Bill Moyers: Universal Health Care is "Representative of a Deeply Moral Society"

Bill Moyers appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night. When asked about health care reform, he made some statements which should make those against Universal Health Care and Health Care Reform embarrassed, or even ashamed of themselves.

[Evilution]

Look it's not about not 'wanting' it,it's about affording it! Seeems to me that over spending is what has landed us in this economic disaster to begin with.

[Rockford]

Here we go again with Bill Maher...what drug addled dunce.

[The laughing liberal]

Obama compares health care to mail delivery & sticks foot in mouth

11-8-2009

Obama made a fool of himself by comparing health care to mail delivery, and then admitting that the government run service provider is the one having problems. He just can't get it right. The guy needs advice from Joe Biden.

Obama was attempting to alleviate people's fears about private health insurance being put out of business....

"As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said. "They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine.... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

WHAT AN IDIOT!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread490...

[The laughing liberal]

Firms Connected to Obama Profit from his Health Care push

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.

The firms were hired by Americans for Stable Quality Care and its predecessor, Healthy Economy Now. Each was formed by a coalition of interests with big stakes in health care policy, including the drug maker lobby PhRMA, the American Medical Association, the Service Employees International Union and Families USA, which calls itself "The Voice for Health Care Consumers."

Their ads press for changes in health care policy. Healthy Economy Now made one of the same arguments that Obama does: that health care costs are delaying the country's economic recovery and that changes are needed if the economy is to rebound.

There is no evidence that Axelrod directly profited from the group's ads. Axelrod took steps to separate himself from AKPD when he joined Obama's White House. AKPD owes him $2 million from his stock sale and will make preset payments over four years, starting with $350,000 on Dec. 31, according to Axelrod's personal financial disclosure report.

A larger issue is a network of relationships and overlapping interests that resembles some seen in past administrations and could prove a problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group.

"Even if these are obvious bedfellows and kind of standard PR maneuvers, it still stands to undercut Obama's credibility," Krumholz said. "The potential takeaway from the public is 'friends in cahoots to engineer a grass roots result.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_...

Obama = Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups & Cronies Raking in the Dough.

AstroTurf Everything. What a phony piece of dung.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_...

[The laughing liberal]

Evilution wrote:

Look it's not about not 'wanting' it,it's about affording it! Seeems to me that over spending is what has landed us in this economic disaster to begin with.

CBO: Estimates Obama Budget deficits/debt to soar from 41% to 60% by 2010

CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II.

As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010.

This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt.

Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/...

Thanks for breaking the bank obama!

[The laughing liberal]

Ask the Homophobe Investigator HOW IS RATIONING CARE & DEATH PANELS CONSIDERED DEEPLY MORAL?

[The laughing liberal]

The Intolerable Smugness of Bill Moyers He just can't help himself.

Feb. 20, 2009,

Bill Moyers took it in the shins this week after the Washington Post's Joe Stephens, drawing on FBI files liberated by a FOIA request, reported the liberal lion's role in hunting suspected homosexuals inside the Lyndon Johnson White House.

The Post story's primary focus is on the FBI investigation of presidential aide Jack Valenti's sexual orientation, an investigation OK'd by President Johnson.

It also reports that Moyers, then a special assistant to the president, asked the FBI to investigate two additional administration figures thought to have homosexual tendencies.

These weren't the only Moyers White House homo-hunts. On Commentary's blog, Jason Maoz quotes former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2005 that weeks before the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater election, Moyers "was tasked to direct [FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files."

http://www.slate.com/id/2211601/pagenum/all/

So the arrogant left wing Bill Moyers is a HOMOPHOBE!

More DemoSCAT Hypocrisy!
I Love It!

[laughing]

Moyers makes this point:

We are the only Western democracy that has not embraced Universal Health Care as a means of social justice. Our health care system is run by the drug industry, the health insurance industry, and Wall Street. Which means, a relative handful of unaccountable executives and anonymous investors, whose primary interest is in increasing the value of the company share, and raising profits. That's their interest. Now that's a good business model, because it's made a lot of money for the people who runs thos industries, Wall Street, drugs, and health insurance, but it's not the way we should decide who lives and who dies, and who suffers and who gets well; that's just not the way.

