Sen. panel OKs health bill: Here’s what’s in it
October 16, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, Health care, Special Report
Healthcare reform inched closer to reality when the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of the bill. Here’s what they OK’d and what to expect next.
Sure, there’s a lot more haggling to be done (more on that later), but the we’re starting to get a clearer picture of what final legislation will look like.
Who’s covered: An estimated 94 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive government benefits.
Cost: $829 billion over 10 years.
How it would be funded:
- A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums.
- Fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical-device manufacturers.
- A tax on insurance companies amounting to 40% of total premiums paid on plans costing more than $8,000 annually for individuals and $21,000 for families.
- Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
- Fines on people who don’t purchase coverage.
Requirements and costs for individuals: Except for a few hardship exemptions, everyone would have to get coverage through an employer, individually or some type of subsidized plan. Individuals and families would pay no more than 8% of their income in premiums.
Mandates on the insurance industry:
- No denials or higher premiums based on preexisting conditions or gender, but some increases in premiums will be allowed based on age and family size.
- Limits on allowable copays and deductibles.
The Senate plan drops the so-called public option — the government-run alternative to private insurance.
The chronology of where it’s headed
- Members of the Finance Committee will meet with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which also presented a bill earlier. The two sides will hash out a compromise.
- A floor debate will take place in the Senate probably the week of Oct. 26, when amendments will be proposed.
- The Congressional Budget Office will report on the finance effects of the bill.
- If the bill passes in the full Senate, there will be a conference committee with members of the House, who have their own bill and likely will seek a compromise.
- The Senate and House would then vote on the final bill and send it to the White House.
- Expected deadline: Congressional leaders say Thanksgiving — meaning probably early December.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
This is absolutely absurd!!
This is nothing but a scam to get control and we all know it. If you look at it, this is a Ponzi scheme, as they have to force people to pay into just to pay for those already receiving benefits.
Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and they are already hemorrhaging money!
More people better get writing and calling or we are going to get stuck bailing out the unions and giving more control to the government.
Obama said he would fundamentally change this country, and he is. Thanks to everyone voting for him, I will not have an 8% tax for not getting a service.
They all need to be thrown out!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
and you think John McCain and Caribou Barbie would have done better? If we had addressed this issue decades ago it would not have gone this far…….I don’t agree with everything in the Bill, Richard, but something needs to be done. 47 million uninsured people in the richest country in the world is ridiculous and more than a scam.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“Individuals and families would pay no more than 8% of their income in premiums.”
At my employer, a family pays $1143.52 per month in premium (after the employer contribution) $13722.24 annully. For someone making 30K a year, that’s 46% of their income. For an individaul plan it’s $236.90 per month or $2842.80. Most staff taking that plan are in the $10 per hour pay range, which makes them at about 14% of their income. And the majority of our employees make 30K or less.
I’m sure that they will welcome an 8% cap on premiums.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Obama hasn’t not signed this bill…this is still in its infancy…many more revisions will be made, I am sure of that. Ask your self how much it costs to cover someone who doesn’t have insurance? Do those cost only target a few specific areas or would we rather have the costs encompass the whole.
I believe all people should have medical coverage with out worry. I wish there was a cost correction in the medical and insurance industry just like the cost correction in the stock market and economy.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I agree with Janice. I doubt McCain would have done any better.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Janice, I don’t think that Mr. McCain or Ms. Palin would have done any worse. Yes, 47 million people remain uninsured. Many of those are eligible for government assisted plans, but have not felt the need to enroll, and many middle class citizens that can have coverage have chosen not to carry it. You say you don’t agree with everything in the Bill, that’s just it, we don’t know everything in the Bill. Some of what we know is already alarming, let alone what we don’t know.
I’m having a difficult time accepting that I will be paying more (one way or another) to have my services and options reduced.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Richard, are you not reading the same thing we are? You are absurd. No denials or higher premiums based on preexisting conditions or gender, but some increases in premiums will be allowed based on age and family size. This great- some people can’t be covered right now because of pre-x. It’s unfair right now. I say let them come up with something..we look like idiots to other countries with not having something in place already. And 8% cap heck that’s awesome it will put more money in my pocket since my employer is cheap!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Is 15% of the total population being uninsured really a crisis that must be addressed now???? I think the 10% of Americans out of work is a bigger issue and implementing government mandated/subsidized health care off of the backs of employers and so called “Cadillac Plans” is an even worse proposition for an ailing economy. I suppose 15% unemployment would be better, if we all had govt. provided health care.
In addition, part of the uninsured calculations include illegal aliens, which, the last time I checked, are considered criminals. I don’t believe looking to the government for help is the solution. The government already has 4 fully funded (by taxpayers) and going broke health care systems: Medicare, VA health system, Federal grants to County Health Departments and prisons. I suggest if people want health care, it is right under their noses right now. All they have to do is commit a crime, enlist in the military, or get old. And, if that doesn’t work, just show up to the E.R., as most are required to give charitable care to those who need treatment. I am still failing to see the thousands of people dying in the streets because they are unable to get needed health care.
The problem with this and any government plan is that it takes away our individual freedoms and liberties, and taxes those who the governement perceives as making too much. Despite what you might think, this will effect everyone at every income level. Think about the taxes that all of the fast food restaurants, Wal-Marts, and other businesses (small & large alike) will have to pay to provide mandatory healthcare. If you think things are expensive right now, just wait. How does $10 bucks for a happy meal sound????
October 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Janice, can you please tell everyone where the 47 million uninsured number comes from? Truth be told, that number is much smaller than that. It includes illegals, people who choose not to purchase insurance, and people who at some point in time in a given year do not have insurance based on their current job situation. It is a bogus number!
Also, what are we talking about here? Health insurance or health care? I keep hearing health care being thrown around, but as we all know, each and every one of us has the ability to enter an emergency room anywhere in the US and receive the best health care in the world.
And another thing, why have our anointed leaders NOT addressed Tort Reform along with this supposed health care reform? How can we have one without the other?
Also, I think that Caribou Barbie would have done a much better job with this.
We the people need to stop re-electing politicians. DON’T RE-ELECT
October 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Richard the bottom line here is that no one knows how the final bill will read. As the article points out, it has a long way to go before the final plan is settled upon. In the meanwhile, I wouldn’t assume that you will lose services or options and I certainly would not place the “blame” on President Obama. Everything he is dealing with right now is inherited. And I for one would like to see a public option – perhaps I’d like to do something else with my life and how can I when I will have no health insurance as things stand now…..do you know what you have to earn to have a government assisted plan? And the so-called middle class people who “choose” not to take coverage are not taking it because it’s a choice between paying the rent and paying for coverage.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I agree with Janice and Mitch. This issue is long overdue. President Roosevelt advocated for a second bill of rights. Within this bill of rights for the citizens of this country he advocated for a fair wage and health care for all. When Roosevelt died, people from his cabinet took his proposals to Europe and Asian countries. Many countries, including France, adopted his proposals. We are the richest country in the world and are now, again, seriously considering managing the health of its citizens. I could see if our current healthcare system was affordable and increased the healthiness of the country’s citizens. It does not. In many instances I deal with services being denied for the team members who work for us or they have been asked to pay any outstanding balance up front, which they do, and then get billed after the insurance companies have denied either contracted rates or portions of various services all together. Yes, something must change to make health insurance a viable option for all in an affordable manner.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Well put Janice!
Why is it so difficult for people to understand (and so threatening to people like Richard) that the only reasonable solution to our health care dilemma is for all Americans to be fully covered and to spread the cost evenly across the population? All Americans get health care when they need, one way or another, but not all Americans pay for it. Richard, you probably already have health care so why are you so threatened by this? If anything, your costs will be less in the future under this plan than if nothing changes. Canada, France, England, Germany, Japan and most other developed countries of the world pay far less for their health care than America does and their populations are healthier and utilize their health care providers more than Americans. Why are American’s so hard-headed about this? I’ll tell you why, because our political leaders, in response to big business support, keep telling us that we need to keep health care as a for-profit industry. Why, because of the PROFIT! It’s all about money and the sad thing is the many people who don’t benefit from these excessive profits will blindly follow their leaders for a variety of reasons. It’s kind of like when George Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A majority of Americans fell for that one too. Haven’t we all fallen for enough lies? Let’s face reality and do something positive about health care. If we don’t, soon only the truly rich will be able to afford it. That’s America!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I work for a company that is doing everything it can to continue to maintain paying 90% of the employee health premiums. We have a really good plan at a minimum cost for employees. My CFO was asked if the company would be able to keep our health insurance if this bill is passed. He said there would be no way we could afford it under the new law. So thanks Obama! You are making my health care worse and more expensive!!
Oh, and 2 corrections in the article. Harry Reid announced last week the bill will cost $2 TRILLION, not $829 billion. http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/10/16/opinion/doc4ad8c97106275557157244.txt
Also, illegals will be covered as the bill does not require proof of citizenship to receive benefits. The Democratic lead Congress has defeated every effort made to ensure the bill specified a requirement of proof of citizenship. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants–55021087.html
So, if these two issues that they profess to be 100% true can be easily disputed, what else is Congress hiding from us in this bill?
October 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Rick are you kidding? The best care in the world in an Emergency Room? Been to one lately? Besides the 6-8 hour wait and besides the fact that by the time the uninsured get there they are much sicker than they would have been if they had the ability to see a private doctor, does it really matter if it’s 47 million or one million? Is that acceptable to you? If it was your mother or your child or your wife who had to go without care would that be acceptable to you? 44,000 people in this country die every year simply because their only access to healthcare is the Emergency Room. The Emergency Room is not meant to be a safety net for the uninsured and uncared for in this country…..
October 19th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Dear Janice,
Why don’t you just roll over right now and give-in to the socialist regime that is taking over the Country. Could anyone please show me in the Constitution of the United States where it says we have a right and requirement to government subsidized health care?
Also, why do we need to provide you with free or cheap insurance so you can go do something else with you life? If you have it right now, enjoy it, if you want to do something else, save up money and go do what you want to, but foot the bill yourself and don’t expect others to take care of you.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I don’t care if you are a Republican or Democrat, the current insurance system is broken. Working in a small company, I see the impact of the current premiums on our workforce as well as the employer struggling to survive. To top it off, our insurance carrier now says they want a 30% increase in premiums for 2010. Small employers trying to do what is right are being hammered. The average worker cannot afford the premiums now, let alone a 30% increase. In order to fix the system, I hope our representatives are not only looking at the medical insurance carriers, but at the legal system (malpractice), the drug companies, etc. At least the current bill has the public option removed. I am afraid that if a public option is there, my employer will quit offering benefits since the penalty may be less than the premiums they are paying.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
They pass traid bills that sensd our manafacturing jobs off shore. They pass regulatioms to make more difficult to do busioness in USA.
they are going to pass Cap and trade to increase taxes. This health law will require tax increase on everyone to pay for. With friends like we have in Washington, who needs enemys?
October 19th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Absolutely perfect answer, Tom. This country is being run by PACs and big business and those who have what they need don’t care about those who have nothing.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I’m not sure I’d pass something simply because its better than nothing. As we know the 47 million is a bogus number as is the cost for this thing. Recall that the “cost” is based on collecting taxes immediately but not providing benefits until 2013 (after the next election). So you have 10 years of revenue and 7 years of benefits. Further CBO makes assumptions that if an employer drops coverage they will automatically raise salaries to compensate and those increased salaries would be taxed on the order of $83B over 10 years. Ridiculous assumption. Also assumed is that employers will not change their “Cadillac” health plans in the face of heavy taxes.
Its smoke and mirrors. Try HR3400 as an alternative.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Janice, you are correct when you say “choose”. I agree with you completely that I should be able to choose what kind of health care I provide for my family. Just like when I chose to get an education, or when I chose a company that pays 100% of the premium for their employees. The one thing I have not chose is a plan that limits my companies ability to choose. If there is a fix it’s in tort reform not the gov’t plans which history shows have been disastrous. Question, how many people thought they were voting for a cadillac and ended up with the pinto, I want my money back!!!!
October 19th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I agree with Scott. This is getting pretty rediculous. And where does everyone come up with that we are the richest country in the world. If we were, why are the taxpayers going to have to deal with the trillions in bailout money given to the AIG’s and big 3 of the US? Maybe the answer is not with the insurance companies but with the drug companies, doctors and hospitals and the charges they seek. I go to the doctor’s office and feel like a piece of meat because the waiting rooms are over crowded with over bookings so the doctors can get more from the insurance companies in the form of office visit charges and whatever else they can charge for. And you can’t tell me that this situation is from a lack of doctors. Medical charges and prescription costs need to come down.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
And if we all only pay 8%, how are we going to afford all this fine healthcare? Oh yeah, I forgot, let’s just tax those rich people who risk their wealth to give us our jobs. I’m sure none of that will come back to us in the way of higher prices for goods and services.
No matter what kind of make-up the Dems put on this pig, it’s still a pig. The negative (and far-reaching) consequences are too numerous to list here. Not to mention it’s borderline unconstitutional, even with a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
And careful there Janice, I detect a little jealousy of Mrs. Palin. As for the 47 million figure… do some research. That figure includes 10 million illegals, 9 million in between jobs, 8 million kids whose parents haven’t signed them up, 3.5 million who are eligible for medicaid but haven’t signed up, and 9 million who simply choose not to have it. Even the Liar-in-Chief has reduced the number to 30 million in his speeches. Sounds like you’re believing everything you hear from the media.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Mitch, I think you drank the democratic coolaid – Medical costs are not going to miraculusly reduce if this passes. Who do you think will be expected to pay the rest of the cost of the medical coverage above the 8% employee premium cap??? – the employer. Not many employers can afford to pay that. They will just drop medical coverage and pay the fine.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Janice & Tom, my husband is a cop. Most of his day is spent working with the “poorest” of this country. Amazingly enough, most of these people still have big screen TVs, iPods, Wii systems, $100 tennis shoes, cigarettes, leather jackets, and oh, yeah, if they need medical care an ambulance is called and they are treated. He deals with 19 year olds getting Social Security for depression and perfectly healthy 40 year olds who have never worked a day in their life because they can manipulate the system and get the goverment to support them. People make choices in this county and if they choice to buy a TV instead of health insurance, that is their right. But don’t try to tell me that it is my responsibility to pay for their health insurance because they are not responsible enough to do it themselves. If you want more, work for it and get it but stop trying to demean those who have accomplished something with their life. If you take the country where you want it to go, Socialism, then we will all have nothing.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
What history are you reading that shows Gov’t plans are “disastrous” Matt? Medicare is a disaster? Not really….at least not according to my parents’ friends in Florida who depend upon it. I’ve never heard one of them say, “I really hate this plan – I wish I had BCBS instead”. And the only disastrous thing about Medicaid is that the reimbursement is ridiculous – but for the recipients has it been disastrous? Not really.
I agree we need Tort reform, I agree that we need some options but to just cut off the idea of government plans as disastrous is really not stating the truth. Yes, they need tweeking in terms of fraud but I think we have far worse problems – such as the RX companies that are out of control in creating more and more duplicate drugs for the drug classes that they find lucrative, like Statin meds or blood pressure meds….just how many of these do we need?
It’s time we put a noose around the necks of these greedy, selfish industries and helped ourselves and each other to quality, affordable care.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Pam don’t throw the label “socialism” around like it’s a dirty word. Planning on collecting your Social Security? Planning on taking Medicare? Those are social programs that have changed people’s lives. Prior to their inception most of the elderly lived below poverty level. If however, you feel that strongly about it, feel free to donate your Social Security check to the charity of your choice.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
For those of you that are enamored with the European, Canadian or other countries that have government provided health care programs, I would be willing to support a bill that would pay for your moving costs to go live in that Country permanently!
America wasn’t broken until the spend foolish government tried to fix it!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Fines on people who don’t purchase coverage.
This is un-American, but so is health insurance. Doctoring is a business like any other and they should have to compete for our business like any other business. We should each have to pay for our own doctor visits and our own medicine just like any other service or products we purchase. This is America and for better or worse our forefathers decided on capitalism. In a capitalistic society how one spends his money is an individual choice. In a capitalist society supply and demand determine price.
Health is not a right it’s a responsibility, a personal responsibility.
The only health insurance we should have is coverage for catastrophic loss. You can argue that this be provided by the government or not. It should only be a safeguard to prevent a major illness from bankrupting someone. I would argue that getting cancer shouldn’t lead to homelessness for your family. This should have zero co pays but a high deductable ($10,000 to $25,000 based on net worth and income).
October 19th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I agree with Julie R….well said, I too come from a small company and we have the same fears here.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE OTHER JANICE. She stated “Why is it so difficult for people to understand (and so threatening to people like Richard) that the only reasonable solution to our health care dilemma is for all Americans to be fully covered and to spread the cost evenly across the population?” Come again? Why SHOULD I and others ’spread the cost evenly across the population’? I have worked for 32+ years and maintained health care; it is not our responsibility to pay for all the unemployed people who choose NOT to work. I am tired of paying for people who are living on my hard earned tax dollars. When everyone starts doing their share, they won’t need someone else to take care of them. Granted, some need assistance, and I do not begrudge them help. There are millions of illegal aliens and people on disability that are perfectly capable of working to earn a living and afford health care. I know of several people who ‘would be embarrased to work at McDonald’s, because their friends would make fun of them’. GROW UP – do what is necessary to take care of yourself and your family. I am all about taking care of veteran’s, children, and elderly who have contributed or are too young. And don’t be mistaken, the European countries will socialized health care would much rather have our current system than what they have; how would you like to wait for 6 months or longer to receive a necessary, life-saving surgery?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Scott is correct can anyone say Hyper-Inflation! Wake up, are more taxes on small and large businesses to provide this mandatory insurance going to help this economy in any way? What makes anyone think that a Government run Health care system like the 4 current failing ones will work is beyond my comprehension. Yes Janice poor Obama has so much inherited garbage on his plate because bleeding heart liberals have spent years setting up government programs to teach people they don’t have to work hard and make a way for themselves because they can rely on the government to take from us who do and have it handed to them. Give them your money and leave me to give and help as I see fit with MY MONEY!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Janice, you’re right. We need to stop making all these different flu shots. One type should work in all cases right? It doesn’t matter that there are people out there is allergies, or a different strand than other people, or that advances in technology could produce a better, more effective drug with less side effects. Let’s just stop making new drugs right now and just continue with what we have. And if a new illness arises, well that’s too bad. Those evil, greedy drug companies need to be stopped! How dare they provide jobs for millions of people and save lives of those all around the world. They’re evil, evil I tell you. How selfish can they be working on cures for aids, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Cronin’s disease? They’re just in it for the money and we all know it!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I guess Karl is well -compensated since he wants to pay for his own health services……My husband’s hospital bill for his hip replacement was $60,000…….pocket change, right?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@Janice I doubt anyone in the last 30 years in the government has been concerned about real solutions to healthcare. I do not blame anyone for something that is not done, but I do blame this (and all the past) administrations for not fixing the obvious. That is buying plans across state lines (something protected in the Constitution as an obligation to the Congress) Buying plans that *I* want.
Go to your car insurance website and you can build a plan you want. Why can I not do that for healthcare? Why can i not just buy the coverage I want? Look at your insurance it is not what is covered but what you will pay in deductibles and how much $$ they will cover. Why is that?
@Tom Canadian tax is 60% on income. How is that cheaper? The cost is just moved to a different column. Tom, I do not have insurance, have not in 20 years+ Do not need nor want it. BUT under Obama I will be taxed anyway for NOT having it. Yeah, that’s fair.
@Cindy 47M people uninsured? Please show where you get this number.
@Isabella Stop whining about how we look to anyone. That is foolishness if you try to please other countries.
Notice how no one has talked about FOOD? 25M people do not have proper food or nutrition. I do not see a huge movement to take over the grocery stores and farms do you?
NO, this is nothing but a power grab! There are real solutions that will open the market up to allow real competition. Real competition means we, the consumer, wins as we can vote for a company and their policies with our dollars.
-Open up Free Market competition
-Allow buying of insurance across state lines
-Allow building a policy as *I* want, not just deciding how much my deductible and co-pay will be.
-Tort reform so doctors are not practicing defensive medicine
-Electronic records like the Mayo Clinic which also helps reduce redundancy.
Fix these things first, then move to the big cost items.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I suspected that responses would fall along party lines, but the need for health care reform should be a human concern, not a political one. It’s simply not true that the numbers of uninsured either don’t want insurance, are illegal aliens, or are simply between jobs.
We need a public option. Insurance companies are raking in profits at the expense of the taxpayers. I have individual coverage, only because many years ago my insurance company waived all treatment of my pre-existing condition for 5 years, and I finally passed that threshold. Today I’d have been turned down flat, no waivers are offered anymore. Each year, premiums go up, and each time I pass a 5 year plateau, it goes up twice in that year. If I want to keep the premiums closer to where they are at the point they’re being increased, I can opt for a higher deductible and 70% coverage instead of 80%.
Yes, it’s a crisis. Giving more power to the insurance companies, without offering the insureds a choice, would be an absolute crime, and if the bill doesn’t offer a public option, it should be vetoed.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Pam, I agree with you on employer cost. Our company has had a very “rich” plan for years. Good benefits, low cost to employees. Every year it becomes harder for the company to be able to afford to provide this. But, if the government passes more taxes and fees onto employers, we may just scrap the whole plan. Most of our workers would probably qualify for government subsidies, which means the company would be taxed to death.
We need Tort Reform, prescription company oversight, stringent fraud and abuse control for Medicare/Medicaid. Everyone misses the point that the MAJORITY of Americans HAVE health insurance. We’re trying to change the whole system to benefit the minority. It’s insane.
Obama Admin should stay out of healthcare and focus on what brought the banking and housing industry to its knees. Can you say ACORN? Forcing banks to give loans to underqualified people in the name of equality and the American dream? You can thank the democrats for that mess. Harry Reid, Pelosi, Charlie Rangel? We’ve got the foxes guarding the hen house now for sure.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Go sparky! Right on…so many sheeple here hoping they can suck off the big tit of Obamacare and be worry free for life…..we’d read the bill if there only was one and it posted online like Obama promised….oh he lies….and it seems people here soak it up like a sponge…..wannabelievers….
October 19th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Janice and other supporters of Obama and his wonderful programs……please pull your lip over your head and swallow! Try some kool-aid (Obama flavor) when washing down the line of stuff you offer. McCain and “Caribou Barbie” as you call her would have done much better as they would not have gone down this road in the first place. I also doubt that either of them would be in such a hurry to destroy this country. May I suggest looking a bit deeper into issues before you make such an idiot out of your self in the future? Try tuning into Fox….that outlaw network Obama just loves to hate! But whatever you do please stop being ignorant!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I am so glad many of you are excited about the 8% cap on premiums and I am sorry Isabella you think your employer is so cheep, but as someone who manages our company’s health care I know what this will do. I will have to select plans with higher deductibles and co-payments to reduce the premium. This will hurt everyone for the few who have family coverage. We cover 75% of our employee’s premium. This is way more than 8% for even our $10.00 employees. This too would change. You are not looking at the big picture.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
No Sparky, no jealousy of Caribou Barbie – just horrified that a woman who has the IQ of an eggplant could be nominated for Vice President. And again, even if you have some reason to think it’s ok for some people to not have healthcare even if they might be living next door to you, I say again that it is unacceptable to me for 50,000 to go without or 1 million to go without.
And as to believing everything I hear from the media – there’s no need for me to do so. I work in a healthcare facility. I get a first-hand view of how badly this system functions.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
What does anyone expect to happen when the majority of our uninformed citizens and illegals voted communist control over to the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
The only way to stop this madness is to vote every Democrate out of office this coming year and to Vote any Republican out of office that voted for this bill.
We really need a new party, one that is based on the moralty of our founding fathers. We can’t trust anyone in office anymore they are all selling us down the river to line their pockets with kick backs and down right theft.
We are methodically losing all of our rights one by one, now we have lost the right to choose how we spend “OUR SPENDABLE” money, as if the IRS doesn’t take more out than they should already.
And what is going to happen to all those jobs that will be lost from the small business man going out of business because they cannot keep up with the additional taxes and cost this program will create for them.
You think we have been bordering on a major depression like in the 20’s. That depression won’t even hold a candle to the one that is coming because of our “DISHONEST POLITITIONS THAT THE LOBBYIST FOR BIG BUSINESS, UNIFORMED, NEGLEGENT CITIZENS, AND ILLEGALS, PUT INTO OFFICE”.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I’m in HR, coordinating benefits for a location of a Fortune 500 company. We have a large portion of the population that make less than $30k. Our company offers very reasonable insurance premiums; better than most companies out there based on market research. The reality is that a great deal of them make too much for the public programs, and too little to pay the premium for company-offered insurance. Yes, there are people out there that have probably spent the money on something frivilous, but I’m sure there are a LOT more that are struggling to pay rent, buy food, put gas in the car to get to their jobs. I’m lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t care about those that can’t. My husband and I are lower-middle-class, and we have no problem paying a little more in taxes so everyone can be covered. There are a lot of people in this country, thanks to the inherited economic problems, that are just a few paychecks from disaster. Health insurance shouldn’t be a luxury; not in this day and age.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I run a small business and pay 100% of single individual health care & 80% for families. We recently negotiated through the free and competitive market for better coverage at a cheaper price. This will be put at risk with the help of the government. Janice said the President inherited many of the current problems so I guess that’s a license to make things worse. The people who use the inherited argument also say remember Katrina or GOVERNMENT at its finest. I am also a former EMT and have been in many emergency rooms and must have missed all the insurance related deaths. I NEVER saw anyone who was dying refused treatment and left to die. If an emergency room is substandard it is not an insurance industry issue it is a hospital issue. The utopian health care reform (or is it insurance reform this week) is a bad deal for Americans just ask folks from the former Soviet Union.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Pam, if you think there are 10 different Statin drugs because someone is allergic to the other 9 than you are woefully misinformed.
Let me educate you about RX patents. When a new drug is produced, the manufacturer gets a 10-year patent on the formula that keeps it from being reproduced by generic manufacturers. Once the 10years is up, the RX company stands to lose millions of dollars in protected Revenue. To get around this, they do things like take 2 different meds, slap them together, give them a new name and re-market so they can keep those tidy name-brand profits for another protected 10 years. Check out the ingredients in Caduet. It is a compilation of 2 different meds.
Yes, of course we need multiple versions of some meds. But when the versions are made simply to create profit, that’s where I draw the line. In NYS to build a medical facility, you must give the state a Certificate of Need that demonstrates the need for the facility. If the RX manufacturers had to do that, they would not be so quick to re-create meds that are already available in another form just to make a quick buck.
Would they go out of business if we stopped them from doing that? Heck no – just like Exxon Mobil would not go out of business if we asked them to charge $1.50 a gallon instead of $3!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Assume you have a $10 hr. employee with family coverage at the max. premium before the insurance company pays a fine, $21,000. The maximum a year the employee can pay is 8% or $1,664 dollars. That leaves $19,136 in premium to be paid. Who pays the additional premium the employer? If so, the employer is now paying that $10 an hour employee an additional $9.20 per hour (19136/2080 hours in a year)!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I’m really sick of all the hatred spewing on these comments. I agree with the person who commented that the bill has not passed yet. Why get your panties in a wad and throw out hate? If you want to make a difference, contact your senators and congress people. How many of you have actually done that? Stop calling names and do something about it if you’re really that upset.
I mean really, next thing you’ll all be dogging people’s relgious choices too. I know that someone out there will make a nasty comment about this, and you are welcome to…it’s America and you are free to do so. I am also free to walk away and choose not to listen to you, contact my politicians and let them know whether I support the plan or not.
