David Frum is RIGHT about the connections between HCR and the Heritage Foundation

[Nikki Stone1]

From 2007:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/The-Crisis-in-Americas-Emergency-Rooms-and-What-Can-Be-Done

Specifically, policymakers should:

Step #1: Rapidly expand private health coverage to include the uninsured.

The first step in reforming the emergency medical system is to reduce its inappropriate use by patients who could safely be seen elsewhere. For example, growing numbers of uninsured Americans frequently lack regular primary care, and the ED often fills the gap. Covering the uninsured for non-emergent care-if done correctly-is an essential element of emergency medical reform and would certainly help to reduce the strain on the system. Patients would then be more likely to receive regular care (including preventive services), have less need for the ED, and avoid costly hospital admissions.

The data indicate that simply moving the uninsured into public programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP might not solve the ED demand crisis and could even exacerbate the problem. According to a recent National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, patients with Medicaid as the expected source of payment used hospital emergency departments in 2004 at nearly twice the rate of the uninsured and at four times the rate of the privately insured. Moreover, more ED visits by Medicaid and SCHIP patients (35.7 percent) were classified as non-urgent or semi-urgent than were visits by self-paying patients (23.7 percent).<39>

The number of Medicaid-eligible patients who initially present to the emergency department as uninsured and are eventually converted to Medicaid is unknown, but it is not likely to be large enough to have any significant effect on the data reported in the NHAMCS study.<40> However, a major cause of these disparities is probably the lack of a sufficient number of primary care doctors available to Medicaid patients. This is likely a natural response to Medicaid's very low physician reimbursement rates in many states.

Thus, the most effective way to reduce inappropriate ED utilization is to institute sound "premium support" programs that would enable Medicaid patients to purchase quality private health insurance coverage with better access to care. The right policy is to integrate the working uninsured population and non-disabled Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries into a reformed private health insurance market.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Kicking

despite all.

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Thanks for the recs

:)

[Nikki Stone1]

48. .

.

[branders seine]

3. this is a republican plan, plain and simple.

but then, the corporatist DC politicians are all "republican" at heart.

I guess there really is an erectile dysfunction demand crisis.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. ED crisis! LOL!!!

:rofl:

[yurbud]

42. the GOP takes erectile dysfunction very, very seriously-- Jeff Gannon needs SOMETHING to work with

[Nikki Stone1]

43. Why yes. How could I forget?

:rofl:

Whatever happened to Gannon/Guckert?

[yurbud]

88. he took his blog down

[Nikki Stone1]

90. Somewhere in the world, there is a blog in search of a male hooker.

Just so sad....

sniff.

[yurbud]

97. my multimedia tributes to Jeff Gannon over the years:

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2009/04/gop-consultant-says-jeff-gannon.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/myk15/bushhugsmanho.html

http://fascart.blogspot.com/2005/11/new-bush-loves-bald-guys-photo.html

http://fascart.blogspot.com/2006/04/bushback-mountin.html

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/07/client-starring-george-w-bush-jeff.html

[laughingliberal]

5. ROFL! nt

[Nikki Stone1]

6. I'll bet it brings lots of older gentlemen to the ER

:rofl:

[branders seine]

96. Then there's the whole four-hour erection problem

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. Wow....

So we got ourselves a Nixon-Chaffee-Heritage plan afer all! Sue-prise, sue-prise sue-prise! Not. :(

Thanks for posting that -- this will come in handy when the plan starts to kick in and loads of people are left wondering, "Waaaahhh??? That's not what I signed up for!"

[Nikki Stone1]

9. I wish Frum had said something BEFORE the passage of the bill

I would never have thought to look on the Heritage sight. From now on, I will look there for sure.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. I woudnl't have thought to either.

Right out of the Hertigae FOUndation playbook -- as if the Bill coulnd't have been any scrier already! :scared: Shit, doesn't that just beat all.

On edit: Good lord my typing is terrible! :D Sorry about that mess.

