Charlie Rose

doodahdaze  03/19/2010 07:52 AM Report

just watching this, first time. Looks to me like the Democrats LIKE the "Obama's Waterloo" sound-bite MORE than the Repugnantcans. "Well it's a complicated bill" "We have to 'work' on the numbers".

The transparency is good. Will it keep us out of bankruptcy? Hell NO. Paying $2000 for the same basic medical procedure that would cost $10 in Mexico, will continue without or WITH insurance, but that's no big deal if you're on the 'well-off' side of the middle-class and cozy in your SPOT well within the baby-boom generation.

This bill HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA ANYMORE!!! NANCY POLOSI AND THIS STOOGE ARE FOOLS!!!

doodahdaze  03/19/2010 07:09 AM Report

The wall street bankers scratching the lawyers backs, doo dahh do dahh...

doodahdaze  03/19/2010 06:49 AM Report

Thanks for that clarification. So it's settled, we'll take it out of the insurance guys.

But with all do respect, (and grant you, I'm NO expert) if I'm losing money selling 'health-care' insurance, OR, I stand to make a lot more money selling 'everything-else insurance'. Then what kind of insurance would I be selling?. And how would that help with so-called "cost control"?.

So the government steps in and says you have to do this, and you have to do that. Fine, says the insurance industry; so what do they do to counter the intrusion?. They just raise the price of 'everything-else insurance'. But in order to handle all the legalities and clerical crap of the new 'burdens to bear', EVERYBODY'S got more headaches and EXPENSES, UNLESS you're a lawyer; then you're licking your predatorial chops. And what are the lawyers in Congress doing?. .. That's what I thought. ... So are the 'experts' in the press (excuse me, what 'press'?., now it's called 'media'). Thank you.

ex_Republican  03/19/2010 12:34 AM Report

I was just reading the postings for the show of March 10 when Charlie had Nancy Pelosi for the hour. I could hardly believe the degree of negativism, sarcasm, nay saying, and incivility that most of them contained - especially when the topic of discussion was such an important issue.

I am a retired senior conservative who in 2008, for the first time since Eisenhower’s first term in 1952, voted for a Democrat, Obama, for President. I like him very much and I believe his politics and political and personal philosophy are farther to the right than the rhetoric and realities of the Democratic primaries last year would lead you to believe - something that was necessary to win the Democratic nomination.

I’ve never been a fan of Nancy Pelosi - she has usually been on what I considered the wrong side of most issues. But when she’s doing her utmost to get the President’s healthcare bill passed, I’m in her corner.

Most, if not all, of the negatives you hear about the bill I believe to be lies and half-truths propagated by the health insurance industry and the Republican caucus, their lackeys. How else can one explain the unanimity of their opposition? - by concluding that they, the Republican caucus in both houses, decided to try to make this bill Osama’s “Waterloo,” a thought heard from more than one guest on last night’s show, March 17.

I listened to C-Span from the floor of the House yesterday during several Republican speeches. If only half of the horror stories they were telling were true, they would be lucky to get 50 votes for the bill, let alone 216. I guess I must have a higher estimate of the average person’s - yes, even a politician’s - motives, thought processes, and ethics than most of the other “post-ers.” It seems to me that it’s the Republicans that should be identified as having the monetary stake in this - not the Democrats, and certainly not President Obama.

doodahdaze  03/18/2010 03:30 PM Report

I'm not really THAT selfish. I'll be donating my body to medical science. Let the kids tinker with it and learn how not to be useless wall street bankers; that's if their charlatan professors approve of it.

doodahdaze  03/18/2010 03:21 PM Report

I'm no policy expert or much into details, but I don't understand how 'health care' 'reform' could possibly make basic health care cheaper while maintaining incentives to improve quality without the 'public option'. Making more frivolous rules just to say you 'did something' (Pelosi idiot) sounds like it's just going to end up more complex and EXPENSIVE.

Fuck you all, just put me in jail and let me die! I'm not paying for this shit! ... Let the price of EVERYTHING go up, I don't give a shit anymore.

REMant  03/18/2010 12:22 PM Report

How can getting ppl "into the system" save money, when they are de facto in the system already? Why use deem-and-pass except to hide members votes? It will probably be ruled unconstitutional. But I believe a measure that orders citizens TO BUY PRIVATE insurance is itself unconstitutional. The Federal govt could tax and provide health insurance or care directly, but cannot involve itself in private business (through things like mandates or vouchers) except to regulate it according to the commerce clause. Re some other of his argument I was impressed with this Op-Ed by Robert J Samuelson in the Post Monday http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031401389.html?hpid=opinionsbox 1 but then he sounds an awful lot like someone I know. BTW, the economy in many respects was not bad when Hoover was still in office and that is very well documented.