PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare, what says the Constitution?



Bob Gutermuth
08-15-2009, 02:04 PM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106694

Roger Perry
08-15-2009, 02:55 PM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106694


Bob, if you are so concerned about the Constitution, where was your outrage when 43 said
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

or

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles06/Starr-BushConstitution-3-06.htm

code3retrievers
08-15-2009, 03:31 PM
Roger,

You might as well quote SNL. Your source is nothing but a leftwing mouth piece with unnamed sources. If they told you the tooth fairy was real would you by into that also?

road kill
08-15-2009, 04:13 PM
Roger,

You might as well quote SNL. Your source is nothing but a leftwing mouth piece with unnamed sources. If they told you the tooth fairy was real would you by into that also?
He has, look who he elected President!!:shock:

Roger Perry
08-15-2009, 04:27 PM
Roger,

You might as well quote SNL. Your source is nothing but a leftwing mouth piece with unnamed sources. If they told you the tooth fairy was real would you by into that also?

Bush broke a lot of constitutional laws. there is no doubt in my mind what bush said about the constitution is true.

The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country’s enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Under his administration, the government has engaged in inhumane treatment of prisoners that amounts to torture, and when Congress passed legislation to ban such treatment, he declared he would simply interpret the law his own way. Although the Constitution says treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” the president has abrogated them on his own. And, we now know, he ordered a secret program of electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants.

tpaschal30
08-15-2009, 04:43 PM
Bush broke a lot of constitutional laws. there is no doubt in my mind what bush said about the constitution is true.



Makes it easier to understand how you would believe the man made global warming hoax! Did you believe the one back in the early 80S that AIDS would be killing us all? Or the ones back in the 70's that we were heading for an ice age and we would be out of oil by now? How about the one that Ted Kennedy made it all the way home, called his lawyer, but was unable to call the police(for 10 hrs)?

I fell for the one in economics class that if a third party paid your bills
you wouldn't care what the cost was.

Bob Gutermuth
08-15-2009, 05:17 PM
Bush ain't POTUS today,Osama is. When will the left realize that?

dnf777
08-15-2009, 05:36 PM
Bush ain't POTUS today,Osama is. When will the left realize that?

Part of personal responsibility is accepting the consequences of your actions. As nice as it would be, Mr. Bush can't just say, "oh, its Jan 20, nothing is my fault anymore..." His actions, through expansion of government, record deficit spending, and marginalizing the other branches of government will be felt for generations to come. I'm feeling it now when I pay my quarterly tax bill!

True, Bush ain't president anymore, but Obama didn't run up this $11 Trillion debt he inherited either.

Yet another legacy of the Bush years will be the number of good paying American manufacturing jobs that were exported overseas, thus decreasing tax revenues. That will make it harder for Obama, or any other subsequent president to balance a budget until we figure out how to get our job base back in America. As a fair-minded Independent, I will acknowledge Mr. Bush did not invent NAFTA, although it was greatly expanded under him. Dick Armey, through his consulting firm also contributed greatly, by showing companies to to move offshore to dodge taxes, even after Mr. Bush cut them, supposedly creating millions of jobs. :rolleyes:

Bob Gutermuth
08-15-2009, 07:05 PM
When does Osama begin to take responsibility for what happens during his term? After it is over?

Roger Perry
08-15-2009, 07:16 PM
When does Osama begin to take responsibility for what happens during his term? After it is over?


Then Bush should take responsibility for 9/11 which happened during his first term in office. Also he should take responsibility for the Iraq and Afghanastan wars along with the number of american armed forces and Iraq and Afghanistan civilians killed.

code3retrievers
08-15-2009, 07:28 PM
Bush broke a lot of constitutional laws. there is no doubt in my mind what bush said about the constitution is true.

The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens.

NAME JUST ONE AMERICAN HE IMPRISONED WITH OUT A WARENT?

code3retrievers
08-15-2009, 07:31 PM
P

True, Bush ain't president anymore, but Obama didn't run up this $11 Trillion debt he inherited either.

Y :rolleyes:

Are you kidding. Obama in the first 6 months doubled Bush's debt and is trying to spend more.

Wake up and get your facts straight.

dnf777
08-15-2009, 07:41 PM
Are you kidding. Obama in the first 6 months doubled Bush's debt and is trying to spend more.

Wake up and get your facts straight.

Check up on the difference between "debt" and "deficit", and then tell me to get my facts straight. Since Obama has not had a budget approved by congress and signed into law, thus far he is not responsible for any of the national debt, except for supplemental spending bills and executive orders he has signed. I have no doubt he will contribute to the national debt in a BIG way, probably record setting, but he entered office under vastly different circumstances than W did.

The fact is, W and his republican congress contributed approximately 5 Trillion dollars to the national debt in 6 years. Mr. Bush and the do-nothing democratic congress added another 1.5 trillion in his last two years, rubber-stamping his submitted budgets.

Buzz
08-15-2009, 07:54 PM
Dave,

Talking to these guys is a total waste of time...

Bob Gutermuth
08-15-2009, 08:33 PM
Bush wasn't responsible for 9-11, the terrorists were.

code3retrievers
08-15-2009, 10:10 PM
You want to get the facts straight. What does all of this deficit spending turn into to? Debt!

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion.

This indicates that Bush inherited $5.73 in debt from Clinton and the previous administrations.

Now Obama is already indicating that it will be above $12 trillion before the end of the his first year and according to you he has not even tried to spend any money.

The funny thing about you libs is you always throw out the statement that Bush increased the debt / deficit but then act like it is OK for Obama to increase the same items.

I bet you can not find one conservative on this board that agreed with Bush's spending but just about all of you libs think Obama's spending is right on the money.

Talk to me in 3 more years when Obama is just about washed up and we are 15 trillion dollars in debt with and no decrease in deficit spending.

dnf777
08-15-2009, 10:46 PM
You want to get the facts straight. What does all of this deficit spending turn into to? Debt!

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion.

This indicates that Bush inherited $5.73 in debt from Clinton and the previous administrations.

Now Obama is already indicating that it will be above $12 trillion before the end of the his first year and according to you he has not even tried to spend any money.

The funny thing about you libs is you always throw out the statement that Bush increased the debt / deficit but then act like it is OK for Obama to increase the same items.

I bet you can not find one conservative on this board that agreed with Bush's spending but just about all of you libs think Obama's spending is right on the money.

Talk to me in 3 more years when Obama is just about washed up and we are 15 trillion dollars in debt with and no decrease in deficit spending.

First of all, just because I'm not a Rush-parrot, does not make me a "lib". I look at each issue and make my judgements based on my experience and views. How many "libs" are card-carrying NRA lifers? VFW lifers? Please don't paint labels on me.

Secondly, I stated in my post that Obama will likely set records in regards to deficit spending. So us "libs" can self-critique. After seeing how Bush trashed our economy and respect around the world with his failed policies, I'm amused and a little scared to see the Coulter/Rush disciples defend him to the bone, and try to lay his puppy all in Obama's lap!