[Nikki Stone1]

12. The mandate was the key to understanding this bill and its GOP roots

That is why people talked about everything else and tried to equate the mandate to taxes.

[AnArmyVeteran]

120. Frum sold his soul (if he had one) when he prostituted himself to Bush & Cheney

Frum is part of that same mob who started a war based entirely on lies. It's too bad no one in the Bush Regime spoke out against Bush, Cheney and the rest of the culprits before they started their war.

[sabrina 1]

99. People are already wondering what just happened.

Almost every person I spoke to was not aware that people will now be forced to buy insurance. Many of them are not covered, but pay as they go and like having that choice as they cannot afford the lay-out of money for coverage.

This never will be a popular idea and there will many who simply won't be able to comply with this new law as they will be above the line to qualify for subsidies, and still too poor to be able to add one more bill to their monthly expenses.

One of my girlfriends said after it passed, 'good, now we have the same system those countries in Europe have'. When I told her that was not true, she was shocked.

The media rarely talked about what this coverage for '32 million more Americans' actually meant. And interestingly, neither did Republicans when interviewed. They are not that stupid, they know how such a law would be received by the public. But now it's done, and now people are finding out, too late, as planned.

[gulfcoastliberal]

8. K&R.. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

31. :)

:)

[Echo In Light]

10. k/r

[Nikki Stone1]

41. Thanks

:)

[EFerrari]

13. Yes, he is. And Democratic party loyalists really need to wake up

and smell the coffee.

We've been driven so far to the right, we don't even recognize Republican ideas when they are made into law.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. That's what happens when you let go of your principles

and let party politics guide your ideas of right and wrong. Many of us activists (and I did my share of voter registrations, fundraisers, and marches) are heartbroken that all of our work has led to a Republican party.

(Of course, the Republicans are now right wing wacko nutjobs. We have moved way too far to the right.)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. "And Democratic party loyalists really need to wake up -- '

"-- and smell the coffee."

Their brains will not be able to handle the dissonance. :wow:

[ProSense]

15. "David Frum is RIGHT"

When kill the bill becomes desperate.

So this is no longer exactly like Nixon's or Clinton's plan, but something based on a Heritage foundation report from 2007?

Ludricrous.

What about the castastrophic care plan that Obama picked up from Kerry's 2004 plan?

[Nikki Stone1]

16. Thank you for kicking my post.

I really appreciate your time and consideration.

[dionysus]

18. IT WAS NEWT GINGRICHES IDEA YOU DLCER11!!111

;)

[Nikki Stone1]

20. Thank you for kicking my post.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

[walldude]

21. Kill the bill LOST. There is no desperation except

a desperate attempt to get the blind to look past the cover and learn and understand all the loopholes. Here we are not a week after the passage and the major talking point of people like you, "covering children" right away was all bullshit. But you have no time for that. You are too busy gloating and trying to make sure that the people who have a legitimate gripe with this bill are dehumanized and taunted. Yeah you are a real progressive. :rofl:

[Nikki Stone1]

26. +1

A sad :thumbsup:

[ProSense]

28. "major talking point of people like you, "covering children" right away was all bullshit" More

desperation from the kill the bill advocates.

The insurance companies are simply trying to exploit ambiguity in the language.

This is more proof that the insurance companies weren't welcoming reform with open arms.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Thank you for kicking my post.

I greatly appreciate your time and consideration.

[Nikki Stone1]

49. .

.

[walldude]

33. Right ambiguity, loopholes, bad language, easily exploitable

call it what you want, the bill sucks. The insurance companies are cheering today as many posts have shown, but don't let that get in the way of your reality. You call it desperation, how can it be desperation if we already lost? Desperate to do what? The bill is fucked it's getting worse and will continue to get worse as long as people like you keep denying it needs to be fixed.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. Don't let the fact that women can't get abortions but sex offenders CAN get VIagra get in the way

either.

