Third Party & Independents Archives

David,

I have to shamefully admit that I am one of millions of American’s that don’t understand the proposed legislation. I know you have done your research on this, do you mind posting some links on the plan?

Wow, talk about sowing lies and misinformation…

•more than 100 million Americans will be without health insurance over the next 10 to 20 years

At best estimates. I find it interesting that you presume to know what will happen 20 years from now as if people will not change the direction of the past few years. Hey, maybe allowing competition back into the marketplace might help stave that off? Oh right, that’s not an option…

•the cost of Medicare/Medicaid will bankrupt the U.S. Government by forcing borrowing to the breaking point

And putting millions MORE people on that same system won’t make it happen faster? If Medicare/Medicaid, which are used to show how well the government can run an health insurance plan, are in that deep of trouble, what will expanding it do, do you think?

•consumers in 10 years will be spending so much on health care and insurance premiums that they will have little left for discretionary spending, and that will tank economic activity, deepening the government’s losses in revenues.

Another crystal ball moment, you make assumptions, treat them as factual and want everyone to run screaming around in a panic joining you.

This is not a time for Americans to become suckers for lies, misinformation, and deception for political purposes.

That I agree with completely!

Wanted: Honesty on Health Care - The president’s health care lies might be injurious to your health

Ignoring the reality that Medicare—the government-funded program for the elderly—has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan—the so-called “public option”—after Medicare in order to control the country’s rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans—to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare’s lax attitude on this front. “The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach,” it noted on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin—not improve—even the functioning aspects of private plans.

David:

First of all CBO has clearly said that the current plans do very little to help our countries fiscal issues.

Secondly, while Americans do support health care reform they are against this particular model. It is very hard to demonize GOP when they happen to be on the side of the Ameircan people with this debate.

In fact most Americans believe current Health Care reform will harm their care:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121982/Seniors-Skeptical-Healthcare-Reform.aspx

This of course can be blamed on the Republicans. However, don’t confuse being opposed to this form of Health care reform as to being opposed to all health care reform.

I am tickled that the CBO is sober and not drinking the Kool Aid that is being dished out. They have shown that current Health Care reform actually worsens our economic picture.

This leads me to the conclusion that Dems need to go back to the drawing board and try again as in start over.

Health Care reform is obviously harder than Dems first thought. Americans have figured it out.

I wonder if there will be a rider (attempted to be) attached that states that all senators and congressmen will have to switch to the public option that they pass?

Note that the IMF is making 0% loans to several small countries complaining of not doing well under free trade. Says the IMF will sell gold to make some of the loans. I wonder where the IMF got their money to make these loans. Did we ever debate that? I’ve heard nothing of the US giving money to the IMF for loans to small countries. Did I vote for that? I really don’t want free trade, I want fair trade. You know, a balanced trade policy, US inspection teams on their soil to protect the consumer and provide security. I don’t want to purchase soccer balls made by 4 years olds in sweat shops. Living wage, human rights and all of that. Also, tired of the IMF and other governmental entities giving money to tin pot dictators around the world while allowing their people to gently starve to death. The only real growth taking place at this time, truth be known, is in Swiss bank accounts for dictators and tax evaders. Interesting that the UBS can’t release the names on the accounts of US citizens. Against Swiss law they say. I believe the Swiss citizens have the same problem getting names on the accounts of Swiss citizens having US accounts. Against the law here too. Kind of like price fixing you know. Takes two to tangle, etc. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.
Contrary to popular belief that the government can’t run a successful business they have managed to sell a huge number of new cars in just one week. They blew through a billion in less than a week and are coming up with two billion more for the following weeks. Did I vote to help purchase a car for someone else? Also, this week I am helping to pay, $50M, for a west coast state to remove old fish nets from the sea. I swear I didn’t put a one of them there. Should that be a state responsibility? Did I vote for that?

Seems the Chinese want the US to adopt a new healthcare policy moreso than US Citizens. From a strictly monetary position, they have more to loose than we do.

Well, with 2010 elections looming on the horizon and near 50% of voters receiving subsidies and not paying taxes it is unlikely that we won’t get a healthcare bill passed. But, at what cost? How do you provide coverage for the 45M without insurance and 12-20M illegal immigrants without significant cost increase to the taxpayer. One bill floating around offered that if any family member was eligible then the entire family was eligible. One could then construe that if an illegal immigrant in the US received insurance their remote family might also be covered. As they were no measure in the bill for enforcement, who would know, who would care?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Rhinehold, sorry the logic escapes you. If we don’t pass health care reform, more than 100 million, (near 50 million already), will not be able to afford health insurance. Rather than argue from a knee jerk gut reaction, why not research the trend line to date, and try to refute it?

If you we don’t pass health care reform, more than 100 million, (near 50 million already), will not be able to afford health insurance.

First of all, this nonsense has been refuted several times. A large percentage of these 50 million do not purchase healthcare because they choose not to, not because they can’t afford it. Anyone who ‘can’t afford it’ is most likely eligible for Mediaid, correct?

While we could adjust the limits for when Medicaid can kick in if we feel that it should be a lower number, you throw logic out of the window and make the screaming assumption that the 50 million (estimated) that do not have healthcare all do so because of a single reason, cost. And further that they are not choosing to purchase other non-essential goods and services above healthcare.

I am not arguing from a knee jerk gut reaction, I am pointing out that you are making wild assumptions of how things will be in 20 years, as if you have any real way of knowing, and arguing that we must fix that problem NOW. The same person who said, just four years ago, that Social Security was not a crisis because it was going to be a problem in 20 years time.

Just because you agree with who is in charge of fixing the problem now it is somehow a ‘crisis’.

The second false premise was that Social Security is broke and threatens our economy. This, it turns out, is a complete fabrication, like the yellow cake, mobile biological weapons labs and other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All false! The Social Security system is currently quite healthy. In fact, according to its Trustees who manage it, the Social Security program is today taking in more revenues from workers than it is paying out and will continue its many years of producing surplus revenues. The purpose of the surpluses is to cover those future periods when the system is paying out more than it is taking in. Congress, years ago, increased FICA deductions for just that purpose.

The third false premise is that radical changes must be made today to save the system. It is true that if no changes are made, many decades from now, around 2070, Social Security will no longer be economically viable. But that is almost 7 decades from now. Bush’s summiteers submissively acceded to Bush’s “fear” that if we don’t do something major now to fix the problem, all Americans face economic collapse.

Craig said: “First of all CBO has clearly said that the current plans do very little to help our countries fiscal issues.”

That’s less than full disclosure, Craig.

The CBO said the former version, as in, not the latest which cuts 100 billion of the cost, would cost about 1 trillion dollars, AND their projection only extends out 9 to 10 years. If a reform measure cuts health care costs through measures like those implemented by the V.A. for example, those cost savings become cumulative for every year thereafter that they are in place.

Example: The VA’s patient centered records keeping and sharing amongst the various doctors and nurses that a patient visits over time, reduces medical errors, eliminates duplication of services, lowers medical malpractice suits, and reduces risks from duplicative diagnostics. It would take the government’s several hundred million to induce America’s health care deliverers to put in place this kind of technology, and several years.

This means that the federal plan would incur costs putting in place such cost saving technology over the course of 5 years for example. CBO includes the cost, but, only calculates the savings for an additional 5 years, despite the fact that those savings would continue to be reaped by the Medicare/Medicaid, and public option insurance plans for a great many years beyond CBO’s estimates across 10 years from this year.

The right is deliberately ignoring and misrepresenting such realities in order to make their political case for why the American people should not have voted them out of office in 2006 and 2008.

Rhinehold, please don’t project your own lack of information on others.
Health Care Cost Increases to Continue at Double Digit Rates, According to Buck Consultants Survey

The research backs up my assertion. What do you have backing yours?

Rhinehold is participating the right wing disinformation by quoting falsehoods about Obama’s plan being patterned after the Medicare model. Fact: some parts of Obama’s plan are patterned after the V.A.’s model, which has the highest quality care at the lowest cost of any health care provider sector in America.

Fact, even the costs to Medicare in recent years have grown significantly slower than that of the private sectors growth in health care costs.

Do some honest objective homework on the issue instead of cherry picking misinformation that supports your ideological viewpoint.

It is not nonsense Rhinehold. You say: “First of all, this nonsense has been refuted several times. A large percentage of these 50 million do not purchase healthcare because they choose not to, not because they can’t afford it.”

So, I ask you, if health insurance were affordable for those who choose not to insure currently, would it not be a safe assumption that more of them would purchase health insurance? Careful how you respond, the answer lies in an understanding of cost/benefit analysis of consumer choices and principles of supply and demand which conservatives claim to subscribe to.

Rhinehold continues with misinformation by saying: “Just because you agree with who is in charge of fixing the problem now it is somehow a ‘crisis’.”

I don’t agree with who is in charge of fixing the problem. I am president of VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS FOR DEMOCRACY. I oppose who is in charge of fixing the problem, every day, night, and twice on Sunday.

Thank you though for demonstrating the tactics I discuss in the article.

Roy, China and Peru, 2nd and 1st, fastest growing economies on the planet. China’s comes in at 9% I just heard an hour or two ago. Didn’t catch what Peru’s growth rate was, but obviously higher than 9%.

More right wing FALSE scare tactics, just in from FactCheck.Org:

A new TV ad sponsored by an anti-abortion group shows a white-haired man fretting that under a federal health plan, “They won’t pay for my surgery, but we’re forced to pay for abortions.”

“Will this be our future?” the ad asks, merging the fears of seniors worried about their health care with those of anti-abortion advocates. “Our greatest generation, denied care. Our future generation, denied life.”

In fact, the bills pending in Congress – at least those that have made it through the committee level – don’t mention abortion at all. Furthermore, none of the bills call explicitly for cuts in Medicare coverage, or rationing under a public plan.

And a previous law from the 1980’s I believe, still stands, no federal dollars may be spent on abortion procedures. The looney tooney right, though is eating this false conservative garbage like there is no more food on the shelves anywhere in America.

Research shows the vast majority of Americans believing Obama is not a citizen or have doubts, reside in the South from the Atlantic to West Texas. Not surprising, I suppose. But, interesting, nonetheless. Only about 20% of Americans fall into this group, but, half of those live in the South. Harkens back to some of my articles and comments regarding the South and education and how their educational systems promote their politics, as if designed by the incumbent politicians themselves.

David
Where do you think Planned Parenthood gets most of it’s money from if not the federal government, you don’t think they provide abortions to low income or welfare women for free do you?

KAP,

Less than 20% of the abortions in this country are performed by Planned Parentood.

Rocky

The research backs up my assertion. What do you have backing yours?

Let’s see, what research backs up my assertion that you can’t know, as a fact, what our healthcare system will look like in 20 years if the government does nothing…

Gee, I guess you have me there David, I don’t have any way to prove you can’t see into the future.