As for what Bush II inherited from Clinton, check the graph I posted. That is very telling, with both the whitehouse and congress depicted. So look at that and try to tell me (with a straight face) that the republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility! :confused:

You may not choose to believe it, and frankly I don't care, but I used to be a rather staunch republican. That is, until I saw how the new breed of corporate, hyper-rich, war-mongering neocons hijacked the traditional republican party, and pushed everyone from moderate to hard-right conservatives out, leaving only the extreme-radical Christian right in control. You may think I'm a crank for saying that, but there's a WHOLE lot of folks in the boat with me, ergo President Obama and a supermajority of democrats in congress. I'm quite sure the dems will screw it up, and the pendulum will swing back. I just hope it pauses long enough for some independents to fix things up before that happens.

code3retrievers
08-15-2009, 11:04 PM
Your right about one thing when people start throwing out the phrase christian right and being in control I think you are way out in left field.

Last I heard the far left was claiming the Bush admin was being run by "the jews / zionists.

I have always considered Bush 1 and 2 as moderates.

I guess Christians are real scary maybe thats why the Dems pandered so much to them this time around.

dnf777
08-15-2009, 11:36 PM
I have always considered Bush 1 and 2 as moderates.

I

I have much respect for Bush I, even though I disagreed with some of his policies. I liked the following in him:
1) He knew how to be CIC, and define a mission prior to going to war.
2) He listened to his advisors and Generals (not just 'yes-men')
3) He knew the importance of building a coalition of real participants
4) He maybe understood the importance of 1-3 because he actually served his country in combat, and fought along fellow soldiers and airmen, and came home and built his companies successfully.

Bush I.....an honorable, respectable, moderate republican President.

Bush II...able to correctly pronounce big words some of the time:rolleyes:

Bruce MacPherson
08-15-2009, 11:43 PM
Part of personal responsibility is accepting the consequences of your actions. As nice as it would be, Mr. Bush can't just say, "oh, its Jan 20, nothing is my fault anymore..." His actions, through expansion of government, record deficit spending, and marginalizing the other branches of government will be felt for generations to come. I'm feeling it now when I pay my quarterly tax bill!

True, Bush ain't president anymore, but Obama didn't run up this $11 Trillion debt he inherited either.

Yet another legacy of the Bush years will be the number of good paying American manufacturing jobs that were exported overseas, thus decreasing tax revenues. That will make it harder for Obama, or any other subsequent president to balance a budget until we figure out how to get our job base back in America. As a fair-minded Independent, I will acknowledge Mr. Bush did not invent NAFTA, although it was greatly expanded under him. Dick Armey, through his consulting firm also contributed greatly, by showing companies to to move offshore to dodge taxes, even after Mr. Bush cut them, supposedly creating millions of jobs. :rolleyes:

I have news. Even Obama, of course after the fact, admitted those jobs aint comming back. I believe those good manufacturing jobs were moving overseas long before W became President. And even more news, it is'nt taxes that make anyone move a company overseas.

dnf777
08-16-2009, 12:14 AM
I have news. Even Obama, of course after the fact, admitted those jobs aint comming back. I believe those good manufacturing jobs were moving overseas long before W became President. And even more news, it is'nt taxes that make anyone move a company overseas.

I acknowledged that bush didn't invent NAFTA. And I agree, it isn't ONLY taxes that resulted in this exodus of jobs. It's cheap labor, lax or no environmental regulations, gov't provided healthcare, and lax safety regs. That's why they call it "free trade" and not "fair trade". Until it's fair trade, we don't have a chance of bringing jobs back home. Can't even get a woolrich or filson made in America anymore.

zeus3925
08-16-2009, 11:15 AM
I acknowledged that bush didn't invent NAFTA. And I agree, it isn't ONLY taxes that resulted in this exodus of jobs. It's cheap labor, lax or no environmental regulations, gov't provided healthcare, and lax safety regs. That's why they call it "free trade" and not "fair trade". Until it's fair trade, we don't have a chance of bringing jobs back home. Can't even get a woolrich or filson made in America anymore.

The sad thing about the present day body politic is those that hold great influence have an interest in us continuing to fight each other from polarized camps. That way they can avoid us discovering how bad the real perdicament is. We seem to be living in an Orwellian world where the by word is " Keep 'em fighting each other. That way, they will stay blind stupid and out of our way."

Unfortunately, with the decline of good journalism there is a declining ability to sort things out.

dnf777
08-16-2009, 12:34 PM
The sad thing about the present day body politic is those that hold great influence have an interest in us continuing to fight each other from polarized camps. That way they can avoid us discovering how bad the real perdicament is. We seem to be living in an Orwellian world where the by word is " Keep 'em fighting each other. That way, they will stay blind stupid and out of our way."

Unfortunately, with the decline of good journalism there is a declining ability to sort things out.

It is right out of 1984. Keep a war going at all times...blind people with patiotism....limit their ability to think freely....ban media, except what you release.....war is peace....good is bad.....black is white.....advanced directives are death panels.....oops.

Eric Johnson
08-16-2009, 01:38 PM
The graph scale is such that one can only read red and blue. My guess is that this represents the party in power in the Presidency. However, how is a split in the party in power shown (Presidency in hands of one party and Congress in the hands of the other)? It seems to me that we had rather significant periods in which this were true. If the Presidency is in the hands of one party and the Congress is in the hands of the other, how many times did a veto or the threat of an override of a veto take effect? Seems significant.

The fact remains, no one has answered Bob's question. Is a Federal (not states' because of the 10th Amendment) takeover of healthcare a legitimate use of Federal power? I can't find anything in Article 1, Section 8 that allows for this. When I check an annotated version of the Constitution, it's not there either.

Eric

dnf777
08-16-2009, 03:23 PM
The fact remains, no one has answered Bob's question. Is a Federal (not states' because of the 10th Amendment) takeover of healthcare a legitimate use of Federal power? I can't find anything in Article 1, Section 8 that allows for this. When I check an annotated version of the Constitution, it's not there either.

Eric

You will not find literal descriptions of much of what government does. Where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to pave roads? To put up stop signs? We the people at one time or another gave our consent for the gov't to do certain things. We (collectively) voted in the people in congress to legislate and control the treasure of the country. If we don't like what they do, we vote them out in 2010, or influence their decisions via letters, town halls, peaceful redress of grievances.....
There is a distinction between Libertarianism and Anarchism.

sorry about the graph quality. the shades of red/blue correspond to control of congess, with shades to depict relative weight of majority. Here is the link.

http://www.theinsaneasylum.com/dubiosity/national_debt.pdf

I'm not familiar with that site, but the graph is one of the nicer depictions. It can be verified easily via numerous official sites if it's validity is in question.

Roger Perry
08-16-2009, 04:16 PM
Can't even get a woolrich or filson made in America anymore.


Nor a henway.:lol:

Eric Johnson
08-16-2009, 09:17 PM
As a matter of fact, the Federal government doesn't build roads or erect stop signs. While the Feds contribute, it is the states that do all these things. If it's not a state project, the Feds can't build it even if they want it (short of Federal installations).

However, the current debate on healthcare is really bizarre. Where the usual relationship is usually Feds to the states, this debate focuses on a potential relationship between the Feds and the citizens of the various states. This calls into question 10th Amendment issues.

Eric

M&K's Retrievers
08-17-2009, 12:01 AM
Nor a henway.:lol:

What's a henway?? About 5 pounds.

The only thing that makes sense on this thread

mjh345
08-17-2009, 04:05 PM
The sad thing about the present day body politic is those that hold great influence have an interest in us continuing to fight each other from polarized camps. That way they can avoid us discovering how bad the real perdicament is. We seem to be living in an Orwellian world where the by word is " Keep 'em fighting each other. That way, they will stay blind stupid and out of our way."

