# Blue Dog my ***



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

A conservative democrat is right in there with the tooth fairy and Santa Clause. None of them exist. It's a smoke screen of deception. The same type of deception as others who tell us they are conservative republicans then the first thing that crosses their lips is gay rights. Well, maybe not the first thing (no pun intended), but it's right up in there, (again no pun intended).  
I think these Blue Dog democrats if they existed will fold when the democrat party tells them if they don't play the game there will be no funding for them come next election. So then they can go home and say to their constituents we were forced into it. Or they will attach it to a meaningless bill and tell their constituents it was such a good bill we had to vote for it even though health care was attached. 
Blue Dog??? BS, Blue Dog my ***.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Zell Miller was a closet liberal when he gave the keynote at the 2004 RNC? :roll:

It may come as a surprise to Republicans, but there is room for honest disagreement even within a party. You don't see the talking heads trying to throw Ben Nelson under a bus like they did Collins and Snowe (classic New England Rockefeller Republicans... as was Jeffords).

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for stoking this sort of partisanship! :******: This Us vs. Them crap makes me furious. Most people lie in the middle of the spectrum. Why is it so hard to believe that politicians do too?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Zell Miller was a closet liberal when he gave the keynote at the 2004 RNC?


I think you mean closet conservative. Yes, that was one of the best speeches I have ever heard. I think he was the last of a dieing breed.



> It may come as a surprise to Republicans, but there is room for honest disagreement even within a party.


Oh, I absolutely agree, I just don't believe there is disagreement. I think it's a smoke screen and all deception.



> You ought to be ashamed of yourself for stoking this sort of partisanship!


 :fiddle: 
It doesn't need stoking the democrats could not be much more partisan.



> This Us vs. Them crap makes me furious.


 Thems tings is jest a part of de life me boy.  What do you expect? Do you really expect me to sacrifice my principles to thump my chest and say I am none partisan. What one generation tolerates the next accepts. Political correctness be darned, I make a point to be independent and intolerant of those things I do not condone.



> Most people lie in the middle of the spectrum. Why is it so hard to believe that politicians do too?


Because it is so clear they don't. We currently have liberal and liberal light. I want a tiny bit of liberal , a lot of conservative, and double scoop of conservative extra. Oh, and hold the socialism please, and could I have some libertarian on the side.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

> It doesn't need stoking the democrats could not be much more partisan.


Was "I know you are but what am I?" too trite?

I want ideas to be debated on their merits, not based on some arbitrary label (like "socialism") that you tag them with. That's what I "expect".


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> A conservative democrat is right in there with the tooth fairy and Santa Clause. None of them exist. It's a smoke screen of deception. The same type of deception as others who tell us they are conservative republicans then the first thing that crosses their lips is gay rights. Well, maybe not the first thing (no pun intended), but it's right up in there, (again no pun intended).
> I think these Blue Dog democrats if they existed will fold when the democrat party tells them if they don't play the game there will be no funding for them come next election. So then they can go home and say to their constituents we were forced into it. Or they will attach it to a meaningless bill and tell their constituents it was such a good bill we had to vote for it even though health care was attached.
> Blue Dog??? BS, Blue Dog my a$$.


I think it is too early to tell. There are not even enough dem votes to pass healthcare, so it is hard to say if they are enough of a factor to matter. If they become a factor and polls show them as a favorite in their elections the dems will support them.

The democratic party may very well have to support them whether they want to or not. At the rate the liberals are self destructing they may need all the help they can get.

The blue dogs will be a factor in cap and trade.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I want ideas to be debated on their merits, not based on some arbitrary label (like "socialism") that you tag them with.


I don't use the term arbitrarily, I use it when things or people are socialist.



> Was "I know you are but what am I?" too trite?


You lost me. I looked back a couple of posts, but it still didn't make sense to me. Explain please.



> I want ideas to be debated on their merits


They normally are, but if something is socialist that's all I need to know. More government control is socialist. Why do you not like the term when it is applied properly? I simply call them as they are.