I was under the assumption that there are way to many variable to say, for sure, that the industry wouldn’t change on its own, the companies wouldn’t start looking for cheaper alternatives, someone wouldn’t create a non-for profit options that was accessible to all individuals, etc. If I had known that you could see into the future like that, I wouldn’t have bothered.

Rhinehold is participating the right wing disinformation by quoting falsehoods about Obama’s plan being patterned after the Medicare model. Fact: some parts of Obama’s plan are patterned after the V.A.’s model, which has the highest quality care at the lowest cost of any health care provider sector in America.

Some parts. And I’m a veteran who avoids the VA option like the plague because I prefer more options about my individual healthcare than they are allowed to provide. My grandfather had a decent experience on some of his visits there for emergency care, but the regular doctor was not nearly as good and most likely cost him his life last year.

You’ll be surprised if you can’t sell me on the VA system as my only option of healthcare.

Fact, even the costs to Medicare in recent years have grown significantly slower than that of the private sectors growth in health care costs.

And fact, most everyone who has Medicare has to purchase supplement insurance on their own to cover their costs. They keep the costs down by covering LESS. Again, sounds like a bangup plan to me, even covering less and stopping the bleeding a little bit they are still going to bankrupt this country with a fraction of the insurered as is being suggested that it take on.

Do some honest objective homework on the issue instead of cherry picking misinformation that supports your ideological viewpoint.

Oh, I have. Have you? Because I’ve already pointed out how you are just as bad as you claim the Republicans are.

It is not nonsense Rhinehold. You say: “First of all, this nonsense has been refuted several times. A large percentage of these 50 million do not purchase healthcare because they choose not to, not because they can’t afford it.”

So, I ask you, if health insurance were affordable for those who choose not to insure currently, would it not be a safe assumption that more of them would purchase health insurance?

Possibly. It depends on why they aren’t choosing it. How do you plan on making it cheaper other than making it cost more for others? Perhaps they choose to pay for their medical expenses as they come instead of getting insurance? Perhaps they just don’t want insurance at the present time (I went several years in my mid 20s without it because I had no choices and I was in very good health). A great solution would be, as we have talked about before, putting together some good non-for-profit healthcare alternatives that weren’t government run to avoid politics in the health care decision making process. I am all for supporting that. In fact, there are other options I support as well. I was calling for reform in the 1990s though, before the dems decided to blow it up by making it a mockery of a solution.

Careful how you respond, the answer lies in an understanding of cost/benefit analysis of consumer choices and principles of supply and demand which conservatives claim to subscribe to.

Oh dear, did I answer right? I wouldn’t want to disappoint you…

Rhinehold continues with misinformation by saying: “Just because you agree with who is in charge of fixing the problem now it is somehow a ‘crisis’.”

I don’t agree with who is in charge of fixing the problem. I am president of VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS FOR DEMOCRACY. I oppose who is in charge of fixing the problem, every day, night, and twice on Sunday.

Interesting, here I thought you were supporting the Obama healthcare plan. I really misread that one then. So you are opposed to the Obama healthcare plan? You didn’t openly support Obama during the campaign?

Thank you though for demonstrating the tactics I discuss in the article.

Thanks for completely missing the point I was making about you participating in the very tactics you were arguing against. It’s like it just buzzed right over your head.

Rocky
I don’t care how many they perform, they still get federal money. They can perform 20% or 100% it’s still federal money!!!!!!!!!

KAP, please, do some research. Planned Parenthood does far, far, far more than just abortions, and no federal dollars go to pay for abortions. Yes, planned parenthood receives federal dollars through Title 10 and Medicare if I recall correctly, but, for non-abortion services.

Or, have you been getting your misinformation from right-wing conspiracy theorists crying the government is killing millions of unborn American citizens?

KAP, of course you don’t care for facts, details, and reality as you say. Those would undermine such an ideological perspective and fantasy of a great left-wing conspiracy to do conservatives in. Right wing extremists want to secede from the union. If I were that paranoid, I would want to secede from humanity as well, or at least all of it that didn’t mirror me.

There is a world of difference between empirically based facts and projections following rules of logic and probablistic models which can nonetheless be proven wrong, and inventing facts to support ones fears which can never be proven wrong to the those inventing them.

The left and right wing conspiracy theorists have everything in common in this regard.

Rhinehold, if you understood logic, you would understand the construction, if that is true, then the following must be true. This construction is based on the assumption of all other things being equal. It is a common enough logical construction and understood by those who understand the rules of logic. My assertion that if we do not pass health care reform, it will bankrupt a hundred or more Americans and the federal government, assumes all other things are equal. And if that assumption holds, then my assertion is true based on the facts and data I have already presented, double digit annual health care inflation and the rapidly growing deficits resulting from Medicare/Medicaid obligations without health care reform which drives down the cost of health for federal programs providing health care coverage.

Your welcome for the 101 lesson.

Yes, Rhinehold, and I can point out that the sun is made of purple pop sicles, but the evidence would prove would my assertion ridiculous. Point out anything you like, Rhinehold. It is meaningless without evidence to support its credibility and veracity.

Where is your evidence that we will NOT experience rapidly rising health care inflation without health care reform? Where is your evidence that the Medicare/Medicaid programs will be spending more than they take in a couple years from now? Where is your evidence, Rhinehold. Because to prove I am wrong, you must prove that my facts regarding health care inflation and deficit projections for Medicare/Medicaid are wrong, since those premise facts lead directly to the conclusion I drew, using logical construction.

Where is your evidence, Rhinehold?

David
If you think Planned Parenthood does not do abortions with federal funds your wrong. I know they do more than abortions but their money maker is ABORTIONS. I don’t know where you get your info from but I think you need to change sources. I googled planned parenthood funding and they do do abortions with federal funds. Like I said if a low income or welfare women goes in for an abortion WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR IT planned parenthood is not doing it for free.

David
The law was the Hyde amendment, prohibited federal funds from being used for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, and life threatening circumstances. The catch is the life threatening part. How many abortions have been done using that excuse. I’d venture to say about 99% with the 1% being the actual figure for a women who ac tually had a life threatening pregnancy.

And at the seventh inning stretch, we have Remer and Rhinehold all tied up 12-12. A very offensive game this evening folks. :-)

Rob, I can provide some links, but, this reform bill is still a work in progress. A key House committee is reported to have resolved major stumbling block issues between liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrats, but the details aren’t out yet as far as I can tell.

You can check the latest stories as of Friday’s MSM here.

The Democratic Leadership in the House held a press conference Friday in which they detailed some of the main items, which include the following:

Closing donut hole in Medicare Rx drug plan.

Ending the practice by insurance companies canceling insurance policies due to catastrophic illnesses or mounting costs for treatment.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition option for denying health insurance. (Not sure if this will apply to private insurers, it may just be the public option which allows the uninsured who can’t get private insurance to opt into the public option).

Providing some subsidies to low and middle income cash strapped families struggling to keep up health insurance premiums.

Providing insurance for folks which is portable, and won’t end as a result of employment loss or changing of jobs with the public option, which also opens the door for would be entrepreneurs who couldn’t take the small business creation step for fear of losing their employer provided insurance for their spouse and children.

No caps on procedural costs. They said if you get cancer, the cancer treatment expenses will not be capped, as they are with many private insurers. As long as treatments are available which have a history of successful remission or recovery, those treatments will be provided without caps.

But, Rob, there is the full House vote which still has to occur and I don’t yet know whether amendments prior to that vote will be permitted. Then there is the Senate version which will have differences. Then there will be the Conference Committee result which will resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions. So, there is nothing set in stone yet as to what will become the final version. We have only one version coming out of the House Committees which Democrats say they now have consensus amongst themselves on.

KAP, I would prefer your providing evidence, as opposed to venturing your own guesses. That would be more persuasive for me.

You said: “I googled planned parenthood funding and they do do abortions with federal funds.”

Yet you provide no link to what you found. Wonder why? I googled it too and could not find any evidence that federal dollars are paid to Planned Parenthood for abortion procedures, which circumvent the Hyde Amendment law.

Please, share the link to your source if you can. If you won’t, I understand, completely.

KAP said: “I know they do more than abortions but their money maker is ABORTIONS.”

Abortions may be there money maker. But, where is your evidence that FEDERAL dollars are being paid to them for those abortions. Sorry, KAP, I just can’t believe the MSM would have missed such an enormous story if it were the case.

Where is your evidence. You won’t persuade me or any objective person with your wishful guesses as to what you think must be going on. Show me the evidence.

Edge, have anything of value to contribute on the topic?

BTW, for those who want to levy legitimate critique at the Democrats over the health care reform issue, research their proposal’s apparent inclusion of illegal aliens for public tax dollar paid health insurance. That one’s got me boiling.

We are not talking emergency room life threatening treatment here. That’s already provided for.

We are talking House Democrat’s reform bill extending regular maintenance health insurance to illegal aliens, on the basis that Rep. Waxman claims it would be onerous to require U.S. citizens to provide proof of citizenship. Damn Democrats will promote illegal immigration by any means possible, apparently, for purely political reasons, regardless of cost to taxpayers or the deficits and debt to insure other nation’s peoples who may decide to become Democratic voting citizens here in return.

Damn Democrats will be hearing from me on this one.

I think those spreading lies should be pointed out and embarrassed. I suspect that will begin to happen over the next few weeks.

The CBO report is a problem. It should be dealt with on a longer term basis. Nothing wrong with long term planning.

The reality is a plan actually dealing with costs on a shorter timetable would not pass, or be capitulation to Rhinehold’s fantasy of abolishing any government program to help those needing help with medical care.

It is important to understand the angle that opponents are coming from to understand the basis of their arguments.

Why can’t conservatives argue on the facts? Planned Parenthood does not receive or use federal funds to perform on demand abortions. It receives federal funds under Title X for comprehensive family planning which include access to contraceptives, STD prevention and diagnosis. Any funding that it may receive under state Medicaid contracts for abortion services must be limited, due to the Hyde Amendment, to cases involving incest, rape and threat to a woman’s life.

The above facts are easily verified.

gergle, quite right. The CBO though I think is doing its job responsibly. It can’t in any realistic fashion score cost savings from the reforms well out past 10 years, without making a whole lot of highly variable predictions about demographics, war, recessions, etc. to calculate the government’s revenues decades from now. In other words, there are intrinsic limitations to what CBO can score and how far out.

This limitation however, does not refute the fact that the VA type medical record integration databases, for example, would continue to insure higher quality medical care delivery, continue to reduce administrative costs and duplicative costs well out past their 10 year limitation window on scoring. Same with the per capita/procedural cost savings resulting from the private sector’s having to compete with a non-profit insurer with lower administrative fees, and economy of scale. These are cost reductions that will continue well out past the 10 year window, all other things being equal.