If you're going to prevent women from having power over their own bodies, you can at least prevent those men who want to take that power away from having the means to do it.

[Nikki Stone1]

47. .

.

[sabrina 1]

110. Wrong again. The Insurance Corps wrote the bill.

They knew where the loopholes were.

There are several legitimate questions about that part of the bill. Eg, does this start 'right away' as we were told, or as the WH seems to be saying, 'in six months'?

Another question arises: The language says that only children who have not had lapses of more than two months in coverage, are covered by this law. That's an awful lot of children left out.

So, even if the challenge to whether or not the law doesn't require Ins. Corps to cover children until 2014 is proven to be wrong, those other loopholes can be exploited.

As for your defense that Ins. Corps are 'exploiting the language'? Lol, of course the are. Didn't we tell you they would?

Now do as you usually do when someone asks for specifics rather than talking points, ignore my questions.

Edited to add, there is nothing in the bill to cap how much Insurance Corps can charge for coverage of sick children either.

[bridgit]

115. Sad that DUers think that to be "a real progressive" all one needs to to is sit there...

Bitch about everything while offering no 'real progress' to anything - and yes, you're welcome DU for my kicking Nikki's little post cause ya'know...that's really what "a real progressive" does is reach all the way back three years into The Heritage Foundation's stale-ass bread basket of a research tab for crumbs they can leave through Hansel & Gretel's dark forest - "Crisis in America's Emergency Rooms" indeed, bah! We don't need no stinking badges, we're the posters of DU

:spray:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-snzLnJL_24/SttlHLiGPII/AAAAAAAACG0/YhH2X7JA9OA/s400/gingerbread+gustafson_-_hansel_and_gretal.jpg

[havocmom]

67. The dude abides

Thank you for doin what ya do!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Thank you for kicking my post.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

[freddie mertz]

38. Was that another "blue-link"-meany?

Or something from the Palinite, "mavericky" side of the fence?

Sorry I missed it.

[Nikki Stone1]

40. I honestly don't remember!

Oh well. :)

[walldude]

22. While I'd like to think that this would have made some kind of difference

had we all seen it beforehand, I seriously doubt it would have. The opposition to this bill has been fighting an uphill battle and now that some of the things we were saying about the bill are proving to be true, it seems to be worse. This whole "Children aren't really covered till 2014" thing is not even making a dent in the praise. Even though I was berated for months about "not caring about the children".

Well, thanks for the link Nikki, a big K&R for the truth that no one gives a shit about.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. I know how you feel. We're the anti-Christ for pointing out the obvious

I don't know if posting this any sooner would have made a difference, but from now on, I will look at the Heritage website to see what is next on the agenda.

[nightrain]

23. knr. good research Nikki!!

[Nikki Stone1]

30. Thanks night train, although it's too late to help anything

I wish I had known beforehand.

[nightrain]

56. sure, but related to the underpinings of the current bill, this is vital info.

So many of us have known that these were not progressive offerings, and indeed were sell-outs.

If Republicans were in charge now and offering up this crap, Dems would be outraged!

[Nikki Stone1]

58. I know, and that's the irony.

If Bush had tried to push this through, there would have been weeping and gnashing of teeth. The funny thing is that the plans were made while Bush was in the White House.

[grahamhgreen]

25. Great work. Kick.

[Nikki Stone1]

32. Thanks

.

[freddie mertz]

34. K & R. Great find you have there, Nikki.

This was and remains, in its essence a Republican plan.

It is not that ALL of it is bad ( a few good things crept in I will concede), but the APPROACH itself, the emphasis on private insurance, is pure 1990s Republicanism.

Which is a testament to:

1. How far right the Repubs have moved in the past 15 years.

2. How far right the DMS have moved in the same period.

The national Democratic party as represented by this administration is what a "moderate" Republican regime of 15 years ago would have looked like.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Robert Dole administration.