Unfortunately, with the decline of good journalism there is a declining ability to sort things out.

Spot on!!
It amazes me that many will label themself as a Rep. or Dem. when they do this some seem to lose the ability to admit when one of their "side" F**** UP.
That helps explain how Congress can have an approval rating in the teens as a body, yet unless they are caught with a dead intern in their closet the incumbants all get re-elected
This polarization allows the politicians to avoid any accountability for what they are doing to our country.

I'm more of the "Hate em All" affiliation, because they are all screwing us

Cody Covey
08-17-2009, 08:00 PM
As of late i tend to agree with what you just posted MJH. The party that reflects my views is republican (conservative extremist i suppose you could say) but with all the pandering for votes that goes on and the money power grabbed we are getting bent over and taking it form all sides. If there was a one term limit and no lifelong benefits we may actually get folks that only go into politics to help the country since no one in their right mind would do it for any other reason (I know this won't happen but its a thought)

HuntsmanTollers
08-18-2009, 04:36 PM
You will not find literal descriptions of much of what government does. Where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to pave roads? To put up stop signs? We the people at one time or another gave our consent for the gov't to do certain things. We (collectively) voted in the people in congress to legislate and control the treasure of the country. If we don't like what they do, we vote them out in 2010, or influence their decisions via letters, town halls, peaceful redress of grievances.....
There is a distinction between Libertarianism and Anarchism.

sorry about the graph quality. the shades of red/blue correspond to control of congess, with shades to depict relative weight of majority. Here is the link.

http://www.theinsaneasylum.com/dubiosity/national_debt.pdf

I'm not familiar with that site, but the graph is one of the nicer depictions. It can be verified easily via numerous official sites if it's validity is in question.

Obviously I don't think you know Eric's background. I don't think you want to argue law and health care policy with him. Nothing wrong with a spirited discussion though.

YardleyLabs
08-18-2009, 04:54 PM
As a matter of fact, the Federal government doesn't build roads or erect stop signs. While the Feds contribute, it is the states that do all these things. If it's not a state project, the Feds can't build it even if they want it (short of Federal installations).

However, the current debate on healthcare is really bizarre. Where the usual relationship is usually Feds to the states, this debate focuses on a potential relationship between the Feds and the citizens of the various states. This calls into question 10th Amendment issues.

Eric
How is that different from the relationship involved with Social Security or Medicare?

Within HR3200 there is actually language exempting state government programs from the requirements of the program but then tied certain forms of Federal aid to compliance. There are few cases in which the 10th amendment has been held to have any actual effect. But it would seem that health care is a natural for inclusion under the commerce clause.

Steve Amrein
08-18-2009, 05:12 PM
The thing that I think is kind of funny in a sad sort of way is that fiscal conservatives did not approve of what GW has done/did. It is assumed by the left because GW did it than the conservatives went along with it. To most conservatives I feel that GW kept the country safe on our soil and other than that grade him C D and F. Pretty please dont begin to act like a vote for McCain was more of the same Bush Cheney as he would have to make a pretty far move to the right of even the blue dogs just to get to the center.

This country had better start being run as a business or like families stuggle to make ends meet and make some tough choices to survive. Printing and borrowing more than you make or are worth is foolish at best.

Buzz
08-18-2009, 05:26 PM
This country had better start being run as a business or like families stuggle to make ends meet and make some tough choices to survive. Printing and borrowing more than you make or are worth is foolish at best.

I understand the reference to mean that they should live within their means, but businesses are not democracies, or more precisely they are not republics.

dnf777
08-18-2009, 05:58 PM
Obviously I don't think you know Eric's background. I don't think you want to argue law and health care policy with him. Nothing wrong with a spirited discussion though.

Why would you think I wouldn't want to argue law and health policy? I have enjoyed very much "arguing" with people on these issues. All the more so if they bring special experience or knowledge to the table. But to address your concerns, no, I don't know his background, but would enjoy if he would share, if he so desires. I have learned much from the discussions on this forum. My background on this issue is serving in both military and civilian hospitals, including the VA and tricare, as well as dealing with medicare and private insurance companies MUCH more than I would like to!

I hope that congress would have discussions amongst themselves such as these. Maybe something good might come out of Washington if they did.

Eric Johnson
08-18-2009, 09:56 PM
How is that different from the relationship involved with Social Security or Medicare?


Don't the states run Medicare? It is funded by the Federales but administered by the states. I take you point though on SS. Of course I was for the Bush plan rather than the bankrupt system we have now....a bankruptcy caused by the Congress.

The commerce clause has been stretched so much and in so many directions that I'm not certain you could tell anything by it. Congress has re-written it in silly putty. I have a sense that healthcare wouldn't have been included in the commerce clause 50-60 years ago.

Eric

YardleyLabs
08-19-2009, 09:01 AM
Don't the states run Medicare? It is funded by the Federales but administered by the states. I take you point though on SS. Of course I was for the Bush plan rather than the bankrupt system we have now....a bankruptcy caused by the Congress.

The commerce clause has been stretched so much and in so many directions that I'm not certain you could tell anything by it. Congress has re-written it in silly putty. I have a sense that healthcare wouldn't have been included in the commerce clause 50-60 years ago.

Eric
Medicare is administered directly by the Feds. Medicaid is administered by the states. Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which used to be administered by the states as Air to the Aged and Disabled, was converted to direct Federal administration in the early 1980's, so that is another comparable example with direct Federal management of a direct aid program for individuals. Applicants apply directly to a Federal aid office, the Feds make the eligibility determination, and make payments directly to recipients with no state involvement.

Steve Amrein
08-19-2009, 09:16 AM
I understand the reference to mean that they should live within their means, but businesses are not democracies, or more precisely they are not republics.

So are you ok with past and present spending excess ? If not you got a spare hundred thou laying around:rolleyes:

HuntsmanTollers
08-19-2009, 11:50 AM
Why would you think I wouldn't want to argue law and health policy? I have enjoyed very much "arguing" with people on these issues. All the more so if they bring special experience or knowledge to the table. But to address your concerns, no, I don't know his background, but would enjoy if he would share, if he so desires. I have learned much from the discussions on this forum. My background on this issue is serving in both military and civilian hospitals, including the VA and tricare, as well as dealing with medicare and private insurance companies MUCH more than I would like to!

I hope that congress would have discussions amongst themselves such as these. Maybe something good might come out of Washington if they did.

I know you enjoy "arguing" with people on these issues. I know your background because you and I have had these discussions in the past. I don't have a problem with anyone participating in a lively debate and arguing their position. That wasn't the intent of my post. I was trying to point out that you shouldn't assume you need to "educate" everyone on this forum. In addition to our love of dogs one of the things I find most interesting is the vast knowledge and experience that the members of this board have. I know and respect your background. I also feel that I am fairly well qualified to discuss health care issues. That being said when Eric says something regarding dog training, health care, or public policy I try to listen. I very well might and often do learn something. FYI, I also listen to what you have to say even if we don't always agree.

Harry Gooch
08-19-2009, 03:12 PM
Below is a copy of a letter form my local congress woman.

I felt that this was a very factual response to my letter to her regarding the healthcare issue.