I concur.

[bobob]

In my view Mr. Moyers is somewhat off base when he
assumes that the Republicans are causing the
commotion over health care reform. The truth is that, yes
Republicans do oppose universal health care.
Also many working class Democrats oppose universal
health care, because they do not pay for health care. It is free since their employers fork over outrageous sums
every month to underwrite their coverage. This cannot
continue if small business is to remain a viable labor
employer and if big business is to stop sending jobs overseas.
The unions complain that it is cheap labor that drives
our corporations out, and this assumption is false.
Lower wages are not the cause, even though labor costs are
lower abroad. Huge benefit packages are the only cause,
and if business does not achieve some relief, more jobs
will indeed continue to migrate elseware. Bill Maher, on the other hand,
is just one lousy comedian who is trying to save his
career by being serious, kind of like that Perry Mason
bufoon who tweaked his way into the senate.

[American_Infidel]

Correction: Universal Healthcare is representative of a deeply Socialistic Society.

[Mr_Bill]

Evilution wrote:

Look it's not about not 'wanting' it,it's about affording it! Seeems to me that over spending is what has landed us in this economic disaster to begin with.

This is what all the freeloaders say. AftER ALL, WHY PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE when you can show up at the emergency room and get care for nothing.

Those of us who are paying for health insurance will see major reductions to our premiums as the freeloaders are no longer going to the ER when they feel sick. They will be covered for doctor visits.

National health plans (whatever form,) should also cut down on corporate gouging, and cutting off sick people from their benefits just when they need them.

This will be less expensive, not more. That is the point.

[Mr_Bill]

bobob wrote:

In my view Mr. Moyers is somewhat off base when he
assumes that the Republicans are causing the
commotion over health care reform. The truth is that, yes
Republicans do oppose universal health care.
Also many working class Democrats oppose universal
health care, because they do not pay for health care. It is free since their employers fork over outrageous sums
every month to underwrite their coverage. This cannot
continue if small business is to remain a viable labor
employer and if big business is to stop sending jobs overseas.
The unions complain that it is cheap labor that drives
our corporations out, and this assumption is false.
Lower wages are not the cause, even though labor costs are
lower abroad. Huge benefit packages are the only cause,
and if business does not achieve some relief, more jobs
will indeed continue to migrate elseware. Bill Maher, on the other hand,
is just one lousy comedian who is trying to save his
career by being serious, kind of like that Perry Mason
bufoon who tweaked his way into the senate.

No, Bob, it is the new Republicans, the lying neo-conservatives. The real Republicans do support this, but their real Republican leaders have been purged from office.

You are also deepy confused about working people with health plans, employer or self paid.
They (WE) want to eliminate the FREELOADERS who go to ER's for illnesses, and then skip paying their bill. Those bills are "spread out" among the insured.

It is only the FREELOADER, who pays nothing now, who will have to pay more.
And, F' the freeloaders.
F' All you freeloaders.

[Mac-7]

laughing wrote:

Moyers makes this point:
We are the only Western democracy that has not embraced Universal Health Care as a means of social justice. Our health care system is run by the drug industry, the health insurance industry, and Wall Street. Which means, a relative handful of unaccountable executives and anonymous investors, whose primary interest is in increasing the value of the company share, and raising profits. That's their interest. Now that's a good business model, because it's made a lot of money for the people who runs thos industries, Wall Street, drugs, and health insurance, but it's not the way we should decide who lives and who dies, and who suffers and who gets well; that's just not the way.
I concur.

I get very good healthcare from the private system we have now.

Not many Canadians or Brits enslaved in socialized medicine can say that.

So I don't want to let Obama ruin the private healthcare system that distinuishes us from the rest of the world.