The anger is just too much, and it’s so unhealthy.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Hi Richard
I actually agree with much of what you said.. I think purchasing insurance from ANY company would be wonderful. I think Tort Reform is well overdue and I work for a facility that uses Electronic records so I know the benefit of those.
Don’t like the number 47 people? Is 1 million OK? What number works for you? Does it make it more acceptable if its only 1 million people that have no coverage?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Ignorant, Pat? The only ignorant people are the ones who voted for W TWICE and who think that Sarah Palin was qualified for anything! Don’t you dare call me ignorant, lady.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Janice, I don’t want to pay for your husband’s hip replacement either. I don’t even know him. Does that make me an uncaring person? No. It makes me free to pick and choose WHO I want to help. Pay for your own stuff, and I will pay for mine. Or send your bill to Obama. He has plenty of extra money……his own I mean. But he is holding fast to that while he spends all of ours.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Gee, in 1955, my dad’s friend died on the hospital steps after and accident….why, he did not have insurance. So… today, in many states, they have laws that require the hospital to see the patient regardless of financial capabilities. Sadly there are states in the good ol USA that do not have these laws. My insurance as it is today, does not let me get sick or injured in another state…..so I better not travel…and that costs me $18,000 a year. (better than the $28,000 they quoted me without the $3000 deductible) SO….what do you want? a complete capitialist society where everyone starves at retirement or dies when they cant afford to pay or a semi-socialist environment that allows sick people to get well and retirees to live (well….I for one, want a congress that will stop spending my social security money! I paid it in, but may never see it again….) Illegals should be treated and SENT HOME TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
to Janice
The bill from the hospital is a joke. Look at how much the hospital accepted from your insurance company a full payment. Typically it’s a small fraction of the stated bill. And if you read my entire comment, you’ll read about catastrophic loss coverage.
If you don’t want to live in a capitalist country, there are plenty of other counties to choose from.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Richard here, I agree with the other Richard. I also want to add the government is in the position to fix very little of our problems. Healthcare is expensive partly because people abuse it. This includes everyone, patients, doctors, drug companies, frivolous lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, etc. If we want cheaper health insurance let’s get our neighbors to eat healthier, workout, lose weight, quit drinking, forego cosmetic surgery, etc. MILLIONS of Americans act irresponsibly and make poor health choices then holler “fix it!”.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Ever wonder why health insurance for employer groups is already so costly? Employer group health insurance is Gusaranteed Issue. Open enrollment allows all employees and their dependents to sign up for full coverage whereas someone applying for an individual policy has to go through underwriting – Those who are acceprted (very high percentage) get much lower rates (unless you are over 50).
While we are at it. why not “reform” auto insurance? Those who have lots of “accidents” or traffic violations have to pay big premiums. More than likely they opt for just enough coverage to get their license tag. That’s why I buy “Uninsured Moterist” coverage.
Is our newly elected King going to fix that too?
THE POINT IS that if Health insurance becomes manditory and preexisting conditions are to be covered from day one, ir HAS GOT TO COST A LOT MORE! Who is going to pay the bill? Look in the mirror.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Janice, I’ve done everything I could to plan for my future so I don’t have to rely on Social Security. Instead of new cars, or a bigger house, I put money in a 401K, stocks, and savings accounts. When my husband and I went through a time where our employees did not provide health insurance, we readjusted our expenses and bought our own. I NEVER expected the goverment to buy it for me. And as far as giving my Social Security check away, I don’t think I will have to worry about that because by the time I retire, SS is going to be bankrupt anyway. (It is already)
And socialism is a dirty word. It takes away freedoms and choice and lead to oppression and slavery. Yes, slavery, because that’s what you become when you rely on the goverment to take care of you. You become a slave to the state. They tell you what to do, what to eat, what to drive, because they own you. Please, read some true honest to goodness history. If you like socialism, then you like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Marx. Socialism never, NEVER improves society, it make EVERYBODY but those in charge poorer. No one will give to charity anymore because no one will have the money to do so. Socialism destroys individual compassion. When the first settlers came to this country they tried socialism. Every building and all crops were community property. People soon asked themselves why should I work all day so my neighbor can sit around and take half of my crop? Soon there was nothing to eat because no one was working. They quickly decided that you could keep what you grew and built and the community flurished. So much so that they could share with others who may have had a fire or misfortunate. It is great to be compassionate. I do so as much as I can but it is not the government’s job to take the money I earn and decide who it goes to. I am perfectly capable of doing that on my own.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
There is not a politician in Washington that can tell us what the healthcare proposals actually are, and frankly I don’t care. They should just kill all of them, back up and solve the employment situation and eliminate ALL of the government waste, including the monumentous benefits they are paying to themselves and all of those who have gone on before them, then debate some reasonable reforms to healthcare. I believe we need tort reform, utilization review and curtailment of the monuments that hospitals build which have no relationship to treating patients. We don’t need atriums and expensive artwork to treat pneumonia, heart disease or any other illness. Also, the doctors need to limit the number of procedures that they order. Why did my doctor order a bone density test? Why do they repeat all of these tests when all you have is an allergy and you need a prescription to stop the watery eyes and runny nose. Let’s get real. The insurance companies are charging higher premiums to pay for more unnecessary procedures.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
to Matt:
You must be very fortunate that you have so MANY job offers that you can cherry pick the one that offers to pay 100% of the premium. Lucky you! I’m not that fortunate and most ARE NOT that fortunate. I have co-pays, deductibles and then still have to pay for a percentage of testing that I have done. I am a single mom, I DON’T have a big screen t.v., my computer is 6 years old, I drive a Cobalt and only buy clothes when absolutely necessary and eat chicken and grilled cheese most of the time. Why? Because I have to pay too much for my health insurance and even then have to pay MORE just to have a service done. I’ve actually cancelled a test because I knew my cost would be almost $1,000.00. I’ve had cancer three times and am scared to death that one day I will lose my insurance…who will pick me up and how could I afford it. THank God for President Obama!!!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Good example Barb. Of course everyone wants health insurance to be cheaper. But, SOMEONE has to pay for it. If we don’t regulate pharmaceuticals, rein in fraud and abuse, and pass tort reform, the costs remain the same. The employers and the middle class will foot the bill as always until there are no employers, and we’re all on the government dole. Ooops! There won’t be a government dole, because no one will have jobs and/or pay taxes into the government. Costa Rica is looking better all the time. I love what this country stands for and have always been a proud American. But, we are spiralling out of control. If we keep endorsing Obama Change, we won’t recognize America in a few short years. It is so sad.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
hey Jagger, I bet it’s nice to have $30,000 to pay out of your pocket for a hip replacement or $1 million for a heart bypass surgery. Of course if you told the hospital and the doc, you would pay them in payments, then you dont get the hip replacement or the surgery. I had cancer 3 years ago….treatment costs: $150,000. If not for insurance, I would not be here typing…..Of course negotiated down by insurance, it was only $90,000, still more that I have and more than I could EVER afford. So Jagger, I hope you are a millionaire, because the day you get sick, you will become poor like the rest of us.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Janice, where are you getting your numbers from? Could you please reference your sources so that we may look at them?
Yes, I have been to an emergency room, and the care I received was exceptional. Once again you ask if it was your mother or your child or your wife who had to go without care would that be acceptable to you? We are not talking about going WITHOUT health care. Health care is available to all. You are confusing health care with health insurance once again.
Since you appear to be the leading expert on health care issues, can you please tell us how much do doctors, clinics and hospitals pay each year in liability insurance premiums? Also, what is the total amount of money awarded in lawsuits against the medical profession each year?
Also, since you asked me if I had been to an emergency room lately, have you been in need of medical care in a foreign country, and if so how was the care you received? How long did you have to wait?
If you think the government is the answer to our health care needs, I invite you to watch a committee meeting on health care and then give a detailed accounting on what they said. Good luck!
Please give me an example of anything that the government does that is well managed and fiscally sound. $500.00 toilet seats and $100.00 hammers? hmmmm what will an aspirin actually cost when they run health care?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
First off: How dare you refer to Sarh Palin in this manner. You don’t have to like her, but treat her like you would like to be treated, FAIRLY! If a foot touches American soil, you beter believe they will be treated EQUALLY so there is no way around not letting the illegals get healthcare. This is all Smoking Mirrors from the man who smokes, Obama. He is a scarry man that the young and confused put there. When your life is vaued by the Government, you have no value. How can liars and cheaters be in charge of that? I am so tired of hearing that the Insurance & Drug Companies are doing nothing but getting rich! Generic drugs are now required in most plans to reduce cost. Walmart, Target and others offer drugs to all regardless of insurance at a minimal fee to you. We offer 5 different plans here where I work yet there are those that WANT TO PAY more for the 100% coverage with no responsibilty to them. Most of us continue to educate the people to take their care in their hands and control their costs. This can easily be done WTHOUT the Government wanting control of our health to deny us going forward. WAKE UP AMEICANS AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOM!! Look below to Poland. Look familiar?
The Polish healthcare system is state-financed through the National Health Fund (NFZ), to which everyone working in Poland is required to contribute. Employee contributions are deducted direct from salaries by employers, while the self-employed are required to make their own contributions direct to the NFZ. In 2005 contributions were 8.5 % of salary, less social insurance payments.
People who are covered by the national health insurance system, and their dependents, are entitled to free primary health care, specialist out-patient care, hospital treatment, dental treatment and ambulance transport. They are required to present their medical insurance card when seeking treatment. All EU nationals visiting Poland who hold an E-111 form are also provided with free healthcare.
Standards of medical care are adequate in Poland, although hospital facilities are of a lower standard than in many Western countries. Emergency services may be lacking in some rural areas. Most specialist forms of healthcare are available in the larger cities. It is acceptable to approach specialists direct without a GP referral. For foreign nationals not covered by the national insurance scheme, immediate cash payment may be required by some doctors.
We need to fight to NOT BE LIKE THIS!!!! There will no longer be any Secion 125 plans and HSA’s will be out the door as they want us taxed and taxed high!! If you have ever known a premature baby, look a them closely as their life would have no value in this Obamacare as they would be too expensive. Think hard beore you thik this is a good thing. Vist the rest of the world andee hat they have to do for “good” care because no longer will they want to come here.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I agree that there needs to be some healthcare reform but I’m not convinced that this bill is what we need. People shouldn’t be penalized for not being able to afford insurance and there are a lot of low income people in that catagory. My daughter and her husband make just a couple hundred a month too much to qualify for Medicaid but not quite enough to pay private insurance and his employer does not offer insurance. So now they will be penalized? How fair is that?
Also, I keep hearing how wonderful government healthcare is in other countries . . . I just met a man in London who had to wait 2 years on a list to get his very painful hip replaced and then when he finally did come to the top of the list it was in July during his prime money making season (he’s a gardener). Sounds great to me – not!
Oh well, people wizer than me will have to figure out this very complex problem!
October 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I have a hard time understanding how public servants dictate what is in the best interest of the public and yet none of this applies to them. In a perfect world it would be nice for everyone to have insurance health coverage but this is not that world. We the taxpayers will be paying more than what they (the government ) is estimating and the tax burden for those who can’t or won’t contribute will fall on the middle class. Socialism is here .Wake up Americans.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
If the premium to the employee is capped at 8%, who pays the balance? The employer?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Good point, Sue. Whatever health insurance “reform” bill gets passed, all of Congress and the federal government should be on it it for a test run period.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Lots of good comments on this and the differing views will continue much like the political views. For those of you who voted for Obama, keep believing. McCain/Palin wouldn’t even be talking about health care reform right now. Anybody who thought this was going to be easy, keep dreaming. This problem has been going on for about 50 years now. If it was that easy it would have been fixed by now. Anyone who thinks government healthcare is taking away capitalism, you’re crazy…how much more bureaucratic can you get than the innefficient operations at an insurance company (anyone who has insurance and goes to the doctor on a semi-regular basis knows how broken this system is).
Here’s the reality-this health care problem has to be spearheaded by the government because the entire healthcare “ecosystem” needs to be broken down and rebuilt.
Any changes has to include: mandatory health insurance (sorry healthy, young adults but you help can only help our rates), tort reform, technology, and wellness- to name a few. I have yet to hear wellness mentioned whatsoever. How many of you smoke? how many are overweight? Congratulations, you’re now part of the 120+ million americans that are negatively impacting the pool of healthy. How many eat 5 a day (vegetables/fruits)? how many exercise? That’s where we all need to be. How many of you are up to the challenge?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I also believe in tort reform. I believe our FORMER president was suppose to address that and of course, never did. It was the one thing that I DID agree with him on.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Pam,
And after the colonists decided to grab all of the land (let’s not forget that it wasn’t theirs to begin with) and keep all of their crops, they sold the crops for a profit and went out and bought a few slaves so that they could grab more land, grow more crops and make more money. Who was sitting around doing nothing then? I’m not advocating socialism but we need to recognize the potential of abuse of capitalism as well as socialism. If left unchecked, people will take advantage of any social system.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The comments made about communism and socialism are just so off the wall. There was fear-mongering when the government established Social Security, and Medicare. Just in time this year for Hallowe’en.
We don’t know what the final plan will look like, yet the cries of “take your country back!” are reverberating in the halls. If Congress has the guts to pass a bill that will benefit the uninsured, it will have a public option, which will be just that, an Option!! If you don’t want to buy into a public option, don’t! No one’s going to force you. If you want your company’s plan, or your own individual plan and you can afford it, keep it, and by the way, good for you!
We’re not modeling our Health Care Plan based on the plans of any other country. We’ve got our own horror stories in this country too. Nothing’s perfect. But we sure can do a lot better than we have now.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Amen, Tom and Cindy
October 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
3 things we can do right now to reduce health insurance costs that do not cost the tax payer a dime:
1. Tort reform – limit how much one can receive. A person does not need $30 million because of a malpractice suit. (I wish these people who had greedy drug companies would turn their attention to the lawyers.)
2. Alway small companies to go together on plans – the more people on a plan, the cheaper it is. Why can’t 3-4 small companies band together to get one plan?
3. Allow people to buy insurance across state line – this would open up that thing call competion our president keeps saying we need. It’s right there and it won’t cost me a penny.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Excellent comments Brian – I share your views.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Believe it or not, healthcare is cheaper in other countries. My daughter got sick in Germany with strep throat. It cost $30 to see a doctor and $5 for an anti-biotic and that was with NO Insurance! Here,it would have cost $100 to see a doctor and $50 for the same anti-biotic. But no doctor HERE would have seen a visiting patient in his office…..you would have to go to the ER and pay $5000 minimum. A friend from Germany got sick on his trip to the USA and it cost him $10,000 for the ER visit and $5000 for the doctor in Good ol Las Vegas! Yes, there is something wrong with our system….it is NOT REGULATED like Canada or Europe! We need strict regulation and VERY harsh laws on Physicians who abuse the law and cheat the system and cap his charges! And while your at regulate the pharmaceutical industry who profits heavily off you. ($8000 per dose on cancer chemo-each treatment dude! thank God I only needed 3 doses=$24,000-and they weren’t NEW research drugs, been around since the 1950’s)
October 19th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Brian, the entire system does NOT need to be broken down and rebuilt. 90% of Americans HAVE health insurance. You (and the government) want to completely destroy a system that works for the majority in order to provide for the minority. That’s crazy. I don’t like the government making anything “mandatory”.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“Lorie
Good point, Sue. Whatever health insurance “reform” bill gets passed, all of Congress and the federal government should be on it it for a test run period.”
I agree Lorie but not just the test run period – permanently – why do our elected officials get better benefits and retirement than the rest of us. I believe most of you work just as hard and a lot longer! Government employees and elected officials should get SS and Medicare just like the rest of us when they retire! I don’t care how hard they think they work – they also have better perks than most of us will ever enjoy. I’m all for term limits and then back to the private sector and get a job like everyone else.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
WHat I find so amazing is that the same people who say they resent having to help their “fellow american” have health insurance is the same group who feel we should be fighting someone elses war. So it’s okay for our young men and women to die and be maimed for another country and spend billions of dollars BUT we don’t want to help our own.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Would any of the HR folks here care to explain the beneficial effects of increasing the size of a risk pool? Sheesh.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
To Pam–
Pre-existing conditions are a huge deterrent to eligibility, and if you don’t eliminate them, the unemployed, the under-employed (part-timers) and those who are working for companies who don’t offer insurance will still be left out in the cold.
Going across state lines won’t affect BlueCrossBlueShield or any other nation-wide insurer, and it’s the larger insurers who have contracts with the most providers. Will your doctor contract with small insurance companies operating from other states? When will he/she consider the paperwork excessive?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Tom: Before you do too much bashing of Free Enterprise, remember, in America, (at least as it was before Obama) everyone had the same opportunity to go out and GRAB more land. Remember that. EQUAL opportunity………….you socialist types seem to forget that each of us is free to make what we will of ourselves. In the early days…………and yesterday. What it will be like tomorrow, I hate to speculate………..Unless you people WAKE UP and see what this Administration is trying to do, we will ALL be EQUAL……..equally POOR. (Except the Elite, of course, the RULERS!)
October 19th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Cindy – most of us don’t mind helping our fellow Americans if they are deserving. I don’t mind helping the elderly and the disabled. But, i don’t want my hard earned money going to taxes to pay for insurance for people who 1) are here illegally 2) will not work to support themselves or their families or 3) are criminals or perpetual scam artists who know how to get everything for free from the government. And, I might add, many of us did not agree with the war from the start, but choose to support our troops and military just the same. Once we went in, there’s no turning your back on our soldiers.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Cindy, I don’t like war either……but it beats being NUKED to death. We don’t live in a bubble, though I wish we did. As far as helping others, we used to have the money to do that. And WE are the ones who got the good feeling for having done it. Now the Government takes all the extra money and we are left feeling ashamed for not being able to help. $2000 used to fix a broken bone. I paid for a neighbors kid to get his broken arm fixed years ago. I felt GOOD about it. What ever happened to the good ole days.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Janice, do a fact check your bias is showing. Why are you calling names, is this how you handle all of your professional discussions and disagreements?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
McCain and Palin should not even be brought into this forum. They did not get the vote for President and V/P respectively. Those of you who are, you are looking at this as “what if’s” which never solves anything. This country elected Obama for president and the “buck stops” with him. It doesn’t do any good to say, well “if McCain and Palin were elected….”
I can basically agree with some ideas of both sides of this issue. When I think of healthcare coverage for all, I think of all those out there who will be covered but have never and never will contribute to society by holding a job- so the fact of the matter is they don’t deserve healthcare if they don’t contribute to the system. On the other hand, there would be no jobs for them to get because all our past Presidents have allowed all the “good paying jobs” to go overseas. So where would they work even if they wanted to?
Then there’s the issue of health care costs. Let’s face it, it costs way too much to receive care as it now stands, especially hospital visits and diagnostic testing (not to mention specialty areas and surgical procedures and the like). This has gotten way out of hand. However, I realize that there are those who would say that this is only a result of “free market economics” playing out. But I don’t feel that healthcare (this is dealing with people’s lives for God’s sake) should even be part of a free market system. It should never be for profit- to make someone rich on other’s healthcare needs.
The other issue, people need to be responsible for their own choices. I don’t want to pay, or shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare for lung cancer because someone chose to smoke themselves to death, I shouldn’t have to pay for the healthcare of someone who is a drug addict that has never worked and can’t get a job because they probably have a bad B/G check. and can;t pass a drug screen, or a person who is obese (who chooses to eat their problems away) or the drunkard who has ruined his liver, need I go on? I’m sorry, but this is just not equitable to those who have not engaged in these behaviors. But then there are those who work hard to make a measly $8.50 an hour and can’t afford to get their preventative care which if they go without they will end up in the emergency room anyway which is more expensive, but there is assistance with this. Heck, they can’t even afford to pay their copays and the 20% their insurance doesn’t cover- that is even if they have any.
So really I don’t think anyone has any real clear answer to our problem. But this I do know, every deserving American, that’s right I said every deserving American, those who work for a living, whether it is flipping burgers or pushing carts, those who are “truly disabled” and can not work and all children should have health insurance coverage. Those who don’t want to work, who cares, obviously they don’t or they would at least try to get a job and act like they want one so they could get healthcoverage
The greedy and selfish culture on the part of the general public as well as hospitals and physicians that we have created in America is the root of the problem until we get this fixed, nothing else will really matter.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Isabella ,
I just hope your company will have a job for you after being taxed to death so you can get cheaper coverage.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I agree with you on some of comments BUT I have always led a healthy life style….don’t smoke, drink very little, eat well, exercise, normal weight but guess what?? I’ve had cancer THREE times. I couldn’t have done ANYTHING to stop it. In my case, its genetic.
Not everyone who gets sick lives an unhealthy lifestyle.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
to Janice
In a world without Health Insurance, your hospital couldn’t charge $60,000 for a hospital stay without going out of business. Other hospitals would compete for your business and we would only need some simple consumer protection laws to prevent price gouging.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Lorie- let me guess…you’ve been Rush Limbaugh again. “What’s wrong with the healthcare system? There’s nothing wrong with the healthcare system” Let me ask you a question, if healthcare isn’t broken then why is it always a platform for presidential elections over the last 50 years? (sound familiar? much like education reform?).
Do you have fire insurance for your home? why would you have fire insurance- you probably have never had a house fire before so why do you have it? Do you have auto insurance? why would you have auto insurance if you’ve never been in an accident before?
You see in Ohio, I have to have fire coverage and auto insurance….it’s the law (i.e. mandatory)! By making it a law the insurance carriers have the premiums necessary to pay the claims. Wow, that’s so crazy!
October 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Wendy, you say I can keep my employer’s insurance if I like it. But what if my company drops what we have, which it will have to do because of this bill if anything is changed in the policy after HR3200 is passed. Also, my CFO already told us that we will not be able to afford our current benefits if this bill passes (though we are being told this bill is suppose to reduce costs). What if my company then decide it’s cheaper to pay the penalty then provide anything? I thought I could keep my current plan? Then I’m stuck having to buy insurance on my own or pay a penalty? Where is the ‘option’ there? I will be forced into buying health insurance and most likely it will have to be the government insurance because this bill so taxes and penalizes private insurance, it will go out of business. Candidate Obama confirmed in a gathering with supporters that his goal is a single payer option. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2022582/obamas_single_payer_song_and_dance.html
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to
everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Obama
So if you want to continue to believe the lie that there will be competition, you have that right to put your head in the sand and ignore the truth. Single payer means ONE. There is no competion when there is just ONE!! When a politician talks, when is he more likely to tell you want he really believes, when he says something in front of vast group of voters where he is trying to win support, or when he is talking in front of people he knows support him and his views already? Think about it.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
MMan-
i agree with most of your opinions. But, you don’t want to pay for the smoker, the obese, the drunk, etc. Let’s face it – that’s what insurance is based on. You may be a safe driver, but you still pay for the speeder, the cell phone talker, the drunk. We can educate people on wellness behavior to help mitigate the costs. But, if it is insurance, we will always pay for the stupidity or lack of self control of others.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
To Pam:
How in the world does your employer know what this bill is going to cost him at this point in the game? He doesn’t.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Brian – I didn’t say health insurance doesn’t need work. I said it doesn’t need to be torn apart and rebuilt. If you get a flat tire, do you through the car away and buy a new one? No. You make a repair.
I agree with Pam and others above – if we force employers to pay for insurance or pay fines, many employers will drop their insurance plans. Which will cause MORE people to be without insurance. We can’t keep taxing and fining employers and working Americans to pay for insurance for all. We need to cut costs as in eliminate fraud and abuse, tort reform, regulate pharmaceuticals. We need to focus on cost control, not tax and spend.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Because some of us have actually gone to the various websites that have posted portions of this bill. We’ve actually read what they are putting in it and what the various CBO and another analysis say, which is probably why the Democrates are now trying to stop any information about what’s in the bill from getting out. Cindy, doesn’t that fact alone make you take a moment to pause? If this bill truly is good for us and a great bill, why can’t we see all of it as they work on it?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I just have one question. If it is now going to be my responsibility to pay for health care for a bunch of lazy people who can find money for Big Macs and cigarettes, will I also have the option to decide their lifestyle? For example, if they are suffering with obesity, shouldn’t I have the option to tie their lazy butt to the back of my car and run them a little so that they get some exercise? Come on people, you can’t tell me that it is my responsibility to care for these people, but give me absolutely no input into how they spend my money. Does this reform bill carry any responsibility to the welfare recipients to live a healthy lifestyle or is it just another bailout at the expense of people who work hard for what they get?
Obviously I don’t mean that we should really tie a human being to the back of our car and run them, but it also doesn’t make sense to take money from one group of people, hand it to another without any kind of responsibility at all.
This is America people — we are a wealthy nation because of the free market and people’s natural competitive nature — if we take that away and tell everyone they will get the same thing no matter how much or how little effort they put into it, what will we have then? I can tell you it takes the wind out of my sails to think that I have worked as hard as I have for 50 years and now the govt is going to take my hard earned money and give it to people, many of whom have had the same opportunities, but chose not to take advantage of them. What will happen to “the American dream”?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Before you get excited about the 8% cap, I think the cap is for the waiver of the penalty if you do not have coverage. The information that I am getting from my insurance company on the bill is that, in 2013 individuals would be required to have coverage or pay a penalty. However, their are waivers of penalties for certain individuals including individuals with a financial hardship defined as premiums that exceed 8% of income. It doesn’s say anything about capping premiums at 8%. The cost of premiums will still be able to go up. Price Waterhouse Coopers and Oliver Wyman conducted research on the reform bill and stated that the four componenets of the bill would increase premiums by 49% for individual market, 28% in small, 11% in large and 9% for self-insured and this doesn’t include the increases we already have due to claims and trend each year. I think we all need to slow down and actually read what is coming out of Washington. We have to get our voices out there.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Now I can see where the fear comes from. It’s from the “haves,” worrying that they will soon become “have nots,” and you’ll get a taste of what those of us who don’t have good health insurance, or coverage through our employers, are experiencing. No one wants the “haves” to suffer.
I have confidence in the economists and experts dealing with the issues, who believe that the competition that a public option will produce will reduce the premiums charged by the insurance companies, and then employers who offered affordable insurance in the past will still be able to. It’s the lack of competition that drives up premiums. The public option will provide that competition.
For sure, it would never be from the small carriers in other states–you don’t believe that BXBS would worry about them, and rush to reduce their premiums, do you?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
How Health Insurance Should Work:
Think of this in terms of your car insurance….
You are a vice president and you go hunting. You accidentally shoot your buddy. Your insurance will pay for the medical help necessary to treat his injuries. This is the “liability” portion of the insurance.
If you choose to carry “collision” and you shoot yourself in the foot, your insurance will pay, subject to a deductible. Same thing if you smoke and get lung cancer, over-eat and get diabetes, get drunk and fall off a bar stool, etc.
“Comprehensive” would apply in the case of lung cancer from second hand smoke, congenital heart defects, and the general effects of life.
The only mandatory part of this health insurance is the “liability” component.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Why is it that there is nothing in this bill about tort reform? Could it be that lawyers are being protected?
October 19th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
To Linda:
Nobody ask me if I wanted to pay for the war in Iraq….I don’t but have not choice do I?