And yes, if the government tried to pay for the reforms in one lump sum for the costs to be incurred over the next 10 years, it would not pass. But, then, neither would NASA’s budget for a decade be approved if allocated in a single year’s budget. Or national defense for that matter. That is why individuals, businesses, and the government operate on annual budgets, not 10 year budget allocations. Spreading cost over time is how we all manage our money in one fashion or another.

I for one, buy a vehicle, pay it off, and drive it at least another 5 to 10 years after it is paid off. This is a way of allocating costs over time which makes my transportation costs very affordable. That and doing my own backyard mechanical repairs where and when I can.

As for understanding opponents angle, my article only addressed opponents dedicating their efforts to lies, misinformation and deception as their means. There are many opponents with legitimate concerns, like mine with coverage for illegal aliens being extended on the taxpayer’s dollars, or those concerned about this doubling and more the national debt since the year 2000. Their concerns need to be addressed if their support is to be forthcoming.

The opponents I discuss here however, are those who WOULD oppose ANY plan put forth by Democrats, regardless of how laudable, for no other reason than to create fault with Democrats in the public’s eye. In other words, for political reasons of a politically self-interested nature.

Politics has ruined enough of America’s future already. As you say, there is nothing wrong with long term planning or long term implementation. In fact, certain problems we face today cannot be brought about any other way, like deficit and debt reduction. The midst of a deep recession is no time to be trying to cut national debt if doing so would exacerbate or prolong the recession. There is a logical order to certain priorities as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs amply demonstrates. Health is precondition for a competitive work force and educational proficiency. And our economy going forward will require a healthier and better educated work force if it is going to compete with China and a host of other emerging industrial and technological economies in the world.

Simply reducing obesity and sedentary educational curricula would reduce our overall health care costs significantly across the decades to come. Maintenance health care with a focus on prevention is where some of the provisions in this health care reform idea being fashioned. That is precisely the kind of long term planning our nation needs, addressing cost savings throughout this challenging demographic hump called the boomer generation.

There is a lot to be commended in the direction these reforms are headed. Then too, there is a lot that yet needs more work, like honest discussion of what limits will have to be placed voluntarily or by law on very high cost marginal or experimental procedures to extend life only days, weeks, or months. That aspect however, I believe will be dealt with in future legislation.

There is a point at which trying to cover too much at once, can prevent anything being done at all. An article yesterday questioned whether health care reform is too complex an issue for the American people to even address and pass. I hope and believe that is not the case, but, I could be proved wrong. We shall have to wait and see. Trying to guage the quota of complexity the American people can handle, is a very inexact exercise at best.

Rich, the facts get in the way of their agenda. So they are discounted and disregarded. Hence, all the ‘dissy’ fits.

What everybody is forgetting is that millions of Americans cannot afford $25,000.00 a year for real Health Insurance due to their lack of income. So the simple solution is for the Barons of Society to give every Working American a raise that will cover such expenses and still provide the American Consumer a decent Purchasing Power to buy the junk made by Commerce and Industry.

Now, the question remains if the Barons of Society was to give everyone that kind of wage increase. How many Americans would purchase the Health Insurance instead of blowing it?

Any why I can only speak for myself, maybe the Grandparents of the Great Depression had a good idea when they insisted Employers paid for their Employees Health Care Insurance out of pre taxable income instead of Thinking that the Workers would just becuase they were given the money.

Just look at what happened when Congress gave the top 20% the majority of the tax cuts a few years ago. How many of the Social Elite did the right thing with their increase of income?

Now, does anyone think those making less money and having less education would do any better?

So why you can quote all the facts and studies on the issue of Health Care, try educating Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders how $25,000.00 a year for every American Citizen is going to get us more Doctors and Nurses to provide more services than is needed in the medical industry. Since having 5 Doctors for every one patient will surely drive the cost of health care down instead of 500 plus patients for every one Doctor.

Funny thing is that I can’t quick search those numbers on the net or find them in the Common Knowledge of Man. Can anybody help?

David, Peru is doing well in GDP growth and it seems a good trade relation with the US. They export things to us we don’t have a lot of, and we in turn do the same for them.
To bring reform to the healthcare industry requires that we establish a strong third party with a different political attitude. Through such a party we would abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech law, direct all campaign donations from the individual though the IRS to a reorganized FEC for distribution to viable political parties
At that point we would have removed the money influence from government and put accountability into the system. Now we could make it lawful for people to procure drugs from overseas. We could establish not-for-profits by region across the country. A region would incorporate a sufficient customer base, medical institutions and diagnostic facilities. Could be one per state in say, Vermont, or several per state in Calif or Florida. The not-for-profit would replace, to a large degree, the healthcare insurance industry. as we know it. Also, would replace the corporation as being the go-between for providing access to healthcare. The not-for-profit would manage a national database that would be available in each business offering medical/dental care. There you could select a healthcare plan from several levels offered. The database would contain all your insurance/medical history. You could also pay your bill via check, CC, or if you can’t pay, set up a payment schedule. Sort of one stop shopping for all you healthcare needs.

KAP,

The only link that I saw was Covenant News and I made sure my tinfoil hat was on tightly before reading too much of it.
The right to lifers seem to believe that Planned Parenthood has concocted some nefarious plot to suck every dime it can away from the government so that it might abort every embryo on the planet, and therefore take over the world.

Excuse me if I find this scenario just a bit too hard to believe.

Rocky

Henry, the comments you presented regarding the very wealthy underwriting higher wages to the extent that everyone can afford health insurance premiums fails reality tests on many grounds.

First, raising such wages would have its own social and public cost as the increases are passed on to consumers, increasing consumer inflation, and constraining economic activity. If our economy was growing like Peru’s or China’s, we could probably afford that without significantly dropping the quality of life of consumers. But, we our economy is going to be struggling for as far as the CBO can see.

Second, unless you are talking about hiking the minimum wage to such a level, your solution relies upon the private sector execs and shareholders to voluntarily restrict profits so that employees can have insurance. That is not how the corporate world works across the board. Though there are some successful corporations that do prize their employees as high as customers, but, that is certainly not a nation wide corporate and small business perspective.

Finally, the solution doesn’t address health care inflation, which, regardless of affordability and access issues currently, will continue to threaten our economy and the federal government’s unfunded Medicare/Medicaid obligations going forward.

Roy said: “To bring reform to the healthcare industry requires that we establish a strong third party with a different political attitude.”

I am absolutely an advocate for more parties represented in Congress. However, this is an issue which must be addressed 10 years ago, not 10 or 20 years from now, which is the minimum time it will take get substantial 3rd party representation in our Congress by my estimate.

This recession and unemployment have seriously advanced the date when the federal government will deficit spend to cover Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security benefits due to the serious cutback in payroll taxes being collected for these purposes. There simply isn’t the luxury of time anymore to wait for a 3rd party presence to show the duopoly party the way and horse trade with them on this issue in Congress.

Rich, its hard to argue on the facts when the only facts liberals accept are the ones which support their agenda. There are many examples of that in this article alone.
Over 70% of Americans want healthcare reform is a fact based on polling. Equating that 70% to also mean that 70% want the govt run Obama liberal plan is nothing but misinformation and lies. The same polling that showed 70% want reform also revealed that less than half of Americans are willing to pay for it.

The leftists blame the conservative politicians by saying they are trying to kill America for political reasons as if it is impossible for them to be representing those who voted for them. More lies and misinformation all in order to push a personal agenda. The Reps and Dems against this are receiving plenty of feedback to be against this BS from their voters, but in order to acknowledge this fact, liberals would also have to acknowledge that not ALL Americans are with in lockstep with their agenda.

The best ones are the crystal ball “facts.” We can look into the future and see a bankrupt nation because govt did not control and run healthcare, but we cannot look at history and current events and see a socialist nation because govt does control and run things like healthcare?

Some facts but not others Rich. That is how the game is played.

“Ladies and gentlemen, America cannot afford NOT to pass health care reform. We have enormous other pressing issues to deal with and we must put this biggest threat to our economy behind us so we can move on to deal with the other threats, like Social Security”

This is freakin classic.
Healthcare is a financial drain on our economy, so we must hurry up and give govt control of healthcare. Why? Because govt needs to go throw more money at other govt controlled programs that are in trouble, like socialist security.
We don’t have the money to deal with the current govt program problems but we should go ahead and add to them ten-fold?
Feel good politics at its best.

I favor a Scandinavian style system which will include managed care, rationing and a virtual elimination of the role of lawyers in health care.

I find all sides of this debate unreal.

Liberals imply that you will get the same quality of care you now get if you are well insured - you won’t.

Conservatives imply that we can make some tweaks and all will be okay with a market.

A government run system will NOT be as good as what a well insured person has today, but it can be cheaper and it can cover all Americans.

The WORST situaion is the kind of thing that the Pelosi squad are doing. So I have a problem. We should oppose the current health care proposals coming out of the Congress because they are stupid and based on dishonesty. However we do NEED some radical reform.

I don’t know if we will make it. We had a similar problem in 2005 trying to reform SS. Everybody knows the system is headed for disaster, but we cannot decide what to do.

In both cases we had poor leadership. Bush did a bad job of trying to reform SS. Obama/Pelosi are doing a bad job of trying to reform health care. Maybe all politicans are indeed idiots, with very few exception.

It is easier to promise than to deliver. Maybe we just should ask less of government, which has proven to be unable to deliver more.

David,
Why providing the same health care to the Poor as is available to CEO’s and top management may seem impossible. Let’s reverse the problem and see how many CEO’s and top management would be able to afford their health insurance if all Americans lost $25,000.00 a year in their purchasing power. Since without the sell of goods and services no Corporation could keep stockholders, pay their bills, or afford paying million dollar bonuses.

Simple math, but a hard problem to solve. For eliminate the purchasing power of the consumer and all of Wall Street falls down; however, require Trickledown Economics to realease such funds especially without restrictions and nobody wins. Hence, President Obama does make a very good point when he suggests that America becomes a Trickle-Up Economy with Consumers taking responsibilty for more of their own life.

For I don’t claim to know how one goes about teaching every American how to use a Personal Medical Savings Plan to do the same thing insurance companies are doing; nevertheless, knowing that the Laws of the Land will allow me to pay a $1.00 pe month on any bill I owe should go a long way in creatative thinking by Lawyers and inspired Enterpremeurs to open up the opportunity for Managed Personal Medical Savings Plans for folks that cannot afford the current premiums given their current pay. Especially since those making less than $50,000.00 a year would have zero purchasing power after paying taxes and the $25,000.00 cost of health care.

Christine, you’re right on the money accept for

“Maybe all politicians are indeed idiots, with very few exception.

I wish it was just a matter of them being idiots. They are bought and paid for. (They’re crooked.) They tell us what we want to hear, then do what special interests want them to do. You think CEO,s get big bonuses, They’re nothing compared to campaign contributions.

