<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No public option? No problem. Really.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/</link>
	<description>...politics, pictures, pugs and all that jazz</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:24:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ronwf</title>
		<link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/comment-page-1/#comment-52859</link>
		<dc:creator>ronwf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/#comment-52859</guid>
		<description>So you want to have everyone from 55 years old up - a demographic I belong to, BTW - be able to buy in to Medicare?  Medicare ALREADY pays out more money than it takes in.  Many doctors - including my mother&#039;s - ALREADY won&#039;t take Medicare patients because reimbursement is too low to cover costs.  I ALREADY subsidize Medicare twice; once with payments taken out of my paycheck that I will never see because Medicare will be bankrupt about the year I retire, and again because private patients are overcharged to make up for the money that Medicare underpays.  How exactly is Medicare going to survive adding 55 to 65 year olds?  It&#039;ll just crash sooner and then NO ONE will get help.  This makes no sense!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I note that you tout the money-saving portions of this bill.  Fine.  Let&#039;s enact those and see if they work.  There&#039;s no need to tie this other stuff to it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;Prevention saves lives AND money. This is not debatable; it’s fact.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Lives?  I agree.  Money?  Actually, there&#039;s a quite robust debate that in many cases it doesn&#039;t.  Check out &lt;a href=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661 rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; article in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the best-known and most prestigious medical research periodicals in the world.  Have you really looked into that statement, or are you just parroting talking points?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;We reject discriminatory practices and embrace the RIGHT of every American to have ACCESS to health care insurance.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rights?  Rights are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and gun ownership.  They are things that the government must make sure neither it nor 3rd parties prevent you from doing.  But they are not things that the government is obligated to give you if you have not obtained the resources - through your own efforts - to buy for yourself.  I have a right to a free press, but the govenrment doesn&#039;t have to buy me one if I can&#039;t afford it.  You are not talking about a right.  You are talking about an entitlement.  Those are two different things.  You have a right to health care regardless of your race, creed, sex or national origin; and that right is unthreatened and is subject to NO discrimination, despite your unsupported claim.  But you are not entitled to take money from me against my will to get it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You want to require health care insurers to cover pre-existing conditions?  Fine.  But understand that you are thus adding costs to the system, not taking them away.  Where will that money come from?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;It’s about dollars and cents; about deficits and budgets. They never, ever, ever express concern for every citizen in this country. Never.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Perhaps because they fallaciously assume that everyone can see the obvious - if you destroy the health care system of this country then everyone is worse off.  Your statement sounds oh so moral.  But doctors and nurses and hospital workers and pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and distributors have to make money.  Again, if you can find ways to cut costs, do it.  Enact those and see if your hypotheses on how money can be saved actually work before you bet the country on it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thank God for Sen. Joe Lieberman.  At least one Senator is acting like an adult.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So you want to have everyone from 55 years old up &#8211; a demographic I belong to, BTW &#8211; be able to buy in to Medicare?  Medicare ALREADY pays out more money than it takes in.  Many doctors &#8211; including my mother&#39;s &#8211; ALREADY won&#39;t take Medicare patients because reimbursement is too low to cover costs.  I ALREADY subsidize Medicare twice; once with payments taken out of my paycheck that I will never see because Medicare will be bankrupt about the year I retire, and again because private patients are overcharged to make up for the money that Medicare underpays.  How exactly is Medicare going to survive adding 55 to 65 year olds?  It&#39;ll just crash sooner and then NO ONE will get help.  This makes no sense!</p>
<p>I note that you tout the money-saving portions of this bill.  Fine.  Let&#39;s enact those and see if they work.  There&#39;s no need to tie this other stuff to it.</p>
<p><i>Prevention saves lives AND money. This is not debatable; it’s fact.</i></p>
<p>Lives?  I agree.  Money?  Actually, there&#39;s a quite robust debate that in many cases it doesn&#39;t.  Check out <a href=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661 rel="nofollow">this</a> article in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the best-known and most prestigious medical research periodicals in the world.  Have you really looked into that statement, or are you just parroting talking points?</p>
<p><i>We reject discriminatory practices and embrace the RIGHT of every American to have ACCESS to health care insurance.</i></p>
<p>Rights?  Rights are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and gun ownership.  They are things that the government must make sure neither it nor 3rd parties prevent you from doing.  But they are not things that the government is obligated to give you if you have not obtained the resources &#8211; through your own efforts &#8211; to buy for yourself.  I have a right to a free press, but the govenrment doesn&#39;t have to buy me one if I can&#39;t afford it.  You are not talking about a right.  You are talking about an entitlement.  Those are two different things.  You have a right to health care regardless of your race, creed, sex or national origin; and that right is unthreatened and is subject to NO discrimination, despite your unsupported claim.  But you are not entitled to take money from me against my will to get it.</p>
<p>You want to require health care insurers to cover pre-existing conditions?  Fine.  But understand that you are thus adding costs to the system, not taking them away.  Where will that money come from?</p>
<p><i>It’s about dollars and cents; about deficits and budgets. They never, ever, ever express concern for every citizen in this country. Never.</i></p>
<p>Perhaps because they fallaciously assume that everyone can see the obvious &#8211; if you destroy the health care system of this country then everyone is worse off.  Your statement sounds oh so moral.  But doctors and nurses and hospital workers and pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and distributors have to make money.  Again, if you can find ways to cut costs, do it.  Enact those and see if your hypotheses on how money can be saved actually work before you bet the country on it.</p>
<p>Thank God for Sen. Joe Lieberman.  At least one Senator is acting like an adult.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Still Worth It &#124; Blog of the Moderate Left</title>
		<link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/comment-page-1/#comment-51333</link>
		<dc:creator>Still Worth It &#124; Blog of the Moderate Left</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/#comment-51333</guid>
		<description>[...] really not much in this Karoli post that I disagree with. Is Joe Lieberman odious? Yes. Should the Democrats strip him of everything, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] really not much in this Karoli post that I disagree with. Is Joe Lieberman odious? Yes. Should the Democrats strip him of everything, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alas, a blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Still Worth It</title>
		<link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/comment-page-1/#comment-51332</link>
		<dc:creator>Alas, a blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Still Worth It</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/#comment-51332</guid>
		<description>[...] really not much in this Karoli post that I disagree with. Is Joe Lieberman odious? Yes. Should the Democrats strip him of everything, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] really not much in this Karoli post that I disagree with. Is Joe Lieberman odious? Yes. Should the Democrats strip him of everything, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/comment-page-1/#comment-51331</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/#comment-51331</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Identica by karoli: New blog post: No public option? No problem. Really. http://ur1.ca/hvgn...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Identica by karoli: New blog post: No public option? No problem. Really. <a href="http://ur1.ca/hvgn.." rel="nofollow">http://ur1.ca/hvgn..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention No public option? No problem. Really. -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/comment-page-1/#comment-51330</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention No public option? No problem. Really. -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/14/no-public-option-no-problem-really/#comment-51330</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shoq Values, Karoli. Karoli said: RT @karoli No public option? No problem. Really. http://bit.ly/6Ijsro [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shoq Values, Karoli. Karoli said: RT @karoli No public option? No problem. Really. <a href="http://bit.ly/6Ijsro" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/6Ijsro</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