October 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Scott, You sound like you must have it all and then some… If there are really 15% of the population uninsured… then yes! It is a crisis! You may not literally see people dying in the streets, which by the way is quite crude of you…but I personally know of someone who did die at the young age of 27 due to pnuemonia. Because he was a single father of a 7-year-old boy and was struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table for his son, refused to go to the doctor because he couldn’t afford it. We’re talking a $60.00 charge for an office visit and then whatever he would need for medicine. Sound like peanuts to you??? Well, not for him or his 7-year-old son who found him dead in his bed all by himself. There was no mother in the picture and never had been. He is now being raised by two grandmothers, in their 60’s who let him do whatever he wants and eat whatever he wants, to make him happy. This child is now 13 years old, weighs 260 pounds and has no friends or social life what-so-ever. So, in the long run, will he be some kind of criminal??? If only his father had health insurance………And all you can think of is paying to ship people like him to Canada? You’re about the most self-centered, inconsiderate person I have ever come across.
Janice-BRAVO!!!
Mary…you are only going by what your husband happens to run in to everyday…probably you live in a big city. What about us little people up here in the Adirondacks!!! I myself fall in that fine gray line of not being able to acquire health insurance as I can’t afford it, yet family health plus will cover my daughter but not me because I make “Too Much Money” Let me tell you, I am a single mom with no help in child support from her father and I struggle to put a roof over our heads and food on our table. I have worked full time, year round in order to provide what little i do. Thank God my daughter is eligible as she as chronic allergies. But for me, I have fybroalgia, suffer from extreme migraines and have carpul-tunnel syndrome which is so bad, I can’t even hold my 3 month old granddaughter. There are days i can barely get out of bed in the morning and afternoons that I can’t even use my right hand, but I still continue to go to work. When I saw the Dr. for my carpul-tunnel syndrome, he wouldn’t even make me another appt. because it was time for surgery and I had no insurance. In the meantime, it keeps me up most nights so I get very little sleep. I don’t try to milk the system “welfare” – I just suffer every day of my life and I’m only 45.
Pam…As for the big screen TV, etc. I had a 13-inch black & white until my brother bought me a 20-inch color. All you people look at are those that are out there trying to get a free ride, when there are also many of us out there like me, who work and still can’t afford!!!
So…….. In closing, BIG THANKS goes out to Heidi for thinking of us “little people!!!”
October 19th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Janice, (and others supporting health.insurance.gov)
The problem with this bill or any resembling is the federal government attempt to fix what actually is not broken in quite the manner they state. Health insurance is affordable and accessible to any who have access to a group policy. This is even more affordable if subsidized by the group sponsor.
The real problems hindering access to affordable health insurance are:
1. Government restrictions on what can be recognized as a “group” for policy purposes. At present, employers are the primary entity permitted to offer traditional group coverage. Opening the field for alternate entities to be eligible for “group” status would accomplish two things, increase competition and increase options. Unemployed persons have no options for “group” coverage, but if other entities were allowed to be “groups” for insurance underwriting purposes, that unemployed person could pursue coverage via an alternate “group” policy. Anything from chambers of commerce (pooling employer members, particularly small employers), credit unions, religious organizations, civic organizations (NRA, NAACP, ACORN, etc.), charities, Sam’s or Costco club members, auto, home or life insurers policy holders, the list could go on and on. If these type of groups were allowed to be treated as “groups” for health insurance purposes, most every American would have access to multiple “group” plan options. The competition would drive down costs and virtually eliminate the present dependence on employment based coverage.
2. Bundling pharmacy and medical care plans is not always the most cost efficient for consumers. If “groups” could offer medical plans and pharmacy plans separately, as well as bundled, the consumer could “a la carte” her or his best overall coverage options. Sam’s Club or other similar entities might be able to offer a profoundly less expensive pharmacy option compared to a bundled plan. In many group plans, pharmacy expenses are a huge portion of the overall cost.
3. There is no need to pass legislation banning “preexisting limitations.” The downside of the present laws regarding this element of health care is the absence of coverage prior to onset of a condition or a break in coverage lasting longer than 63 days. By implementing #1 above, which allows group coverage apart from employment (loss of employment is the major cause of “unchosen” exposure to preexisting limitations. Anyone who choses to not have coverage, is justified in the penalties for the absence thereof. If I take the risk, I must willingly accept the associated consequences whether adverse or positive. Too many are presently ‘motivated’ to take such a gamble due to the absence of “group” (affordable) coverage. Again, implementing #1 eliminates this adverse motivation.
4. Tort reform is of equal importance to #1 for assuring affordable health coverage. The limitless liability of baseless or marginally related claims is a direct factor in premium calculations. If a provider is guilty of true negligence or malpractice as evidenced by objective facts rather than potential links to adverse conditions, the provider should be reviewed and ultimately lose the license to provide thereby removing the harmful element instead of just affording gross amounts of compensation of which a notable portion goes to uneffected lawyers. If a mistake is made, right the wrong to the extent possible medically. If not medically reversible/restorable, an administrative process should be used to quantify the loss, and such should be paid in payments based on life expectancy with balance paid upon decease if life span calculation is less than the forecasted life span. This addresses the “harm” associated with such, and notable reduces the cost by eliminating the ‘middle man’ lawyer. ( an unnecessary added expense in the process, usually 25%)
I would like to remind all readers, that insurance companies are required to hold reserves adequate to cover a regulated percentage of potential claims. An over estimation is virtually required to assure solvency. It should be no suprise a surplus occurs when comparing actual claims to actual payouts on most years. Evil greedy is not necessarily a term any more applicable to insurance companies than our politicians creating the laws presently limiting access to “group” coverage, permitting the ‘leaching’ by attorneys of proceeds intended to make restitution to those “harmed” by malpractice, or seeking to become the ‘middle man’ in all future health insurance policies. Funneling coverage thru a goverment exchange will not broaden options, but will increase “justification” for increasing government, particularly federal government. I do not despise government, but much like most of our founding fathers, I see it as a necessary evil that requires strict limits and reinforced boundaries to avoid recreating what our forefathers fought to bring to an end. Consider words of some politicians… “Never waste a good crisis” … “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf” … How do politicians “waste a GOOD CRISIS (please explain, what is a good crisis?) If the Constitution stresses the limits of state and federal government encroachment in the lives of the people, why do so many seem so eager to run headlong toward the very thing our forefathers penned to prevent the type of government they had just fought, bled and died to rid themselves from and desired to protect us from by means of the Constitution? PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION!!!! should be a required label on all legislation and ballots. Every new bill passed into law is one step further from our foundation of a republic of free states and free persons.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
What about people that are 18 yrs or older (legal adults), are single and do not have any children of their own yet and are without jobs? How are they to get coverage? Who gets to ‘pay for them’? Keep in mind, that these people do not have any children of their own either, cause if they did, they would already have programs available to ‘compensate them’ for prior deeds done….. As I heard one 23 yr old say, I think I’m going to go out and get pregnant and have a kid, then I’ll get help! Now to me that is VERY scary, as they can not even take care of themselves…no job, living at home with Mommy/Daddy, etc….but yet are willing to bring another life into existence just so they can receive ‘help’/'money’/'foodstamps’ or whatever else is available to them??!!
WOW, I guess I was raised in the wrong time period!
This is awful, we need to stop what is happening to our USA before we all end up where none of us want to be…..think about it…everytime a law is passed, we lose one of our many Freedoms……
IF it keeps going the direction it is heading now, none of us will have anything….grandchildren/great grandchildren will not be able to grow up and know the USA as we do…….
October 19th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Wendy, if I were to lose my job and my insurance and have to become a ‘have not’ for a while until I could get back on my feet, then so be it. I’ve been a ‘have not’ before and I’ll do it again. But what I refuse to accept is the government determining I have too much and they have the right to TAKE from me and give to someone else. That’s were the problem is.
And you know what, what is wrong with not wanting to be a ‘have not’? Are you telling me that it is wrong to want to be successful? Why do you hate successful people so much? Maybe it’s not that the ‘haves’ have too much, maybe it’s that the ‘have nots’ are jealous and have decided they would rather be given stuff instead of geting off their butts and working for it. I’ve worked hard to get where I am and I’m just a simple middle class American. Are you telling me that all the times I stayed late at work and all the weekends I gave up to come in to the office were for not? Because I went the extra mile I now have to carry others who believe they need to be taken care of? I’m sorry but that’s not acceptable. No body helped me when I was at the bottom of the barrel and I didn’t expect anybody to either. I’m sorry if you feel slighted or disadvantaged. I’m sorry to break the news to you though, but that’s life. If you don’t like it, than change YOUR life. Stop trying to run mine!
October 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Healthcare reform necessary? Yes. No doubt the system is flawed. Are the right people deciding how this reform is structured? No. These committee members have the richest healthcare plan in the world and 99.9% of them have never had to go without anything their entire lives. Will the right people benefit from this bill? No. First off, that 40 some-odd million people is grossly skewed. About 9 million of that number are illegals (they aren’t covered), another 15 million or so are eligible for state assisted healthcare now and have chosen not to apply and another 11 million or so can afford private healthcare but choose not to purchase it. So, in essence, only about 12 million people actually need this reform (and if ACORN did the survey, that includes pimps, prostitutes and pedophiles). And how many of those 12 million are able-bodied men and women who just choose to live off those of us who actually go out and EARN a living? What is this teaching our children? I was taught that anything you got in life had to be earned. And I was taught that by my grandparents who lived through the Great Depression. Hopefully, what I learned will get me through the sequel that is most definitely coming.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
MkH – thoughtful and very well put observations
Write your congressman. We all need to write our congressman, over and over again.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
OUTRAGEOUS…All this will do it raise unemployment even more. it’s like increasing the minimum wage! The first goal of any company is to make money. When specific expenses increase and revenues don’t, comapnies have no choice but to reduce expenses somewhere else. When a company’s health insurance costs increase, they will be less like to hire people coming out of this recession and even more likely to lay off those who are still employeed. So…all these people with no income will either have to get insurance or pay a fine or go on federal benefit packages. The poor guy who still has a job will see his pay decrease (he will likely get a pay cut to accomodate the increase in health care costs), will see his expenses increase and see his taxes increase…Its madness. This will be the last nail in the coffin on the US economy.
I know there are a LOT of people out there who want to help those less fortunate but this is NOT the way…
Here are some good ideas:
Removing the expiration date on flex plans; allowing people to tap their 401Ks for medical expenses without fees, penalties or taxes or getting a loan; capping the punitive damages on medical aml-practice suits and gov’t subsidies to pay 1/2 or more of the costs to students studying for health care jobs…
October 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
THank you, Darlene, for speaking for us single moms everyone who have to put food and shelter for our child first. I live very bare bones and work very hard to live that way.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
MKH…Put your money where your mouth is…My comapny only pays half of the cost of insurance, which means I would have to pay $112 out of each of my paychecks and that is the money I use to put food on the table for my daughter. I work for a non-for-profit health care agency who employs only 15 people. Our group health insurance is too costly for the company as it is, and only 20% of our employees are able to afford it.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Oh and by the way, has anyone stopeed to consider that it is the existance of insurance in the equation that has drivent he costs of health care so high? More insurance equals higher health care costs. This is very simple economics. Doctors and Pharmacuetical companies cannot charge more than people will pay or they will go out of business (no one will buy their products because they can’t afford them). When the insurance company pays the difference, it prevents the seller from lowering the price of goods/services. This third-party involvement falsifies the price/cost relationship which keeps the demand from lowering the price…
October 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Healthcare is not affordable. We have over 3500 team members, most of which make less than or right at $10 per hour. Many of them have college degrees and still others work two and three jobs. Too bad for them you say that they do not make more money? Well, when they make more money health insurance increases surpass their annual 3-5% increases. So, there increases get eaten up with the insurance increases and we can expect at least a 25% increase next year. A 25% increase and there is no new healthcare policy. I could see if this increase was an one year occurence. This has been the case for the last eight years with the 2010 increase being the highest. Fix what is broken, yes, but we still will have a challenge because the system is so corrupt and antiquated. At least some form of a solution is being considered and it is a STILL a national “debate.” So, why are health insurance premiums increasing in 2010 with no reform? Because the insurance companies are doing what big oil has done…a run on increases before any reforms or legislation. If a college degree or even an advanced degree guaranteed jobs that would allow for better and fair pay, then, again, there would be no need for reform. They do not. And, many, many, many people do not have $100 snickers (I do not), Wii’s (I do not), and big screen TVs (ok I have one of those) who would benefit from a reduction in health insurance premiums. I say start with regulating the insurance industry like government does other industries. As I am typing this I understand the challenge is the data that would be needed to determine the success of insurance regulations would take time to compile and analyze to determine if it was effective. A national debate is very good…just let your elected officials hear from the reasonable people who respond to this blog. They are your voice, democrat or republican or independent. Collectively we lost an opportunity this summer by being angry and unreasonable and, in many cases, disrespectful during the townhall meetings. We have a chance to rectify our “emotional cases” and discuss the true numbers and issues at hand. Sensational never got us any where.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Now that we’ve blown off some steam, how about everyone getting back to work.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I wonder how far this bill would go if all the suits on Capital Hill had to pay 8% of their wages for health care.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Lajeli has it right.
Insurance companies negotiate a provider’s charge – one company may pay $100, another $80, still another $500. What is the real cost of the service? With insurance companies (and governments) between the provider and the patient, cost will vary. The payor should always be the patient, not the insurance company or the government. This would keep costs down.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
There are a lot of comments from people who seem to have a limited understanding of reality, and jump to so many conclusions. Lazy people? Is everyone who is unemployed just lazy? How can you make so many generalizations? Did I run into a barrier about pre-existing conditions because I didn’t choose to get health insurance? No, my company chose not to offer it, and believe me, if I could have chosen to work for a company that offered it, I would have. Job offers don’t fall like rain.
Don’t blame the current crisis on the victims. Not all single parents are single parents by choice. It’s hard raising a family alone. Not all illnesses are caused by unhealthy life styles. And for those that are? Are you willing to throw them to the curb because you disapprove? Emergency rooms only treat emergencies. Then you’re sent home and told to see your “regular doctor” for follow-up care. That’s where the system breaks down. The ER visit is $500 to $1000, and then what do you do? Who do you see to get therapy, nutrition advice, on-going prescriptions to stem or reverse the condition, without insurance?
I’m appalled at the lack of social awareness here, and of some who are aware, of the lack of empathy. Let them eat cake? I wonder if any of you consider yourself religious too? Sorry if I’m being blunt, but the callousness of some comments gets to me.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Think about that 8% to a person who really can’t afford health insurance coverage right now! If they make $10/hr – $400/wk, = $32/wk x 4.33 = $138.56 per month. That may not sound like much, but consider that coming out after the 30% of taxes (once you include fed, fica and state), which reduces that weekly paycheck to $280. All of a sudden, $32 becomes a pretty big amount. Now, try to rent even a meager apartment with utilities and almost three of those checks are gone. That leaves roughly $300 per month for food, clothing, transportation, furnishings and everything else needed for a “normal life”.
I don’t agree with the health care freebie being considered. However, we DO need health care reform. And, many who have written before me are exactly right — we need health care reform in conjunction with tort reform AND regulation of the insurance and medical fields.
I whole-heartedly disagree with decreasing Medicare. My parents have Medicare. My dad is 76. He had to have a hip replacement surgery in January — it failed, he had to have it again in March — it failed, he had to have it again in June. This one appears to be successful. I assure you, he didn’t want to go under the knife three times, but here he is. So, Medicare tells him he has had his allotment of medication for the year so they will not be contributing to his prescriptions for the rest of the year. Not only are they not contributing, but they are not extending the agreed discounts either. So, he doesn’t get any assistance and he has to pay full price. His medications are heart medications, and Wal-Mart doesn’t offer the discount on them either. His medication costs more than his monthly check. Does he have to choose between food and medication that is required to keep him alive? Gratefully, we are in the position to be of assistance. So, since August, I have had the privilege (because it is MY responsibility) to pay for my father’s medication.
I understand the situation that some Americans are in where they have to chose between medical insurance and food/rent — these people should receive assistance. It is the people who refuse to be productive members of society (get a job), who have lived on the welfare system their entire life because they are a product of a family history of welfare recipients, they people who abuse their bodies and expect society to feel sorry for them — it is these people that make me resentful to have my paycheck cut so they can have even more free everything.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Wendy – not all of us have a “lack of social awareness”. What we have is skepticism from seeing our tax dollars pay for the scam artists over and over again. Emergency rooms do not “only treat emergencies”. My brother works in an ER and he gets furious nightly because the “welfare scammers” will call an ambulance to bring them in for a sore throat because they know the hospital has to call them a cab for the ride home. Medicaid pays the bill and they don’t even have to have transportation to and fro. They could schedule an appt with a doc, but then, they’d have to take time out of drinking and hangin’ out with their friends, use cigarette money to pay for gas for the car, etc. I’m not making this up. So many take advantage of the system it boils your blood after awhile.
I was a single parent not by choice (widowed). But, I managed to raise my children, send myself to school (with no financial aid), get a job and all the while provide health insurance. Was I lucky? Probably. But, i also worked very hard to do it. And now that I am “middle class”, I am sick to death of government and everyone else taking my hard-earned money to pay for the losers.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Darlene,
I am glad that you can point out one case of someone who chose not to go to the hospital, because he didn’t have insurance. That was a choice he made and it is unfortunate, but, most hospitals, if not all, are required by law to give charitable care. County Health Depts. have a nurse on staff and also have access to free health care clinics for those in need. If your sick, go to the doctor regardless of the cost. The gentleman that you mentioned would have had access to one of those facilities, regardless of ability to pay for a visit and quite a few doctors will give charitable care as well.
Don’t let ignorance be your excuse for saying that we should have government provided health care provided at a major expense to the taxpayers to the tune of anywhere from 1.2 Trillion to 829 Billion dollars more to a Country that doesn’t have that much more to go into debt for.
I started out with nothing and have worked my way up by paying for college myself, working two jobs to pay for my tuition, limping by in a crappy car that I learned to take care of myself, paying for the doctor out of pocket because I didn’t have health insurance while going to college and never asked for a handout from anyone. I have since lived within my means, didn’t buy a house I couldn’t afford and kept my expenses down when things got tight, and paid my fair share of taxes for programs that I have never used. My wife and I give 15 to 20% of our income every year to various chairities and help out by buying clothing for homeless people at the shelter when things get cold and provided meals to them as well. So yes, I am pretty much self centered and inconsiderate!
People have the ability to move up in this country without any assistance from government, it was never the purpose of government when this great Country was founded. Our founding fathers believed in prosperity by individual work and effort and protecting the freedom of the individuals and the States from an out of control government that placed excessive taxation on the people. I don’t want to see this Country get any weaker and governement provided health care is surely the way to get there. I do truly believe if people are so pleased with other countries health care programs they should go there and live and see what it is like to pay those countries taxes. If we are so far off as a Country, we sure do have a lot of people still willing to immigrate here legally to live the American Dream that seems to be fading into the sunset.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
It’s too bad that our society is seen in the eyes of either winners or losers, and that experiences with those who are mentally ill, alcoholics, etc. affect the perspective of our society as a whole. There are many more who legitimately have to go to the ER because they can’t afford a “private” physician. From my understanding of Medicaid (and it was years ago, in IL), the state dropped the program for single individuals–it applied only to the aged or disabled.
What do you suggest we do about the indigent, who cannot find work, who may be mentally ill, or who are mentally fit, or who have no one to help, whether it’s a mild sore throat or strep? Where do you want them to be seen? Shall they stay in the streets?
We cannot solve social problems. In fact, they run so deep I don’t know if they’ll ever be solved. But we can attempt to address and fix what we can. The stigma described by Lorie is one thing we need to fix.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Charitable care provided by the hospitals represents a fund that eventually is exhausted. Once the fund is spent, there’s no more charitable care. It’s not limitless. And the fund gets used up earlier and earlier in the year.
Where were the complaints about taxes over the past 8 years? That’s right, taxes were cut, and look where that got us!
October 19th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I hate to see all the judgment going on…I think it’s caused by misuderstanding…well, at least I hope so anyway. It doesn’t really count as fact in the discussion though so I agree with all the posters who find it deplorable. I do consider myself socially responsible and do not think it is socially responsible for the government, insurance companies or employers to be involved in health care. I think that their involvement is the problem. The real goal should be to get health CARE costs to an affordable level and not health INSURANCE costs to an affordable level. This is ultimately a zero-sum equation…for every penny you save the individual, someone else has to pay it. The government has no money fo its own so when the goverment “pays” for something, it really means that taxpayers share the cost. Whenever employers “pay” for somethign, they have to make the money back by raising prices (gee why do American made products have such high prices??) or letting people go (gee why is the unemployment rate rising??) or both (gee, why are we having trouble competing in the world market??)
If the government wants to help, it needs to focus on health care costs and stop focusing on insurance costs.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Darlene,
Not sure what state you are employed in, but usually it requires at least 50 employees to form a “group” policy. You would find savings if your employer could group with other small employers of similar size and form a “group” eligible for the risk pooling and associated savings thereof. What you are likely purchasing is an individual plan with a minor premium savings due to employer collection of premium, not a true “group” policy. But even if your policy is a “group” policy, the smallness thereof severely limits the pooling effect that drives the true premium cost reduction associated with a “group” policy.
Also, not sure why you chose the employment you have, but I will suppose you have chosen based on at least some alliance with the purpose the non-profit seeks to further. If your ability to get “group” coverage was not tied or limited to your employment, you could “SHOP” alternative “group” policies via your bank, car insurer, etc. The competition would reduce your costs, and every other consumer as well.
I applaud your willingness to work to support you daughter. I have three children myself, and understand the challenges to providing for their needs. Have you considered how your working is diminished by taxation to support the unwilling to work, the unwilling to care or provide for their children, and just how much more taxation will be required to accomplish the objectives (as available for public review) will effect your paycheck even more. How much more revenue will your employer gain, if those Americans who contribute to your employer, have less to give? Do you see where your next pay raise will come from or better yet is going to go? Will your daughter really be better off because health care reform as presently sought passes? Will she be struggling even harder to pay for the costs of this legislation and shoulder the needs of her children?
Government has never been efficient at anything, and effective at nearly nothing. The military and such agencies are about the only effective elements of our government. As a veteran, I can explain why. Every enlisted or commissioned member of such agencies takes an oath, and then surrenders most of the freedoms endowed upon citizens of this republic, the United States of America, by our forefathers and the Constitution. Without surrendering such liberties, while in service, the military would be dysfunctional and in capable of carrying out its mission.
Please remember, you cannot be responsible without associated authority. Any time we choose to or are dictated to pass our responsibility of providing for self upon another, we must at equal measure surrender the authority to fulfill such responsibility. If we surrender health care or insurance to the government, we will by necessity, for even a remote possibility for success, grant the government authority to dictate how such is achieved.
I am more like our forefathers, I prefer to “struggle” to be self sufficient than surrender my independence to another. I am either independent or dependent, and dependence is void of freedom. I say give me liberty or give me death. Too much of our lives has already been surrendered to government control/oversight, and too many are dependent on the government for their wants and needs. Poverty will not be eliminated by government intervention, as proven by the decades of attempts which repeatedly fail. The only outcome of such efforts has been a more costly state of poverty. Everyone is paying, yet none excel due to the efforts to prop up the “impoverished.” Opportunity is and always has been the key to success. Not all opportunity results in success, but no success exists without it. I am saddened daily by my personal limits on helping provide opportunities to others who need a helping hand. Why, because so much of what I earn is extracted from my pay, channeled through government agencies, redirected to other agencies, outsourced to NGOs and in the end so little get to the one I could have just handed it to myself. All the while, others are getting equal access to such funds by means of fraud easily detectable and avoidable at an individual level.
Do a little history research, and tell me which came first…our unprecedented liberties or our government?
Our forefathers were breaking free from government, not seeking or empowered by one. Our government was established to protect the newly freed people (citizens of the United States of America) from such government, nit to form a more perfect government. Our forefathers did not consider such an entity plausible, and all of history agrees with them.
I wish you well, and much success in supplying for your needs and those of your daughter. Pray our grossly and slowly mutated government does not bleed the tax payers (working citizens to include you) so dry they have none left to help when our fellow citizen may need it.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“I understand the situation that some Americans are in where they have to chose between medical insurance and food/rent — these people should receive assistance. It is the people who refuse to be productive members of society (get a job), who have lived on the welfare system their entire life because they are a product of a family history of welfare recipients, they people who abuse their bodies and expect society to feel sorry for them — it is these people that make me resentful to have my paycheck cut so they can have even more free everything.”
Linda – Thank you for saying so nicely what I’ve been trying to say.
Wendy – Yes, I am extremely religious and because of that faith I am generous and compationate with my money and my blessings. I didn’t not think twice on Sept. 11th and when Hurricane Katrina hit to send money to the victims. The private churches and other private organizations did so much more for the victims of Katrina then FEMA did, wouldn’t you agree? As a Christian, it is my job to do for the less fortunate. It is NOT the government’s to do it for me. What’s the common montra of liberals when religion is brought into things, oh yeah – We MUST have seperation of church and state? Ok then, don’t toss God out of government and then tell me I can only be a compassionate Christian if I give them all of my money. Sorry, can’t have it both ways. By the way, God clearly commands that those who are able to work (including a large portion Linda described in her email above) should put in an honest days work for their wages and the community, NOT the government, should help the widows, children and disabled. If people are working and trying hard to make ends meet like several of the single mothers in this blog, I have no problem giving them some help and making the laws fair for them. But unfortunately there are too many out there with their hands outstretched and our government is more than happy to fill their pockets with my money including those not even in this country legally. Compassion is about giving people things so they just get by, it’s about helping someone, EVERYONE, be the best they can be. America has been great up until now because we always raised bar and brought people up to it. Why are we now trying to lower the bar and make everyone equal at the bottom?
October 19th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Dear mkh,
Well said!
October 19th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Wendy – “Where were the complaints about taxes over the past 8 years? That’s right, taxes were cut, and look where that got us!”
Right! We had less that 5% unemployement, record high DOW and increased tax revenue to the government.
I hate to burst your bubble but that changed in 2006 when Nancy and Harry took over. You know how to fix it?? TELL GOVERNMENT TO STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY!!!! And you know what, I do agree with you that Bush started it during his term and put the spending in full force with the TARP bill. Never should have happened.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
There is too much emphasis on those who take advantage of the system (and I’m sorry, but they are a definite minority) versus those who need help. You write as though we were overrun with people who refuse to do an honest day’s work. What about the mentally ill that have been released from our hospitals because of lack of funding? Are you counting them among those who refuse to work?
Why don’t some of you wake up and look around, and see the human beings behind the faces of those who are in the emergency rooms, on the streets. Who/What put them there? Sorry, lack of a work ethic didn’t cause their problem, and it’s not going to be their solution.
Charities can’t handle the volume. And they had been funded by generous people who are now themselves out of work, and by foundations whose budgets have been cut. We have so many homeless lying on the streets in San Francisco, and elsewhere in major cities throughout the country.
Preach what you will about taking our country back (from where?), but come up with ideas to solve what we’re faced with. Come up with some solutions! Saying we’re overtaxed (and we are, but honestly, what services do you feel should be cut?) doesn’t solve anything. What do you propose? Leave things as they are? After all, you’re the “haves” due to years of hard work. There are lots of “have nots” who put in years of hard work too!
October 19th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
The legislators are going to duct tape and staple a bill together based upon whatever pet perks it takes to win specific votes from specific legislators. The concept of taking an objective look at the root causes of the problem and tweaking things a little here and there to improve the situation is somehow not an option. So I say put some teeth into enforcement of their “promisses”
Mandate that ALL federal employees MUST be covered under the plan, including everyone in all three branches.
Make every legislator who votes for this thing PERSONALLY LIABLE if the costs scale beyond projections. They would forfeit their office, their pensions, their health care, and their personal wealth to help compensate the taxpayers for the fraud they are commiting.