What a cop-out David. “we are headed for disaster with the current government therefore we shouldn’t be planning to prevent the pending disaster”. Or, are we incapable of doing two things at once? Just suppose a new third party coming up caused a huge number of ‘no votes’ for the duopoly in 2010. Wouldn’t that put a damper on their antics? If not now, when? After the next depression, or worse? This healthcare issue and recession is a minor thing relative to where we are headed. The next several generations are indebted to the Chinese, no, the Communist Party of China to the trillions. You think that want put a damper on new car sales?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

Roy, who are you quoting with ““we are headed for disaster with the current government therefore we shouldn’t be planning to prevent the pending disaster”.”

I don’t think you are quoting me, but, you seem to be replying to me on the basis of that quote. This whole article is about planning to prevent the pending health care system meltdown that is looming before us with the retirement of the baby boomers.

And no, it is not a minor thing at all. It is a national bankrupting crisis staring us in the face. It doesn’t get more dire than that except for being attacked by a foreign power. The economy is the lynch pin to all other social and national activity. Fail that, and the nation will suffer horribly. Dismissing this issue as minor, is pretty out of touch with reality. We are poised to enter a future where half of our GDP is spent on inefficient, degrading quality health care. Not a minor issue at all.

I find your last comment to me inexplicable.

David wrote, “We are poised to enter a future where half of our GDP is spent on inefficient, degrading quality health care. Not a minor issue at all”.
No, it is a very, very serious issue along with several tens of other very very serious issues. So, what are we going to do about it? Well, I’m going to write my rep’s and complain! I’m going to get on the blog and let em hear my thunder! etcetera.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

kctim said: “The best ones are the crystal ball “facts.” We can look into the future and see a bankrupt nation because govt did not control and run healthcare,”

Thanks for the belly laugh, kctim. We are living in a present, which was our future a couple years ago, when I wrote that our economy was heading for a deadfall and it was time for 401K owners to begin pulling their investments into fixed funds, and out of the stock markets. Conseravtives pooh poohed my prognostication then. But, I was proved right by the unfolding history, and my critics proved absolutely wrong. And it didn’t take a crystal ball. It only took logic, relevant data, and research to see the writing on the wall regarding the housing bubble and the leveraged state of the nation’s financial status.

And here we are again. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that double digit annual health care inflation and the dramatically dropping numbers of workers paying into Medicare/Medicaid as the bulge of baby boomers retire into years of frequent and high cost medical care, that our nation is again headed for a deadfall, if reforms are not forthcoming.

And there is ONE simple truth and reality at this time. There CAN BE NO REFORM of health care which Democrats don’t sign onto. Think about that. Democrats are in power. Regrettable as that may be, it is reality. The nation must reform health care to curtail the bankrupting health care debt before us. 2+2 still equals four. If health care reform is to happen, and the majority of Americans want it, it will have to come with Democrats approval. The logic is inescapable.

Of course, I understand that your preference would be to delay and stall in the hopes that Democrats lose power and Republicans ascend to power again in 2010. But there is nothing in the political cards or polling data to suggest that is even possible. Democrats, by the polling data, may lose Congressional seats in 2010, but they won’t lose both Houses majority nor the presidency and the economy is improving.

Stalling and delaying on health care reform has been the status quo for decades. We simply can’t afford that option any longer. These are the realities. Rail against them as the minority will, they remain the realities of the day.

Roy, a very commendable response.

The extreme right is only half the problem.
The other half is equally destructive:

• Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).


• Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Good post ‘banned’. We’ve just completed the ‘ping’ and I suggest we will begin the ‘pong’ phase with the 2012 elections.
david, alas, my post missed the mark. What I was attempting to say is that calling your rep’s and complaining, and writing articles in a blogpost is not going to have much effect on the healthcare bill or any other issue, IMO. I agree, it will take several years to foment a serious third party but I see no other way. Not so much a revolution as it is a fight for survival. I would like to see government stop doing anything, other than naming Post Offices’ The DHS is going to set up action agencies all around the US to handle your local terrorist activities. She wants the FBI, Hiway Patrol, ICE and similar to sit in the same room at locations across the US. Didn’t we just pay for fiber optic installation and video conferencing to bring folks together in a virtual meeting? How much would ten such centers cost us? And, couldn’t that money be better used to inspect trucks coming across the border for illegals, drugs and, yes, terrorist. Or how about getting control of the southern border which wuld bring the drug wars to a half?
So many things to straighten out and a third party with a different political attitude is the only way to go, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

kctim,

Certainly, in any discussion, advocates of one side or the other will present facts in support of their position and will attempt to downplay or minimize facts negating or questioning their position. That is understandable. That is neither a uniquely liberal nor conservative trait.

However, on recent issues, conservatives have taken to outright distortion, fabrication and misrepresention of facts. Do we need to look any further than the Obama “birther” issue or the health care “euthanasia” scare to justify that statement. How about the tangential issue at hand: Planned Parenthood use of federal funds for on-demand abortions by low income women. It simply isn’t true.

Despite the outlandish nature of these allegations and lack of factual basis, they are given serious consideration by conservative congressmen and high profile conservative commentators who know or should know the lack of merit in the allegations.

The only thing that I can conclude is that conservatives don’t want a serious discussion on the real issues and facts that face us today, e.g., health care reform. Just throw up a lot of flak, however nonsensical, and divert attention from the main issues.

Rich-
I saw this video today on black holes, and they figured out that we have a black hole at the center by seeing whether the stars at the galactic core were being accelerated.

And they were being accelerated. They then took a look at the degree of the acceleration and the mass of the star in order to deduce the mass of what was pulling them into those fast orbits.

Though it might be an invisible object, this black hole, its pull shows you where it is, what it is, and how strong it is.

The central attractor for Republicans is witholding power from Democrats. They are not so concerned about the principles by which they themselves govern, for they figure that if they’re doing it, they’ve figured things out, and are just doing what circumstances tell them must be done.

Instead, they are concerned that the Democrats might pull people out of their orbit, and into the support of an overall ideology they are essentially taught to reject.

They see people attaining escape velocity, and they want to bend the trajectory of their course away from that escape. They literally want to recapture the support of Americans by taking them out of the Democrat’s orbit.

But inertia applies here as elsewhere, and the force applied to an object leaving at greater speed to bend its course back to orbit is indeed pretty great.

Therefore, they take an ends justify the means approach, and over time, they see nothing else as valid or workable.

David,

The NYT had and interesting op ed piece this morning on the CBO reports:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02sun1.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1249214684-vvjhocZSxEMITnYdzEdLOg

I think eliminating illegal immigration (seems a slumping economy is having a great effect and suggests going after employers/profiteers is the best tactic)and reducing obesity are both separate issues, that shouldn’t be intermingled with the health debate.

I have a theory about obesity being a result of a cross between boredom and sexual repression, and therefore highly entrenched in the American psyche. Dealing with the social ennui and sexual issues of Americans would not be cheap or easy.

Roy,
Alyhough I must respect the Labor and Management of My Community Elders and Peers, I do believe that a third political party can make a very strong statement in 2010. For choose an issue and explain to me why both the Democratic and Republican Parties are wrong. Better yet, show me a platform which will make that issue fair for Every American.

For example; Both political parties and pundits act like Universal Health Care should include everything from cradle to the grave. However, common knowledge and common sense dictates that without a serious increase in the medical workforce that is impossible.

So with President Obama stating that Health Care Reform should move the industry away from Illness and put Healthy Living first. Why can’t a third political party take the stance now that Universal Health Care should only provide Basic Services designed to keep an individual healthy.

Because not only would it limit the exposer of goverment and corporations to medical expenses, but also make individuals take notice that unhealthy things like smoking, overweight, etc. are going to have to be covered by secondary insurance.

In fact, if it was me running the show I would push for a Personal Managed Medical Savings Plan that would allow a citizen to invest as low as $20.00 a week into their account so that they could pay for the normal medical services such as yearly check ups, the occasional injury, and seaonal illness. In this manner, the healthier an individual remains the better their person finances will become.

And for the money lose that has given our hospitals, medical facilities, and EMT units their equipment they enjoy today and will need for tomorrow. I do believe a small share of secondary insurance premiums can be set aside for those expenses since the equipment is needed more for the Ill than one trying to live and maintain a Healthy Lifestyle.

Thus, not a Nanny State or turning a Blind Eye to the problem, but a workable solution which will keep Universal Health Coverage affordable for all Americans in the long run. As well as provide medical insurance for problems that go beyond bsic coverage. For why it may sound cold hearted in today’s world, but why should individuals and the government be on the hook for medical problems that can be prevented or at least minumize with a little Common Knowledge and Common Sense.

Especially since “We the People” have a chioce of paying through our teeth, being taxed, or discovering the means to become Self-Sufficient in providing health and medical care for our families.

Heny, I am supportive of a new third party with a different political attitude. I believe that before the Corpocracy takes us over the big cliff people will look to a third party for a way to reform government. I believe that the Corpocracy has such a strangle hold on our government that we cannot expect a real reform of healthcare or any other issue until reform of government can be achieved. That’s the single goal of Republic Sentry, reform of government. I bliee its in the best interest of the Paraty to target solely reform issues and steer clear of social issues like healthcare, abortion, 2nd amendment rights and the like. We must achieve reform of government before broaching or tacking divisive social issues. If you review the agenda put forth by Republic Sentry you will see there are no social issues given.
That said, I believe, personally, that there are several ways to improve healtcare. Your post offers several good ideas. Ceertainly, healthcare could be packaged in different levels of care, much like buying a car. Young people may not want a basic plan without camcer cpverage. And, you would think there is great benefit to preventitive healthcare, starting from birth o a very young age.
Were we free of the Corpocracy to make decisions on social issues I’ve no doubt there could be real progress. Like procuing drugs from overseas and buying healthcare policies from overseas entities that want to compete in the US market. Why do ‘free traders’ object to that?
Henry, I really don’t want the government to do anything other than name a few Post Offices until we can bring a new third party with a different political attitude into fruition. We can’t begin to debate all the possibilities relative to many social issues because we know debating such things is useless under this Corpocracy.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

gergle, I read the NYT article. Not much new in it for me. I think the writer misses the heart and core of the issue however, which is the political will and independence to prevent reform costs from becoming a problem. Simple re-prioritizing of our federal budget (simple mathematically, not politically), is all that is required to insure that universal health insurance coverage doesn’t become a growing addition to our national debt beyond the first 10 years. Other measures may be preferable to this option, but, this option remains the simplest in principle.