> The blue dogs will be a factor in cap and trade.


I hope your right TK, but I am at this time not certain they really exist. If they do, and if they some fiscal conservative ideas do they have the nerve to hold to their values in the face of the democrat machine?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

well there are at least some that don't want cap and trade.

Here is Dorgan's take on the issue. I think this solidifies him as a "NO" vote on crap and take :beer:

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/247845/

These guys are selling themselves as fiscally responsible, if they do otherwise I would think it would be political suicide.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK33 said:


> well there are at least some that don't want cap and trade.
> 
> Here is Dorgan's take on the issue. I think this solidifies him as a "NO" vote on crap and take :beer:
> 
> ...


I do think your right, but am cautiously optimistic. You and I know it would be political suicide, but do they? Also, it appears people have a memory only about two weeks long. The problem is 2010 for some is an eternity. Look at the Iraq war as an example. The first couple of weeks it was ya, we are all behind you W. A month later it was all Bush's fault and they knew there were no WMD's all along. What a crock.

I keep trying to be optomistic, but life says I'm an idiot if I am.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Well it all goes back to the media doesn't it.

Some media outlets are recognizing Obama's drop in popularity and over the last two weeks we are seeing some negative press about him and congressional dems. Once those whores need ratings (money) they will turn their back on them and then we will see what happens. Healthcare is the straw that is starting to break the back for most people I know. For me it was giving the financial industry a free pass in the stimulus overhaul.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Your response when I said that you're needlessly stoking partisanship was to say that Democrats are partisan. It just reminded me of the old "I know you are, but what am I?" comeback that kids used when I was in elementary school... I'm thinking they all got it from PeeWee Herman.

Admittedly, I was being a little too snarky...

You use the term "socialist" when YOU think something is "socialist". Everybody's got their own line and definition. Using "it's socialism" as a reason not to do things is meaningless. If you say we shouldn't have a public healthcare option because it's socialism, you're just saying that we shouldn't do it because you said so. Even if people agree with the line you've drawn, the term loses all of its punch when there are so many programs that we already have in place where the same argument was used, and the sky didn't fall. Saying "it's socialist" doesn't address why it's bad. It's a prime example of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Using "it's socialism" as a reason not to do things is meaningless. If you say we shouldn't have a public healthcare option because it's socialism, you're just saying that we shouldn't do it because you said so. Even if people agree with the line you've drawn, the term loses all of its punch when there are so many programs that we already have in place where the same argument was used, and the sky didn't fall. Saying "it's socialist" doesn't address why it's bad. It's a prime example of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well".


Then that falls right into the idea I have used lately. "What one generation tolerates the next accepts". 
If you notice I said I would like a little liberal, a bunch of conservative, some conservative extra etc etc. Our Social Security system is socialist. However, I think it's not a bad idea, but it was started by the liberals, then made mandatory by the liberals, then increased by the liberals, then robbed by the liberals and they have driven it into a noose around our neck. 
Some social programs to fall back on are good, but they are socialist. Socialist becomes bad when to much of our government becomes socialist. It's like an animal with an insatiable appetite for growth, and must be kept in check by the people. Our democrat party has become the socialist party and it endangers everything this nation was. 
I don't think it poisons the well, it should be a signal like lanterns hung in a church tower. One if capitalism and two for socialism.  When I use the term socialist it should tell people where that person wants to lead this nation. When I use the term socialism it should tell people where a particular bill will lead us. I know the liberals want everyone to think it's just name calling, and they have been successful at that. They are masters of catchy phrases to fight the opposition. Look at the group that wants Obama to prove his natural born citizenship. The new phrase for them now is "birthers". I was watching the news last night and they whisper the name "birther" like a pastor giving a sermon would whisper Satan. They are attempting to attach a radical stigma to anyone who questions Obama.
Forget republican, forget democrat, look at the intent of everything they all do.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Not to hijack this thread but.

Omegax...... I know you are in favor of a Federal Run Health Insurance.