Consequenses it seems are just for us riff raff. Just shut up and keep rowing
October 19th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I’ve read the comments and I can’t believe my eyes for those who think this is a good bill. I agree we need to fix the system, but putting the Govt in control is crazy and imposing taxes in this economy is brain dead. Previous posts tout Medicare as an efficient system. It is financially broke. Medicaid – broker. Social security – broke. Post office – broke and going broker. The US Federal govt. – broke and still spending. Many state govt – broke. IN GENERAL, WE CAN’T AFFORD THIS BILL but the idiots in Washington are so partisan that we’ll get something regardless of what our thoughts and opinions are and it will make things worse. If you think the govt can run healthcare or anything, travel to your local DMV and see how efficient that govt. service is. Rate the customer service skills of the employees. I’ve spent 30 years dealing with the govt and insurance plans and both stink. It is the lesser of 2 evils. Washington has fixed absolutely nothing in my 50 years of life and I see nothing that leads me to change my opinion. MKH is absolutely correct in her suggestions. Her post is spot on and is the real truth. This is a policy problem and politicians will offer us a political solution. The problems is politicians have never ran anything with a bottom line in their careers. God help us!
October 19th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I don’t know who makes up the bulk of the uninsured in your city or state, but for the most part around here its the lazy, do nothing welfare gang. They sit on their porches and drink their beer, which they get with their welfare check, while I drive by them on my way to work. I am beyond retirement age, and have enough ailments that I could sit back on my laurels and complain and let the government take care of me, but Praise the Lord, I am able to work and desire to do so. There are jobs, they might not be what you want, but something is better than sitting on your butt and letting me support you. I am not talking about those who cannot take care of themselves. We can’t continue to support the deadbeats. There are more people on entitlement programs than there are paying taxes. How far can this go?
Also, we could get by with a lots less taxes if we had fewer government employees running programs that don’t benefit anyone, except, of course, those who are drawing a nice government paycheck.
Give me a break. Let me keep a little of my hard earned money.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:09 am
The company I currently work for pays 100% of the health-care premuinms for employees. The cost of my cost of coverage is 24.5% of my income. If my employer didn’t have to pay this ridiculous amount, they could afford to pay me more. Last year our premium increase was 24%. Something has to be done.
As far as those comments about a “socialist” system, who do you call when your house is on fire?
October 20th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Wendy,
What you describe did not exist a few decades ago. What changed? The level of dependence on “someone else” to supply for me. So many have grown up with the well communicated message of it’s okay, don’t worry, the government has got your back. Results, lack a sense of self responsibility for a vast number of things. Consider how many organizations, even charitable organizations, spend as much time directing folks to “government assistance” programs as they do providing direct assistance. As parents get older, how many take them in and have prepared to “honor” them by being there to meet their needs, compared to the numbers who expect government provided resources to tend to them. Much of this mentality is fostered by the Social Security program, which is in many ways counter-productive. It was allegedly intended to be a safety net to help avoid abject poverty in old age after the earnings capacity was diminished, yet it quickly became the primary preparations for such. Others, thought “I paid my time, now it’s their time to pay me.” without any other thought to preparing or assuming any responsibility for self. That program has morphed so drastically it is almost unrecognizable as Congress (for the sake of votes) broadened and broadened its purpose well beyond the initial program. We now pay disability checks to persons who drugged themselves into a dysfunctional state, “crutch-toters” who fake disability, all the while countless “payers” to the system are delayed in receiving benefits and a great number die before even drawing the first retirement check. Pay in for 40 years or more, but never begin to recover a meager portion of even the principal deposit much less interest or growth of funding. Where did this hard-earned money go? Well, the government received it, and should be busting at the seams with overflows of revenue in the Social Security coffers, yet it will be bankrupt (we are told by the government) within a decade. One of the largest generations this nation has seen (baby-boomers) have paid in for so many years, while a much smaller generation were the retired populace, which again should have causes an overabundance of funds for the yet to retire baby-boomers, yet as this generation begins to retire they have not only been delayed or reduced in receiving benefits, they are advised the funds are insufficient to keep the promise. Their “government-run” retirement insurance is insolvent, and unable to cover their claims, denial and rationing is the immediate government response. How long has “government” had and how massive an amount of funds to fulfill this one “insurance” program, yet how much of a failure and unsustainable that system is. Now, let me ponder a minute, if I were needing a babysitter, and had knowledge already of the incapacity of a possible source to fulfill the need successfully, would I not be negligent to employ that sitter. Government has proven time and again it is an unfit “sitter” to watch over and protect our personal needs. (take care of us) To willfully and gleefully enlist in another “government to the rescue” program is, in my honest opinion, negligent.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:55 am
We became the richest country in the world because people worked hard to obtain something they couldn’t previously get. How many of these uninsured are actually working toward this goal? The more we do hand-outs through the government, the more our nation becomes more lazy and the higher the tax burden becomes on those who still work hard, and the closer we become to a socialist government controlled country. This bill will change, but I am afraid the funding strategy won’t change. By cutting Medicare and Medicaid, it seems that Obama wants this new plan to replace those programs. By taxing the insurance companies, it seems that Obama will crush an industry. By fining those who opt out seems to be crushing the people who are trying to rise from the ranks of the poor. This bill is not the answer or solution some of you think it is. I worked in healthcare for a long time, and have seen its efficiencies and its problems. The biggest problems out there are people who scam drugs from E.R.’s, people who go to the doctor for every little cough or ache, and people who lead the next generation to continue with Medicaid instead of working hard for a creative solution to make one’s own way in life. The “poor” people are causing the problem, so I guess we will just give them more for free.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Wendy,
What you describe did not exist a few decades ago. What changed? The level of dependence on “someone else” to supply for me. So many have grown up with the well communicated message of it’s okay, don’t worry, the government has got your back. Results, lack a sense of self responsibility for a vast number of things. Consider how many organizations, even charitable organizations, spend as much time directing folks to “government assistance” programs as they do providing direct assistance. As parents get older, how many take them in and have prepared to “honor” them by being there to meet their needs, compared to the numbers who expect government provided resources to tend to them. Much of this mentality is fostered by the Social Security program, which is in many ways counter-productive. It was allegedly intended to be a safety net to help avoid abject poverty in old age after the earnings capacity was diminished, yet it quickly became the primary preparations for such. Others, thought “I paid my time, now it’s their time to pay me.” without any other thought to preparing or assuming any responsibility for self. That program has morphed so drastically it is almost unrecognizable as Congress (for the sake of votes) broadened and broadened its purpose well beyond the initial program. We now pay disability checks to persons who drugged themselves into a dysfunctional state, “crutch-toters” who fake disability, all the while countless “payers” to the system are delayed in receiving benefits and a great number die before even drawing the first retirement check. Pay in for 40 years or more, but never begin to recover a meager portion of even the principal deposit much less interest or growth of funding. Where did this hard-earned money go? Well, the government received it, and should be busting at the seams with overflows of revenue in the Social Security coffers, yet it will be bankrupt (we are told by the government) within a decade. One of the largest generations this nation has seen (baby-boomers) have paid in for so many years, while a much smaller generation were the retired populace, which again should have causes an overabundance of funds for the yet to retire baby-boomers, yet as this generation begins to retire they have not only been delayed or reduced in receiving benefits, they are advised the funds are insufficient to keep the promise. Their “government-run” retirement insurance is insolvent, and unable to cover their claims, denial and rationing is the immediate government response. How long has “government” had and how massive an amount of funds to fulfill this one “insurance” program, yet how much of a failure and unsustainable that system is. Now, let me ponder a minute, if I were needing a babysitter, and had knowledge already of the incapacity of a possible source to fulfill the need successfully, would I not be negligent to employ that sitter. Government has proven time and again it is an unfit “sitter” to watch over and protect our personal needs. (take care of us) To willfully and gleefully enlist in another “government to the rescue” program, in my honest opinion, is most negligent and profoundly unwise. Shall I and upon what basis, can I find a sound reason or examples (for a sitter we would call it good references) to justify a trust of “government’s” ability to fulfill its promise? Perhaps, only if I had been a recipient of such programs as food stamps, welfare, medicaid, net-gain income tax refunds (receiving more than paid in) and the like, would I believe I could get a good return on my investment or trust the government to tend to my wants or needs. I have never been “wealthy” and for several years did “qualify” for food stamps and other programs, but never once received them. Amazingly, I nor my family have ever done without food, clothing, shelter or the other essentials of life. Oh, I could have lived more lavish lifestyle, if I took the subsidies, but if I can supply my needs, why should I expect anyone directly or indirectly via the government to fund my wants? Yes, I said wants on purpose. If my fellow citizens had bought my food, my food budget could then be diverted to wants. If they supplied my shelter (housing), my housing budget could then be diverted to wants. This is the societal damage we now face as a result of the overabundance of subsidies and distorted view of poverty. Generations who are uneducated in self-reliance, incapable of budgeting, and think every gadget known to man is a necessity for which they have a “right” to have whether they can afford it or not. Instead of introducing more government dependence, we need to begin the weaning process. It may not be fun or easy, but if we don’t, we will have the equivalent of a 40 year old still breast feeding. I apologize for the hideous and sad image that comment projects, but it is an effective and quite applicable comparison.
It is time to tell government “NO” and tend to ourselves and our fellow man as we have ability and assess their true need. Less fraud, more real help. By the way, help is not doing something for someone, it is adding your input to theirs. Help is beneficial to the recipient, doing it for them leads to laziness and dependence.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:58 am
1. We could kill all of the politicians…but there would be more standing in line to take their places.
2. Sarah Palin is an idiot.
3. Social Security met the same scrutiny when it was first introduced.
4. There are people who do work hard and still don’t have the benefits of health insurance.
5. Perhaps the programs that are in place should be run more effectively by COMPETENT people (are there any of those out there?)For example: a 35 year old lazy @#$ can get benefits, while my sick father who never missed a day’s work gets denied when he becomes disabled (due to a hereditary disease).
6. The company I work for has 45 employees. We offer medical, dental, vision, volutary life, STD, EAP and 401(k). All at VERY affordable prices. If we can do it, why can’t everybody?
October 20th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I have posted this elsewhere but will restate it again. When my grandfather was alive and working, there was no health insurance. People got sick, paid for care out of there own pocket and when there was enough, charity was plentiful. People died as they do today – it was a tragedy then as it is today. So what happen in the intervening 70 years? Why is it a moral imperative of the government today when it wasn’t then? Why must a government extract property from its citizens to pay for health care which may or may not extend their lives? My grandfather would ask you what business of yours is his health? And where is your sense of personal responsibility? If you want to live longer because you have contracted a disease or sustained an injury, why must everyone else pay for that? What obligation does society have to prolong your life and at what cost? Life is not fair and no one ever said the field was or should be level – only the opportunity to get on the field.
We have already witnessed what happens when a government believes people who can not otherwise afford something (a house), offers to give you one – the economy collapses. What should we expect now when it proposes to give you other things, like unlimited health care reimbursement?
Every sales pitch 9and cost projection) for reform has within it promises to cut waste, fraud and abuse. Something the government, if serious, should have done long ago. Yet it is not motivated to, nor will it ever be. To believe now, this time, they will actually reduce cost, cut waste and end abuse is fantasy.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Come up with some ideas and we’ll listen. All we hear are criticisms about what doesn’t work, what hasn’t worked in the past. I can tell you that the “trickle down effect” never worked–those with very substantial salaries and lifestyles and businesses with high profits have not helped those without them, not in the needed numbers. I guess the philosophy is that alcoholics, the mentally ill, the drug addicts, single parents, the functionally illiterate, the mentally handicapped brought these problems onto themselves, and therefore they have to either solve the problems themselves or lie in the streets. It’s all their fault. Government’s sure not supposed to help. And the fact that these numbers are growing, well, too bad.
It’s true that our government’s not there to solve all of our problems. If entrepreneurs or forward thinkers can come up with solutions, so much the better. But nowhere have we heard anything but “bring back our country,” “government’s never been good at anything.” I guess you don’t believe there is a problem!
October 20th, 2009 at 8:13 am
@ Janice – I see that you have spent most of the time on this board denigrating people who have not agreed with you. For that, I would have to agree with others – it’s ignorant. If you cannot present your case without attacking others, then you have none.
Our founding fathers would not even recognize this country now. You have a President with an out and out socialist agenda, a media that asks no questions because they are in awe, and an uneducated people because our schools teach to test. They don’t teach for knowledge. When the White House Communications Director says one of her idols is Mao Tse-Tung we should all recognize there is a huge issue in the United States.
Wake up! It doesn’t matter what party you have on your voter registration card. If you don’t know the past, you are doomed to repeat it.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Hmmm..
1. You’re right which is why we need to start educating ourselves and holding those in power responsible for what they do and say and stop allowing them to write bills behind closed doors and pass them in the dead of night before we citizens even have a chance to read it – heck – before they even read them themselves!!!
2. I’m sorry, but this comment is just childish and ridiculous. She’s not even a factor in this debate as she has absolutely no power at this time. It seems like the only idiot here is the one who made the comment.
3. You’re right once again and look at the state Social Security is in. It’s bankrupt, people are using it as their only source of retirement when it was only suppose to be an additional help, and it is so filled with corruption and abuse that it is about to collapse on itself. It has because a monstrous nanny state that makes people believe they are entitled to something, especially many who have never paid a dime into it. I would say those who scrutinized it where right.
4. Yes, and yet the government continues to joyfully give to those who choose not to work and also to those who are here illegally. Do you not see the problem with the government in control of this?
5. So you do agree the government needs to get out of this business of running our lives. Glad to see we are on the same page.
6. So a private company is doing it better than the government can. Good for you. I hope your company can continue to provide for it’s employees.
You really confuse me as you say we need competent people to run the system and then you imply we need the government to run it. Which is it? Do you want the government to run it or competent people?
October 20th, 2009 at 8:32 am
But Wendy – the problem IS the government and has been since social engineering began in the 30’s. As to alternatives, there are plenty – try reading House Bill HR3400 – much shorter, easier to read. Unfortunately, the Speaker has it buried in 8 sub-committees, never to see the light of day because, while it is an alternative, it is not their idea.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Wendy, if you look way back in the early submissions you will notice I gave 3 ideas we can do right now to reduce health insurance costs for companies that would not cost the taxpayer a dime. In fact, we could implement them today and not have to wait until 2013 like the current proposed bill is doing. (Funny how that happens. We apparently need to pass it right now but it doesn’t go in effect until after the 2012 elections. Hmmmmm. If it’s so good why not put it in effect before the elections to gain support from voters for passing such a great bill?) I gave my ideas, where are yours?
And also, I’m suppose to pay for someone who decided to spend all their money on alcohol and drugs? Yes, the majority of these people did bring this on themselves (though there are always exceptions to the rule). Noone forced them to drink and no one forced them to take drugs. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY PEOPLE. Also I don’t believe anyone in these blogs have equated mentally ill and handicapped individuals in with those who just refuse to work. I’m not sure why you keep doing it.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Wendy, you have a JOB because someone out there started a business, made some money, and then let it TRICKLE DOWN TO YOU!!!!!!
October 20th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Okay, Jim, then tell us what’s in that bill, since you’re familiar with it!
October 20th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I guess I projected myself in a way that made it seem like I want free hand-outs. I would much rather provide for myself and my family without the help of anyone or any government offers. I don’t agree with this health plan and how the govt. is handling it. I just would like to be able to get affordable health insurance without taking away from housing. I have worked my a## off all of my life and I just never seem to be able to get ahead or afford insurance. Not my fault divorce ended this. I disagree with all of the comments above referring to losers and laziness and welfare particpants that milk the system…but the system allows it…So………..Not all of us fit this description. There are a lot of single parents out there that need affordable health care…And no, I do not want to achieve this by riding the backs of others that would have to pay in order for it to happen.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:06 am
At what point do we as Americans take responsibility for our lives. Why do we believe the government should be responsible for taking care of us? A previous comment talks about how the person might want to reinvent their career path but cannot take the chance because they will not have healt coverage. Doesn’t the enterprenurial drive include risks? I don’t see your lack of “guts” as reason to bankrupt the country. And I do mean bankrupt….WAKE UP AMERICA…READ, don’t just reguritate the “Company Line”, an uneducated population will be the downfall of this country.
If you don’t expect your costs and taxes to rise and the services to decline then you are definately in LA LA Land. Has government services, for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the post office (to name a few) run efficiently? Are they cost effective? What about the countries that have this system already in place, are you sure their systems are working as they should.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! The problems that our health system experiences did not happen overnight. The correction (as our politicians would have us believe) should never be “RUSHED THROUGH” as an emergency! The only emergency I see is ELECTION RESULTS.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:07 am
To Wendy/Others – This is my last post. A previous poster touted that Social Security met the same resistance as this bill. It should have and we should have listened then. Social Security is broke and is proof positive that the federal govt. is not an efficient deliver of services. If the 7.65% you pay each week out of your pay check was invested albeit conservatively plus your employer match (7.65%) a total of 15.3%, how much would you have today? Let’s not forget the the number of prisoners and dead people that received social security checks. Get real – govt. is not the solution. You want ideas, here you go.
Stop the waste – this administration self confesses we can cut waste. START NOW regardless of the fate of this bill! It’s our money you’re spending. Another reason not to trust government.
Tort reform – This administration won’t touch this because the trial lawyers (their campaign donors) don’t want it. Do what is right and fix this
Remove the restirictons of state boundaries to promote competition. You can’t compete with law makers which is what this administration is offering. Try playing poker with a crowd that will let you know when you win. Same scenario.
Allow trade organizations, chambers, and other civic organizations to who want to add value for their memberships to offer group health plans to shop for benefit plans across state line to negotiate the best plan for the dollars spent for their risk pools. Currently employers are the only way to get insurance other than personal insurance plans or the govt.
Allow individuals the same tax deduction as companies. Individuals are currently at a huge tax disadvantage for having their plans. Why does this need to be? This could be done easily but it’s not politically savvy and the govt. doesn’t have control.
Create incentives for healthy lifestyles. Preventative care is important and should be encouraged but it does not change behaviors. Anyone who goes to the Dr. and still smokes 2 packs a day and drinks 2 cases of beer while doing cocaine might as well not go the the Dr. Lifestyle behaviors CHANGES is the key here and that is an individual decision and responsibility. Govt. can’t make you healthy.
Challenge – previous post – trickle down doesn’t work. Come on. You claim you work for a company that provides benefits. Is that not trickle down? Somebody owns the company and they’re paying for a substantial part of your coverage. How much more trickle down can that be. I suppose the owner is poor. Nobody has ever got a job from a poor person, including you!
We have a problem and govt. is not the solution. However, govt. makes law and both republicans and democrats have created the mess we’re in. We can vilify the insurance companies but they are operating according to the laws that govt. mandates. Change the laws not take it over. If this doesn’t change your mind, keep drinking the Koolaid.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:12 am
General Overview
The bill would provide a tax deduction and an income-related refundable tax credit for health insurance purchased by individuals (i.e., outside the group insurance market). The tax credit would be available only to individuals living in states operating a high-risk health insurance pool; and federal grant funding would be provided to states for such pools. Incentives would be given for employers to offer employees the option of a contribution toward other health insurance coverage in lieu of the employer plan. State insurance laws would be overridden to permit the sale of individual health insurance across state lines. Federal rules would be established and application of state laws preempted for insurance provided through association health plans and individual membership associations. Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be prohibited for those with incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and restricted for those between 200% and 300% of FPL. States would be required to offer group coverage and other private coverage options under Medicaid and CHIP. Federal limits on medical liability claims would be established. Medicare physician payment would be modified. The bill would be financed through reduced discretionary spending, repeal of stimulus bill provisions and other provisions.
Individual requirements (mandate)
No provision.
Employer requirements (mandate)
Employers would have to disclose on each employee’s W2 Form the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s health insurance benefit.
Employer health plans would be exempted from various existing federal requirements (but not those regarding pre-existing condition exclusions) if they offer employees the option of receiving a contribution toward other health insurance coverage in lieu of the employer plan. The Contribution would equal the employer’s share of premiums under the employer’s group coverage. The federal employees health benefits program would offer this option, and would also be required to equalize the employer contribution amount for each health plan offered to federal employees.
States could not impose restrictions on employee health plan autoenrollment under which employees are automatically enrolled the employer’s health plan with the lowest employee premium unless they choose otherwise. Notice and employee opt-out requirements are specified.
Public programs
States could not expand CHIP coverage to children in families with incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and could only expand CHIP between 200% and 300% of FPL once 90% of eligible children under 200% of FPL are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP. Coverage in states with prior eligibility would be grandfathered. State application of income disregards in determining CHIP eligibility would be limited. All states would be required to indicate plans for achieving the 90% enrollment target.
States would have to provide a means for Medicaid and CHIP coverage of children under group health plans and would be given flexibility for covering enrollees through purchase of family coverage under group health plans. Such enrollment could not be made mandatory. No federal minimum benefit requirements or limits on beneficiary cost sharing would apply. States would be required to ensure coverage of well baby and well child care through supplemental benefits if not covered under the group plan.
States required to offer private plan coverage options under Medicaid and CHIP; cost sharing limitations would not apply to this coverage; states could supplement cost sharing.
Tax subsidies to individuals
A tax deduction would be provided for individual health insurance premiums, capped at the national average value of employer contributions for health insurance coverage (which are excluded from individual income taxes). Deduction would be “above the line” (i.e., allowed in computing adjusted gross income.)
An advanceable, refundable health insurance tax credit would be provided of up to $2,000 a year for an individual, $4,000 for a couple, plus $500 per dependent up to a maximum of 2 dependents. Credit amounts would be indexed to the consumer price index. The credit would be gradually reduced for those with incomes above 200% of the FPL, and is intended to be unavailable to those above 300% of FPL. The credit would not be available to individuals with subsidized employer group coverage. Also excluded would be those enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or other federal health coverage, except that these individuals could elect the tax credit in lieu of these benefits.
Board-certified physicians could deduct from income taxes any bad debts related to provision of federally-required emergency care, up to Medicare rates.
Tax subsidies to small employers
A temporary (2 year) tax credit would be available to small employers (50 employees or fewer) of up to $1,500 for the costs of establishing employee health plan defined contribution options or an autoenrollment process.
Insurance reforms
State laws with respect to individual health insurance coverage would be preempted to permit sale of insurance across state lines. Insurers would identify a primary state, the insurance laws of which would apply; laws of secondary states in which coverage is sold related to the offer, sale, rating and renewal and issuance of coverage would be preempted. Secondary states could impose applicable premium taxes and require registry and, at times, require financial examination. Insurers could not reclassify individuals upon renewal, or increase premiums based on health status or claims experience; premium increases based on claims experience of a class of business, discounts for wellness activities, and retroactive rate adjustments for applicant misrepresentation would be permitted. Requirements would be imposed regarding disclosures and enrollee appeals. The primary state would have to use a risk-based capital formula for determining insurer capital and surplus requirements. The bill intends that after 2 years, individuals could only purchase insurance from another state if home-state premiums exceed the national average by 10 percent or more.
The Secretary would be required to contract with states to develop websites providing standardized information for consumers on health insurance plans available for purchase and price and quality information on health care providers.
Insurers would have to disclose to employers and other group health plan sponsors, upon request, specified information on the plan’s claims experience.
Benefits
No funds authorized in the bill could be used to cover any part of the costs of a health plan that covers abortion except in specified limited circumstances. Federal agencies and states would be prohibited from discriminating against health care entities that do not provide, pay for, or refer for abortions.
Group health plans could vary premiums and cost sharing for participation in a standards-based wellness program by up to 50% of the value of the plan benefits.
Pooling Mechanism: State High Risk Pools
$300 million would be appropriated annually for block grants to states operating high risk pools under current law or for new pools, which would have to offer at least one option that is a high deductible plan in combination with a health savings account. Funds could also be used for reinsurance pools or other risk adjustment mechanisms for high risk populations. Bonus payments would be available to states that act to guarantee availability of insurance to certain individuals, reduce premium trends, expand the pool, or adopt model legislation.
Individual Membership Associations
State benefit mandates and certain other state laws would be preempted with respect to health insurance sold through individual membership associations (IMAs), directed by an association that has existed for at least 5 years and formed for purposes other than offering insurance. IMAs could only offer coverage to members, would have to offer it to all members, and could not condition membership on health status. IMA coverage would have to be provided through licensed health insurers; IMAs could not assume insurance risk.
Association Health Plans
Rules and procedures would be established for federal certification of Association Health Plans (AHPs) offered to employers, and certified AHPs would be exempted from most state health insurance laws, including benefit mandates. AHPs would be certified by the Secretary of Labor (consulting with the AHPs primary domicile state).
An AHP sponsor could be a bona fide trade or industry association, chamber of commerce, or similar organization operating for purposes other than obtaining or providing medical care. Membership could not be conditioned on health status and members must pay dues. Certification requirements specified related to sponsors, participation and coverage, premiums, and marketing. Premiums charged to participating small employers could not vary on the basis of health status, business or industry, but could vary based on claims experience and other methods that would be permitted under state laws regulating bona fide associations. AHPs offering self-insured plans would have to meet additional requirements, primarily related to financial reserves and solvency. Trusteeship by the Secretary of Labor would be established for any certified plans that become insolvent.
States could only impose premium taxes on AHPs that begin operating in the state after enactment. Rate could not exceed that imposed on other insurers, and would be reduced by amounts imposed on any insurers in connection with the AHP.
Other provisions
Federal rules would be established for medical liability claims, including a limit on compensation for noneconomic damages of $250,000 and restrictions on claims for punitive damages. No punitive damages would be permitted for products approved by the Food and Drug Administration and providers would not liable for claims related to use of FDA-approved products. Conflicting state laws would be preempted, but not those providing for greater protections for providers and health care organizations.
No award of nonecomonic damages would be permitted for treatment within guidelines that the Secretary is directed to issue; the guidelines would be developed by a physician consensus building organization under a contract agreement and would have to be approved by physician specialty organizations. Funding would be authorized for demonstration grants to states for establishing administrative health care tribunals to resolve liability disputes.
Authorization of funding for medical student loans for primary care would be extended, and unspecified funding authorized for loans to medical students in residency programs other than primary care. A new loan forgiveness program would be created providing up to $50,000 for medical students who practice primary care for at least five years.
The sustainable growth rate formula for Medicare physician payment would be revised and House rules would be amended to apply procedures relating to the Medicare funding warning.
Data from federally-funded comparative effectiveness research could not be used to deny coverage under federal health care programs, and such research account would be required to account for specified factors contributing to differences in treatment response and treatment preferences of patients.
The Secretary would be required to propose to the Congress a formalized process for developing performance based quality measures for Medicare physician services. Measures would have to be agreed to by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement and by each physician specialty organization.
Financing
Discretionary spending would be reduced; unused discretionary funds appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would be rescinded and numerous provisions of that Act would be repealed, including increased Medicaid funding, premium assistance for COBRA benefits, and Medicare and Medicaid health information technology funding. Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital funding would be reduced if bill results in a decrease in the rate of uninsured of more than 8 percentage points). The bill also includes anti-fraud and abuse provisions.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Wendy,
Yes, there is a problem. A dire one. The side-effects of government intervention in the daily lives of citizens. First, the federal government was never intended to do a tenth of what it now involves itself in, and at a great price to society.