However, virtually no one in America has faith or confidence in our federal government to act so judiciously toward the end or bringing national debt down, instead of growing it. This crisis in confidence lies at the heart of what otherwise should be a very easy reform to pass. The majority of Americans want the public option, the majority of the experts agree that reform is necessary to bend the spiraling health care cost curve in the other direction. This should be a piece of cake. But, it has proved to be impossible in the past, and improbable, politically, in the present. And the reason is the lack of faith in our Congress to commit to a long term effort and maintain fidelity to that effort in the long term.

When Republicans and Democrats trade places in the White House or Congress as majority party, the previous party’s commitments are thrown out the window. Long term strategies are thrown out the window. America has lost its ability to consistently address long term solutions and challenges because of this highly destructive relationship between the Duopoly Parties.

Unless voters punish the parties by rejecting their incumbent’s reelection bids during times like this, when government disappoints the vast majority of citizens, the situation cannot and will not improve, but, only worsen. In a democratically elected government, ultimately the responsibility for government rests with the voters, and the majority of voters in America don’t want that responsibility, as evidenced by their near complete ignorance of the facts and relevant information surrounding the threat of health care to our economic future. Not to mention the voter’s schizophrenic propensity to vote for one party as a majority, and then the other, and back again, as if playing a game of musical chairs between the parties will bring about lasting solutions to long term challenges.

Voting out incumbents, regardless of party, in election after election, and by ever increasing numbers of voters, is the only path I see to get to a point where voters are back in control of government again; and the public’s demands for peace, prosperity, security, and protected Constitutional rights and liberties are acknowledged and acceded to by the political parties, as a means of once again getting their incumbents reelected.

I responded to an inquirer about VOID with a similar line of reasoning a few weeks ago. Her reply was telling. She said, voters taking back control of the government would take too long, and be too hard to accomplish. We need solutions now, she said.

I thought to myself, she wants someone with a magic wand to wave it and make it all better. That is not how the real world works. But, her reply, I fear, is indicative of the mind set of the majority of voters in America today, and if it is, we really are facing a most troubling future. I will nonetheless act as if there is still hope the voters will assume their responsibility to take back control of our government, and demand legislation and Congressional results which they can approve of, using the power of their anti-incumbent vote.

Here is Carl Sagan just before his death at age 62: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBkaP7EY5Us

Here is a program about Richard Feynman started just before his death at age 69: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Pgmx2WCsY

I think they both managed to accomplish a great deal, in spite of living shorter than average lives. Much of the discussion about health care seems to be based on people’s fears.

FEAR, (OED)[OE. foer, sudden calamity, danger, corresponds to OS. far ambush (MDu. vaer), OHG. fara fem. ambush, stratagem, danger, ON. far, misfortune, plague; ]
1. In OE.: A sudden and terrible event; peril.
2. a. The emotion of pain or uneasiness caused by the sense of impending danger, or by the prospect of some possible evil.
Now the general term for all degrees of the emotion; in early use applied to its more violent extremes, now denoted by alarm, terror, fright, dread. In 14th c. sometimes pleonastically dread and fear.
1490 CAXTON Eneydos xv. 61 O Jupyter, hast thou..determyned..to gyue vs tremoure and feere.
1671 MILTON P.R. III. 206 Where no hope is left, is left no fear.
1725 WATTS Logic I. VI. §12 We are in Danger of it [Passion], it raises our fear.
1776 GIBBON Decl. & F. I. 303 Fear has been the original parent of superstition.
1809-10 COLERIDGE Friend (1865) 107 A contract..might be entered into through fear.
1875 MANNING Mission H. Ghost x. 265 Fear without fortitude degenerates into timidity.
b. personified.
1590 SPENSER F.Q. III. xii. 12 Next him was Feare, all arm’d from top to toe.
1817 COLERIDGE Poems 69 Pale Fear Haunted by ghastlier shapings.
c. An instance of the emotion; a particular apprehension of some future evil.
1701 DE FOE True-born Eng. 2 With needless Fears the..Nation fill.
d. A state of alarm or dread. Chiefly in phrase in fear
1535 COVERDALE Esther xiv. 19 Delyuer me out of my feare.
1581 G. PETTIE Guazzo’s Civ. Conv. III. (1586) 159b, They..make it a sport to put their children in feare.
1653 HOLCROFT Procopius I. 17 The Barbarians..fell into feare and disorder.
1736 BUTLER Anal. I. iii, This state of fear being itself often a very considerable punishment.
1771 MRS. GRIFFITHS tr. Viaud’s Shipwreck 200, I set out forthwith..in fear and trembling.
3. This emotion viewed with regard to an object; the state of fearing (something). a. Apprehension or dread of something that will or may happen in the future.
1568 GRAFTON Chron. II. 355 They are ever in feare to lose that they have.
1647 CHAS. I Let. in Antiquary I. 97 The feare of your being brought within the power of the army
1654 GODDARD in Introd. Burton’s Diary (1828) I. 46 Our wars will have much more reputation and fear, when..a whole nation will not consent to a war lightly.
1777 POTTER Æschylus 190, Seven agst. Th., Is this a tale of fear-created woe?
1890 W. JAMES Princ. Psychol. II. xxiv. 419 A certain amount of timidity obviously adapts us to the world we live in, but the fear-paroxysm is surely altogether harmful to him who is its prey.
1613 DRUMMOND OF HAWTHORNDEN Cypress Grove Wks. (1711) 124 Why shouldst thou be *fear-strucken..for thy parting from..thy body.

ohrealy,

Fear in the presence of imminent danger is a survival emotion response for the unthinking. In emergency situations, where time to evaluate and consider is not available, fear serves one’s chances of surviving that which is feared.

Fear in the absence of imminent danger is a destructive emotion which serves to harm, more than help, its human bearer’s chances of selecting a beneficial course of action in all but chance encounters.

Such inappropriate fear, such mismanaged fear which is not converted to action to acquire relevant information and deliberate a beneficial course of action, is the source of a host of maladies visited upon the psychiatric and medical professional communities ranging from high blood pressure and ulcers, to heart attacks and strokes. There is even inconclusive evidence that protracted diffuse fear may correlate with various cancers and immune deficiency responses.

Fear is a double edged sword. Mastered and converted to informed and thoughtful action, it can spur great achievements, or save one’s life and limb in an emergency situation. Swung wildly in retaliation toward the world one fears, the arc of the swing very often overreaches, coming full circle to hack and maim the person swinging it, not to mention damaging their integrity and reputation amongst more reasonable and disciplined comrades.

David: thoughtful and analytical post. I am disappointed to see that this is a divisive issue - it seems a no-brainer to me. Let people die in poverty - even if they’ve worked hard their whole lives - or everyone take on an extra responsibility so that the poorest amongst us may have a life? How is that even a choice?

As you know, since I assume you removed them, I had some very nasty and personal slurs directed at me for posting in defense of healthcare for all. I hope you’re not being subjected to the same nonsense.

Nope, just learning. I find that valuable to me. Sorry if my humor was inappropriate.

David, your crystal ball method is no different than Rush looking into his and seeing the “data” which predicts we will become a socialist nation.

As far as me being in the minority, I am afraid the “data” shows you are wrong. I do not wish to pay more in order for govt to run my healthcare for me, I am mature enough to understand that is my responsibility. But since you yourself have said we have evolved into more of a direct democracy, shouldn’t yourself and the great obama listen to us and give us what we want? Or does it not work that way when the numbers of the majority go against what leftists think is best for everybody else?

Rich
The “birthers” are no different than the sheehans and other conspiracy groups we listened to the last eight years. It comes with the territory and will remain on the sidelines.
And all the other behavior you criticize the right for today was the actions of the left for the last eight years also. It is the nature of politics and the only difference is that alot more leftists towed the partys conspiracy line than those on the right do.
Its all part of the game.

kctim, you comment, but the comments don’t make much sense.

Crystal Ball? Nope. Hard data and logical extension. Proved correct by history. No crystal ball, wishful thinking, or biased, partisan fantasy. Just data and logical extension. Works fairly reliably. You know, like seeing a car cross head on into your lane and logically predicting that if you don’t move, a collision is highly probable.

The data on mortgage leveraging and hedge funds was available and being written about in 2006. Simple extension of logic dictated that a financial nightmare was en route. I and others wrote about it. It happened. Nuff said about your crystal ball comment.

70% of Americans want health care reform. Data, and polling fact. You have argued against it. That puts you in the minority. Simple, logical statement of fact. Refute it all you will, the reality doesn’t change.

As for Obama’s plan, it had 3 legs: be deficit neutral, maximize coverage for the uninsured, and drive down health care costs in both the public and private sectors during the boomer retirement demographic. He has said he will veto any bill which does not substantially meet those 3 criteria.

I fail to see much there which a conservative would rail against, other than the fact that it is a Democrat calling for such a plan. Obama’s plan doesn’t call for you paying for someone else’s health care by increasing your taxes. The exact opposite in fact. That is what is meant by deficit neutral. And if the plan does provide for lowering private and public sector health care costs, you will be a beneficiary of such lower costs.

Jon, thanks for the positive comments.

Yeah, too many on the right don’t really want everyone to have the right to life (death penalty advocates) and oppose quality of life (middle class living wages and benefits for full-time employment.) One would think Americans would have much more compassion for their fellow Americans on such issues, given their patriotic and right to life rhetoric. But, alas, integrity is a rare commodity in American politics.

Roy,
Why I respect your right to think that health care is a social issue; however, politically speaking the issue is one of why hospitals and medical facilities cannot meet the current demand let alone adding 47 million more citizens to the system.

Now, does that mean Americas’ need more beds? more emergency rooms? More Doctors and Nurses? Better Equipped EMT Units? For why both sides of the polical coin seems only worried about talking of Health Care Insurance, I do believe the subject goes alot deeper than speaking of the costs and profits of reforming the system.

For example; stepping outside the doctor and patient relationship, how many MRI machines and techs does it take to service 100,000 people? What about modern X-Rau machines and the specialists to read them are needed by a community? Or talking about promoting better living, where is the money for gyms, parks, and other activities like safe walk ways?

Yes, Congress and “We the People” must understand that a Health Care System which promotes better living is a different beast than the Health Care System built by the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s or the one built by our grandparents of the Great Depression. And why I can’t say that those generations were wrong in their attempt to provide state of the art medical treatment for every community. I do see the system needed to handle the Baby Boomers and the Children in the next 40 years being alot different than providing bed pans and other outdated medical equipment.

And though limited to My Personal Opinion on the matter I do feel that the Left and Right need to know and learn that there is a difference between a Health Care System that promotes Better Living and a Health Care System that can provide Better Living. So why I will not hold my breath thinking that the Republican Leadership can grasp that concept, I do believe that it would make a solid platform for a Third Party to stand on.

Because why every American should have medical treatment from cradle to the grave so they may live a productive life, doesn’t that require a major investment. Both in Personal Education and the Medical Industry ability to meet the demands of the future?