[The laughing liberal]

laughing wrote:

Moyers makes this point:
We are the only Western democracy that has not embraced Universal Health Care as a means of social justice. Our health care system is run by the drug industry, the health insurance industry, and Wall Street. Which means, a relative handful of unaccountable executives and anonymous investors, whose primary interest is in increasing the value of the company share, and raising profits. That's their interest. Now that's a good business model, because it's made a lot of money for the people who runs thos industries, Wall Street, drugs, and health insurance, but it's not the way we should decide who lives and who dies, and who suffers and who gets well; that's just not the way.
I concur.

Really? HERE'S HOW GOV RUNS THINGS:
----------

Oregon Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment

Jul 31, 2008 at 8:45 AM PDT
By Susan Harding and KATU Web Staff
Video

SPRINGFIELD, Ore.-- Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."

Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.

"I told them, I said,'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.

An unfortunate interpretation?

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

One critic of assisted suicide calls the message disturbing nonetheless.

"People deserve relief of their suffering, not giving them an overdose," said Dr. William Toffler.

He said the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life: Chemotherapy drugs such as Tarceva cost $4,000 a month while drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html

Death Panel? NO - One person making that decision DOES NOT MAKE A PANEL says the Democrats/Obama!!!!!

[reza june]

bobob wrote:

In my view Mr. Moyers is somewhat off base when he
assumes that the Republicans are causing the
commotion over health care reform. The truth is that, yes
Republicans do oppose universal health care.
Also many working class Democrats oppose universal
health care, because they do not pay for health care. It is free since their employers fork over outrageous sums
every month to underwrite their coverage. This cannot
continue if small business is to remain a viable labor
employer and if big business is to stop sending jobs overseas.
The unions complain that it is cheap labor that drives
our corporations out, and this assumption is false.
Lower wages are not the cause, even though labor costs are
lower abroad. Huge benefit packages are the only cause,
and if business does not achieve some relief, more jobs
will indeed continue to migrate elseware. Bill Maher, on the other hand,
is just one lousy comedian who is trying to save his
career by being serious, kind of like that Perry Mason
bufoon who tweaked his way into the senate.

Democrats oppose universal health care, because they do not pay for health care. It is free since their employers fork over outrageous sums

Who exactly is the Bufoon here Mr Bufoon?
Your statement makes absolutely no sense, why would Democrats oppose UHC if they get it free?

[The laughing liberal]

American_Infidel wrote:

Correction: Universal Healthcare is representative of a deeply Socialistic Society.

Obama's Senior Moment

Why the elderly are right to worry when the government rations medical care.

Elderly Americans are turning out in droves to fight ObamaCare, and President Obama is arguing back that they have nothing to worry about. Allow us to referee.

While claims about euthanasia and "death panels" are over the top, senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about what Mr. Obama is proposing: Namely, once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted.
***

Far from being a scare tactic, this is a logical conclusion based on experience and common-sense. Once health care is a "free good" that government pays for, demand will soar and government costs will soar too.

When the public finally reaches its taxing limit, something will have to give on the care and spending side. In a word, care will be rationed by politics.

Mr. Obama's reply is that private insurance companies already ration, by deciding which treatments are covered and which aren't.

However, there's an ocean of difference between coverage decisions made under millions of voluntary private contracts and rationing via government.

An Atlantic Ocean, in fact. Virtually every European government with "universal" health care restricts access in one way or another to control costs, and it isn't pretty.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...

F-That Obama! YOU REALLY SUCK!

Why don't you put your daughters on this rationing plan and see them in front of the Death Panels if they're in an accident and are deemed "unproductive" due to head or other injury!

Face it you piece of dog chit, YOU WOULD NEVER SUBJECT YOU FAMILY TO SUCH RATIONING BUT COULD GIVE A CHIT ABOUT THE ELDERLY and said so about your own granny!!!!

[The laughing liberal]

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
This is what all the freeloaders say. AftER ALL, WHY PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE when you can show up at the emergency room and get care for nothing.
Those of us who are paying for health insurance will see major reductions to our premiums as the freeloaders are no longer going to the ER when they feel sick. They will be covered for doctor visits.
National health plans (whatever form,) should also cut down on corporate gouging, and cutting off sick people from their benefits just when they need them.
This will be less expensive, not more. That is the point.

WHY LIE?

