few months, still could improve some quality of life for those treated. There are guidelines in some of these bills that would specifically exclude this, even if the person was willing to pay for some greater portion of it themselves. I personally would not favor making abortions completely free for all, despite the fact that I agree with Steven's idea of improving the gene pool and think that it could have that effect *if* you cut off welfare for those women who habitually get pregnant just to get back on the dole again for a few years. Despite that possible good, I do not like the idea that I (by my tax dollars) would be funding deaths to innocent lives. But the abortion angle is not a deal killer on its own for me. “What” choice is almost as important as “choice” itself.

In the end, you are right. It is all about the “choice” of words. One question really remains:

Since when is Congress really good on its word?

Since when is the promise of “choice” a representation that “choice” is actually what we will get? I think the exclussion of the word “choice” is therefore a more clearthinking presentation of the question, and reflects the reality of what we will be given. Ask the question wrong, and you may think you know what they want, but if you deliver something other than what they expected you promised, (based upon the inferences made by the questions you asked) do you really expect the wording to the poll to make everyone accept the outcome? I am not thinking that is the case. Are we actually just such sheep? Maybe so. If so, this country is doomed anyways, at least IMHO.

I could ask the question “Would you like a Million Dollars?” in a poll, and I expect I would get very positive responses. It would be a different matter to ask that same poll and ask additionally “if you had to give the money back and could not spend it” or some other equally negative. Choice of wording in polls is very critical. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. As an engineer, I suspect you know that truth exists outside the question. Ras is asking the question right, I think. You might think they are asking the question “Right” versus “Left”. I take their accuracy to heart. I discount polling agencies asking questions that skew the results.

Your polls, in the end, might be the ones asking the question correctly. *IF* what they are asking is a closer representation of the truth, then they should be. I don't hold that the word “choice” is appropriate. I trust congress very little on that point.

What do you think AJM?

Mr. Todd Heywood went to the meeting with a negetive attitude and he needs to learn equal rights for everyone including everyone not including only some groups.
Conyers had the best meeting in Hamtramck and 100% positive public, supported the bill.
Think Positive!!

Good for Representatives John Conyers and Anthony Weiner. I congratulate them on taking a stand for america's citizens. I am in favor of the government providing health insurance for all Americans. Insurance companies have had ample time to demonstrate that they stand behind their obligation to provide the coverage to people at a reasonable cost, to honor the policies once in effect, and to act in a responsible manner. They have demonstrated in their recent irresponsible actions to defeat health care reform that they have no intention of operating in anyone's interests but their own. Additionally, shame on those elected representatives who not only fail to support reform, but spread lies, foment hate, and are so out of touch with the average american that they are incapable of human compassion.

Good for them!! Glad some of them are finally finding their voice! Without a comprehensive public option, the greedy private health insurance industry will continue to control and destroy our health care, and continue to bankrupt Americans.