Hence, why health care may have social benefits or shortfalls. Are you willing to risk your grandchildren life on the idea that the current Medical Industry could handle a major crisis like the Black Plague of the Middle Ages? Now, how one goes about changing that debate and progress to building the Ultimate Medical Industry is purely politically and as such must be answered by Two National Political Parties here in America. And not this Idiot!

Henry, the duopoly has been fighting tooth and nail over healthcare since the Truman administration. There is so much misinformation and propaganda out there that people really don’t know what to think about healthcare. I believe that if a third party jumps into the fray they will loose more than they would gain from the fight. Not to say we are locked in solid on not advocating for healtcare but at this time we don’t believe it would help the Party grow. At this time we are more worried about the near $80 trillion nationwide debt and a whole host of big time serious problems on the horizong. We are looking to save the nation first. Otherwise, does it really matter?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

Roy,
Why all Americans must by Duty Bound to respect the Ignorance of other Americans, all citizens must respect the fact that Ignorance is no excuse! And though I wish I could tell you the papers I read in 8th grade history about President Lincoln and the Slavery Issue around the World(just plain can’t remember), have you ever asked yourself why the news entertaiment and radio commentators are always talking about health insurance and not how to reform the Medical Industry so it can provide a healthier lifestyle for every American at an affordable price?

As far as the National Debt, I realize that $80 trillion seems like a bunch of money; however, take the yearly income of the top ten Americans and the number is easily paid for in a matter of years. And though that is not how I would do it or I believe the Founding Fathers of America intended for it to be, I do believe it adds merit to President Obamas’ Idea of a Trickle-Up Economy verses a Trickledown Economy of the 20th Century. For which is more sustainable? Allowing a few wealth Americans to hold all the Nations debt or educating every American that it is in their Inherent Best Interest to own their Fair Share of the National Debt? Especially considering the old saying that it is the ones with all the money who sets the rules.

Because if you divide the $80 trillion by 300 million Americans the investment would provide and insure a very good nest egg for everyone would it not?

Oh, and just a FYI. Until a generation of Americans can prove that Americas’ Corporations can provide all the goods and services needed and desired by “We the People” like good Parents “We the Corporation” will remain in charge of the Children by order of the Founding Fathers of America.

David-

70% of Americans want health care reform. Data, and polling fact. You have argued against it. That puts you in the minority. Simple, logical statement of fact. Refute it all you will, the reality doesn’t change.

And from the same poll the support drops to 43% if the reform costs $500/yr more in new taxes. You say that Obama will veto the bill if it is not deficit neutral; let’s “Hope” he holds to that pledge and “Changes” a great amount of history concerning political promises.

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won’t go up

George, all true. And I agree. I voted for Obama, but, I will be one of the first to criticize his presidency if he fails to hold to his 3 general principles on the health care reform.

But, let’s be very clear about one thing. Taxes will have to go up dramatically over the next couple decades to fund Medicare/Medicaid and the VA given the high annual rate of health care inflation and the baby boomer demographic retiring. If, the health care reform cuts that rise in half or more over the same period, everyone in America wins from the deal. The conservative estimate of annual health care inflation is about 6% per year and the more comprehensive estimates place it at double digit for 2009 and 2010.

When one does the math, it is not very many years at all before at that rate before the cost of health care has doubled. And less years still for it to double again. Compounding interest in reverse. As the costs go up, more Americans become uninsured. And the more Americans who are uninsured, the more voters will experience the lack of insurance in their own extended families, creating a public and political backlash which could take unpredictable and destructive routes. I would likely be on the verge of bankruptcy now if my 76 year old mother did not have health insurance for her knee and hip replacement surgeries, and I had to provide for the cost of her nursing home care. This bankrupting relationship between the uninsured in our families and our own savings, will come home to voters in a huge way if we do not dramatically lower that spiraling health care inflation curve.

The only other alternative is to let our parents and grandparents and veterans suffer and die without the required treatments if we simply end these programs in order to avert the rising costs. So, that is not a political nor humane option for most Americans.

Congress cannot be permitted to compromise on this bill in regards to bending the cost curve downward over the next couple decades, and the proof of their intent to do so, is keeping the first 10 year cost deficit neutral. That old political yarn about ‘not being able to do it now, but we will in coming years’ will not fly on this issue for me and I suspect a very large number of other Americans, judging by the poll numbers, one of which you cite. They have to re-prioritize their spending, pull money from other programs, to insure the health care reform’s inclusion of the uninsured does not result in higher middle class taxes.

And if they also have to insure that their increasing taxes on the wealthiest does not go so far as to create economic problems resulting from a serious lack of available capital for jobs and healthy economic activity, which the government needs to insure its projected future tax revenues without having to continually raise taxes.

Taxes are going to have to go up as we go forward, to some extent. The nation’s private and public sector has leveraged itself into a box of debt that must be brought down, and the only way to bring down debt is pay it off, and the only way to pay it off, is devote a larger percentage of revenues and income to the principal payments on that debt. There are signs the public is coming to grips with this reality. We voters must insist that our government do so, as well, or refuse to reelect our incumbents for failing to do so.

As for a guarantee that taxes will not go up, taxes will go have to go up. No way around it. But, I will hold Obama and Congress responsible for insuring that taxes don’t go up significantly to pay for health care reform. If they go up to pay down or hold the line on our national debt as a result of putting the costs of the war in Afghanistan in the federal budget which Bush and Congress didn’t do with Iraq, that is a whole other deal, and no one I know of guaranteed taxes would not go up for this and other reasons in years to come.

Roy said: “We are looking to save the nation first.”

Then consult Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs if your party intends to save the nation first. The nation is people, and people first and foremost, need food, shelter, and health to be productive toward the higher tiers if needs.

A healthy population is a basic requirement for a competitive work force capable of holding its own in this globalized economic interdependency with the likes of India and China.

To not address health care as a basic requirement for our economic future would by like saying we can afford to abandon the Mid-West food belt and still sustain our nation going forward. It is simply a false premise. Working middle class American parents need their children to be health in order to not miss work attending their illnesses or injuries. Health is a prerequisite for a productive, competitive work force. An unhealthy work force creates non-competitive higher costs associated with lost productivity, lost time at work, and lower job satisfaction which, bears its own costs in competitive productivity.

And there is no getting around it, American workers are increasingly in competition with workers in other nations. Most of whom are affording their work force universal health care in one form or another.

IMO, the bill that will eventually be signed into law by Obama will be a mandatory healthcare bill requiring all to purchase healthcare either individually or through their employers. It most likely will not have a government option but instead, will have some form of a government co-pay program.

The bills ability to hold down future rises in healthcare costs will be minimul at best.

David,
Why I realize this question sounds out of the blue, but please accept the fact that I am walking a very finr line. For if President Obama and Congress was to raise your taxes by 5% or the Private Sector was to lower your purchase power by 5% the prices of their goods. What would be the difference?

And yes I know that there is no Simple Answer to that question, I do believe it needs to be discussed in the Debate of Labor and Management (i.e. Democrats and Republicans) since it stands at the crossroads of health care reform. For why every American can relate to the government raising taxes to pay for progrms that they don’t understand or effects them directly. Looking at both the advantages and disadvantages of a business increasing their prices to pay for the same services people enjoy at the turn of the century prices. I wonder what would happen if the Consumer and Government decided that the service was worth X while the Private Sector insisted that their books should show that the service was worth Y.

True, a nightmare for accounts and lawyers in general, but one that occurs on a daily basis in my opinion and is at the heart of the health care issue. Especially since I can say that all doctors at best can give me an educated guess on what is wrong with me and uses the technology created by “We the People” to back up their claim.

So, in short I guess what I’m asking is why should President Obama and Congress agree to raise taxes to pay for health care reform when even today the Medical Industry dares not guarantee the work done by their prossesionals? And as far as the Private Sector setting the price on what a life threatening condition should cost or telling us what basic health care should be, let me ask the lawyer in you what would be the charge if the Authority found a business increasing prices during a national emergency? And why the term Crisis probably is better left in the Political World, given the current condition and forecast of the future I do think that the line between a Crisis and National Emergency becomes extremely blurred.

So, given the choice to accept being taxed, increasing prices, or the promotion of a Managed Personal Medical Savings Plan that starts at $20.00 per week and promotes a Healthy Lifestyle. I wonder what My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s and Their Children will say is in the Inherent Best Interest of “We the People” who use “We the Corporation” so that “We the Consumers” can someday learn to be economically viable and financially independent someday? LOL

47 milion americans who cant afford health insurance?

18 million of the uninsured make more than $50,000 per year and almost 10 million of them have an income of over $75,000 per year
(Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf, p.21).

So, 38% of the US uninsured make over $50,000 per year.

10 million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants or undocumented workers (whichever you prefer).
(Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf, p.21).

47 million Americans, I mean 29 million, er actually its 19 million… Sorry its 8 million

It is widely reported that 47 million Americans lack health insurance, but even the Census Burean states that “health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported on the” Current Population Survey. So let’s admit that we’re starting with a number flawed to the high side. But, let’s continue…

18 million of the uninsured make more than $50,000 per year and almost 10 million of them have an income of over $75,000 per year (Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf, p.21). So, 38% of the US uninsured make over $50,000 per year.

47 million uninsured minus 18 million who could afford coverage equals 29 million uninsured.

10 million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants or undocumented workers (whichever you prefer). Now, I believe that everyone should have health insurance, but I don’t think that America should be the health insurer of last resort for citizens of other nations

(Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf, p.21).

29 million uninsured minus 10 million illegal immigrants equals 19 million uninsured.

The remaining uninsured are low-income Americans or the children of low-income Americans.

70% of uninsured children are already eligilble for either Medicaid, SCHIP, or both.

(Source: http://ccf.georgetown.edu/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=strategy+center%2Feligibleuninsured%2Feligibleuninsuredccf.pdf).

In addition, the Urban Institute found that 27% of Medicaid eligible adults were not enrolled
(Source: http://www.urban.org/publications/310378.html) – perhaps another 5-6 million people.

you can find this info directly sourced to gov documents at charlie copelands site and many others…

so to sum it up out of that 47 million that the left keeps spouting only 8 million or 2% of the american public cannot afford health insurance.

so lets upset the best healtcare system in the world to fix it for 2%.

My insurance provider is great..has always paid…has saved me alot of money as I have diabetes and had prostate cancer of which i would have been a dead man under Canadas system.

Scott,
Having diabetes on both sides of my family and having to eat protein and sugar to maintian a healthy level, I can imagine the medical expensives that you have occured over the years and the advancments the medical field has made over the last 30 years on the subject. So why I don’t say throw the baby out with the water I do believe the Health Care Reform issue revolves around how much are we willing to allow the Doctors and Specialists to advance the issue as well as provide decent Health Care Services. For why I say that the research should not stop for a cure for diabetes and other illness, I wonder what the Institutes of the Establishment is willing to give up in order to pay for the 2-100% of the Un and Under Insured. For whether it is a tax write off, a business write off, or a long term payment plan. The question that I would ask is; Does the price of Research and Testing take priority over making sure every citizen in America has the necessary medicine and medical equipment to deal with their illness?