I have a couple questions (anyone in favor of this plan please comment):

1. People say it will create competition. Now in the United states over 67 health insurance company's exist. I am also not counting every branch or off shoot of Blue Cross and Blue Shield (each state has its own private...ie MN blue cross and blue shield, blue cross blue shield of Anthem, etc). How will adding one more company add to the "competition" that all the people in favor of this measure keep saying?

2. How can this Federal program not cost tax payers money and be "cheaper" or "less expensive" than the options out there with out decrease in care? (The people in favor are now saying it won't increase debt)

3. How can a Federal run program have reserves (extra $$$) in-case they have to pay more out than they took in on premiums with out diving into tax payers wallets?

4. How can the Federal program be "cheaper" with the same amount of care?

5. How will the private plans right now not be effected if they are going to tax the private insurance company's to help implement the program?

Now please some one answer these questions for us that are against it? Because I would be on board if people could answer these questions. BUT THEY CAN'T.

Now I know the health care industry needs an over haul so to speak. But this health care bill is not the answer. They need to first look at Tort re-form. Then this will help "open up state lines" as they are trying to jam down our throats. This will make the 67+ companies want to work in every state or at least give more options. But the laws in effect make these companies not wanting to do business in other states. Adding 1 more insurance company will still do nothing if tort reform does not happen.

The way I look at it is if they do tort reform first. Then wait and see if that will open up competition.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

I think we should try a "tune-up" before we pay for a complete "overhaul".

:beer:


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I don't think it's too bad of a threadjack, Chuck... the original reason "blue dogs" came up was because of healthcare.

1/2/4: Efficiency! Even Medicare has significantly lower overhead than private insurance. I'm not going to pretend that there won't be significant up front costs. There will. However, in the long-run it'll come back (as it has for every other country that has implemented similar reforms). Hooking hospitals up to track costs vs outcomes like the VA does will cost money up front, but save it in the end. (more specifically for #4) They're not going to take profits.

3: they could take out insurance on the losses until they worked out a cash cushion. It's possible, but that's probably not how it will go. Most likely they would borrow money to come up for shortcomings. The other thing is that with the right actuary tables and a big enough pool of people, there shouldn't be losses of any significant size.

5: Adversely, to say the least. I don't know if that's been one of the proposed way to pay for it (there have been LOTS). However, taxing the insurance companies then competing with them is unfair... I can't imagine that would go really far, if it's been proposed. I'm not in favor of paying for it that way

I fully agree with you on tort reform! I wouldn't have a big problem with opening up across state lines if there were federal mandates on the quality of the policy. Otherwise, they'd cluster in the states with the most favorable minimums, and there wouldn't be a darn thing you or I could do about the companies with crappy policies out-competing the good ones.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> 3: they could take out insurance on the losses until they worked out a cash cushion. It's possible, but that's probably not how it will go. Most likely they would borrow money to come up for shortcomings. The other thing is that with the right actuary tables and a big enough pool of people, there shouldn't be losses of any significant size.


So this right now would increase debt or you would have to tax. But they are saying it won't happen??? Hmmmm.



> 1/2/4: Efficiency! Even Medicare has significantly lower overhead than private insurance. I'm not going to pretend that there won't be significant up front costs. There will. However, in the long-run it'll come back (as it has for every other country that has implemented similar reforms). Hooking hospitals up to track costs vs outcomes like the VA does will cost money up front, but save it in the end. (more specifically for #4) They're not going to take profits.


Isn't this all tort reform or opperations reform.....not a federal health insurance option. But they say we as a country need the federal option... Hmmmm..... Jamming it down our throats...



> I fully agree with you on tort reform! I wouldn't have a big problem with opening up across state lines if there were federal mandates on the quality of the policy. Otherwise, they'd cluster in the states with the most favorable minimums, and there wouldn't be a darn thing you or I could do about the companies with crappy policies out-competing the good ones.


All of this is reform and has nothing to do with a Public Option for health insurance. But yet all they keep ramming down the throats of the people is PUBLIC INSURANCE OPTION. Which none of you said in answering my questions. All of it is reform on how the system in place is now. Not a federal option.