[Nikki Stone1]

35. You want to hear something even worse?

A woman can't get an abortion with her insurance policy, but a sex offender can get Viagra on his. The single GOP amendment that made sense today (and most were just fluff) was to prevent the insurance policy from covering Viagra for sex offenders. And the anti-woman Dems apparently just laughed at that. Great, huh?

[freddie mertz]

37. That is pretty amazing. The Repubs are good at picking up on that sort of thing.

Very cynical, but also smart in an evil sort of way.

I had no idea that viagra was covered by the bill.

[Nikki Stone1]

39. Evil, cynical and spot on, unfortunately.

What the GOP did was connect Viagra with RU486 in the amendment:

GOP Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (pictured) today released a list of the nine amendments he has filed, and right at the top is a clear illustration of the strategy -- an amendment entitled "No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders." Here's how it's described:

"This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs."
By opposing that amendment, Democrats are, at least in theory, opening themselves up to charges that they support using government money to provide sex offenders with Viagra -- surely an unpopular position if ever there was one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001033-503544.html


Sadly, the cynical GOP could not separate out the abortifacients for law-abiding women from playtime drugs for criminals.

[freddie mertz]

51. Cynicism: It's the new "Hope."

[Nikki Stone1]

53. LMAO

:rofl:

Thanks. :)

[court jester]

44. It seemed strange, the (R)epublics silence on 2 aspects of the bill

1. The Mandates
2. The Complete loss of medical privacy

Neither was mentioned a single time (that I heard).
And I was paying attention.
Thanks to you now I know why.

Either if talked about would have turned millions more against this nightmare.
The privacy thing hasn't been discussed at all. Every single medical record will
now be available to any Gov employee with the right clearance. Every Xray, prescription,
allergy.

I started hearing the media discuss the mandate constitutionality Only *After* it had passed.
Literally the day it passed. Then it's talked about. Millions and Millions of uninformed people
have no idea of the *worst* parts of the bill yet. But now it's law.


Watch --the (R)s aren't talking about repealing the mandate now, and won't.

[Nikki Stone1]

45. God, yes, the medical privacy issues.

Both parties are in this together.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Guess you will continue working against this bill,

Just like them others.

Sad way to pass your time, but sounds like you've got plenty of that to spare.

The point is what you have printed is not how the health care plan that passed
works, although there may be some common elements, which obviously to you
is the end of the world as we know it.

But I guess you figured that no one will bother to actual read and figure this out,
since attracting the reactionary is your forte.

[cornermouse]

55. I'd rather be considered reactionary than support a bill

that originated with the Heritage Foundation.

[Nikki Stone1]

57. Since the Heritage Foundation IS reactionary,

those who supported this bill should think twice before name calling.

[Romulox]

50. Kick and recommend. This is obvious information that true believers don't want seen. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

52. Thanks.

I wish we had known this a month ago. Or before.

[cornermouse]

54. k & r.

[Nikki Stone1]

59. Thanks.

It just feels like a day late and a dollar short.

[OnyxCollie]

60. K&R. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

61. Love the dog!

:)

[OnyxCollie]

62. Thank you!

That's my boy, Dante.

[Nikki Stone1]

63. He's a cutie.

I don't space enough for a dog, but I'd love to have one.

[Nikki Stone1]

64. U.S. Stocks Rise as Drug Shares Gain on House Health Bill

The real winners:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aL4ytMjFNPoo&pos=1

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks rose, erasing an early drop, as drugmakers gained after the House of Representatives passed an overhaul of the health-care industry and analyst upgrades lifted companies from Citigroup Inc. to Boeing Co.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer Inc. climbed at least 1.4 percent to help lead health-care companies higher after the House approved legislation that will ensure tens of millions of uninsured Americans will get medical coverage. Boeing Co. advanced 1.7 percent to help lead gains in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Citigroup Inc. jumped 3.6 percent as Richard X. Bove at Rochdale Securities LLC advised buying the shares.