For why it has only been mentioned is passing, I do believe that at the core of the Health Care Reform Debates lays the argument of whether ‘We the Corporation” should pay for Health Care of should “We the Consumer” be given the income necessary to provide Health Care Insurance for our families.

“…as I have diabetes and had prostate cancer of which i would have been a dead man under Canadas system.”

Complete and utter nonsense. This is the level to which this debate is quickly devolving to.

David
Hard data and logical extension show Rush is correct when he says govt controlling everything is socialism. So, I guess if we are to use this “logic,” it all comes down to your prediction of us losing our money or Rushs’ prediction of us losing our rights.

“70% of Americans want health care reform. Data, and polling fact. You have argued against it. That puts you in the minority. Simple, logical statement of fact. Refute it all you will, the reality doesn’t change.”

Um, I have not argued against it, I am just honest enough to use all of the polling. You know, the part of the poll that shows less than half of those Americans are willing to pay for govt controlled healthcare.
Well guess what David, I absolutely agree with them and that puts me in the majority. I thought majority rules in this direct democracy we have evolved into? That phrase sure as hell been used in trying to force this disaster onto all of us. So, if the leftists say we must just sit back and accept reform because the majority want it, doesn’t that also mean that they must also sit back and accept that the majority do not want higher taxes to pay for it, and come up with a plan the majority approves of?

I am aware of thee Obama’s plan, I just don’t agree with how he wishes to achieve success.

“Obama’s plan doesn’t call for you paying for someone else’s health care by increasing your taxes.”

Do you really expect people to buy that? It is a govt program and it needs funding. Sure he can soak the people he considers “rich,” but govt can only do that for so long. My crystal ball says look at SS and other huge govt programs and see how those taxes rise and rise and rise.

“And if the plan does provide for lowering private and public sector health care costs, you will be a beneficiary of such lower costs”

I cannot afford to pay for your plan and the plan I freely chose for myself and family. I will have to drop one and since govt is the one who can and does use force to make people comply, its not hard to see which one will be dropped. Of course I will fight it every inch of the way and try every loophole I can find, but we both know I can only do that for so long.

People such as myself benefit nothing when we lose rights David. There are millions of us who still believe rights are more important than money.

Listen here Rich…

Thia is the facts…like them or not….

you qoute me then say:

“…as I have diabetes and had prostate cancer of which i would have been a dead man under Canadas system.”

Complete and utter nonsense. This is the level to which this debate is quickly devolving to.

To you I say and listen good…..

Finasteride has saved my life…..my insurance covers it…CANADA DOES’NT! Without it I would be close to death!

So dont say “nonsense” to what you have no clue about!

Thats not scare tactics…thats not nonsense…and when a government gets to decide who gets what because they are paying the bill(with our tax money) thats what happens..In the US survival rate to prostate cancer is over 20% higher than in Canada. So go look at the facts my friend!

July 16, 2008 — Where you live plays a role in cancer survival, according to a new study that shows the U.S., Japan, and France recorded the highest survival rates among 31 nations for four types of cancer. Algeria had the lowest survival rates for all four cancers.

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer

From FactCheck.Org:

The latest ad from the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights claims that “new rules could hike your health insurance premiums 95 percent.” That’s misleading.

* The claim in the ad refers to only 5 percent of Americans who have health insurance – those who buy it on their own.



* The claim comes from an analysis by a group that advocates for insurance carriers that sell policies in the individual market, among other areas.



* That analysis also doesn’t take into consideration several elements of leading congressional legislation that other experts say will keep premium costs down – and in fact, lower premiums for some. Other independent studies show premium costs decreasing on average for Americans that currently have health coverage.



* It’s not true that any of the health care overhaul measures that have been approved by committees in Congress would add “a trillion to the federal deficit,” as the ad says. The Senate bill would add roughly $597 billion over 10 years, and the House bill that was approved by the Ways and Means Committee in mid-July would add a much smaller $239 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

kctim fell for Rush’s comment: “Hard data and logical extension show Rush is correct when he says govt controlling everything is socialism.”

The Government doesn’t control everything. It controls a lot: in every nation on earth, government controls a lot. But no where close to everything in America. Those opposed to government are anarchists. That is also a true and logical statement by definition.

Are you opposed to local school boards, kctim? They are government, in control of student’s education or, miseducation in some cases.

Rush is an entertainer. Not a statesman, nor wise man in issues of government, economics, or the Constitution. He has demonstrated this repeatedly. I have watched conservative entertainers flip flop like fish out of water to keep their jobs and some appearance of credibility, like Larry Kudlow damning our nation’s economic future for the bailouts of the financial sector, and now saying routinely, they worked. He said they would result in runaway inflation, but now, he is even having to backtrack those statements.

The problem with ideology is that it rejects relevant information and data, even argues against relevant information and data. Thus it is that ideologues so very often end up appearing to lack integrity when real life fails to conform to their ideological predictions.

Roy Ellis, no, it is not great to have banned posters on WatchBlog. If you wish to respond to those announcing they were banned from commenting here, I am sure there are a host of other web sites where there are no rules for civil discourse where you can debate them till the cows come home. DO NOT respond to banned commenters here, as that undermines both WatchBlog’s rules and objective to provide a place for civil debate of ideas and perspectives, not personal attacks and flame baiting.

Scott, a person can’t even get an apartment in NYC for 50,000 a year. And $75,000 per year income in many areas of California would make one a pauper.

Citing statistics without context does not make a sound argument.

Scott, rather than ask readers to take your word for it regarding research, since, most of us here don’t know each other personally, how about providing a link to this new research that purportedly states what you say you read into it? Then let readers judge for themselves the integrity and merits of that research.

scott-
Making that much money does not guarantee that you can pay for the treatment you need, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

On the subject of the ten million, what makes you so sure that they are counted amongst them do you have methodological proof? And why would they be a good reason not to cover tens of millions of Americans? You could easily just ask for people’s identification when they sign up, make sure they’re citizens.

Also, on the subject of excluding those who already qualify under other programs, how have you established that this hasn’t been done already?

On the subject of Medicaid eligible adults, I think most people, safe to say, do not walk around with the qualifications for medicaid precisely burned into their memory. But also, if I’m not mistaken, the number given is the number of people who don’t have insurance, but also don’t qualify for government coverage under poverty remediation programs like Medicaid. So, you might be excluding those who have already been excluded.

What did Mark Twain say? There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You’ve been given statistics, no doubt, by those who seem to be more interested in making a case than keeping the numbers straight.

This is not the best healthcare system in the world, either in its costs or its results. You can isolate a few diseases and say we’re tops there, but outside of it, even a guy from the economist finds that logic faulty. In fact, in the economist article in question, the author revealed that the places that paid the most did not get the best care. Quality of care varied inversely with expense.

Hmmmmmmm … My comments were deleted yet again? Why?

National Health care must happen and I take exception to the hard core right wingers who claim we will all be paying more and receiving less. We already have national health care in the form of medicare and the VA system, so why is it that these right wing hard core despots are not ranting to drop medicare and the VA system?

How stupid are those voters who really believe what the talking heads from the right spout? The Republican Party is the party of old, white, southern red necks who don’t have any original thoughts and don’t work for constituents but work the party line.

I think the people should demand that congress goes on private health care like the rest of us.

d.a.n, I have not deleted any of your comments. I deleted comments belonging to someone calling themself bannned.

d.a.n is permitted to comment here provided our rules complied with. Banned is not! See my previous reply to Roy Ellis.

frank, Republicans are stupid for having all the power and throwing it away by failing to listen to and represent the MAJORITY of the American people. Yes, very stupid in that regard. And about half of Republicans agree with that proposition, that it was stupid for them to give the power away.

David!!!!!

“rather than ask readers to take your word for it regarding research, since, most of us here don’t know each other personally, how about providing a link to this new research that purportedly states what you say you read into it? Then let readers judge for themselves the integrity and merits of that research.”

I gave links….To the census bureau!

The people can look at the numbers themselves…why do you libs always get afraid of people thinking for themselves?
Those numbers are facts!

out of the 47 million that you guys claim that cant afford medical INSURANCE:

approx.

20% are illegal
38% make over 50,000 a year
40% are already eligible for current programs

those are not some right wing website numbers…those are the official US govt figures!

appx 2% of that 47 million cannot afford medical insurance. And you guys want to socialize our whole system to take care of that 2%. Much better solutions!

Steven….

“Making that much money does not guarantee that you can pay for the treatment you need, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.”

Its so simple ….No they cant pay for the TREATMENT….they pay for the INSURANCE…..soooooooo simple, even a caveman gan get it….If you make over 50,000 a year or as stated in the documents many over 75,000 a year they CAN AFFORD INSURANCE!

C’mon you guys!

David

“a person can’t even get an apartment in NYC for 50,000 a year. And $75,000 per year income in many areas of California would make one a pauper.
“

And as I stated before…..

And I’ll state it a different way….

There are plenty of people all over the US who make 50-75,000 a year and living in Ca or NY who are trying to make ends meet who CAN and DO find a way to buy health insurance…dont make it a red herring and sayhey can pay for TREATMENT on that income

Scott, none of the links you provided above work (file not found error for all of them). I’d be interested to see the data you are stating, can you re-post with working links…

Sorry Paul…the links work but for some reason not from the way the html posted:

Anyway here are links that works:

18 million of the uninsured make more than $50,000 per year and almost 10 million of them have an income of over $75,000 per year

and

10 million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants or undocumented workers :

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

7 OUT OF 10 CHILDREN ARE ELIGIBLE BUT NOT :ENROLLED IN MEDICAID OR SCHIP

http://ccf.georgetown.edu/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=strategy+center%2Feligibleuninsured%2Feligibleuninsuredccf.pdf

and for: In addition, the Urban Institute found that 27% of Medicaid eligible adults were not enrolled :

http://www.urban.org/publications/310378.html

Scott,
Why it is hard to give you data that does not exist as far as I know, but with the people making $75,000.00 a year and still not having personal health insurance I wonder how many of them have purchased homes that are now inverted? And besides, if the corporation can afford to pay their employees that much, why don’t these people have health insurance from the company thet work for as a benefit.

Could it be that underlining this whole Health Care Reform business is the fact that “We the Corporation” say that can’t pay for health care and still remain competitive in the Global Market with other nations that have Universal Health Care?