----------

(D) JOHN BARROW: Why I voted ''no' on health care bill

August 5, 2009 at 12:30 am

On Friday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee completed its markup of HR 3200, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act." I received a great deal of feedback from all sides of the issue leading up to my decision to vote against what the committee produced. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss that decision.
As I said in my opening statement at the House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of this bill two weeks ago, "I am committed to passing health care reform that lowers costs and improves quality for all Americans."

I'm still committed to that goal, which is why I could not support the bill that came out of the committee this week.

The bill does not do enough to bring health care costs under control, and it puts too much of the cost of covering the uninsured on the backs of people who are already paying for their own insurance.

It also puts too much on the backs of small businesses that can't afford it.
We also don't know how much this plan is going to cost.

The Congressional Budget Office was not able to score the bill in time for the vote.
As a true fiscal conservative, I could not vote for a program this big without the best estimate of how much it will cost.

That also makes it harder to figure out how we're going to pay for it. In the end, reform we can't afford to pay for is reform that can't realistically happen.
These are all reasons why I think it was not wise to rush this bill through the markup process just to get it done before the August District Work Period.

The committee, and the whole country, would have benefited from another month to read the entire bill, understand its ramifications, and make the bill better.

In the rush to produce something before we left town, we didn't even have time to vote on all of the offered amendments.
Instead, we'll vote on the remaining 60 or so amendments when we get back in September, which is when we should have continued working on the bill in its entirety.

I can't understand voting on a bill that will be changed by amendments that hadn't been voted on yet.

http://savannahnow.com/node/762369

[The laughing liberal]

laughing wrote:

Moyers makes this point:
We are the only Western democracy that has not embraced Universal Health Care as a means of social justice. Our health care system is run by the drug industry, the health insurance industry, and Wall Street. Which means, a relative handful of unaccountable executives and anonymous investors, whose primary interest is in increasing the value of the company share, and raising profits. That's their interest. Now that's a good business model, because it's made a lot of money for the people who runs thos industries, Wall Street, drugs, and health insurance, but it's not the way we should decide who lives and who dies, and who suffers and who gets well; that's just not the way.
I concur.

Obama caught questioning cost of hip replacement for the terminally Ill!

Can you say "Death Panel"?

By Hans Nichols

April 29 (Bloomberg)-- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.

“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview.“I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview.“The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...

If the president is finally admitting publicly he questions care for the terminally ill, dare to say the entire admin has already developed a plan?

Can you say "Death Panel"?

Do you really think the gov could avoid setting up a panel that would decided whether you would receive additional care or Not?

See what happens when gov decides who are the "Winners" & "Losers" in life?

Who gets to decide who gets a few more months or years to live and enjoy their Children & Grandchildren?- Obama -?- Ezekiel Emanuel -?

Are you kidding me!

[Pig Alley Musketeer]

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
And, F' the freeloaders.
F' All you freeloaders.

Agreed. Let's start by sending the 15-18 million illegals back to wherever they came from.

We need to train and hire more gov't agents on both the federal and municipal levels NOW. More jobs, less people. Start there.

[The laughing liberal]

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Bob, it is the new Republicans, the lying neo-conservatives. The real Republicans do support this, but their real Republican leaders have been purged from office.
You are also deepy confused about working people with health plans, employer or self paid.
They (WE) want to eliminate the FREELOADERS who go to ER's for illnesses, and then skip paying their bill. Those bills are "spread out" among the insured.
It is only the FREELOADER, who pays nothing now, who will have to pay more.
And, F' the freeloaders.
F' All you freeloaders.

THE SICK TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA'S MANUFACTURED ANGER CLAIM
----------

The people attending these town hall meetings that are protesting are just normal Americans that are pissed off.

They're NOT being paid by the insurance companies as alleged by the Durty Obama admin.

Too bad the same thing can't be said for those that turn out in support. Obama & his minions are looking for community activists to support reform on CRAIGS LIST.

http://longisland.craigslist.org/search/...

Nice to know they're paying people to support their Euthansia garbage since I can't think of a reason anyone would do so otherwise.

YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED AS A LYING POS AGAIN billy!