We have always had those among us and we ourselves at times in a state of needing help of some sort. Whether financially, or in some other manner. It has long been known that a person is much better off being taught how to fish, than just being given a fish to eat. Sharing a fish you have with another until they can fish for themselves is honorable and appropriate, but if they fail to fish when opportunity exists, it is just for them to miss a meal. The lesson learned is priceless and of far greater benefit for that person than sympathetic rationalization and pity that perpetuates their poor judgment in failing to “try” to feed themselves.
What standards are required to receive federal assistance at taxpayer expense? Who measures and mentors that recipient in better practices to self-sufficiency? Not the government, they just basically cut a check and move on. No scrutiny, no involvement for the greater good of the person, and justifiably so as it is not possible or practical to create a formal government agency or agencies sizable enough to accomplish this task. Unless, you consider the government founded at our origin as a republic. A people independent and self directing, interdependent but not bound to one another, united in a formal government only for the purpose of preserving the individual and collective (States) independence of these people. Each person self-willed and self-accountable for their actions and their outcome, yet willing of “free choice” to aid their fellow man. If prey to a leach, only by personal choice to be such. If helped by another, possessing a sense of debt and gratitude for such aid. Akin to harshness of weather, and many other perils, yet feeling enriched by the liberty to pursue a better situation and emboldened by the hope of the fruits their future efforts.
Where have these principals and personal character traits gone? Why do we in such an industrious age and lavish in comparison environment need and feel “owed” the mandatory (government dictated) aid of others and that without a sense of gratitude toward the providers of such aid?
We have not become a greater nation, but a lesser. The presence of misfortune and adverse circumstances does not judge us an unkind society; the greater disgrace is the absence of self-reliance and self-accountability fostered by government dependency, and the diminished ability to by means of taxation to personally aid our fellowman.
As a young man (20 yrs old), I was once at a state of sleeping behind a set of brick stairs at a local church building. This not due to my negligence or choice, but by edict of my father to choose between God or living at home. I chose God. Two nights I slept in the cool fall night air. Was I abused, neglected, was someone to be shamed or blamed? No, it was for me to seek a means to provide for my new found needs. I found help temporarily from church friends. A room in exchange for light labor (painting, etc.), there was no set price (hours or number of chores) to exchange for the assistance, but just that I do something in return. This was not for their good or profit, but mine. I have never spent a night without shelter since, and I have never forgotten those two nights. No anger, no remorse, just a sense of motivation to never return to that condition by lack of effort to avoid it. I may yet one day find myself in similar situation; the likelihood is not diminished by government programs, but instead increased. A notable portion of my earnings are forfeited to government programs, followed by my willful local charitable contributions and my daily living expenses. (I do not live lavishly, in fact most prisoners have more lavish accessories than I) All of these serve to diminish my ability to save for a “rainy day” whether that day is mine or a neighbor’s. As these programs fail again and again to eliminate “poverty”, they continue to propel me and others like me toward poverty. This is not the American dream or even close to it. Government does more to stand in the way of my pursuit of happiness than to preserve or foster it. I find no greater happiness than helping another to do better and enjoy life, yet I am hindered in the pursuit of this by excess taxation so the “government” can take credit for what I had intended to do anyway. (while ultimately failing the persons it aims to serve) I am not better due to government intervention, but because I refused to remain in my situation, tirelessly sought better and was supported by genuine good-hearted people, who knew enough to help in a manner that fostered self-sufficiency instead of dependency.
We as a nation have lost the concept of contentment. Nothing is enough, no pleasure in adequate to needs, no limit to our sense of being “owed” everything imaginable. Nothing is fair, unless I have everything I could want and more. It is not fair if I cannot afford what someone else has, I am supposed to feel slighted if I do not get one too. Everyone has to have a trophy, no one can be criticized even constructively. We’re supposed to be scared of H1N1? We have a far worse plague among us, destroying more lives than can be counted. The bacterial source is government dependence, yet the so called cure is “feed the bacteria.” (more government dependence)
I am no doctor, no scholar, no Havard graduate nor any such thing, but it takes little intellect to recognize the plague won’t end as long as we increase the problem instead of reducing it. We need less government, particularly federal government, but state government also. We need more government (controlling authority) “by the people” rather than “toward the people.”
October 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Some facts that keep getting left out of the equation…
1. The US government has no money; it cannot generate wealth and therefore has no money of its own. What we all commonly think of as government money is really the pooled resources of individual taxpayers but is NEVER actually the government’s money
2. An employer that is not for profit works to a zero sum equation…for every penny spent, a penny has to be either earned or not spent on something else; for example, your company budgets to pay to have the parking lot re-paved but then a storm causes damage to the roof of one fo your buildings. To repair the roof, you have to postpone the parking lot plans until you can save up again or you can cut back on waes or benefits, reduce the work force or pass on costs to the customers in the price of your goods or services
3. The US competes in the world market for customers and most of the countries we compete with do not have employer cost burdens for health care and a lot of them (including China) do not allow employees to sue their employers. Most do not have labor unions or EPA regulations. The corporate tax rate in America is the highest in the world.
Keeping these facts in mind, it would be ridiculous for anyone to think that the government can either provide health insurance or expect employers to provide health insurance without somehow costing American jobs. It will come back and cost the individual more money. Considering the theory of “transaction cast” which won the Nobel Prize in Economics this year, the least number of transactions in the equation, the lower the cost. Getting everyone else out of the middle creates ne transaction thus lowering the cost.
Jim is dead-on…going back to the days where the individual paid the doctor for services is the best possible solution to this problem. It would drive down health care costs and reduce the demand for services so that the price would come back down even more. In the case of those who do not have enough money for health care, churches, charities and support groups could step up and help cover the cost or the individual could receive the care and the doctor or hospital could allow the person to “work” off the debt by contributing a few hours per week at the office or hospital.
Please people, be logical about this…thinkit through and don’t let sympathy get in the way…history has proven that trying to help costs more than letting people take care of themselves
October 20th, 2009 at 9:53 am
And here are my comments, before I move on.
The General Election reflected the wants and desires of a majority of the voters, and that’s a fact. Those who wanted the status quo, or to revert to prior policies, did not prevail.
So as the voices of those who didn’t vote for Bush weren’t heard during his administration, and although policies were pushed through without regard to partisonship, it’s now time for the other side to either work on what the majority of the electorate is asking for, or come up with other constructive ideas, and above all, not be obstructionists.
We’ll never convince each other that our political views are the better ones, nor will we solve age-old problems. But we do need to recognize that there are problems in our society (and the government cannot be blamed for all of them!), and they need to be addressed. If it takes a band-aid, it takes a band-aid. At least for now.
People taking care of themselves? That’s a Utopian philosophy. If we were all physically and mentally well, had the intellectual capacity, had the jobs, had the ingenuity, had the funds, had the natural resources, and shared the concept, then sure, I’d be a believer too! Is it reality? No.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Wow – ask your grandparents or theirs whether they took care of themselves – its not Utopian. It WAS the way people lived for most of this country’s history until social engineering started and people became dependent upon government instead of themselves and their neighbors. Do your homework.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Ok, this thread has hit a spot, as HR Morning knew it would. Let me address a direct @, then I will read the rest of the post.
@Janice “Don’t like the number 47 people? Is 1 million OK? What number works for you? Does it make it more acceptable if its only 1 million people that have no coverage?”
Yes, it does matter. No need to have 5 fire engines on the scene when a bucket of water will do, right? Why spend the money and upset the entire system when insuring 1M outright is far less effort and expense. Of course, I still rather feed the 25M people who do not have proper food access. Last I checked, food is still more important than a doctors visit, yes? You can have one without the other.
This is why I say this is a power grab. When obvious solutions are there that everyone can agree on, yet they are overlooked or dismissed. Yes, all three, Repubs, Dems, and Indies agree on Free Trade, some level of Tort reform, taking your insurance with you like your auto insurance (from job to job or state to state), building a policy like you do with your auto insurance (I do not need prescriptions, but I have no option not to take it, but just at what level of deductible and co-pay my policy will have), and we all even agree on preexisting condition protection*. So why not pass what everyone can agree on, and *then* work on the harder, more expensive agendas later?
*preexisting if you are born with a health issue, or you have had insurance most of your life, and for reasons, you were unable to maintain insurance; an insurer should not be able to refuse you care. However, if you are like me, and never had insurance, you should not be allowed to burden the system. If that was the case, then everyone would wait until they were sick before paying any premiums.
However, with that said, I still believe most people would be able to afford healthcare as they do auto insurance, if the above was fixed this year. (Yes, not everyone does afford auto insurance, but you can not protect the lazy, only keep the game fair so the working class can move forward also)
Look at who benefits. Example. My dad is retired from Chrysler for years. They have been cutting his benefits back every couple years. Why? The growing number of retired people outweigh those that are working. So, where do they get this money from to pay the retirees? Either go bankrupt or support government taking it over, thus overnight eliminate you having to further cover them. This is a shift of responsibility. Not that the Unions are closely tied to this administration- right?
Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
Now look at the healthcare. We must *force* everyone in so that they can pay for those receiving benefits. Sure this works for a while as long as the human growth rate maintains, but now look at Social Security. We have been told for years that it is broke and running out of money. Mostly due, I guess, from Congress tapping the money for Pork, as if Congress will not tap the healthcare funds. The fact is, it is broke and hemorrhaging money by the billions each year.
No Ponzi Scheme will work for ever as we clearly see in our financial news every year. So why are we allowing the government to try it on a much, much larger scale?
Americans has always done better supporting products and services with the vote of our dollars. We have also done very well supporting those in need. However, when our tax burden is so high (Canada is at 60%) we do not have the amount of money to donate to charities that help these people.
The two choices in this country have always been.
1) Let Americans, in a free open market, compete for products, services, and work. Allow then to keep their earnings and save, spend, and invest as we see fit. Taking money only needed to support those things granted to the Government in our Constitution. Which oddly enough includes border protection which does not take place.
2) Let Government decide who is allowed to compete, sell, and profit from products, services, and work. The Government will take this money, however generated, and decide who gets it and when. You will be allowed to keep a small portion, that will be further taxed when you purchase goods or services. The Government decides who wins and who loses, not the people.
Now who would you rather have in control of your money?
October 20th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Are we living in our grandparents’ time? I don’t think so. Do we all want to? I don’t think so either. People died of diseases for which there are now cures, or at least treatments. People died much younger then too. Shall we list all the reasons why most people wouldn’t want to live “in the good old days?” They honestly weren’t that good for a lot of people–poor people; sick people; people discriminated against because of their religion, color, immigrant status, disablility; women in general, etc. There are more protections now against discrimination thanks to — uh oh–governmental action!
Life may have been simpler then, but it sure was a lot harder. Do your homework.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Yes and people are adverse to taking care of themselves because it is hard – its much easier to take from others because you don’t want to do for yourself. And why should you live any longer than those who came before you? And why should that be at my expense?
October 20th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Anyone who receives food stamps, welfare, income tax refunds in excess of withholdings, healthcare, housing, etc. from the government is “riding the backs of others.”
I do not say this to criticize you or anyone who really needs a helping hand, but to clarify that getting something from the government is not void of impact on real persons. The back being rode is that of the taxpayer, not some mystical third party without name or face.
If you needed a helping hand, I and countless others, would willingly come to your aid. Given you phrase “riding the backs” I will use an analogy. If you sprained your ankle, I would gladly and to my ability choose to help, but if you want to keep “riding” after the ankle heals or refuse treatment to improve it, the ride ends. I would feel absolutely no remorse for leaving you “helpless” due to your lack of effort to walk on your own. Although, my truest hope would be your change of heart, and an awakening by that circumstance to then use the next offer of help to genuinely strive to improve and get back on your own two feet.
I remember as a child, my older brother and sister were much pickier eaters, on occasion they would refuse the meal prepared, and was ultimately sent to bed “hungry” (a grand overstatement of true nutritional state) by my dad. My mother was furious at this notion, concluding (loud enough for me to know about it) that he must not love them. How could he, if he loved them, let them go hungry? His response was, “if they were truly hungry, they would have eaten what was offered, and since they haven’t eaten perfectly good food set before them, love dictates they know the consequence of their choice. A light rumbling tummy will not hurt them, but will remind them of their choice.”
Unfortunately in our present society, too many of the loudest and most media propagated voices are like that of my mom. Confusing pity for love, sympathizing for nurturing, and too often trading the long-term good for short-term pleasantness. Our medical community has largely succumbed to this philosophy as well. I was forced to change primary care physician at the VA because I refused “pain pills.” I have service-connected multiple joint damage that causes pain and occasional limited debilitation. The doctor, instead of examining the cause of my pain, just wanted to prescribe pain pills. I refused explaining I could cope with the pain, but wanted to assure the cause was not a condition detrimental to my future health if unaddressed. The doctor became angry at me, and then I asked the doctor how he would react if his mechanic offered him earplugs to address the strange noise coming from his engine. He chose to reassign me to another PCP within VA instead of “address” my medical needs.
A tremendous portion of health care costs are prescription costs, and much of that for just such as I described above. A “make it go away” mentality in lieu of a diagnose and treat the root cause mindset. Blame insurance companies if you choose, but much more is a play in this than any element of insurance company greed. The most likely law suit comes from the “unhappy” patient who expects the doctor to make them feel good. (take away their pains) Most of such medicines have notable side-effects and mask real conditions as they occur. Cut off their pain pills, or let them get to a point they are ineffective, and off to the lawyer they go having every symptom of the latest TV ad for “get your check today.” Sympathetic juries and judges propel this “lottery” and directly increase the cost of both prescriptions (if by nothing more than the cost of 10 pages of warnings and disclaimers required) and the indirect costs for insurance to protect pharmaceutical companies and physicians from such suits.
It is time we again realize as a society, that a skinned knee “will hurt.” To expect otherwise is ridiculous. If I eat poorly, I will feel poorly. If I don’t exercise, I will be out of shape. The list could go on and on. Again, self-accountability and realistic expectations would go along way to solve the present health care dilemma. Tort reform narrowly defining “malpractice” and prohibiting “profitably” by means of lawsuit (especially lawyer income on such – 25% on avg.)
All monies comes from somewhere, and the government source is the people. Let us act cautiously and reluctantly to spend other people’s money at our or the government’s discretion. Less government, more personal discretion to determine and dispense the fruits of one’s labor.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:34 am
@Wendy “There are more protections now against discrimination thanks to — uh oh–governmental action!” Really? Please show me where that is true? As I know history, the *people* demanded the government to protect. It was not the government’s kind and gentle heart that did it.
From my family history, we have lived long (into the 90s and 100s) and have worked hard and lived well. Always poor by most standards, but wellness does not equate to money, but rather freedom.
@Wendy. “We’ll never convince each other that our political views are the better ones, nor will we solve age-old problems.” Not true. I do all the time, almost everyday.
The problem with the last election, is the People wanted change and they were fooled into thinking Obama was going to be that change. What change?
1) Accountability
2) Less government
3) Less taxation
4) Less government involvement in our lives
This is what most Americans want (according to most polls). The problem is, there has been *NO* accountability in the last 40+ years in government. It has stopped being by the people for the people and has turned into in spite of the people against the people.
This administration promised accountably, openness, transparency, and we have received what? Yup, the same as the last administration. Most people believe their government should have a more minimal roll in peoples daily lives.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Wendy,
You are wrong! The general election of Obama reflected a trust in the yet undefined or denied objectives of his administration. This is quite different from your assessment of the election showing support for something not known or else denied during the election. As for the Congressional changes, look at the divide among Democrats on this one bill not to mention others. There was no general election agreement with our present course.
The more the specific policies and objectives become evident, the more “general” resistance and objection to such grows.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
For SCOTT:
45 million uninsured Americans is more than…
• All Americans age 65 and older (35.9 million)2
• All African Americans (37.1 million)3
• All Hispanic or Latino Americans (39.9 million)4
——————————————————————————–
45 million uninsured Americans is…
• 4 million more than the number of small business employees (41.0 million in 2001)5
• 20 million more than the number of military veterans (25 million)6
• Nearly 12 times more than the number of millionaires (3.8 million) — although the growth in millionaires outstripped that of the uninsured (14 percent versus 3 percent)7
——————————————————————————–
45 million uninsured Americans is…8
• More than four times the population of Greece, site of the Summer Olympics (10.6 million)
• 12 million more than the population of Canada (32.2 million)
• Nearly 5 million more than the population of Spain (40.2 million)
• 20 million more than the population of Iraq (24.7 million)
——————————————————————————–
45 million uninsured Americans is…
• Nearly five times more than the number of Americans living with cancer (9.2 million in 2001)9
• 2.5 times higher than the number of Americans with diabetes (18.2 million in 2002)10
• 7 million more people than those living with HIV throughout the world (38 million)11
——————————————————————————–
There are…
• Nearly 150 uninsured Americans for each physician in America 12
• Nearly 7,500 uninsured Americans for each hospital in America13
• Over 84,000 uninsured Americans for each Member of Congress
——————————————————————————–
45 million uninsured Americans is about the same number of Americans living in…14
• West coast states (45.2 million in California, Oregon and Washington)
• Middle America (44.7 million in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming)
• Northeastern states (42.0 million in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont)
October 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
@Wendy, sorry one last thing about people agreeing on politics. Let me prove to you that most Americans agree on the same issues.
Every elections, *both* sides promises not to be like the incumbent and both, if you close your eyes, talk the same talk, say the same rhetoric, and promise the same things.
It is when they get into office, again *both*, move away from campaign promises to their agenda. Then the process starts over again.
So if *both* parties are spewing the same rhetoric each cycle, that must mean the majority of the people believe in those issues.
Overwhelmingly we believe in less taxes, less government, better care for elderly and the sick, and the poor. Most believe the People should resolve these issues, not the government. And that States should be more accountable for these issues than the federal government.
We are, however, then promised these things each cycle, and we do not get them. That is why the voting is often a hard swing, but look closely, the pendulum does not actually move from Conservative to Liberal, but stuck at Progressive as *both* sides have been pushing this.
Yes, you have the far right and the far left that skew everything, with the far left being the one that does this the most. That is not an attack, but looking at the Socialist, Progressive, Marxist on the far left, compared to the far right which still maintains core values of the right. I would even go as far to say that the far left do not properly represent the left at all. But this is moving into another conversation.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Wendy, you know what got us out of the “good old days” and into a time of prosperity, long life and daily comforts? Capitalism, free markets and private companies.
Also, I’m so sorry you do not see the difference between the government making a law against discripmination and the government trying to run your health care, car companies, banks, and anything else they can make a grab at. You know the only thing the Constitution actually allows the government to run is the military and this administration is dropping the ball big time on that one. (Barack may not have started it, but it’s his now.) Speaking of that, if you want to see how the government would run health care, check out some of the VA hospitals. Frightening. Many are full of physician assistants instead of doctors. Why? They’re cheaper. You don’t think that same thing will happen once the gov’t takes over health care completely? Did you know Barack actually proposed a few months ago that our injured soldiers should have to pay for their own medical expenses for injuries they received in war and yet we are being told we need to pay for every last sniffle a person has here in the states? http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html I don’t think it went anywhere but what does that say that this was even considered by the administration? Sad, very sad. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry sometimes.
Wendy, I would love to live in my grandparents time because then my life would be mine and I would be surrounded by people who actually love this county, who came here because of what it offered and the opportunities they would have, not because of what they wanted to change it into. My ancestors left Germany because they didn’t like it there and they knew it was better here. Seriously, if anyone thinks it’s so bad here and so much better elsewhere, the ships go both ways.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I disagree with the above posting regarding the assessment of the last general election. The election did not reflect a trust in the defined objectives of an administration. This is quite different from your assessment of the election showing support for something not known during the election process. As for the Congressional election, look at the divide among Democrats on this one bill not to mention others. In my observation, there was no general election agreement with our government’s present course.
The more the specific policies and objectives become evident, the more “general” resistance and objection to such appears to grow.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Richard, don’t you see the contradiction you raised? In order for there to be any protection against discrimination, the people’s will prevailed, and through government action–yes, government action!–there are laws on the books. The Government isn’t a living, breathing entity, but a tool of the electorate. Groups of vulnerable citizens gained government protections through legislation, and a majority of the people have long needed and requested government protections against the insurance industry, who’s holding us hostage.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Ok Wendy, if the government is there to do the people’s will, why are they ignoring the 54% of Americans they say we do not want the current proposed bill and doing everything they can to just shove it down our throats?
October 20th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Where are you getting that statistic? Fox News? I’ve never heard those numbers for that sentiment!
But we don’t have a final bill yet–we have at least two bills in the Senate, which have to be reconciled, and one in the House, which would have to be reconciled with the merged bill in the Senate, before it’s put to Congress to reconcile even further.
We don’t know what the bill will look like–it could be radically changed from the three that passed out of Committees.
Nobody’s shoving anything down anyone’s throat!
October 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Wendy, if you look back I think you will find that the 1920’s are considered one of the greatest decades in American history for financial prosperity. I think you will also find if you read up on it that most of the really terrible diseases that now have cures or vaccines had those cures and vaccines creqated in our grandparents and parents lifetimes. Our great nation has been at its greatest when the individual citizens were at theri strongest and their dependence on government was at its least.
I know the “majority” of Americans elected this president but I think that if you do the research, you will find that the majority of Americans are sginificantly under-educated. In 2006, CNN publish poll results on ignorance in America that lead with this headline: “After more than three years of combat and nearly 2,400 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, nearly two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map, a study released Tuesday showed.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/index.html
Just and FYI, The US is a republic which is based on the rule of law (The Constitution) and not a democracy which is based on majority rule. If the majority pass a law that is unconstitutional, it will be challeneged at the supreme court and the constitution will override the vote of the people and the law will be suspended. The Constitution specifically limits the powers of federal government and prohibits the type of health care policy being proposed. Even if passed, it can be blocked at the state level by the individual states. I know that my state and I think at least 25 (maybe 27) other states are writing legislation now to protect them from what is happening at the federal level right now. It is time for us to return to the original ideas of the founding fathers because those are the ideas that created the prosperity in the first place. We are lucky that prosperity has carried through as long as it has and we need to realize that the left over success of the generations that have come before will not be enough to protect us from the devestating consequences of what we are trying to do now.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Wendy you say this
“The Government isn’t a living, breathing entity, but a tool of the electorate. ” but it is only partially correct. It is more correct to say “The Government isn’t a living, breathing entity, but a tool of the electorate whose primary purpose is to protect and enforce the Constitution”
The US government is not a tool used to make sure that what the majority wants, the majority gets….
Chances are, the misunderstanding you have about the US government is a misunderstanding shared by a LOT of peple in this countryand that is how our current administration got elected
October 20th, 2009 at 11:57 am
It’s really too bad that so many of us sat quiet while the Bush Administration pushed the Patriot Act upon us, and sent us into an illegal war. And signed off on Executive Orders without Congressional or Supreme Court oversight.
Social Security had the same pushback. So did Medicare.
What are you all so afraid of? What do you think the government will do to you? I understand that there’s a worry that your employers may opt out of private insurance, and that is a significant concern. But until the bills are reconciled, that worry may be, and we expect it to be unfounded.
Is a public option that terrible? If everyone who’s currently “uninsurable” or who cannot afford $700/month premiums could have access to a public option similar to Medicare, would that be so awful? I don’t understand the level of fear. Do you still believe in death panels? Maybe you worry that you will be forced to buy insurance? The fear is almost palpable.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The president has stated repeatedly that we will be forced to buy health insurance and that we will be fined for not doing so.
I fear that the federal government will over step its constitutional power and that the people in our country will not be educated enough to know that it has happened. I fear that every city will morph in a New Orleans and that the day will come when everyone is waiting for someone else to do something while no one does anything.
I fear the greatest nation in the world becoming mediocre and punishing acheivement…what are YOU afraid of?
October 20th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Also please explain your statement regarding an “illegal war”. I have not heard that term before and am curious to know where you elarned it, what it means and what laws specifically were broken? The President cannot enter into a war without the approval of congress…I am curious how Bush was able to do so…did he officially declare war without Congressional support? Did congress approve it? If war was not declared, was the whole thing just called something else like “conflict” or a “police action”? Please explain…thanks
October 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Wow a lot of interesting views! The real picture is that we are in this situation because we did not act responsibly with regulating health care. Now we are faced with having to have an intervention to fix the issues. This is a very serious time for the country and the state of health care. But do no be fool that we would not have increases in premiums, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and more employers cutting insurance plans because they cannot aford it. We would have and are going to have those same occurances regardless of this Bill. We are the only Country in world that profit from our citizens staying sick – Something is wrong with that! I don’t want to see the Government take over health care, but the truth is we aready have Government run health care Medicare & caid). The insurance and the health industry have put consumers and employers in the middle of their War and we are the ones that are going to lose out. Every year they increase our premiums and give us less. We need a real solution, Let’s be smart and put the pressure where it needs to be…Insurance companies, Pharmaceutical companies, Hospitals etc… They are the ones that have cause this problem. We need to put the pressure on them to fix it – but I guess maybe it’s too late for that. By the way Tom I enjoyed your comment…
October 20th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
What is wrong with an executive order? Every president has doen this (going all the way back to Washington). Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
President Clinto sent troops to fight in Kosovo under an executive order…what’s the difference?
October 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order…was that wrong?
October 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
The divide among Democrats is between the Blue Dogs and the true Democrats. The divide among Republicans is between the Radical Right and the moderates. No one party has one voice, and that’s a good thing. All voices should be heard, none shouted out, none obstructionist.
We voted for Obama because we believed in his vision, and we still do. There’s not a growing resistance to his policies. There’s a more vocal push back from the far right–a relatively small group of Republicans who have media attention and milk it for all it’s worth. Some Republicans are recognizing how far out of control it’s become.
Iraq was an illegal war because the premise was based on a lie, and lying to Congress is an illegal act. He should have been prosecuted for it, and he should have been impeached for his incompetence in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. But that’s why we need someone with brains in the White House, and we elected him to follow though on his campaign promises. We’ll see.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Wendy, just because you haven’t heard something doesn’t mean it’s not true.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/10/19/rasmussen-5442-against-health-care-rationing/
54/42 against Health Care reform.
I’m sure that most “news” networks are not showing you this poll, which makes me question if one can so easily show that many “news” organizations are not giving you all the facts here, what else are they not telling you that another organization is will to tell you? Anita Dunn confirmed just the other day that the Obama Administration had/has “control over the media.” I don’t care what party you are in, doesn’t that thought just scare the living daylight out of you? But if you want to follow Chris Matthews who gets a tingle up his leg when he sees Barack, you go right ahead. I’m sure he’s being as objective as he can be.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@Wendy.
Really, you asked the question as to the fear of what a government will do? Do you not see the oppression in the world due to governments overstepping their powers??
@Wendy
Yes, i was outspoken about Bush. Just not here as I was not part of this board then.
“Social Security had the same pushback. So did Medicare.”
Wow, great examples of government waste and corruption, while also slowing the benefits over time. Soon it will be nothing more than a tax with little to no benefit. Ask those that receive it.
Wendy, do you read what you write? Would taxing the many, so few can have is better than allowing the free markets to compete for dollars, thus lowering cost? Really? Wal*Mart has $4 generics. Wow, how much lower do you want to go?
First off, healthcare is not a right protected by the Constitution. Second, how do people afford food, car insurance, cars, bus fair, clothing, tvs, furniture, etc, etc, etc. All provided in the free and open market. Thank you God for Dollar Stores, I live in them. I do not have to, but why pay more!
If health insurance was like food, clothing, auto insurance, and everything else, then EVERYONE would be able to afford some level. Perhaps not the exclusive privet rooms at hospitals, but I can no afford 1st class airfare either. (or first class anything. I need a new job
Now, what are *you* afraid of? Why are you afraid to allow the free market to compete? Which they are not allowed to do at the moment.