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent efforts to reform the healthcare system in America. Your views are important, and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me.
Many healthcare reform proposals have been discussed in Congress. Most of the debate has focused on HR 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, since this bill has been considered by three House committees. If you are interested in reading this bill you can do so through the Library of Congress's website at <a href="http://www.thomas.gov/">www.thomas.gov</a>. From there you can search by bill number for HR 3200 and then click on "text of legislation."
I believe that this bill is dangerous and misguided as currently written. This bill would create a "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" which will determine what health coverage you must purchase, and will tax you if you do not buy coverage that meets their demands, whether you want (or need) that coverage or not-and whether you think you can afford that coverage or not. HR 3200 also creates a new government-run insurance plan which will ultimately reduce access to healthcare for anyone on it. This government-run plan will almost certainly compensate physicians and hospitals at Medicare rates or something close to that. These rates are usually much lower than market rates, which is why it's sometimes difficult for Medicare beneficiaries to find a doctor as a new patient. This means that Hospitals and doctors will have to cut staff and other costs, which will hurt the quality of healthcare offered in America.
To pay for all of this new bureaucracy, the bill includes more than $800 Billion in new tax hikes, including tax hikes on small businesses. The President's own Chief Economic Advisor has stated that these new taxes would kill 4.7 million American jobs. An independent analysis by the Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans (that's a third of the country) would eventually lose their current insurance as businesses shifted employees to the new government plan. Despite claims that reform will reduce health care costs, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office recently noted this health care plan would "probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits." The bill also exempts employer coverage from the new federal insurance mandates in the bill, but only for 5 years. This will further encourage employers to drop coverage and put employees on the new government plan.
HR 3200 contains NO savings from tort reform or reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the system. Attempts to inject sensible policies to ensure fair payment rates, restrict access to taxpayer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, improve Medicare's ability to fight fraud, among many others, were rejected during committee consideration of the bill. I also find it telling that an amendment that would have required Members of Congress to use the new government-run plan if the bill passed was also rejected in Committee. I cosponsored this amendment, and I believe it would have provided a necessary show of good faith if it had been accepted.
However, my opposition to HR 3200 does not mean that I do not recognize the problems in our current healthcare system. The President has stated that too much is spent on healthcare. On that point, he's right. Healthcare spending is 18% of our Gross Domestic Product. If we make no changes, Medicare and Medicaid alone will consume three-fourths of the entire federal budget by 2040. But the solution to this problem isn't to spend trillions more, expand federal programs, and add new bureaucracies. It defies logic.
It's unacceptable that a family of four pays thousands in monthly premium costs when they buy on the individual market. It's unacceptable that medical bills routinely bankrupt Americans who thought their insurance would cover them. However, there's no excuse for saddling our grandchildren with insurmountable debt. There's no excuse for creating a new government-run healthcare program that will keep some from getting the life-saving care they need. There's no excuse for pushing these massive changes-littered with unintended consequences-through Congress just because the President says "the moment is right".
Instead, we can assist small businesses with insurance coverage, promote transparency in insurance marketing, provide premium assistance for the needy, and create a meaningful health insurance portal that fosters true price competition between the 1,300 health insurance companies in the U.S. We should extend tax benefits to those who purchase their own insurance, quickly implement health IT software standards, eliminate pre-existing condition restrictions, and give Medicare and Medicaid more resources and authority to truly combat the waste and fraud that everyone knows exists.
We should, once and for all, address the looming budget catastrophe facing Medicare and Medicaid instead of hurrying this fiscal hurricane. There are innovative policy changes that could make a real impact without creating a new government plan and expanding entitlements. We can and should make these shrewd and levelheaded changes that make sense not just for Democrats or Republicans, but for Americans.
Please know that I understand that you probably have very strong feelings on this important issue. If you would like to share your opinion with me in person I encourage you to attend one of the town hall meetings I will be holding soon. I will be conducting these town hall meetings at the following dates, times, and locations:

road kill
08-19-2009, 04:31 PM
I like your Congress woman!!

Buzz
08-19-2009, 04:32 PM
An independent analysis by the Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans (that's a third of the country) would eventually lose their current insurance as businesses shifted employees to the new government plan.

I wonder why she neglected to tell you in her letter that the "Independent Lewin Group" is owned by United Health Care?

http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/04/lewin-group-linked-to-private-insurers/

Yup, I bet everything they want to tell you is pretty factual.:rolleyes:

Harry Gooch
08-19-2009, 04:38 PM
Sadly Buzz I trust United Health Care more than I trust my goverment.

YardleyLabs
08-19-2009, 05:26 PM
It is certainly more specific and concrete than most critiques. I've made some comments on the specific factual assertions below:


This bill would create a "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" which will determine what health coverage you must purchase, and will tax you if you do not buy coverage that meets their demands, whether you want (or need) that coverage or not-and whether you think you can afford that coverage or not.
Absolutely, though not stated in a very balanced fashion. The bill defines a minimum standard for what would constitute a "qualified" health insurance plan. Ultimately, employers over a defined size would be required to offer a qualified plan to all employees with a minimum required employer contribution to void a tax for non-compliance. Similarly, individuals would be required to purchase coverage through a qualified plan or pay a tax. This is the basis for ensuring virtually universal coverage. Coverage would not actually b universal since some employers and individuals would still choose not to purchase coverage and because illegal aliens are excluded from receiving any benefits under the program.



HR 3200 also creates a new government-run insurance plan which will ultimately reduce access to healthcare for anyone on it. This government-run plan will almost certainly compensate physicians and hospitals at Medicare rates or something close to that. These rates are usually much lower than market rates, which is why it's sometimes difficult for Medicare beneficiaries to find a doctor as a new patient. This means that Hospitals and doctors will have to cut staff and other costs, which will hurt the quality of healthcare offered in America.
Under HR 3200 the government would offer a plan that at least met the minimum standard for a qualified plan. The government plan would be precluded from receiving any public subsidies but would be able to negotiate reimbursement rates with providers just as do all other insurance carriers. Restrictions are provided that would limit the ability of employers to drop existing plans and move employees to the government sponsored plan. Overall, insurance companies are anticipating a massive increase in sales volume if the new program passes because of the large number of new people who will be able to purchase coverage with the help of government subsidies. There appears to be little basis for the assertions concerning unfair competition by a government sponsored insurance plan. Many providers now receive lower rates through managed care programs than they do through Medicare.


To pay for all of this new bureaucracy, the bill includes more than $800 Billion in new tax hikes, including tax hikes on small businesses. The President's own Chief Economic Advisor has stated that these new taxes would kill 4.7 million American jobs. An independent analysis by the Lewin Group found that 114 million Americans (that's a third of the country) would eventually lose their current insurance as businesses shifted employees to the new government plan.