Like I have stated over and over......a federal option is not needed.....tort and operations reform is. But all you hear the democrates talk about is the federal option...along with reform. But main attention to is a public health insurance. Which is not needed. Just the reform.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

If the actuarial tables are done correctly and the pool of people is big enough to even out the wins and losses, it won't have over-all losses. That's what they're talking about.

Mostly, the public option is an attempt to dig into the profits of the insurers and to leverage the economies of scale of the government.

I am concerned about what happens if you mandate that everybody carries coverage (which is the price of eliminating "pre-existing conditions"). I'm extremely worried that the insurance companies will line up like pigs at the trough to soak the consumer, rather than competing. I see the public option as a check on that.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Mostly, the public option is an attempt to dig into the profits of the insurers and to leverage the economies of scale of the government.


Isn't this socialism? Take money from people making profit and give to the goverment?



> I'm extremely worried that the insurance companies will line up like pigs at the trough to soak the consumer, rather than competing.


Please explain? There are laws protecting consumers on price fixing. If that is what you are talking about.



> If the actuarial tables are done correctly and the pool of people is big enough to even out the wins and losses, it won't have over-all losses. That's what they're talking about.


I am with you a little on this. But if what happens if you throw out "pre-exisiting" conditions like the federal run program will do. How can you even it out? You can't. That is what is part of the actuarial process. Look at it like this. You take an age class of 20-25 year olds. Now you throw out pre-exisitng conditions. You have to say X number will have cancer, x number will become pregnant and have kids, x number have diabetites, x number have what ever. Then spread those costs out among the whole age group. Now that will give the premium.

So you are saying a healthy person should pay for the unhealthy? Hmmm. So that person would end up paying more than they would at a private insurance company. So now you just lost that person in the "pool". So now that price will have to rise because less people. So now the price rises.....but I thought this was going to be affordable??? How is it going to be affordable with out getting money from somewhere else?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Have any of you ever wondered why the government wants to take over the health care? It's 1/6 of our entire economy. I think they look at the money the health insurance companies make, and they want it. They know the American people will not stand for huge tax increases. This is a back door entrance to your wallet. We pay over 50% in taxes now if you include every tax they nail us with. Get ready for 70%. You know what I will call that? Socialism, and full fledged redistribution of wealth concealed as doing something for the poor poor uninsured.

I was listening to a senator (don't remember his name) and he said a realistic cost over the next ten years will be 2 to 3 trillion, not one trillion.

So if the public option is going to be so great how will the private insurance companies compete? How can they compete with a none profit? Not simply none profit, but tax payer subsidized.

The older people I talk to are genuinely frightened. They think that a government official will let them die because they are not an investment. I think they are right. Why else would they have end of life scenarios in the bill? Individuality will disappear under this plan, and we will be just numbers. The number on our identity card we will be forced to carry. I wonder if I could claim to be an illegal aliens?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I thought about this a little more...



> I am concerned about what happens if you mandate that everybody carries coverage (which is the price of eliminating "pre-existing conditions"). I'm extremely worried that the insurance companies will line up like pigs at the trough to soak the consumer, rather than competing. I see the public option as a check on that.


I don't see a public option as keeping this in check. Look at it this way if a public option is going to throw out pre-existing conditions. They won't be able to keep premium costs down for healthy people compared to private companies. Because the public option will have to have the premium the same for every age class, gender specific, etc.

So all 22 year old male will pay the same no matter what. So if you have cancer or are healthy you pay the same. The Public option will have to spread that premium through out all 22 year old males in that bracket. Now this is the way I read into the public option..

With what I said above is true... A healthy 22 year old male can go to a private company and get a cheaper rate because he is not getting "taxed" or "Charged" more for others in the pool with pre-existing conditions. Because the private company can charge more for pre-existing or deny insurance to the pre-existing. So the private insurance company's will mop up and get all the healthy people. Which in-turn will lower the cost of the premium for some of the "pre-existing" condition people that the company will accept because the pool of $$ is greater.