Statistics: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
October 20th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Wendy,
The Blue Dog democrates ARE the TRUE DEMOCRATS and they have been standing side by side with the conservatives at the Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings.
“There’s a more vocal push back from the far right–a relatively small group of Republicans who have media attention and milk it for all it’s worth.” Well, I guess if a million people marching in Washington on Sept. 12 with tens of thousands more gathering throughout the country on the same day is a “relatively small group” to you and of no consequence then why do you believe Bush should have had to listen to the couple hundred war protesters when he was in office?
Do you understand how illegal it is for Barack to do the things he’s doing? The Government can’t just go in and take over companies, but that’s what he did. Truth be told, the whole public option is illegal because Congress does not have the power to tell people they have to have insurance. (Please don’t get this confused with State’s rights to be able to mandate car insurance. Federal can’t do that.) So madam, if you are so much for holding a President to legalities, where is your cry for Barack’s impeachment because quite frankly, he is STEALING this nation right out from under our noses.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Wendy, the unfortunate factor is that the present legislation, at least as revealed for public review, does not provide protections to the so-called “victims” of insurance companies. An insurance exchange does not stop insurance company profitability, and if it did, it would redirect the minds capable of directing such in a solvent manner, to alternate industries where return on investment is not shackled by artificial government limits. What happens then? Lesser competent persons begin to oversee the only remaining portal to dilute the acute costs of healthcare expenses. (the evil insurance policy) I could wish for the day when physicians and hospitals were more realistically priced to the common wage, but we have run too far down a path of indirect payment mechanisms or government programs requiring no payment (direct cost to consumer) that the price model is no longer based on individual affordability, but rather the ability of insurance or more significantly “government” coffers to pay the bill.
It is similar to the thermostat phenomenon I observed while in the military. The frugality of individuals while paying their own electric bill compared to their actions once in military housing. If it was their bill, the thermostat was set at a less expensive setting, but once it was no longer their direct expense, the heat went up and the air conditioning went down. I moved to base housing in 1992, and was quickly criticized by some for still employing conservative thermostat habits. I could not tell you how many times I heard someone say, “man why do you care, you aren’t paying for it.” Well, I was smart enough then and remain so now to know money does not grow on trees. Every pay stub reminds me of how such is a cost to me directly. (taxes)
Insurance and government programs have had the same effect on society in regards to medical care and prescription medication. Who cares if the pill costs $300, if I only pay a $35 copay. So what if I could get the same medicine in a generic or alternate brand for $200, particularly if my copay doesn’t change. Problem is that the cost comes back to haunt you in higher premiums required to cover the cost of your benefits (the part you didn’t directly pay) that was paid by insurance or if a government program, the increased taxes required of those paying taxes.
We need as a society to get more realistic about what is basic necessity and what is “gravy” extra. We also need to realize the adverse consequences of “freebies” and what I call, the “L’Oreal” mentality (based a commercial suggesting ‘go ahead’ because I’m worth it) particularly if I am not willing to pay for it after meeting my essentials without assistance.
Funneling more tax dollars to more government activity in this or any similar area will not solve it. It will merely do what it has already and always done. Inflate the cost of the same goods without improving the status of the intended recipient.
I used an analogy in a post several months ago in another discussion. Imagine poverty and wealth as a box. The bottom represents poverty and the top represents wealth. Can you elevate poverty to a higher status? Can you eliminate poverty? No matter how high you raise the box, the bottom is still the bottom. You can draw them closer, but only by crushing the middle of the box in the process. Our government’s attempts to eradicate poverty has done some of both, but has failed to meet its goal because as illustrated, it is unachievable.
Socialism and similar mindsets are advocates of the box crushing technique. Making all equal. “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.” I support this, but only by personal choice not mandate. I prefer the original American way, let me be free to reach, climb, slip and try again to advance my situation. My success or failure is not in where I am on the ladder, but found in my efforts to achieve. Remove my ability to possibly advance, and I will inevitably cease to try. Newton expressed a law of nature: for every action there is an equal and opposite action. Neutralizing reward for effort (profit) is to defy this law. Consider a second of Newton’s observed laws, the law of inertia; an object will remain in motion until an equal and opposite force acts upon it. Thus far the American ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit has not stopped although various forces have acted to slow it. The more government actions contrary to this priceless gift, the more closely we move to a stalled nation.
We have and can achieve far more through the ingenuity and spirit of the individual American citizen (within whom the government was suppose to reside) than will or ever has been accomplished by any form of government.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I’d be curious to learn what you believe would be the outcome were there no Stimulus package, with everyone left on their own. Homeowners were losing their homes to foreclosure, banks were failing, the home building industry was going bust and taking many thousands of jobs with it, etc. etc.
So what would the “non-government intervention” policy have been, and what would have been the result?
How do you think the economy could rebound on its own? I honestly have not heard that argument, and would really like to know.
To Pam, By the way, there were not a million people in Washington that Saturday! Where did you hear those figures? Not from the police or local officials, but from FoxNews, right? And FoxNews was behind the march to begin with!
October 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Wendy, on Sept. 26, 2007, Robert B. Reich said the following in a speech at the University of California –
“If you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive. So we’re going to let you die.”
Mr. Reich, a Clinton advisor, is of the same mindset and rubs elbows with the leaders writing the current bill, i.e. Obama, Pelosi, & Reid. This is the time these people have been WAITING for. Does that statement not sound like a Death Panel situation to you??? They are going to decide if you are too old to have treatment. He’s telling you this! And if you just try to dismiss it because you don’t want to believe it then you should stop trying to critize those of us who are trying to get the facts.
You keep saying, let’s just wait until the bill comes out to decide. WE DON’T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME. This administration, that promised over and over again that they would have full, unprecidented transparency, refuses – RRREEEFFFUUUSSSEEESSS – to post bills online for the public to see. They aren’t going to let us see it before they vote on it. Even congressmen are upset because they are being made to vote on bills before THEY even get to read them. So if you are so upset because you believe Bush pushed something through without Congressal and citizen knowledge, why are you rolling over and not even curious to find out what the current president is doing?
Do you have any idea the number of people that Barack has put in his administration that openly call themselves Communists and Socialists? Anita Dunn in a speech in June to High School graduates told them one of the people she admires most is Mao Tse-Tung. (I saw her say it.) HE KILLED 70 MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE. The people in this administration worship Chavez, Castro, and want to play nice with Ahmadinejad. They are coming out and telling us that! They are following killers and oppressers. These are their heros, their mentors. When you have Castro praising something our president does, you have a REAL problem. I know you are probably sitting there getting upset wondering who these people are and what I’m talking about. I can understand that because it seems you are following news organizations who find it more important to do a fact check on an SNL skit that critizes Obama than to actually do a fact check on Obama or his people. Instead you critize Fox News which seems to be the only organization doing any fact checking because you don’t like what they say. Instead of looking at their information and researching anything on your own you just dismiss them.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Wendy – there are many more people “pushing back” than the vocal far-right Republicans. Most Republicans and a fast-growing number of Democrats are now pushing back as we are all starting to open our eyes to see what Obama and to a worse measure, Pelosi, Reid and their ilk are trying to do to this country.
Obama is a smart, well-educated man and a smooth, charismatic speaker. Those are the reasons he was elected. He was not elected on his policies, because he never defined them during the campaign. He was elected on popularity because the average American was scared of the war, the economy and didn’t see any other clear choice. McCain, although a great man, was not a good speaker and had a hard time getting his message out.
And for all the criticism Bush has and will continue to receive, Obama is worse. He and his administration are trying to fundamentally change our American way of life. Out with capitalism, market based economy, out with individual freedoms and individual responsibility. They want complete dependence on “the government”. In effect, they want sheep. Unfortunately, until more Americans start speaking out as the far-right Republicans are doing, we will all wander aimlessly toward Obama’s soothing voice like zombies.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Oh, give me a break. Once I hear this stuff about Communists and Socialists, I know I’m not dealing with people who think for themselves.
I’m done.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
No one has mentioned the fact that most retail and hospitality businesses have part-time employees. Many who only want 4 – 8 hours per week. If a small business has 200 employees and 40 are full-time and the remainder part-time, how will it afford healthcare for all?
October 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
No one can have a “right” to health care because that care is a service provided by someone else. Unless you enslave someone (giving them no option but to performa aservice or be punished), you cannot force them to provide the service you seek. You must barter/pay for that service somehow. if you can’t, you find a way or you do without and that is one of the sad facts of life regardless of the country or time period you live in.
Wendy (and anyone else who supports this health care bill) do yourself a favor…this is actually a fun exercise and you might like it. I know you will learn from it…
Write down the 10 rights you hold most dear as a citizen of the US. Then write the 5 responsibilities you have to maintain those rights. Then write as many things the federal government regulates or has control over (Pres and Congress separately) based on what you already know and believe…take all this and compare it to the Constitution. Then you will understand what I mean when I say that people who voted for this administration are undereducated on how government works in the US.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Pam Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
This administration, that promised over and over again that they would have full, unprecidented transparency, refuses – RRREEEFFFUUUSSSEEESSS – to post bills online for the public to see. They aren’t going to let us see it before they vote on it.
posted at 6:23 pm on October 19, 2009
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
How many of your other “FACTS” are incorrect?
October 20th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Wendy, please study Milton Freidman for an answer to what would have happened without a Stimulus package. Please also note before you reject it out of hand consider this; ON November 8, 2002 at Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday (November 8, 2002), Ben Bernanke, current chairman of the federal reserve in a toast to Friedman said, “Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna [Schwartz, Friedman's coauthor]: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
Basically, Friedman proved that government intervention in a “recession” caused the Great Depression.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@Wendy, there was estimated 1M people according to local authorities. ABC reports a few thousand.
@Wendy. Government set the housing crash in motion back before 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtuNt3AKCg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
They are also the ones that crashed the banks that are holding those bad notes they were forced to give. People losing mortgages they did not deserve in the first place is *not* my concern. Any economy is cyclical and you can only protect yourself by not overspending and saving. Something few of us do.
If most jobs are held by small businesses, then why not give tax relief to small businesses? Such as capital gains?
It is absurd to first artificially inflate a market through taxpayers dollars, then bail it out with more taxpayer dollars. This is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. If this was the MOB, it would be called laundering money. Put taxpayer money into a bad investment you know will fail (those that could afford homes were buying them), then when they did fail, you take more money and bail them out. End result, poor people own homes at taxpayers expense which includes individuals and businesses. Now with less money due to more taxes, who is going to hire more people? See the logic?
There are *very* few people losing their homes that were not already living paycheck to paycheck and could not afford their bills before the crises.
@Pam “the Blue Dog democrates ARE the TRUE DEMOCRATS and they have been standing side by side with the conservatives at the Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings.”
Yes, the party that was actually *for* the people back in the day! Now the party has been hijacked by far left Progressives.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
@ mkh May I have permission to repost your last post. I want to place it on my blog and facebook page.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Gordon, I’m sorry, I guess I confused congress with the administration.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Congressional-leaders-fight-against-posting-bills-online-8340658-63557217.html
October 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@ Gordon that was posted yesterday, so being not 10% up on yesterdays news does *not* disqualify the overall facts of her comments.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan — not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it — to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.
What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man’s unalienable, individual rights. The term “rights,” note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with — and that anyone who violates a man’s rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.
Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That’s all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald’s, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights — and only these.
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit — to a certain type of action on your part and its result — not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your “right” to happiness at their expense means that they become rightness serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others’ expense means that they become rightness.
That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history — and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.
Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men’s actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country’s founding documents — rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.
You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it — period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens — to their individual rights — to their real rights — in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?
The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights — and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism is clearly evident in any field at all — you don’t need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.
How would these alleged new rights be fulfilled? Take the simplest case: you are born with a moral right to hair care, let us say, provided by a loving government free of charge to all who want or need it. What would happen under such a moral theory?
Haircuts are free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up every day for an expensive new styling, the government pays out more and more, barbers revel in their huge new incomes, and the profession starts to grow ravenously, bald men start to come in droves for free hair implantations, a school of fancy, specialized eyebrow pluckers develops — it’s all free, the government pays. The dishonest barbers are having a field day, of course — but so are the honest ones; they are working and spending like mad, trying to give every customer his heart’s desire, which is a millionaire’s worth of special hair care and services — the government starts to scream, the budget is out of control. Suddenly directives erupt: we must limit the number of barbers, we must limit the time spent on haircuts, we must limit the permissible type of hair styles; bureaucrats begin to split hairs about how many hairs a barber should be allowed to split. A new computerized office of records filled with inspectors and red tape shoots up; some barbers, it seems, are still getting too rich, they must be getting more than their fair share of the national hair, so barbers have to start applying for Certificates of Need in order to buy razors, while peer review boards are established to assess every stylist’s work, both the dishonest and the overly honest alike, to make sure that no one is too bad or too good or too busy or too unbusy. Etc. In the end, there are lines of wretched customers waiting for their chance to be routinely scalped by bored, hog-tied haircutters some of whom remember dreamily the old days when somehow everything was so much better.
Do you think the situation would be improved by having hair-care cooperatives organized by the government? — having them engage in managed competition, managed by the government, in order to buy haircut insurance from companies controlled by the government?
If this is what would happen under government-managed hair care, what else can possibly happen — it is already starting to happen — under the idea of health care as a right? Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?
Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.
You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.
Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all — where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens’ wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.
But, you may say, isn’t it the “rich” who are really paying the costs of medical care now — the rich, not the broad bulk of the people? As has been proved time and again, there are not enough rich anywhere to make a dent in the government’s costs; it is the vast middle class in the U.S. that is the only source of the kind of money that national programs like government health care require. A simple example of this is the fact that the Obama Administration’s new program rests squarely on the backs not of Big Business, but of small businessmen who are struggling in today’s economy merely to stay alive and in existence. Under any socialized program, it is the “little people” who do most of the paying for it — under the senseless pretext that “the people” can’t afford such and such, so the government must take over. If the people of a country truly couldn’t afford a certain service — as e.g. in Somalia — neither, for that very reason, could any government in that country afford it, either.
Some people can’t afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority in a free or even semi-free country. If they were the majority, the country would be an utter bankrupt and could not even think of a national medical program. As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off — charity, not right, i.e. not their right to the lives or work of others. And such charity, I may say, was always forthcoming in the past in America. The advocates of Medicaid and Medicare under LBJ did not claim that the poor or old in the ’60’s got bad care; they claimed that it was an affront for anyone to have to depend on charity.
But the fact is: You don’t abolish charity by calling it something else. If a person is getting health care for nothing, simply because he is breathing, he is still getting charity, whether or not President Obama calls it a “right.” To call it a Right when the recipient did not earn it is merely to compound the evil. It is charity still — though now extorted by criminal tactics of force, while hiding under a dishonest name.
As with any good or service that is provided by some specific group of men, if you try to make its possession by all a right, you thereby enslave the providers of the service, wreck the service, and end up depriving the very consumers you are supposed to be helping. To call “medical care” a right will merely enslave the doctors and thus destroy the quality of medical care.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Pam: Getting “secondary” information as opposed to going out and getting primary information (it took me 30 seconds to find the bill) is unfortunately what is wrong with discussion boards like this one. It is rife with misinformation and too many Archie Bunker-conservatives promoting their take on everything. It has been entertaining though. And Pam, nothing personal, we all make mistakes.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@ Gordon. Really? You found one instance where information was updated yesterday, and you want to debunk the board and her post? She provided a valid link that supported her reasoning. Now if they have done the right thing within the past 24 hours, great! thank you for updating us. But that hardly makes her, or this board wrong on any other point, let along all.
Please feel free to debunk more. I prefer there to be facts rather than just friction.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Gordon, if you’ve really been following this blog, you would have noticed that I have backed up several of my comments with links to articles and tried to be as factual as I possibly could.
I find it interesting that you comment on the “Archie Bunker-conservatives promoting their take on everything” yet is it ok for the Rosa O’Donnell Liberals to have their say without any opposition? I’ll think of all these pesky conservatives later tonight when I hear what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Matthews, Brad Pitt, Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Gore, George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Joy Behar, Larry King, David Lettermen, Angelina Jolie, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Janeane Garofalo, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Madonna, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Kayne West (shall I go on?) opined on today. Psst – Gordon – I thought that’s what this country was about. Debate and discussion.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
OK Richard here’s another easy one:
Pam Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Wendy, just because you haven’t heard something doesn’t mean it’s not true.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/10/19/rasmussen-5442-against-health-care-rationing/
54/42 against Health Care reform.
That link actually said “54/42 against Health Care RATIONING” I myself am against rationing but not against reform.
Richard, your link posted just below that offers:
While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say that major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass some reform.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Gordan, if you actually read the article is says:
“Now that the Senate Finance Committee has passed its version of health care reform, 42% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and down four from the week before.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% are opposed to the plan.”
October 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
@Gordon, you are mixing facts here. My link shows most want change, and we all do, and most want Congress to pass something, and we all do. The *what* is what is in question.
Most want tort reform, portability, and competition while most also do not want government to supply any of this, but to allow it as it is Congressed duty to protect free trade between states, which is something healthcare does *not* enjoy.
There is a huge difference between most want change and most want their form of change. Most wanted change this past election, and we are seeing that most do not want the change this administration is making, but those that they promised.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Wendy, if our government had remained as it was formed (limited) present conditions would not have existed to need addressing. If each household lived according to their means, unsubsidized by government programs, we would not have had home prices doubling, people getting mortgages they could not afford even at the time the mortgage was written, artificially inflated home values would not have bolstered a revenue ‘bubble’ and an associated vulnerable economy based on the expenditure of that revenue.
If government did not regulate when where and how I provide housing for my family, I would be at liberty to provide it at much reduced cost and know every board and nail in it if I and my friends (like the old days) built it together. I wouldn’t be paying taxes to pay someone to tax me on the value of my income and property, so i could pay someone else to collect those taxes and someone else to supervise the tax collector, and someone else to supervise the supervisor, etc.
You view this from a “what’s happening now” (recent events) perspective, but a bigger picture review would take you back to our founding as a republic, and even further back across history to see nothing is new regarding government and its ability to contain itself or be a real asset to its people. Even the best of times, i.e. a having good king, have been short lived. Our founding fathers knew this, hence the unique proposition of a government charter that shackled itself, and intertwined checks and balances vested in the people and the individual States to “hopefully” alter the course of history and invent a government so limited and so restricted that it would be difficult to usurp the freedoms of each individual citizen or State. Our history of the last century has all but cast off this profoundly brilliant form of government in exchange for the old “tried and failed” systems of government seen since the dawn of time. If a former style of government had been proven sound, there would have been no need to break the mold and create a new model. Many similarities exist between what was formed and other past government structures, but the most distinguishing difference was how each was ‘caged and shackled’ to limit the likelihood of the evidenced problems therein from coming to fruition in this new republic. No one central all powerful overarching authority was vested in any government entity. The absence of such was intentional and prescribed to allow the natural variances of opinions, election cycles and location of such elections (Senate elections have been altered), and independence of each State to prevent with all means possible the creation of a central all powerful overarching government. Anyone schooled in the last half century was taught little if any of this, but instead was allowed to ignorantly grow accustomed to the notion of a central federal government being the final authority on all matters. This was exactly what our forefathers sought to prevent.
The altering of our government as described has introduced influences on the individual’s and each State’s ability to exercise and preserve the freedoms incorporated in our founding documents. There is a tremendous reason for the language choice of “We the people.” That verbiage would otherwise be redundant except that it was chosen to emphasize the “We” was comprised of “the people” not some group of elected or appointed persons. (government)
The alterations and associated influences have created a chain reaction of rapid adaptations to every aspect of our lives. The finger of government is in everything and sometimes we have fistful of fingers once local, county, state and federal elements get involved. Too often these conflict and create confusion and unnecessary expense to common everyday activities. Every penny spent to decipher, comply and defend against such laws, the more spent on such the higher the product or service price to the consumer thereof. The more ‘middle men’ involved, whether lawyer, compliance officers, etc., the more costly by simple nature of compensation, even if at minimum wage, for each rung in the process. As these cost are incurred, a source to fund them must be sought. The only source for companies is the customer, the only source for individuals is their paycheck. Customers will and can only afford so much before not buying, employees cannot exact more in wages without further increasing the cost of the goods or services and both of these make economies unstable. If demand drops, less labor supply is needed or affordable. If fewer people have jobs, there will be fewer customers able to afford the good or service, and the cycle continues…
Artificial injection of revenue worsens the scenario by generating a false customer base. Short-term gains are not real demand, and the source of the injected revenue was redirected from somewhere, which in turn is loosing that revenue to drive its demand. Let’s not forget, increased demand almost always increases price. If we print money or borrow money for such injections of revenue; the latter consequences are exponentially amplified.
The economic crisis could have been avoided, if: 1) government had not introduced an artificial home buyer, 2) responded to the problem created by adding artificial revenue to the economy, 3) free markets (meaning unfettered customer to supplier relationships) were left to their insignificant and mostly localized anomalies, which ultimately self-repair based on the principles of supply and demand.
So to address my recommended approach to resolving the economic crisis, health care crisis, or any other similar crisis, is prevent government from creating it or amplifying its effects by intervening. This particularly as it applies to federal government involvement.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Not all households can live within their means. Wage earners lose their jobs. Family structures fall apart. Single parents struggle, and if they’re lucky, rely on family to help out. Daycare expenses equal or exceed paychecks.
How about listing some of the real problems (not hypothetical, if’s), and then providing real solutions to them?
Sure, if everyone supported their families, could pay their rents/mortgages, had stable jobs, were mentally stable, didn’t have to cope with disabilities, or discrimination, truly helped their neighbors, ate healthful foods, exercised…so much rhetoric has been shared here. I have yet to read any real solutions. But I do read about government’s plots to steal our freedoms–how? What has the government done to each of you since Obama took office? Oh, wait. You’ll blame your job loss on this Administration. And the recession nearly becoming a depression. And the housing bust. And the post office woes. And…
I fell into the trap of asking questions to only get illogical answers once again, drat!
October 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Jim,
Jim says: (1:45PM Oct 20, 2009)
Excellent post!
October 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
@ Wendy – After reading all the back and forth I can truly say, you sound like a huge whiner. I have seen several posts with great solutions. You are just too ideological to read them.
I would suggest everyone stop trying to reason with her. Let her ignorance be her bliss.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Debbie, There’s no reason for a personal attack–that’s uncalled for. We can all have differences of opinion, and that’s what we’re expressing.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I agree with Debbie, I heard about a study (if anyone knows where to find this please tell me) that if someone believes smething strong enough, they cannot be persuaded to abandon that belief even if presented with compelling, factual evidence to the contrary.
This is what appears to be happening here and as Debbie says, it would be pointless to continue.
One last thought for you Wendy…can you at least consider the possibility that what you describe “Sure, if everyone supported their families, …, exercised” doesn’t exist anymore because it doesn’t have to? That the safety net of government has created the gap it is trying to fill?
Please study American history from the revolution through 1930.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Wendy – mkh,jim, lajeli, richard and several others have provided numerous logical posts. You apparently, don’t want to read them or try to understand their points. The problems you list have been addressed by the government which ultimately ends up enabling dependence.
For instance, wage earners lose their jobs – there is govt sponsored unemployment – to TEMPORARILY help. Single parents struggle – there are numerous govt programs to help them -tax breaks, HEAP, Food stamps, medicaid, family health plus, child health plus, child tax credits, dependent care spending accounts, dependent care credits – the list goes on and on and on. Oftentimes, instead of accepting this “help” on a temporary basis and making choices to better one’s situation, coming to depend on all these helping handouts becomes to easy.
And it never stops – now there is a “first time buyers” $8000 tax credit for home purchase. If you can’t afford to buy a home without an $8000 credit from “the government” you should not buy one. Save until you can. Cash for Clunkers – the government gives away money so people will run out and buy cars they can’t afford and destroys perfectly good cars that many could afford in the process. They never think before they institute these programs. It’s deplorably stupid. We the people, our government, have to stop giving handouts to everyone. Charity begins at home. If you need temporary help, you should look to your family or friends. If you need help longer than “temporary”, then you need to change your lifestyle to live within your means.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Wendy, I’ve given you solutions, links to supporting arguments, ways I believe this administration is stealing our freedoms, and then you dismiss it all by saying it comes from Fox News or you never heard it. You ask for these things but you don’t care about the answer unless it is what you want to hear. There’s no point in gonig through it all again with you.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Found an article on the study…haven’t read it but it will be a good place to begin research…hope it has value for someone…enjoy
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/lane_wallace/2009/09/all_evidence_to_the_contrary.php
October 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
People that think you can get exceptional care at the ER haven’t been there very often or were there with something that was easy to diagnos. I dread going to the ER because I know that most of the times that I was there (without insurance) I was given Tylenol at $23/pill. That’s not fair.
I think these are fairly simple solutions:
Credit companies changing their policies so that creditors with medical bills can’t ding your score. This will allow more people to get what they need and help corporations sell more.
Make our insurance premiums cover what we need. No copays or extra “oops we didn’t know your insurance company wouldn’t cover this” bills.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Deal with the here and now, instead of hypotheticals and how it was when our Constitution was written. I haven’t seen any ideas as to how to address real problems. I don’t understand how my request for real solutions to what we have in front of us, can be interpreted as whining. The whining (and I’ll be courteous, and not name names) comes from those who complain about all these so-called lazy, good-for-nothings they have to support with their taxes. This country has really gone to the dogs if that’s all we have–parasites on our society. Do you really believe that all of our unemployed, mentally ill, etc. are good-for-nothing? That all they have to do is get a job?
I guess I’m the subject of attack today. Honestly, I’m not sure why you feel the need to attack me, or shun me! We hold onto our opinions firmly, I’ll grant you that, but I won’t call you ignorant. We quote different “facts,” we take different sides. That’s called discourse.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
To Lorie-
Have you ever had to work with the state to receive those benefits (Medicaid, TANIF, ect)? Do you realize how involved they become in your life once you do? I received care when I was pregnant. I tried after I had her, but I made $10 more than they allowed which equals a ‘No’. Plus, there are thousands of people that abuse that system. Why work when you can get everything for nothing? It’s pretty easy to dupe them as long as you’re dishonest.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Wendy,
How do you spend what you do not have? What is meant by “living within your means”, is only buying what you can afford. If one only buys what they can pay for (afford), and subsequently there income stream changes, they still only spend what they have.
Most Americans cannot conceive of that notion because we have been brought up in a generation of living within our present payment ability not our means.
Prices are determined by demand. Credit cards and other means of artificial revenue inflate prices and create obligations beyond one’s means. Without these, prices would be lower. If the economy slows, prices drop because the suppliers still need cash flow like everyone else. Employees accept the available wage to provide all they can for themselves. Not to mention the former custom of growing one’s own food. Healthier food and much less expensive.
You mentioned child care expenses, have you noticed the ?wisdom? of government at work in Michigan? Forbidding a neighborhood mom from watching her friends’ children while waiting for the school bus. Your and others (including myself) struggle to survive in today’s economy, but largely due to the vast amount of revenue passed to government directly and indirectly. More government intervention will not solve this problem.
You asked what government has done since Obama took office, well for one, they have not in any way reduced the financial burden imposed on every citizen via taxes layered upon layer throughout our economy. Have you ever stopped to consider how much of every dollar you earn is been tapped by the government? Your employer paid tax on revenue it received (assuming for profit employer), the customer who supplied revenue to your employer paid tax on their dollar, their employer paid tax on the revenue they received from their customer, and on and on and on…. The person receiving your dollar spent will pay tax on it, and everyone after them. With all of this taxation, why is the government at record deficits? Why can it not afford to live up to its past promises i.e. Social Security?