These are two claims with convoluted histories. First, the statement that the President's own Chief Economic Advisor said that new health care taxes would cost 4.7 million jobs is completely false. It's like one of those stories passed from person to person in a circle and at the end it no longer resembles what it was at the beginning. The CBO estimated that over 10 years that HR 200 would increase the deficit by $239 billion. That increase is actually related to a single provision which defers implementing reimbursement rate cuts under Medicare as required by a 1996 law. Such a deferral has happened every year since the law was first passed because the required rate cuts were considered unacceptable since physician rates are already believed to be too low by most. That single provision costs $245 billion over 10 years and has no relationship to the overall proposal for health reform. If you remove it from the package, the CBO estimates actually show a $6 billion reduction in the deifict associated with the provisions of HR 3200. The next step in the story was that Boehner issued a statement that using the same types of analysis used by Obama's economic advisor, a new tax of $439 billion would cost 4.7 million jobs. That evolved over time into the statement that the chief economic advisor said HR 3200 would cause the loss of 4.7 million jobs. The fact that the chief economic advisor said this wasn't true has been lost in the shouting. With respect to the Lewin Group study, it is even murkier. The supposedly "non-partisan" Lewin Group is owned by United Health Care, a managed care organization that routinely limits how much service its insured population may receive. The study, developed for Congressional Republicans, makes some fairly outrageous assumptions about how a government plan would be operated to suggest that 114 million people would purchase or have their coverage purchased through a government sponsored plan. Why would this happen? Because it assumes that the government plan would offer more service at a lower price. I guess that is what is meant by government inefficiency.


Despite claims that reform will reduce health care costs, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office recently noted this health care plan would "probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits."
This is the $239 billion cost noted above. Removing the elmination of reimbursement rate cots required by the 1996 law that both Republicans and Democrats have voted to defer each year for a decade eliminates the entire projected increase in deficit.


The bill also exempts employer coverage from the new federal insurance mandates in the bill, but only for 5 years. This will further encourage employers to drop coverage and put employees on the new government plan.
The plan phases in the requirement that employers offer plans that conform to the minimum standard for a qualified plan. For the approximately 25% of employers that now offer plans that do not meet the defined standard, they will need to enrich their plans (probably through their existing carriers) or pay a penalty.


HR 3200 contains NO savings from tort reform or reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the system. Attempts to inject sensible policies to ensure fair payment rates, restrict access to taxpayer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, improve Medicare's ability to fight fraud, among many others, were rejected during committee consideration of the bill. I also find it telling that an amendment that would have required Members of Congress to use the new government-run plan if the bill passed was also rejected in Committee. I cosponsored this amendment, and I believe it would have provided a necessary show of good faith if it had been accepted.
Instead, we can assist small businesses with insurance coverage, promote transparency in insurance marketing, provide premium assistance for the needy, and create a meaningful health insurance portal that fosters true price competition between the 1,300 health insurance companies in the U.S. We should extend tax benefits to those who purchase their own insurance, quickly implement health IT software standards, eliminate pre-existing condition restrictions, and give Medicare and Medicaid more resources and authority to truly combat the waste and fraud that everyone knows exists.
Actually the plan provides for almost every savngs program recommended in this letter. However, the CBO declined to estimate any savings from these efforts.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-19-2009, 09:12 PM
Yardly,

Again, I say based on this bill's own wording I am striped of my Freedom of Choice!!!!!!!!!!

You again cited the "fact" that individuals (and employers) would be REQUIRED to purchase a "qualified" plan or "pay a tax" essentially a PENILITY.

So I will try to sum it up another way...

Freedom of Choice, is offered to women everyday in the form of Abortions...the people have voiced there opinions and the government has agreed with them, the supreme court has agreed as well. Women should have the FREEDOM of CHOICE with regard to there body and how they choose handle a pregnancy (as if you didn't know, Roe v Wade cited because some people think other people just make stuff up :rolleyes:)

Now why is it that Women get the FREEDOM of choice without PENALITY or a tax upon them. But when I want to CHOOSE something that pertains to MY BODY. The GOVERNMENT is going to step in and say.....ahhhh ahhh ahhhh, no you cant do that, you have to pay a tax to do that.

Lets level the playing field here, lets make women that want to have an abortion, pay a tax to support the others that DONT WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Or wait, I guess according to the current governments thought process it would be lets TAX women that DO NOT want to have abortions to help pay for women that do...:confused::confused::confused:

Now you'll probally say, that ABORTIONS are elective and the government doesnt have anything to do with it....

and I will say EXACTLY......it is ELECTIVE, it is a CHOICE, it is not forced upon anyone

I know its short, I know its sweet, but do you see that...its way out there, no no over there, look wayyyyyy out there...off in the distance...yea thats it, its LIGHT and its at the end of a tunnel.....the people are speaking and they are saying LET ME HAVE MY CHOICE, not YOURS.

NCA

dnf777
08-19-2009, 09:24 PM
Yardly,

Again, I say based on this bill's own wording I am striped of my Freedom of Choice!!!!!!!!!!

You again cited the "fact" that individuals (and employers) would be REQUIRED to purchase a "qualified" plan or "pay a tax" essentially a PENILITY.

So I will try to sum it up another way...

Freedom of Choice, is offered to women everyday in the form of Abortions...the people have voiced there opinions and the government has agreed with them, the supreme court has agreed as well. Women should have the FREEDOM of CHOICE with regard to there body and how they choose handle a pregnancy (as if you didn't know, Roe v Wade cited because some people think other people just make stuff up :rolleyes:)

Now why is it that Women get the FREEDOM of choice without PENALITY or a tax upon them. But when I want to CHOOSE something that pertains to MY BODY. The GOVERNMENT is going to step in and say.....ahhhh ahhh ahhhh, no you cant do that, you have to pay a tax to do that.

Lets level the playing field here, lets make women that want to have an abortion, pay a tax to support the others that DONT WANT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. Or wait, I guess according to the current governments thought process it would be lets TAX women that DO NOT want to have abortions to help pay for women that do...:confused::confused::confused:

Now you'll probally say, that ABORTIONS are elective and the government doesnt have anything to do with it....

and I will say EXACTLY......it is ELECTIVE, it is a CHOICE, it is not forced upon anyone

I know its short, I know its sweet, but do you see that...its way out there, no no over there, look wayyyyyy out there...off in the distance...yea thats it, its LIGHT and its at the end of a tunnel.....the people are speaking and they are saying LET ME HAVE MY CHOICE, not YOURS.

NCA

Have you protested to your state about having to have auto-insurance? You're freedoms have been greatly violated if you can't drive without auto insurance. BTW, Roe v Wade makes no reference to funding for abortion.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-19-2009, 09:33 PM
Have you protested to your state about having to have auto-insurance? You're freedoms have been greatly violated if you can't drive without auto insurance. BTW, Roe v Wade makes no reference to funding for abortion.

Well you bit the bullet first...

That is my exact point..........the governement IS making reference to FUNDING from ME for my CHOICE to NOT go along with the plan..... ITS WRONG!!!!!!!!



and the rebuttal to your auto insurance example is simple....I can choose to not have auto insurance, and if i choose to not have auto insurance I CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DRIVE. And if I do drive, and something bad does happen I PAY THE PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no worries when choosing not to have auto insurance, that the govenment is going to take money from my pay check. When and if they do decide to take money from my pay check for not having auto insurance I will take up the same fight I am fighting today.

pretty simple.

NCA

dnf777
08-19-2009, 09:49 PM
Well you bit the bullet first...

That is my exact point..........the governement IS making reference to FUNDING from ME for my CHOICE to NOT go along with the plan..... ITS WRONG!!!!!!!!



and the rebuttal to your auto insurance example is simple....I can choose to not have auto insurance, and if i choose to not have auto insurance I CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DRIVE. And if I do drive, and something bad does happen I PAY THE PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no worries when choosing not to have auto insurance, that the govenment is going to take money from my pay check. When and if they do decide to take money from my pay check for not having auto insurance I will take up the same fight I am fighting today.

pretty simple.