No, I have to give it to Mark Twain when it comes to the issue of health care. For why some want us to believe it is all about the Individual paying for insurance. It seems that just as many people want to believe that a government option would be worse than doing nothing. However, you can give me all the statistics in every study made by the Left and Right, but they will not change the basic fact that both the Democrats and Republicans do not want the Public Debate of Health Care Reform to be about what type of Health Care System do “We the People” need and want for the next 40 years.

Because from the 911 call centers to the local EMTs’ that come every time you call them. To the fact that the Medical Industry are seriously under equipped for a national emergency. No side wants to say why the cost of medical care is projected to double and double again if nothing is done. For from requiring patients to learn more about what is and isn’t a medical condition to forcing hospitals and doctors to staff a 24/7/365 medical facility normal and routine service. Where is the public debate from both the Left and Right on what needs to be done by our generation to better medical care at affordable prices?

Since I doubt if those who oppose President Obamas’ push for Health Care Reform would like to see Congress take the easy way out and start slashing funding for programs that would send the American Medical Industry back to the turn of the last century. Seeing that most citizens today are to young to remember when the nearest hospital was at the county seat and medical help consisted of the local funeral home offered you a ride in the same car they buried you in. But what the hay, if it is all about the money than who says research or the community services be paid for by your insurance premiums and government tax dollars.

According to the evening news folks are getting right vocal with their representatives over the healthcare issue. I have heard that there are four or five plans floating around but am quite sure the citizens are uninformed of what is in even one of the plans. I think we are seeing that people don’t trust the government and are making waves about a government run program. From my perspective I believe the politicians are gearing up to put a government run plan in place along the lines of what Canada and the EU have for healthcare. This would be a logical approach in line with ‘harmonizing’ US administration with that of other developed countries. Now, when you purchase an appliance or most any product you receive instructions published in three or four languages. That suggest manufacturing codes, electrical codes, etc have been ‘harmonized’ between those countries participating in globalized free trade. My daughter is taking some college entrance type exams using GREPREP, a computer based testing utility. It is designed for use by an international body of applicants. Perhaps healthcare too, is being harmonized in the same way and for the same purpose. Streamlining administration laws to facilitate business. Recall we didn’t know about the NAU deal until the organizational groundwork was already in place, still is. And we didn’t know much about the creation of the IMF, WTO, world bank until they arrived on the scene. It’s clear the government and/or the Corpocracy finds they can work more efficiently and accomplish more in secret than by broaching their plans with the public. Immigration might have gone the same way but people were more alert on this issue. Same with healthcare. The governments best shot to achieve their goal then, is to try and ram a bill through quickly while holding the true nature of the bill close so that only a few top level legislators really know what is going down. They tried this with the healthcare bill but some balked because of pending 2010 elections. No doubt they will try another ram job after returning from recess. The idea of true universal healthcare is not all bad. So many people are on the move around the world these days making it advantageous for a person to have true universal healthcare coverage. A great number of people are bi- or tri-country operatives. With a universal policy you could have surgery in Nigeria and pay you bill in Sweden or Nepal, etc. We just won’t know until some time after a bill is passed into law.

Roy,

Yes, and I remember turning on the evening news to a very vocal Charles Manson in the CourtRoom, too. Was his contempt for the court to be lauded and applauded? I think not!

You are dead on correct that a very large number of Americans no longer trust politicians or the government which they and their lobbyists and wealthy campaign donors control.

Health care reform is an absolute necessity to prevent this country from bankrupting itself or throwing it into civil conflict and chaos. The more those who want to bring about this self-fulfilling prophecy lie, deceive, and misinform, the more ready I am to accept a more flawed health care reform and work to make it better afterward. It is a choice between the greater and lesser evil that is being shaped here.

A compromised and less than comprehensive sustainable health care reform, or bankrupting the government and half or more of the people over the next 20 years or so. Its becoming a no-brainer choice for me. My daughter just entered the work force, and she faces half or more of her paycheck going to private health insurance premiums if she has to buy her own insurance, or, settling for even more loss in real wages than the middle class has already suffered, in next 20 years or so.

This is not what I want for my daughter when she is 38 years old. This is not what America nor its politicians assured my generation the future would look like for our children.

If this country is not able to save itself from its own ignorance, deceptions, and lies, it is hard to rationalize why my daughter should want to stay here in America after she gets her nursing degree. So many other countries will be offering a far brighter future as a nurse.

Henry, from the outset, it appeared clear to me that there would be no perfect health care reform bill to come out of one session in Congress. Someone here at WB said health care reform that works will be an ongoing process of adjustments and decisions made over time. And that person was quite right. Our political process is a complete failure when it comes to addressing long term issues. Short term interests like greed and elections veto long term solutions every time.

So, America, if it is to have health care reform that has a chance of saving our economic future or civil peace, it will have to come in stages. That is precisely what I think Obama foresaw when he outlined 3 basic requirements and refused to go for an all out conversion of our health care system over to a single payer public health insurance system. Americans on the Left and Right, would be wise for their children’s sake, to continue to support Obama’s understanding of how health care reform, that is sustainable and comprehensive, is to come about.

David,
Why it probably would be best if I did not comment on President Obama position on health care, I do know that given the response of the Media and Political Leaders about how Locals are shouting down the protestors that things have changed in Washington. For why not to long ago they were drinking the kool aid and buying everything the Experts were shouting.

And why I you can believe it was the election of President Obama or the fact that the Democratic Party found their voice in the Wilderness that has brought on the 3rd Generational Debate. Seeing that My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s said their would be a Political Revolution instead of a Social Revolution. I do hope that the Elders and Powers-that-Be from the far right wake up before the Conservative Movement in America discover that the No-Nothing Leaders are wrong in their Ideology.

For from the begining “We the People” have had groups of people lead to believe that it was ok to drink from the Creek of Stupidly. And why that may have been a problem for the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s to grasp. Realize your duaghters generation has no such protection from their Peers and Community Elders.

So, why I am proud to see President Obama gladly accepts his limits in the Office of the White House. When it comes to reforming the Medical Industry in America, I do believe the issue gets solved from the Ground Up or is it from the Top Down since it is “We the People” that “We the Corporation” serves. Guess it depends on your Political Point of View!

Henry, my belief is that our nation can only save itself, from itself, with an effort from the bottom up and top down, together to face realities and deal with them. That does require setting ideologies aside, and there’s the rub.

I see it analogous to the Christians fighting the lions in days gone by. The genteel Romans are the demreps, the lions are the insurance/big med comglomerates. We The People are the Christians. We The People are being prodded and beaten to take up a weapon and go get them lions. Likely outcome is that tomorrow we will be hung on the end of a lampost to light the way for the genteel folks. Those not worthy of becoming lamposts will serve as a meal for the lions. Makes me want to turn tail and beat it out of there so I can live to fight another day. Maybe arm myself with a brand new spear (Republic Sentry), team up with a bunch of We The People hiding out in the bush’s and show up at the city gate armed to the teeth.

Roy, in the end, it will be the Barbarians all over again, that will bring America down. Those in our midst, uneducated, irrational, passion filled followers loyal to their hilts, or the unenlightened greedy barbarians reading Sung Su and waging war on the consumers and employees for a bigger share of the Ceasar coin of the realm.

In this, there really hasn’t been much evolution of the human social condition. Still, I would for many other reasons, rather have been born in 1950 than in 150 A.D.

Roy,
Like the Romans, Lions, and Christians came to realize their games did not solve their problems. So all Americans must realize that being Politically Unalienable Correct means that if it is right for one than by Logic and Reason it has to be right for all.

For example; health care can be easily solved by eliminating it from the list of legal activities. However, seeing that it is said by My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s to be Uncivilized to even think such a thing. The question is how will the Roman, Lion, and Christian design an affordable Health Care System for the 21st Century that will meet the needs of all or suffer by allowing me to win the debate.

For why Rome fell, the Lion ran from the Gun, and the Christian surrendered to the Pope. I don’t see Americans taking the easy way out and let any side have their own way. No, from CEO’s losing bonuses to the average American saying that they are not going to pay their medical bills I do believe that given the political debate of Labor and Management as well as the Barons of Wall Street knowing that they can not afford to lose 1/6th of the economy. Something will be done before the 5/6th of the economy finds itself submitting to the rule of a single sector.

Point of Fact: Look at what happened to the Oil Companies just a year ago when they were reporting huge profits while the rest of the market lost their shirts. Care to tell me how many insurance policies could be sold at 4 times thier current asking price and more restrictions?

David
In the context of current events, what is it called when govt controls everything? What are govt controlled programs called? Maybe socialism?
I know its easier to deflect in order to avoid, but NOBODY said the govt controls everything. What actually was said though, is that your method of predicting the future is no different than Rushs’ method.
Both methods look at trends and indicators they deem useful to support their position, which is then used to make good or bad predictions.
Hard data shows that when the people give govt control of one thing, the govt wants control of more things and more and more govt socialized programs are created.
Logical extension says that the more socialist programs a country has, the more socialist that country becomes.

Using your crystal ball to predict we will be a ruined bankrupt nation if we do not give up our rights and lives to govt is no more valid than the prediction that we will be a socialist nation if we do give them up.

kctim asked: “In the context of current events, what is it called when govt controls everything? What are govt controlled programs called? Maybe socialism?”

Gee, kctim, is our military so bad? Is the best and most cost efficient health care in America found in the Veteran’s Administration, so bad? Is that socialist interstate highway system, so bad for our economy and business activity?

You can brandish the labels all you want. But, the realities are what I will attend to, and respond to appropriately.

As for Rush, he doesn’t include relevant, pertinent information which doesn’t make his case. I include in my trend analysis, all available data on a particular topic. When I wrote of the coming financial market meltdown in 2007, I also discussed the potential for averting it. I covered both sides of the issue. Rush doesn’t even pretend to do that, because Rush is not trying to present reality or even factual information, he is trying to reflect the emotional states of his target audience which is his bread and butter.

There is a difference between objective analysis and entertainment. The entertainer presents their audience with what the audience EXPECTS from the entertainer. A statesman or analyst presents the information that is relevant and necessary for appropriate action, regardless of whether the audience expects it or not.

So, no, I entirely refute your premise that Rush and I come to our positions by the same methodology. Here is an excellent example: Rush Limbaugh noted that the “Antarctica ice sheeting is actually increasing” as evidence that global warming theory is “unsupportable by facts.”

When your facts are wrong, your predictions must follow suit.

Rush is an entertainer whose income depends upon fueling the passions of the Right Wing. I have no doubt that if Rush Limbaugh were a scientist, he would have the brain power to produce really sound research. But, he is an entertainer pleasing a select audience for money and fame.

That’s a far cry from being an objective analyst of current events and information, even if that analysis is limited by less than universal information assimilation on a given topic. Most journalists are more objective and rational in their analysis than Rush Limbaugh is. But, then, they are paid to be, just as Rush is paId not to be.

Kctm,
“what is it called when govt controls everything?” 1960’s!!LOL