“The health-care legislation approval removes the uncertainty,” said Richard Sichel, chief investment officer at the Philadelphia Trust Co., which manages $1.4 billion. “On top of that, the shares had been beaten down, so you can find reasonably valued companies.”

The S&P 500 increased 0.5 percent to 1,165.81 at 4:04 p.m. in New York, reversing an earlier 0.6 percent retreat. The Dow average climbed 43.91 points, or 0.4 percent, to 10,785.89....

[progressoid]

65. But we WON!!!1!

I seen it on the TV. :eyes:

[troubledamerican]

66. K&R

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikki Stone1]

74. But, when Obama tries to reach across the aisles and uses GOP ideas, you're ok with that

It's just little Nikki Stone, someone you don't even know over the internet, that you have a problem with. That's really odd, actually. You have remember, I really am not anyone. Not anyone at all. But Obama is, and sometimes the truth gets in the way of what we want to believe is. And sometimes the sources of information are not what we would have liked, but they are what they are.

My guess is that it's not Nikki in California that you're ultimately upset about. It is upsetting when a 2007 plan from the Heritage Foundation is the basis for the new law by a President that was supposed to be the next Roosevelt. But if it makes you feel better to lash out at me, go ahead. Just remember, I'm not running in 2012.

Edited to add: If you don't the Heritage Foundation website (where I double checked From's statement) maybe you'll appreciate Mother Jones, which amborin posted a while back:




http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/obamas-insurance-plan-comes-right-wing-think-tank

Obama's Health Insurance Plan Channels...The Heritage Foundation?

During his New Hampshire town hall meeting on health care reform in mid-August, Obama explained that under his plan, people who lack health insurance would be able to purchase it in a new exchange that offered a similar “menu of options that I used to have as a member of Congress.” Obama said that by creating a big pool of potential customers, the exchange would allow the uninsured and even small businesses to shop around, easily compare various private health care plans and get a better deal than they could on their own.

Most of the health care reform bills circulating in Congress contain some form of this concept. The exchange, in fact, is now the centerpiece of proposed plans drafted mainly by Democrats. It’s a curious development, because the concept was largely popularized by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank best known in recent years for advocating Social Security privatization during the Bush administration. Its track record ought to make Americans more wary of Obama's proposals than any talk of "socialized medicine."


Heritage is the source of a number of radical free-market and socially conservative policy plans that have occasionally worked their way into law, with questionable results. Among the most prominent: welfare reform, which it advocated in the mid-1990s as a means of reducing out-of-wedlock births and restoring “personal responsibility.” The idea—also embraced by a Democratic president—was considered a resounding success during the boom years of the late Clinton era when millions of poor single mothers went to work. But now that the country has hit a major recession, it has become clear that welfare reform mostly succeeded in shredding the safety net for poor children. (Incidentally, out-of-wedlock births have never been higher).

More recently, Heritage has promoted the idea that what poor women really need to get themselves out of poverty is a good man. At its urging, the Bush administration gave more than $100 million in grants to “marriage entrepreneurs” charged with encouraging poor single mothers to get hitched rather than to get welfare. Needless to say, the poverty rate is still on the rise.....

[glitch]

69. Wow. Not surprised, but still wow. Nixon's was bad, but this. What a proud moment for Democrats.

Heritage Foundation is about as low as it gets. What a damn waste.

[Nikki Stone1]

79. Apparently Mother Jones had this last August

Amborin had a post on it in DU which never got much response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6379684

[glitch]

101. edited subject to Pls ignore? No wonder we missed it.

Dupe claimed with a fairly generic google search link which can be obsolete in days -- there weren't that many DU threads about it to call dupe anyway. Squelchy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8593247

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8593247

Very interesting to look back in time isn't it?

[Nikki Stone1]

106. When people say "dupe" maybe there's more to it, eh?

:(

[glitch]

112. Sometimes.

Watch what gets called "dupe" and what doesn't. Lots of techniques get used to direct conversation on a public forum.

