[excon]

Hello Steve:

Way back when your side was in charge, you people spent years funding the Iraq War without end and without conditions even in the face of extreme public opposition, which consistently remained in the 60-65% range. Indeed, the wholesale irrelevance of public opinion was a central tenet of GOP rule for eight years, as illustrated by this classic exchange between Cheney and ABC News' Martha Radditz in May, 2008, regarding the administration's escalation of the war at exactly the same time that public demands for withdrawal were at their height:

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it's not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ: So? You don't care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

excon

[excon]

Every indicator showed the American people opposed this legislation.

Hello again, Steve:

Every indicator?? Nahhh. I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think you interpret THIS poll like you did all the others. That would be exactly WRONG. A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%. However, a sizable portion of those opposed, 13%, oppose it because "it is not liberal enough".

Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

Them's the numbers.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Going in they were supportive, no? Going in how many Democrats were on board? That's not how it was with health care now was it?

[speechlesstx]

P.S. Inspired by the pro-abortion crowd I intend to start a campaign for Congress to "keep their laws off my body."

[Catsmine]

Hello again, Steve:

Every indicator??? Nahhh. I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think you interpret THIS poll like you did all the others. That would be exactly WRONG. A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%. However, a sizable portion of those opposed, 13%, oppose it because "it is not liberal enough".

Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

Them's the numbers.

excon

A prime example of the Will Rogers classic "lies, d*mn lies, and statistics."

[speechlesstx]

Them's the numbers.

I don't care why, Americans opposed passage and they did it anyway. ABC summed it up for you:

An additional point is the very stable nature of these views. While individual measures differ in their results, each, generally, has been little changed over time. Opposition, as CNN measures it, was essentially the same in January as it is now (57 percent then vs. today's 59 percent). The even division, as Kaiser measures it, has been steady for months, as it has in our own polling.

[excon]

I don't care why, Americans opposed passage and they did it anyway.

Hello again, Steve:

So?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

So?

And that sums up exactly the attitude of this congress and this administration.

[tomder55]

I don't care about public opinion... it is a yo-yo . Perhaps the people who like what happened last week can look to Mass. For portents of things to come.

The Bay State is also suffering from what the Massachusetts Medical Society calls a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians. As one would expect, expanded insurance has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. As a result, many patients are insured in name only: They have health coverage but can't find a doctor.

Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients, according to a 2009 physician work-force study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society. For new patients who do get an appointment with a primary-care doctor, the average waiting time is 44 days, the Medical Society found.

As Dr. Sandra Schneider, the vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Boston Globe last April, "Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you."

The difficulties in getting primary care have led to an increasing number of patients who rely on emergency rooms for basic medical services. Emergency room visits jumped 7% between 2005 and 2007. Officials have determined that half of those added ER visits didn't actually require immediate treatment and could have been dealt with at a doctor's office—if patients could have found one.

Grace-Marie Turner: The Failure of RomneyCare - WSJ.com

[excon]

And that sums up exactly the attitude of this congress and this administration.

Hello again, Steve:

See #161 above.

excon

[speechlesstx]

That meshes with a recent survey of physicians that said "46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine." A lot of good insurance will do if you can't get to a doctor.

On the legislation front, Tom Coburn (who made an awesome warning to Dems last week), has proposed an amendment that's pretty tough to vote against - although the Dems are vowing to do so - because they can't afford for the bill to be sent back to the House for another vote.

On Tuesday, the GOP put its strategy into action, with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) introducing an amendment beyond agreeable. Titled "No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders" it would literally prohibit convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders from getting erectile dysfunction medication from their health care providers.

While it will undoubtedly be difficult for Democrats to vote against the measure (one can conjure up the campaign ads already), the party plans to do just that.

"Democrats in the Senate are very unified that this is not going back to the House," Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday, minutes before the Coburn amendment was introduced.

LOL, I can't wait to see Dems defend that one this fall.

[excon]

LOL, I can't wait to see Dems defend that one this fall.