NCA

You're really linking two separate issues here, that carry very different sets of circumstances. If you don't drive, you probably won't hurt anyone with a car. There's no way that you can guarantee not to get sick or injured, and pose financial burden to society if you don't pay your own health bills. (I don't think any of us want a society that would turn away non-insured sick people that can't pay up front)

You're right, I did bite the bullet. I was struggling to figure out what RvW had to do with the health reform bill. I *think* I see the connection you were making.

Buzz
08-19-2009, 10:02 PM
Nor Cal Angler,

If you don't want insurance, then maybe we need a provision that allows you to sign an agreement asking that you receive no medical treatment if you fall ill or have an accident, but are unable to pay. The concept works fine for me.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-19-2009, 10:41 PM
Nor Cal Angler,

If you don't want insurance, then maybe we need a provision that allows you to sign an agreement asking that you receive no medical treatment if you fall ill or have an accident, but are unable to pay. The concept works fine for me.

Great it wont cost YOU anything, and it wont cost me anything.

look, I have health benifits, I love them, they are employer provided with a portion comming out of my check to "fill the gap" I am fighting this on PRINCIPAL. I do not want GOVERNMENT getting any more CLAWS into my back.

Whats good for the GOOSE is NOT always good for the gander.......cuz that flock that follows the one on my fields.....well the flock dont fly away.


NCA

YardleyLabs
08-19-2009, 10:54 PM
Yardly,

Again, I say based on this bill's own wording I am striped of my Freedom of Choice!!!!!!!!!!

You again cited the "fact" that individuals (and employers) would be REQUIRED to purchase a "qualified" plan or "pay a tax" essentially a PENILITY.

...

I don't disagree with you at all. The bill forces each of us to carry a minimum level of health insurance or to pay a penalty. That is what universal coverage means.

This is not really a philosophical issue about freedom. Governments are created explicitly to enforce a common will on everyone -- based hopefully on decisions by the majority or their representatives -- and by doing so they inherently constrain the freedom of all. If a road is built, I am forced to help pay for it and if it is built in my backyard I must suffer the damage to the value of m property in the name of the common good. While there may be programs to compensate me, my freedom is limited.

As a citizen, I have the right and freedom to express my opinions and to vote for my representatives. I don't have the right to demand others to support my positions and I don't have the right to have my candidates for office win. I am not more free because my candidates win nor less free when they lose. My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is forever exercised within the boundaries adopted by the common will within the law.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-19-2009, 11:35 PM
I don't disagree with you at all. The bill forces each of us to carry a minimum level of health insurance or to pay a penalty. That is what universal coverage means.

This is not really a philosophical issue about freedom. Governments are created explicitly to enforce a common will on everyone -- based hopefully on decisions by the majority or their representatives -- and by doing so they inherently constrain the freedom of all. If a road is built, I am forced to help pay for it and if it is built in my backyard I must suffer the damage to the value of m property in the name of the common good. While there may be programs to compensate me, my freedom is limited.

As a citizen, I have the right and freedom to express my opinions and to vote for my representatives. I don't have the right to demand others to support my positions and I don't have the right to have my candidates for office win. I am not more free because my candidates win nor less free when they lose. My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is forever exercised within the boundaries adopted by the common will within the law.

Thank you, thank you, thank you...

"Governments are created explicitly to enforce a common will on everyone"

nope....NOT OURS....your reference to "Governments" supposes that your including other systems. Sorry pal, not the United States of America...this Government (singular) was not founded to enforce a will on THE PEOPLE.

"based hopefully on decisions by the majority or their representatives"

nope....NOT OURS...BASED SOLELY on the decisions by the MAJORITY of the PEOPLE.


And your last whole paragraph.....

This is the problem....I agree with you whole heartedly, and yet as the MAJORITY of americans are up in arms about this healthcare issue and EVERY POLL out shows that people are NOT IN FAVOR of it. Our ELECTED represenatives are (hold on, stop the press, guess what) CHOOSING to ignore us and swear up and down that this is going to get passed.....

So re-read your last paragraph and explain how you say..."I DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND OTHERS TO SUPPORT MY DECISIONS" and yet your in favor of ME supporting you. Cake and eat it to much????

The way I read your whole last paragraph, it seems to be a contradiciton to your stated opinions on the subject matter....you say "My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is forever exercised within the boundaries adopted by the common will within the law"

How is the common will (your implying the PEOPLES WILL) going to prevail when our reps wont acknowledge our will...

NCA

Ps...based upon your last paragraph...do you struggle to sleep at night with the internal battle you must be having.

Buzz
08-20-2009, 09:00 AM
Ps...based upon your last paragraph...do you struggle to sleep at night with the internal battle you must be having.

I think you should read his last paragraph a couple more times. I think there is a small chance that you misunderstood what he was saying.

YardleyLabs
08-20-2009, 09:52 AM
Thank you, thank you, thank you...

"Governments are created explicitly to enforce a common will on everyone"

nope....NOT OURS....your reference to "Governments" supposes that your including other systems. Sorry pal, not the United States of America...this Government (singular) was not founded to enforce a will on THE PEOPLE.

"based hopefully on decisions by the majority or their representatives"

nope....NOT OURS...BASED SOLELY on the decisions by the MAJORITY of the PEOPLE.


And your last whole paragraph.....

This is the problem....I agree with you whole heartedly, and yet as the MAJORITY of americans are up in arms about this healthcare issue and EVERY POLL out shows that people are NOT IN FAVOR of it. Our ELECTED represenatives are (hold on, stop the press, guess what) CHOOSING to ignore us and swear up and down that this is going to get passed.....

So re-read your last paragraph and explain how you say..."I DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND OTHERS TO SUPPORT MY DECISIONS" and yet your in favor of ME supporting you. Cake and eat it to much????

The way I read your whole last paragraph, it seems to be a contradiciton to your stated opinions on the subject matter....you say "My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is forever exercised within the boundaries adopted by the common will within the law"

How is the common will (your implying the PEOPLES WILL) going to prevail when our reps wont acknowledge our will...

NCA

Ps...based upon your last paragraph...do you struggle to sleep at night with the internal battle you must be having.
The preamble to our Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That is, it is all about the common wealth of the population. As is more typically pointed out by conservative commentators, we do not live in a democracy, but a representative republic. Representatives are elected and act under the Constitution to pass laws and adopt taxes that affect all of us. What is a law but an effort to enforce common standards of behavior on each of us consistent with the will of the "people" as expressed by their representatives? Every law limits freedom. Hopefully, the benefits of the law warrant that limitation.

With respect to my last paragraph, I don't see the contradiction. The proposed bills would definitely reduce your freedom by compelling you to have health insurance coverage. That is what you said and I agree. The question before Congress is whether or not our representatives believe that the benefits of the bills warrant that restriction. I believe they do. You believe they don't. My point is that in a representative democracy or republic we participate in the decision making by how we cast our votes in elections. The government is representative or not based on how it is elected, not what decisions it makes. If it strays too far from the will of the people, it will lose support in the next election. As a citizen, I have the right (and responsibility) to vote. After that, whether my candidate wins or loses, I am represented by the victors.