How will the Public pay with out the Healthy population to "even" things out? Will they need tax money, raise taxes, raise premiums, borrow money, increase national debt, cut other programs to fund, etc???

Like I have stated over and over we as a country need reform. But a public option will only cost us $$$$$$ on top of $$$$ and not do a damn thing different.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You have a good conversation going and don't need to get back to the original topic, but I want to throw something in.

Did you see what has happened to the "Blue Dogs"? The media will say they have negotiated a deal. Wow, great for them. I would bet their little white house meeting went like this. "OK guys if you want to run again and get support from the party this is what you do. See this health care reform option? You will present it, we will accept it, and you get the credit and I get what I want". Understand?????? It's that or else. 
The "Blue Dogs" are a fantasy. They caved and put fourth a government run health care package. Surprised? Not me, not at all. If you watch close you will see more "Blue Dog" miracles in the future. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman......I totally agree.

One thing is I blame Obama. He told the House and Senate that he wants something on his desk by september. How can you get a good constructive bill pushed through that fast? Look at the stimulus bill. They pushed it through too fast. We can't see how it will effect us this quickly....but it was pushed through too quickly that is why the house and senate are trying to pass another one. If they would have just took their time and passed a good one it might make a world of difference.

This is again a place where Obama and some Dems have over promised and under preform.

I for one would rather have a person under promise and over perform any day.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another example i urge everyone to do. If your state has a state run/funded auto insurance carrier.....all states that require a person to carry auto insurance will have a state option. Go get a quote. See how much of a difference it is. They can't compete. The only people they can get are people with bad records because they can't get insurance elsewhere. Then the cost is outrageous.

Now this is a state/goverment funded insurance program that can't compete and it is auto insurance.......Health insurance is a bigger more expensive animal.

But yet again......this public option will "compete".....HOW??? No body can give a viable answer. When they try the just run in circles and they scream and yell at each other and give no info.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Open the bill and checkout the referenced pages, interpret them as you see fit, however if one third is true it is still a restictive and intrusive bill that will bloat the Federal government even further. Also read the public commentary on the article that appeared in the "Economic Policy Journal" which includes some intelligent comments on both sides. Ignore the idiots responses although humorous.

LIttle "gems" hidden within the new "Health" bill:

Read this and write/call your Representative and Senator(s). If you don't and this goes through, you have no one to blame but yourself!

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! 
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! 
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) 
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. 
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. 
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. 
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer!! 
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) 
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. 
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) 
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens 
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. 
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. 
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insur ers will be crushed. 
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. 
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. 
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. 
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll 
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll 
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable(?) healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. 
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them!). 
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records! 
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. 
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor are the most affected." 
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!) 
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. 
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries. 
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. 
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of ra tioning! 
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. 
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government. 
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies! 
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. 
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.. 
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. 
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. 
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. 
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). 
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? 
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. 
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. 
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. 
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans......an ORDER from the GOVERNMENT to END YOUR LIFE!!! 
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. 
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN. 
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN. 
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. 
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and20rationing those services.

Here' a link to the original article and a link to the actual bill as it sits:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/20 ... -bill.html

The bill>>> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... 3200ih.pdf


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> You have a good conversation going and don't need to get back to the original topic, but I want to throw something in.
> 
> Did you see what has happened to the "Blue Dogs"? The media will say they have negotiated a deal. Wow, great for them. I would bet their little white house meeting went like this. "OK guys if you want to run again and get support from the party this is what you do. See this health care reform option? You will present it, we will accept it, and you get the credit and I get what I want". Understand?????? It's that or else.
> The "Blue Dogs" are a fantasy. They caved and put fourth a government run health care package. Surprised? Not me, not at all. If you watch close you will see more "Blue Dog" miracles in the future. :eyeroll:


it's not over yet, these guys are toast in 2010. results are the only thing that matters to their constituents and they damn well known it, excuses won't cut it, if they vote wrong they are gone!


----------