Now imagine if the taxation was removed – the pricing of the entire chain of the economic cycle would be effected. You could keep more of your earnings, your employer could give you the portion going to taxation, the price of goods could drop, etc. Buying power would increase. Our history has proven this to be true. Less taxes is more economy. More economy means better livelihood for those engaged in the economy.
How much easier could you afford your lifestyle, if it was rid of the cost of government? How little of the tax revenue finds it way back to you?
You position on these things may differ, and that if your choice.
The problem did not start with this administration, but is, from all information available on bills and legislation passed, propelling the problem further. Can you count how many czars we are now paying for? Each one represents either less tax revenue return to the ‘benefit of the people’ (I use this term very loosely) or more taxation to support the new positions while maintaining the ‘benefits.’
Regardless of who is in office or which office of government is held, we need less government not more.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Wendy, I stated facts from the here and now in at least 2 posts (one yesterday and on today). I don’t know if you didn’t read them or just dismissed them but here they are once again:
Lajeli Says:
October 19th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
OUTRAGEOUS…All this will do it raise unemployment even more. it’s like increasing the minimum wage! The first goal of any company is to make money. When specific expenses increase and revenues don’t, comapnies have no choice but to reduce expenses somewhere else. When a company’s health insurance costs increase, they will be less like to hire people coming out of this recession and even more likely to lay off those who are still employeed. So…all these people with no income will either have to get insurance or pay a fine or go on federal benefit packages. The poor guy who still has a job will see his pay decrease (he will likely get a pay cut to accomodate the increase in health care costs), will see his expenses increase and see his taxes increase…Its madness. This will be the last nail in the coffin on the US economy.
I know there are a LOT of people out there who want to help those less fortunate but this is NOT the way…
Here are some good ideas:
Removing the expiration date on flex plans; allowing people to tap their 401Ks for medical expenses without fees, penalties or taxes or getting a loan; capping the punitive damages on medical aml-practice suits and gov’t subsidies to pay 1/2 or more of the costs to students studying for health care jobs…
Lajeli Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Some facts that keep getting left out of the equation…
1. The US government has no money; it cannot generate wealth and therefore has no money of its own. What we all commonly think of as government money is really the pooled resources of individual taxpayers but is NEVER actually the government’s money
2. An employer that is not for profit works to a zero sum equation…for every penny spent, a penny has to be either earned or not spent on something else; for example, your company budgets to pay to have the parking lot re-paved but then a storm causes damage to the roof of one fo your buildings. To repair the roof, you have to postpone the parking lot plans until you can save up again or you can cut back on waes or benefits, reduce the work force or pass on costs to the customers in the price of your goods or services
3. The US competes in the world market for customers and most of the countries we compete with do not have employer cost burdens for health care and a lot of them (including China) do not allow employees to sue their employers. Most do not have labor unions or EPA regulations. The corporate tax rate in America is the highest in the world.
Keeping these facts in mind, it would be ridiculous for anyone to think that the government can either provide health insurance or expect employers to provide health insurance without somehow costing American jobs. It will come back and cost the individual more money. Considering the theory of “transaction cast” which won the Nobel Prize in Economics this year, the least number of transactions in the equation, the lower the cost. Getting everyone else out of the middle creates ne transaction thus lowering the cost.
Jim is dead-on…going back to the days where the individual paid the doctor for services is the best possible solution to this problem. It would drive down health care costs and reduce the demand for services so that the price would come back down even more. In the case of those who do not have enough money for health care, churches, charities and support groups could step up and help cover the cost or the individual could receive the care and the doctor or hospital could allow the person to “work” off the debt by contributing a few hours per week at the office or hospital.
Please people, be logical about this…thinkit through and don’t let sympathy get in the way…history has proven that trying to help costs more than letting people take care of themselves
October 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I have not ignored any of the prior postings. But when I talk about the here and now, I wish posters would address the situation as it really is. We have so many who are unemployed, homeless, etc–reflecting our society as it is today, as uncomfortable as that may be. Whether you believe they are good-for-nothing lazy worthless animals, or people who need help, it’s frankly not realistic to believe that the solution lies in relying on churches and charities. Who’s funding the churches, charities and support groups? Do you believe they can adequately provide vocational counseling, deal with the mentally ill, and the severely handicapped? What if thay can’t? Do you want to leave them to themselves, let someone else worry about it?
Is it realistic to think that a doctor or hospital will let an untrained person “work off” a debt? Would that person need to pass a drug test? Criminal background check? Medical exam to ensure they don’t pass on any illnesses or diseases? Go through a training program?
Sorry if I sound like a broken record. I asked what has the government done to make you so fearful. The answers I get are what the government hasn’t done, and what it must not do. I ask once again–since the inauguration in January 2009, what has the government actually done to make you fearful of your freedoms? What rights have been actually taken away?
October 20th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Who’s funding the churches, charities and support groups? I am along with millions more like me
Do you believe they can adequately provide vocational counseling, deal with the mentally ill, and the severely handicapped? Absolutely! I see it everyday
What if thay can’t? Answered above
Do you want to leave them to themselves, let someone else worry about it? I want to help them but not through the government
Is it realistic to think that a doctor or hospital will let an untrained person “work off” a debt? Working beats not working everytime so I would be willing to at least try it before I dismiss it.
Would that person need to pass a drug test? Criminal background check? I am still trying to figure out why we don’t drug test for welfare, food stamps and disability and crime is a choice that should come with consequences
Medical exam to ensure they don’t pass on any illnesses or diseases? Go through a training program? They could do all types of jobs that would not require this…they could work with the celaning groups vaccuuming carpets and cleaning windows, they could work through a charitable organization doing what ever they are good at who pays the bill for them…
All of these things can be done without government involvement
October 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
You say “But when I talk about the here and now, I wish posters would address the situation as it really is. We have so many who are unemployed, homeless, etc–reflecting our society as it is today, as uncomfortable as that may be. Whether you believe they are good-for-nothing lazy worthless animals, or people who need help, it’s frankly not realistic to believe that the solution lies in relying on churches and charities.”
I agree with you that the problem exists but I think it would do you good to study up. You will find that history proves that churches and charities have ALWAYS done a better job at dealing with these issues that any government ever has.
October 20th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
@Wendy, you are not suffering attack, but ignorance. We are addressing real world, current crisis issues with real world, history proven solutions. You are just willfully ignorant of the truth.
You will always have the poor, every country does, always have, always will. Some just do not want to work harder, some can not. If you think more care is needed, then spend your time and money caring for them or raising money for them. (that is what I do through my support of food outreaches. BTW if anyone is local, I am holding photo parties at churches to raise money to feed people this Christmas. Get your family portrait and feed a family. Everyone wins!)
It has been said at mind numbing repetition that government intervention does not equate to better care, or less cost, but, history has shown it does quite the opposite. It has been shown with current government programs that are hemorrhaging money and providing less care like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, which by the way will be cut even further with the new healthcare bills. Now if you do not wan to see that, then you do not have to. That is your right! You can also believe in man made global warming while the temp decreases every year. (which is why it is being renamed to climate change) Just as there will alway be the poor, there will always be those that try to reason against facts.
If people have more money, they give more to charity. Proven fact over the many many years. Charities use to take in enough to support the needy, as the use to be the only ones that did. But let us not harp on silly things like facts and history. How about showing me how you would fix things and how your solutions have been tried and works? Where are there no poor, sick, hungry, uneducated, and with proper access to medical care?
I will not go into all the faux demand set by government spending as mkh has done most brilliantly in a couple post. You do not have to believe any of this, but you can see the result of this today.
@Trinity” I dread going to the ER because I know that most of the times that I was there (without insurance) I was given Tylenol at $23/pill. That’s not fair.”
Far too many people are at the ER for non threatening reasons, which raises the cost for those that are. $23/pill you would have been better buying off the street, and received better than Tylenol
Recently a co-workers wife went in due to ‘hitting’ her elbow while at work. Really? One needs the ER for a bumped elbow? We had a guy at work that fell off a ladder (that he was unsafely using) and hurt his arm. Off to the ER he goes, for the protection of the company. Well, he also just bruised his elbow, but the doc said he had to have two weeks off on workman’s comp. Talk about money being throw away.
Yes, the system is broken, that is for sure. But the fix is *not* government, never has been, can never be.
@ mkh excellent, excellent reads! Thank you for taking the time to post at length. Do you keep a blog?
October 20th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Trinity -
“Why work when you can get everything for nothing? It’s pretty easy to dupe them as long as you’re dishonest.”
With this you made my point:) If a single parent (or anyone else) who meets income guidelines they can get help for practically everything – food, medical care, “stimulus” money in the form of debit cards to spend on anything they like, help with heat and utility bills, subsidized rent, tax credits, tuition assistance, job re-training, transportation, subsidized mortgages, tax “refunds” when they have not even paid in taxes! And probably a slew of other things I have never even thought of, especially in NY, the welfare capital of the nation. Unfortunately, once many people see that, they learn how to use the system and it becomes a lifestyle. you’re right, why work when with a little dishonesty you can get everything you need for free. Except maybe pride.
I sympathize with those whose income is just over the guidelines because they don’t earn much and don’t qualify. Perhaps if the fraud and abuse was addressed, the income guidelines could be relaxed. But, there has to be some cut off or everyone would qualify for everything free – leaving no one to pay for it, of course!
My own daughter went to college, works two jobs to keep afloat and never has any “fun money”. Has chosen not to marry or have children yet because she feels she can’t afford it. Yet she sees her cousin collecting disability for a proclaimed, yet unseen illness, has 4 kids, lives with her boyfriend (father of the kids). They don’t marry because she would lose all the help she gets to raise 4 kids on disability. It’s despicable really and totally unfair. One works her butt off and barely scrapes by. The other keeps having kids and gets a free ride.
I think if you receive this type of benefit, then you should expect them to become involved in your life. They should monitor recipients more closely, then they would catch the abusers.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have these programs at all. I think there will always be some in any society who need help, either temporarily to get through rough times or permanently if they are mentally or physically disabled such that they are incapable of self-support. But, I do believe the qualifications need to be much more stringent and the fraud and abuse needs to be addressed now with stern consequences. Charities, churches and other organizations should provide the bulk of these services, not government. Ultimately, as noted above, if the government taxed us all less, we could and would donate to help our fellow man more. Charities would experience a boon and be able to help more people in need.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:35 am
Any program, whether government supported or independent, is subject to abusers, and on the other hand, there are those who follow the rules, and are deserving of the services. Sure, we should impose stricter penalties to those who know how to manipulate the system. But that’s not adequate justification for cutting off the services to the vast majority of people who honestly need them. Talk to the Administrators of those charities, and ask them how much funding they have available. They’re hurting, because they’re broke. Many rely on government grants! Talk to the leaders of your local churches, and ask them if they can further help the poor, disabled and mentally ill in their parishes, especially if they become the sole source of those services.
It’s too bad that this medium has become a vehicle for those who are “holier than thou,” and see the world through such jaded eyes. Just because you know someone who’s cheating the system, or you know an ER doctor who sees abuse of the hospital in his waiting room, doesn’t mean that represents everyone who visits the ER.
There’s absolutely no call for the tone of some of your comments, accusing those with differing view points as ignorant, or needing to do their homework. That actually is consistent with the Right Wing mentality, how you view the world. There’s no room for discussion–you see it how it is, and everyone else is just stupid.
I think that’s just sad. Go ahead and congratulate eachother on your distorted facts, learned from FoxNews, and show disdain for other viewpoints. I’m done here.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:08 am
Wendy,
Imagine your question being asked regarding Hitler in his early days. I am not trying to call Obama a Hitler, but the agenda of many Obama backs (remember the President is by veto a checks and balance to Congress) is much more similar to that of Hitler’s party than our founding fathers.
Many in this country have become ‘addicted’ to government by means of subsidies and the added ‘pleasures’ afforded by them. Government like a ‘pusher’ continues to feed this dependency to epic levels. The dependency is harmful to the persons dependent on it, and the only “real” solution is to weather the ‘withdrawals’ and break the dependency.
Alternative help is out there, and more would be if the ‘pusher’ was not using the funds of others to supply their ‘drug’ (subsidies) to the dependent crowd.
I do not use this analogy to offend or accuse this group of ‘bad’ behavior, but the effects and methods are near exact matches. A ‘freebie’ is given to get you ‘hooked’ once hooked, then the side affects of this dependency motivates the user to seek more and feel like they cannot do without it.
Who wins in such a situation? What harm is done to the recipient of the ‘freebie’?
We need to restrain government from this mode of ‘pushing’ a product (subsidies) that creates a dependency which is unhealthy to the individual and the society as a whole. It will hurt, and there will be tough days, but once freed of the dependency, a grander bliss awaits.
The present ‘in control’ government is by no means seeking to reduce this dependency, but quite opposite wants to propel it to unprecedented levels. Even the dependence on extended unemployment is being used to create and propagate government assistance as a ‘hero’ come to the rescue. This is more like setting a house on fire, then calling 911 or alerting the the family to out and expecting to be a hero for doing so.
Our ability to produce goods and services at competitive prices has been steadily diminished by those holding the beliefs of the ‘in control’ elements of our present government. Jobs by the scores have been lost and moved overseas in record paces over the past three decades because unhealthy non-competitive government edicts prohibited true ‘free market’ competition. If this group holding the philosophies, finishes their agenda, we, the American people, will fully cease to be free and our independence lost in exchange for a Nobles – peasant model.
I would ask you to consider the ‘friends’ of this leadership group (liberal democrats): Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc. What do those leaders have in common with each other and with the liberal democrats who agree with and befriend them? Absolute power within their countries is what these foreign leaders have in common. Control of industry and particularly energy sources within the country they govern. Why would liberal democrats befriend and repeatedly agree with them? All indicators show a similar quest for the same form of control. Why would these liberal democrats be so rigidly against drilling for oil within our country, while not contesting the drilling in the lands of these other leaders they befriend? My speculation: They do not want the positive impact economically of drilling our own oil (natural gas as well) to happen before they have control of that industry. Far fetched idea? Would you have believed 2 years ago that the government would control (run) 2/3rds of the US auto industry? the largest portions of the banking industry? I could go on… My last questions: How well off are the citizens of those countries? Are they truly blessed by a benevolent government? Consider the term benevolent government; such requires the people to be needy and the ‘controllers’ to ’share’ some of the national resources or value thereof with them. That is not a benevolent government, no more than a generous slave owner would be considered to be.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:13 am
Tolstoy wrote about people and why its so difficult, even when faced with the possibility that their truth may not be so truthful, resist change. Tolstoy said: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
And so it has been with the health care “reform” issue – as each layer gets exposed for what it is – those who have defended it can not see the obvious – or if they can, they simply can not admit it.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:09 am
Wendy,
You are right, there always have been and always will be abusers of individuals and agencies offering assistance. However, the level of abuse is increased within government programs. There is an old saying, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” Individuals are much more prone to scrutinize the aid they provide than the government ‘processors.’ After all, for the individual, it is their own money directly involved, for the government processor, it is another person’s money.
Increased abuse by recipients is a good reason to not have a detachment of donor and recipient as with all government subsidy programs.
The more severe abuse, is the dependency created by these programs, and the disabling effect they have on the contributors to act individually. For every salary paid to a government worker to collect, distribute and manage these programs, that value is lost in aid potential direct from person to person. The government worker has no motivation for the dependent persons to improve; that would eliminate the need for their position.
We have the largest government in our history, no government employee generates revenue. This includes those who collect fines, taxes, etc., they are not creating revenue, but merely collecting what someone else has generated. If the size of government was reduced, the savings would make increase the expendable income levels of tax payers allowing more economic activity (job creation) and more revenue for charitable assistance to their neighbors without the cost of administration. (100% available; not 20% after administrative costs are deducted)
October 21st, 2009 at 9:22 am
Wendy, sometime yesterday you told me you “were done here” because you said I didn’t think for myself yet you constantly demean FoxNews (assuming that’s where it came from) when a view or static is giving that you don’t agree with. Where did you get that point of view? Have you watched Fox for a period of time to make an educated decision or are you just regurgitating what someone else is telling you? I have on several of my submissions included links to independent articles I found supporting my statement. Did you read them? If FoxNews turns out to be the only one that might actually report on that article, shouldn’t you be more upset at the other news organizations for not informing you of the information? Why are you shooting the messenger?
My sister and I seem to disagree on our view of NPR. I, myself, am not a fan. When we started having these discussions I realized to be informed I needed to actually spend time and listen to the station. So for at least 2 weeks I promised myself I would listen to their news portion on the way home. After that time I was able to make an educated opinion that I came to on my own. Have you done that with Fox News? Have you listened to opposing views on talk radio so you can at least make a decision on your own or do you just listen to Chris “tingle up my leg” Matthews? (No bias or agenda there!)
Also, you claim we have distorted facts. Can you please show us where our facts are wrong so we can correct them? You tend to continue to throw out these accusations but never seem to back them up with your own references. Instead you call people names and insult them for, well, having a different point of view. “There’s no room for discussion–you see it how it is, and everyone else is just stupid.” Many of your blogs have given the impression of the same tone from you.
You acknowledge that people abuse the system but your solution is to just throw more money at it. Is that how you run your personal finances? If a lamp keeps burning out lightbulbs as soon as you put them in, how long do you continue to replace the bulb before you do something about the lamp? My husband is a cop. He deals 24/7 with people abusing the system. If you don’t believe me, sign up for a few ride-alongs with a cop, especially at night. You might get a different view. He deals daily with people who degrade the police but guess who the first person it is they call when they’ve got trouble? In fact, it’s gotten to the point when filling out his forms that he rarely ever asks where they work, he just asks what type of government assistance are they on. Almost all are on some sort of disability. We are talking perfectly healthy 20 year old people! And it’s not “just a few”.
You accuse others of being “holier than thou” but I wonder, isn’t that how you might actually see yourself as you continue to argue for the mentally ill, disabled, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc? You seem so focused on being their savior that you are willing to disregard the millions that are abusing the system and wasting our money. You refuse to see that if those people were addressed and reduced, the government would have more to help those truly in need. And yes, churches do an outstanding job of helping the needy. You should visit some sometime and volunteer. You sound like you are passionate about helping others and I’m sure a church in your area would truly love your help. I have to admit though, I am a little worried about what will happen to charities of Barack does move forward with his plan to tax charitable donations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032503103.html
Wendy, you disregarded me because I used the words “communist” and “socialist” in an earlier submission. It was then you said I did not think for myself. Did you feel the same when Nancy Pelosi called Bush Hitler or implied teapartiers were Nazi’s? How about all those protests that had pictures of Bush as Hitler during his presidency? Did you dismiss them as well? Did they not think for themselves either? http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/06/pelosis-visions-swastikas/ http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612 Little history lesson for you, do you know what the Nazi party was? It was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY. Do you know what Hitler did when he took office? He made all other political parties illegal. He stopped all descent (FoxNews anyone?). Hitler dissembled all youth organizations except one called the Brownshirts. They brainwashed these young people into the socialist way of life so as to gain power. Where have I seen something like this recently? Oh, yeah, Obama’s Youth Brigade. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2213752/posts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mvP0ArKIGY (seriously watch this video. It is very scary.)
You disregard those of us who dare use the word “socialist” but why in the world would you discount people who are only researching the past and sending up red flags in the effort not to repeat history? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck????
Yesterday you wrote “Deal with the here and now, instead of hypotheticals and how it was when our Constitution was written.” A saying that I like to live by is “If you don’t know history you are doomed to repeat it.” Others say “A Liberal’s history starts when they woke up.” I’m not calling you a liberal per se, I just was making a point as to your statement. When it really comes down to it do you honestly think we are any better than those people 200 years ago? But the bigger issue with your statement is, whether you realize it or not, you just dismissed the Constitution itself. The Constitution was not a document just for that time, it is the foundation of this country and the principles, values and structure that put in place a Republic that still hold true today. Principles and values that have been stripped from us for the past 40 years. You don’t think there were hungry and poor and disabled people 200 years ago? One difference that does exist is 200 years ago communities took care of each other. People helped people. And yes, most found help, comfort and support with their church family not the government. (I know you do not necessarily agree with this, but as a genealogist I have spent 20 years and thousands of hours researching family history and this statement is consistent with my findings.) So when we say we want to “take back our country”, we are saying we want to go back to the foundations that first, we are free, second, we work hard for what we earn and get to do with it as WE choose, and third, the government is as minimal as possible. What’s the alternative? Just watch Bill Maher. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1gH8aUhcTA He wants a dictatorship like China where “Obama should just ram healthcare down America’s throat because people are ‘too stupid’ to get it.” (Gee, I wonder if he would still want the President to be a dictator if Sarah Palin were in office, ramming all her ideas down America’s throat. Hum.)
Wendy, I know you are “done”, but I hope you at least read my entry and visited the links I provided.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
Well, I think we’ve beaten this horse to death, lol. And solved nothing
Some of us believe more government involvement in healthcare will lead to more costs, more abuse and less individual freedom. Some of us think the government can and should solve our problems for us. In all though it’s been an interesting discussion. I, for one, enjoyed reading everyone’s ideas on this issue.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:38 am
I think the point that may of you are missing is the fact that State and Gov’t employees do not pay a dime in health care premiums. You can bet your congressman/woman is not paying $112/pay check, and they are not paying $40-$60 for a doctor’s visit and they are not paying $50 to $60 for perscription drugs. Not to mention that once they retire they get free medical insurance for life.
Has anyone taken a look at what the company we all own a piece of, GM, is paying. Their union workers contribute $0 to the preimiums.
I think the issues that need to be addressed in the health care system are malpractice insurance and premiums. Premiums need to be consistant prices across the board. Small groups should be able to get the same rate as big groups. Let’s face it the insurance company is spreading the risk out over all the people they insurance, they are not doing it by group. I agree that medical care reform needs to happen, I am just not sure that the gov’t plan is the answer.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
So you want to know what the problem with healthcare delivery is in America? Read this…one of the most focused and scholarly assessments I’ve ever read on the subject.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
This is worth everyones investment in time to read.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am
Problem is funding. Take it off the working person and put it on the person who is buing. Why.
All product imported from oversees pays nothing to American health care. Working people payment puts manufcturing companies at a dis advangage compared to oversees companies.
A X% Health insurance sales tax to raise the money will make manufacturing in america more competitive and reduce losing jobs oversees.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am
Whether McCain & Palin would have done abetter job or not is not relevant, this the same old hackneyed liberal response to all of Obamabi’s failures. BLame it on Bush or a strawman.
The fact of the matter is that this “health bill” & and cap-n-tax is just another assault on private buisness and our economy & country as we know it. And yes, I’m well aware that Bush started the bailout mess last year, so save your beating drums for someone else!
October 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Don’t all you business people and HR people see that employers cannot continue to bear 15% – 30% increases annually? We have done everything possible to “creatively” afford the increased premium rates – higher deductibles, higher employee co-payments, out-of-pocket increases, less coverage, “education” and wellness initiatives. Why is it up to employers to provide health insurance anyway? We have enough to manage with our own businesses and staying competitive in the world marketplace. Healthcare costs are crippling businesses in this country – especially the smaller and start-up ones. I was at a business roundtable just last week in which business owners named healthcare costs the #1 challenge to their business’ continued success. Why aren’t all you vehement capitalists considering THAT ?!!
October 21st, 2009 at 11:52 am
Don’t forget Mitch…you get what you pay for
October 21st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Seeing some refer to Ms. Palin as Caribou Barbie is appalling! It shows just how effective the media was in its smear campaign against the remarkable woman. This reference has no place in this or any other discussion.
This health care bill is just an attempt for the government to control another big chunk of the U. S. economy and needs to be stopped. The slippery slope is being traveled and the speed will pick up. We don’t stand a chance for morality to return to this once-great nation.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I don’t understand why you people think Social Security benefits and medicare is some kind of goverment hand out. My husband is on medicare and for 50 years he worked and paid social security tax just like we are all paying now. Preimiums are taking out of his check for medicare. Even with an additional policy he has to pay deductable just like the rest of you.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Nancy…thanks for the article, it was excellent.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
So Mitch, your $10 an hour employees will enjoy the 8% cap on family coverage but will your employer enjoy the 58% increase in staffing cost? How many people will need to be laid off to break even. Will you be one of them? Or will they just convert everyone to the public plan like everyone else.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Folks — the bigger question is why our “transparent” governement is holding closed door meetings to discuss the direction our health care will take. Do those ladies and gentlemen (and I use the terms loosely) think the American public is so dumb they cannot read and understand the bill they are cobbling together? How many ways can you say — let’s put the screws to the folks who work and pay taxes to support those who do not and while we are at it, let’s cut off medicare for the folks who helped build this country. I do not begrudge those who need our assistance and reform is necessary to healthcare as it relates to pre-existing conditions but I do resent a group of politicians who believe their ideas and beliefs are the only ones that count — I want to see that bill before it becomes law — this is a big step. This magnificent country did not grow and prosper by following only one voice — diverse opinions are important — but I forgot — socialism is what many want — it’s easier, isn’t it? You don’t have to think, just follow.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
After reading these posts (rants) for the last 2 days, I can’t imagine how the “American Public” could agree enough to make any decisions…They would be arguing about it forever and never achieve a solution.
BTW, I am glad y’all don’t know where Wendy lives, it would be like the angry mob going after the beast. Geez, go back to work and lower you BP.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Ruby – most of us don’t think Social Security/medicare are “handouts” per se. What upsets us is that fraud and abuse run rampant in those systems. People “qualifiy” for SSI when they shouldn’t. The government has run Social Security into the ground when in all the years of collecting taxes for it, there should be more than enough money to provide for those in need.
My pet peeve with Social Security is, many Americans complain, “I can’t live on Social Security”, when in fact, Social Security was not DESIGNED as a retirement plan. It was designed to give seniors a little help, to SUPPLEMENT their own savings to ensure they would have food and shelter.
Apparently, the government did not publicize this well over the years. Because so many people think they don’t have to save while working, that they will live off Social Security when they retire. Then, they are all suprised that they don’t have enough money for food, shelter, clothing, medications, health care costs, travel, etc.
As far as Medicare goes, it is the same. It was designed to help seniors with catastrophic medical expenses (hospitalization). It was not meant to be the end all in insurance coverage, yet most seniors are upset that they need another insurance to supplement it. Yes, your husband pays premiums, but what is it $92 a month? Have you read here where many pay $1000s of each month for insurance. He’s getting a good deal.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I just love how generous other people can be with my money.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“Liberals always put your money where their mouth is….”
October 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
15% of our staff have no insurance. That number will increase no matter what happens. They need the money they make to live and (sadly) take the gamble. Food and a roof or insurance against something that might not happen. Hell of a choice. Someone, somewhere, will figure out a way to milk the system (namely, us all) for their own profits. This will happen in the same way the banks and financial advisors and now credit companies are doing it. Follow the money. They all say that they’re not in business to take a loss, and I understand that. But… when it becomes more about the profit than the individuals, how much IS a fair profit?
I would rather pay a flat rate to a doctor to keep me well than pay one whatever they want when I get sick. If I’d get sick, I’d stop paying him. That should give him a lot more incentive to keep me well.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Lorie, Pam and Jim – well put. I declared earlier I wouldn’t post on this topic anymore but Jim’s comments made me laugh. Thanks Jim and you are dead right!!!