Hello again, Steve:

You don't have to wait. The bill is unconstitutional on its face. If a sex offender shouldn't be on the streets, there's laws that can be passed that KEEP him in jail. If someone is dangerous, THAT'S the PROPER avenue to take. But, to let someone out of prison, and then punish them for the rest of their lives is abhorrent to the American way. It punishes people for what they MIGHT do. That's against the Constitution. You can't retroactively enact a law, meaning all the offenders presently ON the registry's won't be affected. Besides, I thought you didn't like the government standing in between you and your doctor.

Then, of course, there's the kids who are sexting each other today and being convicted of child porn. You don't want THEM to have a sex life. What about the guy who did nothing more than take a wizz in the alley? You don't want him to have a life either...

Nope. It's draconian, over the top, and exactly what I expect out of the right wing today. Once a society accepts that it should TORTURE, this kind of stuff is a natural outgrowth of that kind of demented thought.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.

[NeedKarma]

I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.

You don't require an erect penis for sex?

[excon]

I fail to see where this amendment would punish a sex offender, it does nothing to prevent him/her from enjoying sex.

Hello again, Steve:

I didn't think you would. And, I'm not going to convince you. Trust me, I'm right.

excon

[speechlesstx]

All it does is prevent insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs to convicted sex offenders. It does nothing to prevent them from obtaining these or other treatments by other means. And since my tax dollars will be going to insure these sex offenders I darn sure don't want any part of paying for their erections. They can just buy it from one of those terrific Canadian pharmacies...

[tomder55]

That's funny... you would think that is a bill that would get bipartisan support.

I'm thinking perhaps Barbara Boxer might co-sponsor the amendment .
Boxer: Cover Viagra? Then cover abortion - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

[galveston]

I think this is what will happen.

Everyone will pay for health insurance.

When they actually need health care, they will have to go to a doctor that does not accept insurance and only accepts cash.

[inthebox]

Hello again, Steve:

You don't have to wait. The bill is unconstitutional on its face. If a sex offender shouldn't be on the streets, there's laws that can be passed that KEEP him in jail. If someone is dangerous, THAT'S the PROPER avenue to take. But, to let someone out of prison, and then punish them for the rest of their lives is abhorrent to the American way. It punishes people for what they MIGHT do. That's against the Constitution. You can't retroactively enact a law, meaning all the offenders presently ON the registry's won't be affected. Besides, I thought you didn't like the government standing in between you and your doctor.

Then, of course, there's the kids who are sexting each other today and being convicted of child porn. You don't want THEM to have a sex life. What about the guy who did nothing more than take a wizz in the alley? You don't want him to have a life either....

Nope. It's draconian, over the top, and exactly what I expect out of the right wing today. Once a society accepts that it should TORTURE, this kind of stuff is a natural outgrowth of that kind of demented thought.

excon

What they MIGHT do? They have already done it. Your sympathy lies with the offender and not those that were victimized or new victims?

Where in the constitution is it a "right" for any man to be able to have an erection? And at taxpayer expense?


G&P

[inthebox]

I don't care about public opinion ....it is a yo-yo . Perhaps the people who like what happened last week can look to Mass. for portents of things to come.


Grace-Marie Turner: The Failure of RomneyCare - WSJ.com

Agree and :

Medical News: Record Match Day Sees Increase in Primary Care Placements - in Public Health & Policy, Work Force from MedPage Today

No amount of legislation or taxation can alter the reality of supply and demand.

Add 30 million "insured," to baby boomers now hitting medicare age, to an inadequate supply of primary care doctors, equals... WAITING LINES. Throw in "cost containment" and you have... RATIONING.

About half of primary care residency slots are not filled by US grads. The shortfall is made up of foreign medical grads [FMGs] . Why do foreign medical students come here? A better paying job. With "cost containment" limiting pay, or working harder for the same or less pay, the supply of FMGs to fill primary care slots will also go down. If you have not already noticed, seeing the doctor often means seeing their "extender" [ PA, NP ] and this trend will only increase.



G&P