[Nikki Stone1]

119. Well, now I know more than I did.

Lots of stuff I don't know about how forums work.

[amborin]

70. K&R

[ibegurpard]

71. K&R

We were told "it's the best we can get" and "we'll fix it later."
Own it.
You don't get to celebrate like it's the best thing that's ever happened.

[snot]

72. [self-delete]

[amborin]

73. posted something on that in August:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6379684

[Nikki Stone1]

75. Wow.

I'm going to use this.

[glitch]

102. Thanks for that Amborin

Only please next time don't be intimidated by someone calling "dupe" okay? :hi:

[leftstreet]

76. K&R

[Nikki Stone1]

77. Mother Jones had the SAME information about Heritage and HCR back in August

With thanks to Amborin. :hi:


http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/08/obamas-insurance-plan-comes-right-wing-think-tank

Obama's Health Insurance Plan Channels...The Heritage Foundation?

During his New Hampshire town hall meeting on health care reform in mid-August, Obama explained that under his plan, people who lack health insurance would be able to purchase it in a new exchange that offered a similar “menu of options that I used to have as a member of Congress.” Obama said that by creating a big pool of potential customers, the exchange would allow the uninsured and even small businesses to shop around, easily compare various private health care plans and get a better deal than they could on their own.

Most of the health care reform bills circulating in Congress contain some form of this concept. The exchange, in fact, is now the centerpiece of proposed plans drafted mainly by Democrats. It’s a curious development, because the concept was largely popularized by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank best known in recent years for advocating Social Security privatization during the Bush administration. Its track record ought to make Americans more wary of Obama's proposals than any talk of "socialized medicine."


Heritage is the source of a number of radical free-market and socially conservative policy plans that have occasionally worked their way into law, with questionable results. Among the most prominent: welfare reform, which it advocated in the mid-1990s as a means of reducing out-of-wedlock births and restoring “personal responsibility.” The idea—also embraced by a Democratic president—was considered a resounding success during the boom years of the late Clinton era when millions of poor single mothers went to work. But now that the country has hit a major recession, it has become clear that welfare reform mostly succeeded in shredding the safety net for poor children. (Incidentally, out-of-wedlock births have never been higher).

More recently, Heritage has promoted the idea that what poor women really need to get themselves out of poverty is a good man. At its urging, the Bush administration gave more than $100 million in grants to “marriage entrepreneurs” charged with encouraging poor single mothers to get hitched rather than to get welfare. Needless to say, the poverty rate is still on the rise.

[amborin]

78. Social Security "reform" is next, just wait and see!

[Nikki Stone1]

80. I know. We should probably look up what Heritage wants on that too

Then we'll know what we're really getting.

[slipslidingaway]

82. And Medicare. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

83. Here's what Heritage wants for Social Security (We should watch and see if the Dems propose this)

1. Show Americans the full picture of the federal budget—including long-term obligations from entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—to generate public pressure for spending control.

2. Change the public’s view of entitlements and intergenerational obligations in the context of the long-term budget crisis so that Americans accept the need for structural changes to curb spending.

3. Convince Americans that raising taxes harms growth and jobs and is not the solution to expanded spending, while pro-growth tax reform is an important part of the long-term solution.

4. By the year 2017—through bipartisan support—halve the unfunded obligations for entitlement programs without raising taxes.

http://www.heritage.org/Initiatives/Entitlements

And here is the "solution" the site links to:

http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/index.cfm


Small changes won't save Social Security. At best, small changes push the financing problem a few years into the future--usually at great cost.

The key to real reform is personal retirement accounts in which all workers could save a portion of their payroll taxes. Safe investments and years of compounding would provide today's workers with real ownership of their retirements, real choices, and peace of mind that the current system cannot offer.

The Social Security Reform Center exists to help you understand the urgency of Social Security reform, the shortcomings of the current system, and the great promise that reform with personal accounts holds for tomorrow's retirees.

