I just can't get it through my thick head why these ioiots are so intent on passing a bill the majority of the country opposes. I can only hope they are commiting political suicide.
M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
I watched a doumentary last evening about about Teddy Roosevelt he didn't believe in all the welfare but individuals should be given ample opportunity to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
cave canem...beware of the dog
Richard Halstead (halst001 at yahoo.com)
I'll flat-our say it, Obama is a liar!
Here is his quote from the article....
Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News "the federal government will go bankrupt" if the health care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an "unsustainable" path if no action is taken.
Obama is going to use the failure of his Health Care Bill as a diversion to his over-spending. It is all the wasteful spending that Obama is and has signed off on that will cause our bankruptcy! Yes, Pres. Bush over-spent but Obama's spending makes Bush look like Scrooge Jr.
There is a phycological name applied to this kind of behavior,,,maby Jeff would know
Where you set you words and actions up so if you fail the blame goes to someone else,, Obama spends a large part of his speaches throwing in little inuendo's as to try to make other people responsible for the out come of his actions. he has wove an obvious web of deception for all to see.
he does this constantly and probably doesnt even realize it.
Poor guy I feel sorry for him
I feel much worse for the country and its people than I do its President...he WANTED the job, now he's got it....
Buy your ticket and take your chances regards,
Obama states if the health care bill is not passed the feds will go banckrupt,,,,so if this fails it is the fault of all who oppose it and that caused this bankrupcy,,,,,,,not the trillions borrowed and gambled and given away to cronies,,,,
this guys way to transparent,,,who are those that cant see through him
Currently, through Medicare and Medicaid, we guarantee financial access to health care for the elderly, the poor, and certain classes of the disabled. The Federal government, including the military, guarantee financial access to medical services through employee and military health programs. The costs of those service are increasing at 2-3 times the rate of growth in the economy. Businesses have been seeing similar or higher increases. These have been financed in several ways: jobs have been shipped to other countries where employers do not have responsibility for health insurance, costs have been transferred to employees by increasing their share of premiums, increasing deductibles and coinsurance, and by eliminating coverage altogether (the percentage of private sector employees covered by insurance has been drifting lower for several years and is now about 60%).
The typical Republican response has been to argue for "reducing entitlements" which translates into cutbacks in eligibility and coverage under Medicare and Medicaid. To put it crudely, this is a strategy that rations medical care based on age and income so that the aged and poor can die off more quickly and at lower cost to the younger and wealthier taxpayers. In addition, Republicans have argued that the "free market", if left to its own devices, will solve the problem of increasing costs. Personally, I find that strategy of killing off the old and poor morally unacceptable. While the free market might do a good job of regulating costs, we do not have a free market now and will not have one as long as almost all health care costs are paid through insurance programs. The decisions on health care consumption are made in two places: by consumers deciding when to seek care, and by physicians deciding what services to provide to their patients. Neither the consumers nor the physicians have a direct financial interest in the overwhelming bulk of the decisions made. As a result, cost is not a factor in the decisions and the results are economically irrational.
Obama and the Democrats have argued that, as a matter of justice, that essential medical care, including preventive care, should not be rationed based on ability to pay. I agree with that and recognize that many disagree. Obama has also argued that the "cost curve" must be moved as part of any health program extending coverage -- meaning that the program must provide incentives for reducing the cost of care over time.
Of course, the primary losers from such cuts will be the same groups that were the primary beneficiaries of rapid increases in coverage under Medicare with a virtual absence of controls: manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment and supplies, and benefit management companies. While Medicare has been cutting real compensation for physicians constantly over the last 10-20 years, the pharmaceutical and medical supply industries have had a free ride on the shoulders of the taxpayer. Using lofty phrases such as "patients should receive the best medications without regard to cost", pharmaceutical companies have established programs that will refund deductibles charged by insurance companies for non-generic drugs to make the cost to the consumer equal. For a drug such as Lipitor, this is a strategy for survival since 90% of the patients using Lipitor would be equally well served by the generic Simvastatin which costs 70% less.
The $50 billion/year savings anticipated in Medicare are simply predicated on allowing Medicare to negotiate the prices paid (reversing restrictions imposed by Republicans when the Medicare drug plan was adopted) and reversing a multi-billion dollar subsidy included in Medicare for benefit management companies by the Bush administration.
I actually believe that the health care proposals on the table do not go far enough. They need to provide virtually universal coverage. They need to get the employer out of the business of financing health insurance so that American businesses can be competitive without moving all jobs out of our country. And they need to incorporate even more actions to control not just the amount spent by the programs, but the actual cost of health care.
I believe any program adopted now that provides for greatly expanded coverage will ultimately evolve to eliminate coverage gaps and that our reluctance to increase taxes will ultimately result in more cost controls focused on the cost of care rather than on rationing who gets care. As a consequence, I am not too worried about having a "perfect" plan at the beginning. There is no such thing. I do believe that if we do nothing, that this issue will not be addressed again in any substantive form for at least a decade because of the political costs involved. For that reason, I hope that Democrats do whatever is needed to adopt a plan, including overriding Senate rules to permit a simple majority vote.
This bill is a disaster and a BOONDOGGLE for the very reasons you listed.
(not to mention we can't afford it)
This is about political power and nothing else.
Hoax & Chains regards....
Stan b & Elvis
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!