As polls prove, the will of the people changes frequently, but only the votes count. This is a fact that Bush proved repeatedly as he continued to govern effectively (not well) despite massive disapproval of his presidency. The health plan under discussion now was a central issue throughout the 2008 elections. The people who won the election in a major victory were those supporting the types of changes now being considered. Why do you think they would abandon that support now? In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and only took office by the will of the Supreme Court. He ran on a platform of massive tax cuts and pushed those tax cuts through using special provisions of senate rules to avoid the need for a 60 vote majority. Those tax cuts increased our deficit by about six times the increase estimated for the Obama health plan. I did not support those cuts, although I benefited from them. However, given Bush's campaign, I was not at all surprised by the fact that he used every possible trick, including deliberately concealing the true cost, to force them through.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-20-2009, 10:21 AM
"I was not at all surprised by the fact that he used every possible trick, including deliberately concealing the true cost, to force them through."


I thought you wanted CHANGE....hmmmmmm

NCA

YardleyLabs
08-20-2009, 11:08 AM
"I was not at all surprised by the fact that he used every possible trick, including deliberately concealing the true cost, to force them through."


I thought you wanted CHANGE....hmmmmmm

NCA
Not the kind of change that says to pretend like you didn't win the election. Bi-partisanship only works when both sides are prepared to move towards the middle and accept that the best measure of the middle comes from the results of the election. Clearly that is not working and won't work on health care unless Republicans are prepared to define conditions under which they will actually vote in favor of a plan providing virtually universal coverage instead of simply demonizing everything proposed. If that position persists, I personally hope that the administration proceeds even if it receives no support at all from the Republicans. In that case it is politically necessary to pass a bill before campaigning for the 2010 elections moves into full gear.

Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 11:13 AM
If they pass osamacare over the objections of the GOP, the left won't have to worry about the off year elections, they will get their clocks cleaned.

dnf777
08-20-2009, 11:21 AM
If they pass osamacare over the objections of the GOP, the left won't have to worry about the off year elections, they will get their clocks cleaned.

From where Obama stood during the campaign, he has given up single-payer, end of life counselling provisions, and most recently any public option in the effort to gain bipartisanship. What have the republicans given up?

As and independent, all I've seen from the right is lies, distortions, and nazi-baiting name calling. None of which is legitimate debate or compromise. The "death panels" are a prime example of how the far right has squandered its credibility on this issue. Like I've said before, there is plenty of legitimate debate that needs to occur. Can't we dispense with the distortions and name calling?

YardleyLabs
08-20-2009, 11:37 AM
If they pass osamacare over the objections of the GOP, the left won't have to worry about the off year elections, they will get their clocks cleaned.
If he fails to pass legislation because of his efforts to obtain Republican support, he will face the same problem. I see no evidence that Republicans are likely to do anything except attempt delays unless Democrats agree to a program relying almost exclusively on tax credits as a vehicle to reduce the cost of employer subsidized insurance. I view that as a complete waste of money that will result not be supported by a majority from either party. Pass a bill fast and work to make the program a success.

If Democrats go into the next election with declining unemployment, rising housing sales, moderate economic growth, a stable to growing stock market, and having passed a health program, they will probably lose at most a few seats. If nothing passes, Democrats will lose big even if the economy is improving. That is the political calculus now driving both sides and every Republican effort is focused on delaying any action long enough to prevent passage prior to the 2010 elections.

Roger Perry
08-20-2009, 12:01 PM
If they pass osamacare over the objections of the GOP, the left won't have to worry about the off year elections, they will get their clocks cleaned.

Hey Bob, why don't we use the health care plan W put through Congress when he had a Republican majority in the House and Senate for 6 years?

Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 12:59 PM
I like the healthcare plan I have now and don't want the govt messing it up for the sake of socialism

dnf777
08-20-2009, 02:37 PM
I like the healthcare plan I have now and don't want the govt messing it up for the sake of socialism

All insurance policies are socialism. That's the underpinning of the entire industry. Everyone pays in, everyone is protected. A capitalist would say get a job, earn money, and pay for your own medical treatements!

"Keep the government out of my medicare!"

Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 03:07 PM
Had a job, retired and still pay for my own insurance. I have no desire to pay for the healthcare of illegals, dopers, smokers boozers or others who will not either take care of themselves or pay their own way.

dnf777
08-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Had a job, retired and still pay for my own insurance. I have no desire to pay for the healthcare of illegals, dopers, smokers boozers or others who will not either take care of themselves or pay their own way.

You must be for some form of healthcare reform, because right now, your tax dollars are paying for all of the above!!:shock:

Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 04:53 PM
Fortunately, my pension is only supporting me and mine, I don't get enough to pay much in tax money for the govt to waste.

dnf777
08-20-2009, 05:32 PM
Fortunately, my pension is only supporting me and mine, I don't get enough to pay much in tax money for the govt to waste.

Good for you! I hope you keep it that way. My father, who worked for the same company for 30 years was smart enough to take a lump sum severance and retire early. His co-workers fell victim to a merger, and got the pension plan of a new hire basically, losing all they paid into all that time.

My father just had his retirement health care taken away. With the private policy he bought after retirement, he only had to pay $5000 per year for he and my mother. Now, they're shopping for insurance around 12,000 per annum, but because he had high blood sugars until he started exercising, is having trouble getting a policy.

there's a guy who worked all his life, bought and paid his own insurance, and just had it yanked out from under him, and God forbid any health crisis occurs right now, would face financial ruin. Great system we have.

Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 06:01 PM
It is unfortunate that your father and plenty of others have lost their health insurance. I do not believe, however, that a govt takeover is the way to cure the problem. I don't trust the govt to do it right, and I don't think that their inability to run the post office bodes well for them running something as important as health care.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-20-2009, 07:47 PM
Not the kind of change that says to pretend like you didn't win the election. Bi-partisanship only works when both sides are prepared to move towards the middle and accept that the best measure of the middle comes from the results of the election. Clearly that is not working and won't work on health care unless Republicans are prepared to define conditions under which they will actually vote in favor of a plan providing virtually universal coverage instead of simply demonizing everything proposed. If that position persists, I personally hope that the administration proceeds even if it receives no support at all from the Republicans. In that case it is politically necessary to pass a bill before campaigning for the 2010 elections moves into full gear.

Ok, so democrates won the election, but they still represent the PEOPLE and ALL OF THEM and right now the majority of the people do not want this change.

regardless, of political ties if the masses do not want it (republican,democrate and everyone in between) as shown by every poll I have seen and you have seen. Then the bill should not pass.

Meeting in the middle sometimes means that things do not get done, not that we find a way to pretty it up and make it look good.

a dress on a terd is still a terd!!!!

NCA

YardleyLabs
08-20-2009, 08:16 PM
Ok, so democrates won the election, but they still represent the PEOPLE and ALL OF THEM and right now the majority of the people do not want this change.

regardless, of political ties if the masses do not want it (republican,democrate and everyone in between) as shown by every poll I have seen and you have seen. Then the bill should not pass.

Meeting in the middle sometimes means that things do not get done, not that we find a way to pretty it up and make it look good.

a dress on a terd is still a terd!!!!

NCA

I think every politician seeking reelection pays attention to the polls. However, only votes actually count. With the volume of lies that are the core of most of the attacks on the health bills, I don't think polls mean very much. When presented with objective descriptions of different programs, the majority have favored plans consistently that are comparable to what is now being discussed. The poll results now are reflecting rhetoric, not reality.

twall
08-20-2009, 08:48 PM
When presented with objective descriptions of different programs, the majority have favored plans consistently that are comparable to what is now being discussed. The poll results now are reflecting rhetoric, not reality.