[readmoreoften]

95. Sounds like what Obama's been hinting at.

What a nightmare.

[Nikki Stone1]

107. Well, now we know.

It would still be interesting to know who his donors were, but he took no public funds--amazing in itself--so he did not have to publicly publish his donors.

[glitch]

103. Thieves -- trying to warp the term "entitlements" like they have liberal and progressive.

Entitlements mean we paid specifically into Social Security for our and our parent's SOCIAL SECURITY. It was kept out of the federal budget for just that reason. It is not part of the general fund, it was never part of the general fund, for them to make it part of the general fund now means they want to steal it.

Anybody remember Al Gore's lock box? He tried to make it clear which is one of the reasons Wall Street and their Corporate Media trashed him so viciously.

[Nikki Stone1]

108. It's not an "entitlement" if you have paid into it.

What a mess this is turning out to be.

We're being IMF'd.

[glitch]

113. They are entitlements and entitlements isn't a dirty word, . .

unless it is a working class entitlement and the elite want to steal it. Think of it as insurance you have paid the premiums for all your life and then all claims you make are denied because the CEO has raided the fund.

And public education is on the chopping block right now.

IMF'd may not be a strong enough term for what is happening to our country.

[Nikki Stone1]

118. The IMF did exactly what's happening here, but maybe it is worse.

The usual pattern is the IMF lends money to a country, which the country (due to bribery of officials or the actual terms of the loan) cannot be paid back. The loan is "restructured" provided that the nation make HUGE cuts in basic services and social programs: the losers are usually nurses, teachers, small famers. The winners are the large multinationals that are allowed to come in, scoop up the taxpayer built infrastructure for pennies on the dollar, and start charging the population for these same services that used to be run by the government more cheaply with taxpayer money. Privatized (piratized) nurses and teachers make a fraction of their original salaries so that large multinationals can make profits out of what used to be public services. Small farmers are left helpless when government provided help dries up and are forced to sell to large multinationals. They then become low paid labor on the same land they used to own.

IMF'd sounds like what is happening to us. In this country, it was the fake Wall Street "crisis" that was the catalyst for all these changes, but the structure had been laid out over decades: the steady destruction of the public education system by making it larger, more unwieldy; by centralizing it under the Department of Education; by creating dependence of every school system on national funding. It's far easier to take out a centralized system than it is to fight on thousands of different fronts. The difference between the IMFing here and in other nations is that here the transnationals, many of whom are Americans, had control all along the process.

[newspeak]

116. so, this was *'s plan

give his wall street buddies more access to our money? Just fekkin great!!!! When Poppy was attempting to push NAFTA, I could hardly wait to vote him out, but Clinton took up the mantle. Both parties are owned by corrupt, greedy corporations over the people. These so-called "New Democrats" and repukes are trying as hard as they can to get rid of FDR's "new deal." Those greedy robber barons never really went away, they were just biding their time. "A pox on both your houses!"

[slipslidingaway]

81. So many ideas begin with Republican politicians ...

repealing portions of Glass Steagall and opening trade with China are two, in the end the laws were signed by Democrats.

[Nikki Stone1]

84. Yes.

I never thought I would agree with Nader--ever--but I'm beginning to think he is right.

[Odin2005]

85. Good investigating!

[Nikki Stone1]

86. Not good enough.

I completely missed the Mother Jones article from last summer: (amborin posted it but I didn't even see it.) BTW, the Mother Jones article:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6379684

Obama's Health Insurance Plan Channels...The Heritage Foundation?

[amborin]

87. Brad DeLong: the deep republican roots of HCR:

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/201077/The_curious_triumph_of_RomneyCare


i'm searching for an article i've misplaced

it concerned a speech Obama himself had made at the Heritage Foundation

[Nikki Stone1]

89. Obama made a speech at the Heritage Foundation?

And I get clobbered for even mentioning the website.;)

But seriously, that is scary stuff, isn't it. I wish we had known this before. Of course, we might not have been believed. Many of us are accused of using "scare tactics" when we speak the truth.

