People can look up what was said and not said here in which I defend Adam B, a front page blogger at Daily Kos, a person who disagreed with me over the DOMA brief  because he did so with arguments versus your regular spewing. So you can continue to lie as much as you want, but the record does not agree with your tactics or lies.

Here was again Steve M's response to your bile:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/6/17/1125 12/131

"The difference is that Adam did not go on and on making ridiculous claims like "it would have been an impeachable defense for Obama to do anything different."  In other words, the sort of rhetoric the defend-at-all-costs faction seems to have talked themselves into."

or here:

This is exactly the type of hyperbole I am talking about.  If the President decides to take a position on the constitutionality of a statute, that represents "politicizing the Justice Department" - no different, really, than Bush hiring a bunch of Regent grads or firing US Attorneys who refuse to prosecute Democrats.

Of course the Justice Department needs to be independent in terms of carrying out its prosecutorial function.  That hardly means it needs to be independent in terms of setting policy priorities or taking a position on the interpretation and constitutionality of statutes - those things are of course for the President to determine.  Like I said, it's just amazing the over-the-top stuff some of you will talk yourselves into, just to avoid confronting the reality that this issue could have been handled better."

Defend at all cost is exactly what you are doing now in this diary.  It's what you do in every diary. As I said,  you both are bad faith actors. The problem is that in every attempt to have a conversation you enter using the same tactics. There is no way to address your behavior because it's not coming intot he conversation with any amount of attempt at communication. If I were what you claim in your lying, there is no way that I would praise someone with whom I disagree for doing so with arguments rather than spewing vile.

I fully expect you next commment to be "but you spill vile." That's what you two do in every diary. You attack without any sense of reality at all. This is simply not healthy to a debate about healthcare.

As I keep saying- you are a bad faith actor. So you can continue to these sorts of comments as much as you like. Tarheel gets it right that you can not back up anything you claim. It's all attack, attack, attack. Like a good rabid dog defending his master.

You are a liar. But, thats not unexpected from bad faith actors.

My recollection is that bruh was an Edwards supporter before Edwards dropped out, and wasn't thrilled with either Clinton or Obama, so criticized them both at various times.

Your interpretation of that is that he "bashed everyone"?

What kind of criticism of a candidate or elected official is acceptable to you? Or is it all "bashing"?

once again:  bullshit.

You have sucesffully did your job of hijacking the diary, and avoindg any discussion fo whether we should place pressure on the WH.

mandates dont work, been proven time and time again.

everything you buy including homes and service you use such as getting a haircut, plumbing, etc. depending on the province you live in. Here's an idea of how  the health co-ops would work:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12454581 6309433079.html

excerpt:

The health co-op isn't a new concept. Seattle-based Group Health Cooperative, whose chief executive met with Mr. Conrad last week, is a survivor of a movement that began after the Great Depression to provide affordable coverage, particularly in rural areas. But most co-ops remained small, and folded after the federal government stopped subsidizing them in the late 1940s.

With 600,000 members in Washington and Idaho, Group Health today operates much like an integrated health-maintenance organization. It employs many of its own doctors, runs its own clinics and spends more of the premiums it collects on medical care than most private insurers do.

How much its co-operative approach contributes to lower insurance costs is unclear, however. Many of Group Health's efficiencies come from the organization's integrated model of using its own providers. In recent years, the co-op has introduced high-deductible policies and plans not tied to its providers to stay competitive with private insurers, and its premiums are in line with others'. Health-care costs in the Pacific Northwest tend to be lower than the country's average, but the prevalence of HMOs and the supply of doctors and their practice patterns are big factors

No it isn't.  Reliable condom use by men is important.

Are you kidding me? You actually think thats a good use of taxpayer money?

The single biggest cost in the system is that we use private healthcare. This is not theory. It's fact. So, you say on the one hand you don't want tow aste tax payer money, but then ont other you want to waste not 100 bil a year, but to the tune of almost a tril a year on wasted healthcare expenses. You sound a penny wise- and pound foolish here.

Additinal economic information:

""The study found that if a public plan -- open to all workers and people seeking coverage on the individual market -- was to pay health care providers at the same rates as Medicare, it would soon have about 131 million beneficiaries, while enrollment in private plans would drop. Lewin Vice President John Sheils said that under that scenario, "The private industry might just fizzle out altogether." A public plan paying Medicare rates would charge monthly premiums for family coverage of about $761, compared with an average of $970 in private plans, according to the study."

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repor ts/rep_index.cfm?hint=3&DR_ID=57901

This represents a savings of 2500 per year.

Nor does your argument make much sense on the wage loss front.

""Most economists combine wages and benefits when examining employee compensation and the dynamics of the labor market. Firms that continue to offer health insurance will focus on the total compensation, and when paying higher benefit costs may reduce wages (or wage growth) in an attempt to keep total worker compensation (wages and benefits) the same.[30]  The empirical evidence has tended to show that health care cost increases are indeed offset by either direct wage reductions, increased employee cost sharing, or in instances where wages are fixed (i.e., unionized contracts), by increases in the number of hours worked)."

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/costgrowth/#e mployees

So, again, penny wise, pound foolish. You are arguing idealogical points. Not how to financially help the middle class.

The cost savings regarding healthcare IT is an industry talking point. This is not the reason why we do not have savings in the US.

Here's another chart to illustrate the issue:

Health Care Spending As a % of GDP, 2003
Country    Total Health Spending    Public Spending    Private Spending
Canada    9.2%    6.5%    2.7%
France    9.5%    6.5%    2.7%
Germany    10.7%    8.0%    2.7%
Italy    8.4%    6.3%    2.1%
Japan    7.6%    6.0%    1.8%
USA    13.9%    6.2%    6.7%

Take into account that for the EU altogher , with a population of over 400, they pay 9 percent (using the highest average) for healthcare.

if you look at the numbers, where we lose out in competing against other countries is the amount we pay in private healthcare spending. Not quality of record keeping or litigation,the other boogieman.  That according to recent reports out of Tx is next to nothing.

I am not even getting into the issue of our quality of care only being the same or lower than other countries.

The chart above came out a messed up. If you look at the numbers, the column for private healthcare costs tells the tell. The fact is we are paying more for private care than any other part of the world. If you think about it, this is especially screwed up because the government has typically been dealing iwth older patients such as those with medicare and medicaid.

You are making shit up.

By the way- Bowers would simply ignore many of you or ban you from his site given your over the top behavior here.

You know this how?

but they're going to avoid using reconciliation for as long as they possibly can so they don't have to revisit this in five years.

Right now I only could two dead set against a public option; Lieberman, Landrieu. Four who are leaning no; Nelson, Lincoln, Conrad, Hagan...Baucus will almost certainly vote for a public option if it makes it into the final bill, but he'll do what he can to prevent that from happening. Olympia Snowe has said she'd vote for a public option, so there's one Republican.

The desire for a public option is much much stronger in the House than the desire against one in the Senate.