Jeff,

I think this congress and president have shown that they are more than willing to pass and sign bills that they have not read so they have no idea what is included.

If this were truly about providing for those without the entire healthcare system would not be their target. The majority may agree with broad generalizations. It is the specifics that are in the bills the we object to. I don't think that is going to change any time in the near future.

Tom

Buzz
08-20-2009, 09:43 PM
For years I heard that Republicans don't look at polls.

Here are results from the latest:



Question: In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?

Extremely important....58%
Quite important........19%
Not that important..... 7%
Not at all important...15%
Not sure............... 1%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693

zeus3925
08-20-2009, 11:45 PM
Jeff,

I think this congress and president have shown that they are more than willing to pass and sign bills that they have not read so they have no idea what is included.

If this were truly about providing for those without the entire healthcare system would not be their target. The majority may agree with broad generalizations. It is the specifics that are in the bills the we object to. I don't think that is going to change any time in the near future.

Tom

Tom, how many who pontificate on these pages have read the bill? There is a lot of crowing about angels and bogeymen from people that have no idea about the bill.

Martin
08-21-2009, 01:44 AM
Ok Gentlemen I have an idea to solve this health care problem. Since I a small business owner I have to be creative in this economy to get fed.

Here goes.

There are what 47 million Americans without health care. coverage. Really? Is this number bloted or not. Doesn't matter under my plan. The state of Arkansas offers Medicade to low income families and families who have no means. If you make below the line you can qualify for the program. this is very simple so watch out this doesn't go over some heads. Remove the income restrictions on the medicare program. If you have no insurance then go apply for medicare with the income restrictions removed and you have coverage. Now, if you have the means to pay 10, 30, 50, or whatever a month, you pay. In fact everyone has to pay something to qualify for this program. Let's see 47 million people paying 20 dollars a month, you get 940 million dollars a month. Do you think 47 million people can get coverage for 940 million a month? Hell yes.That is 18.8 million for each state!

Next. Clean up the fraud in medicade and make it efficient.
If you like your health care plan, keep it. If not you can choose to go on the medicade plan. But you have to pay something! When I go to wal=mart and buy milk, a book or shotgun shells I have to pay the little tax at the end no matter what my income status is.

I just hired a new employee who is newly married and a baby is on the way. They are young and just starting out. He has not been at his job long enough for his insurance to kick in and I cannot afford to pay for her health ins. They went to apply for medicade adn were turned down. They made 18.47 too much a month to qualify. BS! They both have full time jobs and are working hard to get by. But the free loaders who sit on their cans and pop out babies get everything paid for. Sorry, that is for another post.
So she has no prenatal care. So much for the hard working American.

There is my plan. Simple really. You can't afford a traditional ins plan through a private company you go get on the medicade plan where every one pays a little and benifits a lot.

Now pick it apart boys!

Sincerely,
Martin

K G
08-21-2009, 08:40 AM
Tom, how many who pontificate on these pages have read the bill? There is a lot of crowing about angels and bogeymen from people that have no idea about the bill.

Son of Cronus and Rhea, WE don't matter....WE don't HAVE to read the bill....we ELECT people to do that....and they DON'T DO THAT....so WHERE is the motivation for the COMMON people to do what those that WE have elected WON'T DO???? :o:confused::-x

Riddle me THAT regards, :rolleyes:

kg

Gerry Clinchy
08-21-2009, 01:50 PM
There is my plan. Simple really. You can't afford a traditional ins plan through a private company you go get on the medicade plan where every one pays a little and benifits a lot.


Martin, I think you make a very good point. If someone qualifies for Medicare (under present income restrictions), and if they have cable TV, they can afford to give up cable TV and pay that $ for their medical coverage. Probably no less than $20/mo, and likely more.

The young couple you mention would probably be very happy to pay some of their income for coverage under the plan you propose.

Essentially, you are saying that instead of setting up a whole new plan, one could just "modify" the Medicaid plan with a sliding scale of income levels that would correspond to a sliding scale of payment for coverage. And I do believe that you are correct that everybody should pay something toward their coverage. After all, Medicare collects from every participant.

Hey, Martin, did you suggest to your employee that you cut his pay by $18.47/mo? Would work out to about 12 cents an hour ... so he could qualify for Medicaid. Looks like a bargain to me.

Martin
08-23-2009, 01:17 AM
Martin, I think you make a very good point. If someone qualifies for Medicare (under present income restrictions), and if they have cable TV, they can afford to give up cable TV and pay that $ for their medical coverage. Probably no less than $20/mo, and likely more.

The young couple you mention would probably be very happy to pay some of their income for coverage under the plan you propose.

Essentially, you are saying that instead of setting up a whole new plan, one could just "modify" the Medicaid plan with a sliding scale of income levels that would correspond to a sliding scale of payment for coverage. And I do believe that you are correct that everybody should pay something toward their coverage. After all, Medicare collects from every participant.

Hey, Martin, did you suggest to your employee that you cut his pay by $18.47/mo? Would work out to about 12 cents an hour ... so he could qualify for Medicaid. Looks like a bargain to me.

I think the government also pays for cable TV and landline service!

We don't need a whole new plan...correct. Just modify the current plan, make people to pay thier way, clean it up and tell congress to keep their hands off of it just like they SHOULD HAVE kept their hands off SS and Medicare.

Unfortunatly she quit friday in order to recieve medicare so she could get her prenatal care that she needs. She miscarried a year ago and wants to get ahead of any problems.

I trully hope my business grows to a point , this time next year, that I can help provide ins. to my employees.

Regards,
Martin

Roger Perry
08-23-2009, 11:58 AM
Ok Gentlemen I have an idea to solve this health care problem. Since I a small business owner I have to be creative in this economy to get fed.

Here goes.

There are what 47 million Americans without health care. coverage. Really? Is this number bloted or not. Doesn't matter under my plan. The state of Arkansas offers Medicade to low income families and families who have no means. If you make below the line you can qualify for the program. this is very simple so watch out this doesn't go over some heads. Remove the income restrictions on the medicare program. If you have no insurance then go apply for medicare with the income restrictions removed and you have coverage. Now, if you have the means to pay 10, 30, 50, or whatever a month, you pay. In fact everyone has to pay something to qualify for this program. Let's see 47 million people paying 20 dollars a month, you get 940 million dollars a month. Do you think 47 million people can get coverage for 940 million a month? Hell yes.That is 18.8 million for each state!

Next. Clean up the fraud in medicade and make it efficient.
If you like your health care plan, keep it. If not you can choose to go on the medicade plan. But you have to pay something! When I go to wal=mart and buy milk, a book or shotgun shells I have to pay the little tax at the end no matter what my income status is.

I just hired a new employee who is newly married and a baby is on the way. They are young and just starting out. He has not been at his job long enough for his insurance to kick in and I cannot afford to pay for her health ins. They went to apply for medicade adn were turned down. They made 18.47 too much a month to qualify. BS! They both have full time jobs and are working hard to get by. But the free loaders who sit on their cans and pop out babies get everything paid for. Sorry, that is for another post.
So she has no prenatal care. So much for the hard working American.

There is my plan. Simple really. You can't afford a traditional ins plan through a private company you go get on the medicade plan where every one pays a little and benifits a lot.

Now pick it apart boys!

Sincerely,
Martin


Your plan is wayyyyyy to simple for the politicians but I like it.:D