[Nikki Stone1]

91. "Health bill included big Republican idea: individual mandate" Wed Mar 24, 3:36 pm ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3460142

The lawsuit against the health care overhaul filed Tuesday by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is focused on a provision that has long been advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry.

The lawsuit by McCollum, a candidate for governor, and 12 other attorneys general, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

The lawsuit calls this an "unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals." It states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states."

"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick , president of the South Florida Hospital and Health care Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain , a conservative Republican from Arizona , to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.....

__________________________________________

We're hearing about it now because of the lawsuits....

[amborin]

92. also from the Heritage Foundation:

SOTU: Obama's "Automatic IRA" Plan Could Make Bush's Wildest Dreams Come True
— By James Ridgeway
| Wed Jan. 27, 2010 10:20 AM PST.In tonight’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is expected to propose what’s generally being called an “automatic IRA.” This scheme for increasing individual retirement savings is being touted as a "common sense" approach to the pension crisis, a "third way" that enjoys broad bipartisan support. But lurking just beneath the surface of this popular proposal is a potentially massive gift to Wall Street--and possibly, a back-door route to undermining Social Security in favor of private investments.

Under the automatic IRA plan, the government would help set up a system of individual retirement accounts in which workers would be automatically enrolled if their employers don’t offer their own 401Ks. A minimum amount of pre-tax earnings–under current proposals, 3 percent–would automatically be deducted from employees’ pay and direct-deposited into their accounts. Individuals could increase the amount of the automatic deposits, or they could opt-out altogether. They would also have some choice about where to place their investments; otherwise, it would automatically be placed in what planners are calling a “diversified portfolio.”

On the surface, it sounds like a sensible plan. AARP is supporting it, and says it could help some 50 million of the 75 million Americans whose employers offer no retirement plan. It was developed through a rapprochement between the right and what passes for the left: The idea emanates from a group called the Retirement Security Project (RSP), led by David John of the Heritage Foundation, who hammered out a joint scheme with William Gale of the Brookings Institution. It’s supported by the White House, and expected to breeze through Congress. The publication Life and Pensions reported earlier this week:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/sotu-obamas-automatic-ira-plan-could-make-bushs-wildest-dreams-come-true

[Nikki Stone1]

109. Another bonanza for Wall Street

I guess we don't have to wonder anymore

[saracat]

93. Which makes the GOP reaction to this all the more startling.K+R

also kind of explains the reactions of some alleged Dems when the obvious garing anti-Democratic provisions are pointed out.

[readmoreoften]

94. Good fucking God. If this isn't a One Party system, I don't know what is. K&R

[yurbud]

98. somebody did a similar analysis of the Heritage Foundation advice on Haiti and how closely Obama

followed it: to the letter.


http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/01/new-haiti-same-corporate-interests
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/01/haitis-suffering-result-calculated-impoverishment

[Nikki Stone1]

104. I trust Naomi Klein

And that's really scary.

[newspeak]

117. I figure there's opposition publicly

to attempt to convince the proles that they're not selling the same snake oil. I've been saying this is a repuke bill and mandates coming straight from the Heritage foundation--of course these repukes want this bill. Playing "good cop, bad cop." If Obama sets up that advisory group for Social Security, heads up. I'll be interested to see how the MSM-PR machine attempts to spin for it.

[Hello_Kitty]

100. I wonder why Medicaid and SCHIP recipients use the ER more often

Could it be because they find it harder to get a primary care physician who will accept Medicaid?

[Nikki Stone1]

105. I'll bet that's a big part of it.

..

[SpiralHawk]

111. Why do republicons HATE America?

They oppose even their own ideas just to try and make Obama & America FAIL? Just disgusting.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

114. k&R!