October 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Keith – good luck getting well once you quit paying your Dr. Fact is, Dr.’s can’t keep you well, never could and never will. They treat symptoms and diseases once they surface. Healthy lifestyle behaviors may decrease the risk of you getting sick but again there is not guarantee. Regarding the 15% of your staff without coverage, all you can do is make health insurance available, if they don’t take it they are taking a risk. They are responsible for themselves.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Mary,
Perhaps, you should be asking yourself that question. I am in HR and administer the benefits for our employees. We pay 80-85% of the premium cost for our employees depending on the specific options chosen. We are definitely a for-profit business, but I do not support the only versions of health care reform available for review.
Why wouldn’t I (my company) want better for our employees at lesser prices? Well, to be frank, I would be glad to offer more for less, but nothing in any version of the bills offered for public review does anything close to such.
The leading cause of rising health insurance costs is not insurance company greed… Instead, it is the massive influence the government has on the health care industry. Can you tell me why a cash customer can pay much less than an insured customer for the same care? Do you know the influence of Medicare/Medicaid and indigent care upon pricing of health care?
Let’s just look at indigent care for a moment: How much does a provider “lose” in revenue due to providing indigent care? Can you find herein a motivator to inflate the price of a procedure?
Now, Medicare/Medicaid: Lowest reimbursement rates providers encounter! So if you know you’ll get such a small percentage of the actual charges posted, as a provider (industry) what are you motivated to do? OOPS! Don’t forget we have accountability measures to prevent fraud, so the price you use for the federal calculations must be used for all insured billing.
Where do these lead us? Price markups to enlarge the generosity via indigent care, coupled with an incentive to markup procedural prices to gain a more realistic reimbursement from Medicare/Medicaid. Rising cost of health care could be called “greed,” but much of it is more tactics to survive against government intervention.
Lastly, regarding your question of HR and capitalists objection, I read every version of the bill I can get for one specific item. HR3200 even titles a section to address it: Section 102, which is labeled as if it protects the right to keep present coverage if you like it. Well, if you haven’t read this section, I highly recommend you do so. It says you can keep your coverage IF: and believe me it is as depicted a “big if.” 1) the plan meets some yet to be determined standard for eligible plans, 2) no changes are made to the plan cost or benefits after passage of the legislation, 3) no new individuals can be enrolled!!! This is a major point! As an employer, the law (in every form I’ve seen) requires coverage to be offered to ALL employees to avoid non-compliance and subsequent penalties. Please explain how any employer could be compliant, and therefore eligible to retain coverage and avoid penalties, if no new individuals can be enrolled after the legislation passes. Therefore (based on this provision), any employer hiring a new employee or returning an employee to work, COULD NOT ENROLL them in the plan. Once an employer is not offering coverage to ALL EMPLOYEES, they are non-compliant with the requirement to do so, and begin facing the penalties for non-compliance. I would love to understand how a provision PROHIBITING the coverage of new individuals INCREASES access to affordable health insurance.
Such as this, in every version I have been able to review, is why I do not support nor trust this Congress or the present President with regards to IMPROVING health care.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I am so excited that this issue is receiving so much public scrutiny. 18-25% increases on annual renewals is a joke. Insurance companies are bullying businesses around with these ridiculous rate increases knowing full well that if a business chooses to discontinue offering a medical insurance plan all the top talent flies to the next company that is willing to take a hit.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Angie D.,
“Bullying businesses?” Perhaps some businesses, but I, for one can tell you, we are not so prone to bullying. We shop the market every year for the best package/pricing, we force competition to keep our business. 18-25% is not an accurate depiction of our experience unless you consider 2-3 years combined.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we pay 80-85% of the premium cost for our employees, we have modeled our policy to provide excellent benefits, employee choice and employee level motivators to control costs.
If your business is getting “bullied” into accepting “ridiculous rates,” perhaps you need new management that will understand “competition for business.” If we accepted the first offer an insurance company brought us, we might see the same results, but we inject real competition.
This concept is what is know as the “free market” influences to control costs. If government intervention was gone and the free market mechanisms at work, you would see monumental improvement in the quality and cost of health care and health insurance.
Someone will respond, if the free market could solve this why hasn’t it already? Well, find a point in time when we had true free markets without government intervention, and I’ll show you. Warning: Don’t waste too much time looking, because no such time exists.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Obama and his gang of idiots think they can spend their way out of everything. Just throw money at something and hope it fixes itself. As opposed to socialist countries, our Constitution does not specify that the government owes people something for nothing. The government should not be in the business of healthcare, automobiles, banking, etc.. The government already “provides” too many jobs to czars, IRS, and the rest of the bloated government that we have to pay for. Those people that have been elected know nothing with the exception of how to get re-elected.
How much more in taxes do we need to pay besides FIT, SS, Medicare, state, local, property, school district, gasoline, tobacco, and sales besides others?
We lose our jobs to overseas because companies can’t afford to employ American workers. This healthcare boondoggle along with cap and trade are only going to make it worse for the American worker – unless our country of college educated people enjoy working on road improvements.
I hope that we only have to put up with this clown and his circus for three more years.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This is to Janice: “Caribou Barbie?” Why personal attack? Are you in human resources? Would youdo that to an employee you didn’t like?
October 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This is to Janice: “Caribou Barbie?” Why the personal attack? Are you in human resources? Would you do that to an employee you didn’t like?
October 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
And Congress will do better in keeping the costs down? Like it did with Medicare?
October 21st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Would agree with mkh. We had no increase in ‘05, ‘06, ‘07 and ‘08. In ‘09 we had an increase primarily because of spinning off a portion of the company – had we not done that, we would have been at 0%. For 2010 we have a modest 5%. We’re not a large company and had plenty of reasonable bids to chose. In addition, I had previously formed a co-op of employers to leverage our collective size to bring down the cost/premium of Rx to the same cost a medium size insurance company would receive from a PBM. Its doable in a free market. The hardest costs to avoid are those caused by state and federal mandates.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Keith, who are you do decide what a fair profit is? Do you realize that when most of these “profits” are posted, often that number is just the sales that company had and do not necessarily subtract the costs the company incurs that actually reduces the true “profits”? So often times those “profit” reports are very misleading. Regardless, when taxes do go up, who do you think actually pays for it? The business?? No, the consumer i.e. you and me. And guess who is hurt the most – the poor, you know, the ones we are told this bill is suppose to help. So they may not have their income tax increased but when taxes are put on businesses and industries, that is passed right on to us. Our food, gas, electricity, clothing, everything goes up. In other words, we are all taxed. And that doesn’t include the income tax increases that will have to occur on the middle class to help support the out of control federal spending. Just because businesses make a profit doesn’t mean the government has the right to take that profit and spend it they way they choose, well, unless you live in a socialist county. If some of you think you are having a hard time making ends meet now, just wait until EVERYTHING costs 15-30% more to cover the cost of this health care bill and stimulus package (1 & potentially 2). As they say, be careful what you ask for.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Lets not confuse the current insurance reform bill with real health care reform. The problems are not being addressed in the current legislation: we should be focusing on what will maintain or improve quality and contain or bring down costs. Tort reform is important but it is only a start.
We should be addressing the shortage of nurses, use of nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants as providers for more services, moving people from emergency rooms to a clinic for non-emergency care. Someone commented on the cost of emergency room treatment in the US as compared to another country (Germany?). Emergency rooms must cover the cost of indigent care and uninsured care for the walk-in patients who have no where else to go. Imagine if instead there were a clinic next to the emergency room for walk-in patients, manned with nurse practitioners and other non-physician staff. Quality of care would rise in both clinic and ER and costs could be contained.
But the really elephant in the room- end of life care.
Most of the money spent on health care is spent at the end of life, in attempt to prevent death when it is inevitable. Our health care providers need to learn how to tell families that their loved ones will not recover so that they can make plans to provide comfort for the dying rather than extended suffering when the outcome will be the same. I can say this with authority because I am near medicare age, and have already addressed this issue with my family and also drawn up a living will which directs my family and physicians on this matter.
Our leaders will not address the issues because it is difficult. But these are the real issues that will continue to drive up costs, and based on the “insurance reform” bills now being brought forward, will increase the national debt much more than Congress is willing to admit. I agree with all who wrote that we need to write our Congressional delegate, but we should also write our governors. States may be the biggest losers as unfunded mandates become a means to dropping the cost to the federal government. Then taxpayers will be hit, not only with higher “fees and fines” from the feds, hidden costs in the increased prices for certain medical supplies taxed by the feds, but with higher state sales, property and income taxes.
Send them your ideas for containing costs, as it appears that our legislators cannot figure it out. I had a few ideas…. am sure you all can come up with more and better ideas. Together our ideas may be the real solution and could provide the spark needed for real health care reform.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Don’t forget Cap & Trade Pam – that will be another BIG increase to everyone in the form of higher prices in basics and home energy….
October 21st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
If everyone would set aside their personnel political viewpoints for a moment, I would like to ask a question. As HR professionals, isn’t it part of our job description to keep our boss(es) informed of potential changes that could affect the company and the pros and cons of the same?
I have been reading everything I can get my hands on from both sides of the discussion! I forward links to my boss with the math including mine and others best guesses on the financial impact to small business. My doing this gives my boss two opportunities. First, to be educated and be an active part of the solution by entering the political discussion. Secondly, we’ve been working with our insurance broker on the what if and the possible contingencies so whatever happens we at least have an idea of where we are looking, going, doing or changing. Granted, things are changing very fast but I do the best I can staying on top of it all staying in communication with my broker is helping as he sees hears things I don’t and vice versa.
After a health package passes that will not be a good time to be reacting!! I see that Barb and a couple of others have actually read what is available and even done some math. What about the rest of you? If this is passed in its worst form do you have any clue how your company will be affected? If you don’t know then you don’t know if you’ll have a job when the dust settles….
October 21st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Good point, Jim. Forgot about that one!
October 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
There has been alot of comments that make sense. Stop the abuse and the criminal activity and we would have plenty of money to make real adjustments to our health care system.
Tort reform if fine to a point but what happens when there is a rel issue and a person is disabled for life. A minimal payout is not going to help in that case. I think the person responsible for the disability should have to pay the expenses for as long as it takes to make the patient whole or until forever if need be. This way the responsibility is on the shoulders of the person responsible and not everyone else. Make people own up to their mistakes and responsibilities.
People who use the ER should be billed if they did not attempt to see a private physician before going to the ER. The ER is NOT a doctors office.
If someone is out of work for longer then their Cobra lasts then there should be plans available that are not cost prohibitive. If you are not working, no unemployment and need coverage what are you supposed to do? If people can continue to have some coverage then they are using doctors offices and paying copays and deductibles not using the ER.
Have all public employees that are getting free medical coverage start paying their fair share so that the people are not burdened with taxes that they can ill afford.
These seem like simple solutions that can be accomplished without a lot of arguing and infighting. People lets really think about solutions and stop all the nonsense on both sides of the aisle.
Where is a third party when you need one. I am getting sick of the two parties in power at the moment. But wait can I afford to be sick of them, do I have coverage or not???
October 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I just finished reading this article and I agree it is worth everyone’s time to read IF you really want to be informed about this crisis.
Note specifically for those of you who think tort reform is the answer, that McAllen, Texas is twice the average cost of healthcare yet several years ago they capped mal-practice awards at 250,000 and malpractice lawsuits went almost to zero, yet overutilization increased even more. So, doctors still perform unnecessary procedures even though they are not doing so to prevent malpractice.
Nancy Says:
October 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
So you want to know what the problem with healthcare delivery is in America? Read this…one of the most focused and scholarly assessments I’ve ever read on the subject.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
This is worth everyones investment in time to read.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Nancy, I read the article you cited. I found it interesting, but certainly not scholarly. It was a small piece of a much larger pie of a city that admittedly is at the lower earning scale and perhaps that accounts for some of the abuses of the medical system. I don’t know, but perhaps it does. It’s an opinion piece –nothing wrong with that — but hardly statistical nor scholarly. Sorry. Didn’t buy it.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Wendy: just finished reading your posts. You have to get yourself involved in widening your circle of information. You’re not getting all of the facts — from both sides — and then make your decisions. It’s worth a shot.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Well if you are a democrat you hate the republicans plan and if you are a republican you hate the democrat plan. Maybe we should get the elected government (senate & the house) grab them by the ears and pull their head out of something and find a solution. The problem is that you all seem to have knowledge of what the problem and the solutions are, but like our government, all you are doing is itching with a “B” about the whole thing. You really all sound like each other.
Have a good day!
October 21st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Gordon – just finished reading the article from the New Yorker and I agree with Karen – didn’t buy it. I don’t think anyone is saying tort reform for medical malpractice is the answer. This is a complicated issue with no one real solution. To me, the article vilified Dr.’s portraying them as profit mongers who ordered tests and/or services for financial gain. Sounds strange they would want to do that for medicare reimbursement rates but maybe they did. I want spend time arguing that but the fact that he writes for the New Yorker tells me all I need to know. It was an opinionated article and did nothing to convince me. I have a personal friends who actually pay ridiculous fees for malpractice and practices defensive medicine to cover their liability. Tort reform is a real issue.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
In order to bring down the cost of health-care, money must be removed from the system, not thrown into it. Have you ever seen the the kids at a picnic go after the candy thrown into a haystack? That is what happens when you throw money at a problem.
We need tort reform to protect our medical practitioners from frivolous and unwarranted malpractice lawsuits that drive up cost of treatment.
Doctors need to stop ordering unnecessary tests, and individuals need to ask more questions, and should be encouraged to seek alternative treatments.
We need to encourage competition. Congress needs to repeal the laws violating the right to free enterprise and interstate commerce. We should be challenging these laws in court.
Much of what needs to be done, can be done at State and local levels. All the feds need to do is untie the knots that keep it from happening.
The Federal government needs to devote attention to cleaning up the waste and fraud in the smaller, more specialized programs (i.e. Medicare) that are already under its pervue and “prove” that it is capable of administering a wider range plan. They do not need to pass a bill to do this, they need to “just do it”.
What worries me most is that our elected officials feel they need to “push” this legislation through “in a hurry”. They are meeting outside of public view. Why? Obviously, this is a major issue. The public needs to be aware and well-informed. We need time to review and comment on the proposals before they are voted on…not 3 days, more like 3 weeks.
It seems to me that it would be more prudent to slow down and make sure it’s done right rather than to throw something together in a rush and ram it down our throats. Why the rush? Could it have something to do with the upcoming conference in Copenhagen? How is it possible for a plan that costs $800 billion to reduce the deficit (this is an answer that I know)? Why are the networks not asking these questions?
October 21st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
RE: How does $10 bucks for a happy meal sound????
Do the “public option leaning” people not understand the concepts of inflation? When you raise the costs to the companies, they raise the prices of goods and services to us.
In the USA, we have an opportunity to be rewarded for our personal efforts and accomplishments. When you remove the incentive of reward (in this case just simply getting to keep what you work for), the world moves toward just doing enough to get by or letting others do the work for you. When everyone does that, eventually the tap runs dry and we are a third workd country like most of the other countries are close to now.
Go USA and Go Capitalism!
October 21st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@MKH & @Jim
Allow me to rephrase…
We are quoted 18-25%, that’s not what we end up paying. The company does their due diligence and requests market shops, changing plans often to get better rates. One can only increase the deductible, co-pays, out-of-pocket expenses and pass the premium onto the employee so often before employees start complaining. I realize that rates vary state-to-state, sounds like both of you have had fortunate experiences.
I know that the company I work for is not the only one to go through proposal shock at a huge rate increase, otherwise healthcare reform would not be such a hot topic.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
As I read these comments, I wonder how many of you would think differently if you were the one without a job and/or without health insurance? It’s easy to say that you don’t want to help pay for someone else’s hip replacement or other medical treatments, when you’re gainfully employed and can afford health insurance premiums.
My 57 year old sister lost her job and, consequently, her health insurance. She was very recently diagnosed with metastatic ovarian cancer and can no longer work. She’s not lazy or too cheap to pay for health insurance; she’s single, terminally ill and has no income. I’m sure she would prefer to be healthy, working and paying health insurance premiums. According to many of you, she should not be able to have medical care unless she can pay her fair share.
This health care system needs fixed and the government, whether it’s led by a Republican or a Democrat, needs to be involved in some capacity. There are too many large insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies making way too much money and using that money to sway too many people’s opinions. And they’ve been doing it for decades. They know people need insurance and medication so they charge outrageous prices, knowing people will pay whatever they charge. Insurance companies pick & choose who they will cover and what services/treatments they will pay. If you don’t fit their criteria, then you get to suffer and they aren’t going to lose any sleep over it.
We, as taxpayers, have been given several tax cuts and stimulus checks in recent years. Maybe we need to put the higher tax rates back in place to help pay for the health care plan, rather than try to find all of the money elsewhere. Then we can pay higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums. If there isn’t some type of regulation, do you really think insurance companies won’t continue to raise your premiums and pharmaceutical companies won’t continue to raise the price of your prescription medication?
We need to stop the political fighting and work together as United States citizens to solve the numerous issues in our country. There aren’t any perfect solutions but there are some that are reasonable and acceptable. Intolerance and selfishness will not solve any problems.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
This is in response to Joan. I do not agree with just making people near the end of their lives comfortable while they await the inevitable. People need to fight death with every ounce of their being and that includes every health care professional on behalf of every single patient. We are not ever to welcome death. That is a point that took this debate over the boiling point. Obama stated the same sentiments that you hold. “People need to accept the time in their lives that they need to stop trying to live and get ready to die”! What an abomination to have been spoken by the person leading this country. In case any of you reading these posts is unaware – he has done this in the VA hospitals by re-instating a manual that was banned by President Bush. It is designed to lead the returning vets to the conclusion that they shouldn’t seek or accept health care because they would be a burden on their families and on the country that they gave so much to. Outrageous! His policies would promote government assisted suicide. That is not health reform.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
To John:
THis “clown” didn’t cause our current state of affairs. He is just trying something different to try to fix the mess. You can’t turn eight years of neglect around in 10 months. I’m not sure I agree with everything with the bill but I do think we need to have a plan so EVERYONE can have access to DECENT healthcare. BEing treated in an ER is not quality care…they can only treat you so far. Can they provide long-term cancer treatment??? The ER is only a band-aide.
I have had cancer…my cancer medication is almost $500.00 a month without health insurance. It’s probably a fraction of that cost in Canada. If I lost my job AND my healthcare, I could not afford it. With the way things are now, no insurance company would touch me or if they did, charge me a horrific price that I couldn’t afford. I am a single mom….putting food on the table for my child would ALWAYS be my priority and NO, I do NOT have family who could help me out…they ALL live pay check to pay check also. And NO, I do NOT live an extravagent life style and I have a very modest savings which would quickly become depleted by cancer treatment.
So all you HEALTHY people out there, you have no clue what fear someone like me lives with in regards to losing healthcare coverage. I’ve seen my grandparents lose their entire savings because my grandmother had cancer…she had health insurance but didn’t cover her past a certain point.
OUr current system stinks and my hats off to President Obama for trying to fix it so I don’t have to live in fear.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 am
People on here keep referring to America being the richest country in the World. One person said, the rest of the world is operating with Roosevelt policies…maybe that is the connection. We start this Givernment Mandated insurance scam, especially without Tort Reform and we will not have to worry about being the richest country in the world. Obama will see to that.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:16 am
To Rose:
How wrong you are! My poor dad was dying of lung cancer…was all skin and bones and his doctor was going to put him through more chemo that was NEVER going to make him better only make him suffer longer. IN my opinion…it was just for the money. It was time to give up. Have you ever watched someone suffer with lung cancer, Rose?
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
I watched my brother suffer with leukemia for 5 years. He died just last year but he never gave up on life. His life was worth something to the very end. It is not for us to understand or for us to judge when life is not worth living. President Obama declared that he is God’s partner in all things of life and death. He is wrong. We are to fight death at all times.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 am
To Cindy:
First of all, these problems were not started over the last 8 years, they’ve been going on for well over 40 with both parties contributing to the cause.
Second, if you think proposing spending that increases the debt more than all other administrations before you is a solution, then I guess Obama is the man for you. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html (and this article was writing in FEBRUARY! Think about what’s happened since!!)
Third, when Cap & Trade is passed which would cost every household over $1700 a year (this number is admitted to us the this administration http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml), how can you say they have our best interests at heart in passing all these bills? That they are trying so “solve” problems? They are telling us they want to pass a bill that will cost all of us a lot of money most of us don’t have. Will they then have to come in and “save” us again from a bill they passed? Pray tell, when will the madness stop? This is not about helping the American people, this is about making all of us as completely dependent on the government as they possibly can. This is about power and control – from BOTH sides.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 am
TO Rose:
My father never gave up either. I was there when he died…I watched him die. It wasn’t easy for him or me. He wanted to live but to have doctors continue to treat him with no hope of a cure was indecent. As a cancer patient myself, doctors treat us like cash cows. Unless you lived it don’t comment on it, Rose.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 am
Cindy, Your reasoning would tell most of the people who have posted here that they don’t have the right to do that if they are of another opinion. But I will honor your wishes and stop commenting in this forum. Congratulations! You have succeeded in silencing me but not in changing me.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
To Rose:
And you comments says that you can’t handle different points of view.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:59 am
Cindy,
You’re right. It will be so much better when the government is pulling the strings instead of the doctors and you. They’ll take all the pesky worrying out of it and they’ll just tell us what treatment we’ll be getting.
I’m sorry you have had to deal with cancer. I’ve had 3 grandparents and several other family members die from it as well as my father survive it. But I am grateful that whatever the doctors did, you at least are here to share your thoughts and experiences with us instead of the alternative. I wonder though, with your condition (and I have no idea what the circumstances are) would you have fallen into the category of the government approving your treatment, or were you possibly in a state that they would have deemed you too expensive to help. Obviously I have no idea. I just thought I would pose the thought.
Again, I am happy you are with us in this dialog.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Pam:
One thing I DO know is that not all doctors treat us because it’s what is best for us…sometimes its just best for their pockets.
I was mis-diagnosed not once but twice so my faith in doctors isn’t very good.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
Cindy, fair enough. I’ve had similar experiences. Doctors are human too. Not all are trustworthy and some make mistakes. It is unfortunate but they are not gods and they are not perfect but why throw the baby out with the bath water? That being said do you think it’s going to be any better if the government is involved? Especially if the doctors know their license, their practice, EVERYTHING will be controlled by the government so they too, in essence, will be controlled by the government. At least now if you have a doctor that you don’t trust or think he is wrong, you have every right to find another one or to get a second opinion. Will the government be so kind?
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 am
TO pAM:
Finding another doctor won’t add years back to my life, will it? He failed to read my test results to see that they were abnormal…such a simple thing.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Ricky, good point.
Germany devalued it’s currency after WWI to pay for the debt of the war. They did this by printing more money which made it virtually worthless. People would need a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html
If you think this won’t happen here, think about the fact that $1 trillion dollars was printed, just printed, earlier this year. We are looking at high inflation and a dramatic decrease in the value of the dollar. If this is not true, why are other countries not buying our notes anymore? They’re not stupid. And it will only get worse the more and more debt this administration puts on this country.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 am
Cindy, you’re right. It won’t. But can you guarantee that if this health care bill passes every doctor will then magically be able to read your xray perfectly?
And as you said to Rose, unless you lived as a doctor and you can read an xray without any problem, should you be making a comment like you did?
Again, I am sorry that you have had the health issues that you have had. It has obviously been a trying situation for you. I wish you all of God’s blessing for recovery and many years of happiness.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 am
At Karen,
There is a program for that; it is called Medicare-Disability. Your sister would qualify. You all are ripping on our current health crisis, but I don’t think it is so bad as you all seem to feel it is. I have worked both in healthcare and outside. Most of the frustration with healthcare and insurance stems from prices. Prices are high because we have scientists working on cures and vaccines. Then there are doctors and hospitals who invest in school and medical equipment and facilities to handle patient care. Have any of you been involved in the insurance billing process? It is primarly electronic now even with Medicare and Medicaid. It is quite efficient. The reason for all this hoopla and “need” for change is because the general public and voting public is tired of spending money on this stuff.
Here is the kicker. Instead of getting government involved, if we let capitalism run its course, eventually people would stop paying for insurance, or someone would be creative enough to come up with a new solution. Or, if insurance got too pricey, people would just start paying doctors on the money they saved. The big 2 problems here are namely: 1.) People are generally too greedy and don’t want to pay premiums because they want their bigger boat or RV instead of saving it for a rainy day-medical sickness, and 2.) People in general want someone else(government) to fix the expensiveness of insurance and healthcare, and so it is called a “problem in need of reform”.
The bills running around in committee’s are unnecessary, and will only cause more problems by ruining an entire industry, and also causing bigger government and more government control.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
tO dOZER:
I don’t have a boat or a RV and I drive a Colbalt–three years old. I don’t buy new clothes much…unless I absolutely need them and even then I shop at discount stores. Yes…I even put a little bit into my savings and 401k but I can tell you that what is in my savings would not last me through a month of cancer treatment. I am not greedy–I live on the basics of life. But Iwant to be sure that if I lose my insurance that I don’t have to die from cancer becasue I can’t afford the treatment. Again. thank God for President Obama for FINALLY looking at this issue.
And I’m sorry, dozer, but you really DON’T understand the situation.
What happened to all these people who say they want to help their fellow man? I guess that’s only if you don’t have to lose YOUR bigger RV or Boat.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 am
To Pam:
It’s not that my doctor COULDN’T read the x-ray, he DIDN’T read the radiology report which CLEARLY STATED, I had a suspicious area that need evaluated for cancer. My doctor told me the test results were FINE. I didn’t get diagnosed until two and one half years later when I developed symptoms. I inadvertantly saw the radiology report from two years ago while transporting reports back and forth between doctors. The cancer became invasive during those two years. Yes, it was trying and yes, I’m STILL angry. I’ve lost body parts I wouldn’t of had to lose if he would have just READ THE REPORT…not interpret. I don’t expect doctors to be Gods but they do need to do their job.
No, there is no guarantee that having universal health care would change that…it actually wouldn’t change what happened but at least I would have the peace of mind to know that I can always have access to insurance and treatment. As it stands now, I wouldn’t.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
Whether you are conservative or liberal it’s as simple as doctors practicing medicine instead of business. REMOVE THE INCENTIVE TO MAKE MORE MONEY BY PRESCRIBING MORE TEST AND DRUGS and you solve the problem. Doctors should be salaried (no cap on the salaries of course) and there should be a constitutional amendment separating business and medicine
. I’m only half joking by the way.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:17 am
Gordon: which half?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Pam, Amen Sister! The people who are whining and crying about healthcare are the ones who have cadillacs, big screen tv’s, and more “bling” than one person shuld have. I don’t have those things. My husband and I both get up and go to work every day. Health insurance is taken out of our checks and the coverage is not that great. It is pretty sad that the prisoners that my husband goes to “guard” every day are better taken care of health wise than he is!!! Their dental and health care is provided by the state, my husband has to pay for ours! What’s up with that? I think Obama has been a disaster and I don’t know that McCain and Palin would have been a better choice but at least I know that they LOVE this country and didn’t sit in a church for twenty years listening to their pastor scream “Not God bless America, God damn America” Just makes my blood boil!!! Obama is power hungry and wants to run this country into the ground. I think we should all be on our knees asking God to forgive this country for not taking care of it and letting a man who doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution or anything else, including God, that this country was founded on.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Well put, Charlene! God Bless America!
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Why is it so hard to understand that as a taxpayer and a very hard worker, it is not my responsibility to supply non-working americans and illegals with healthcare. Its not that hard to understand.
It is also not hard to understand that it is against the constitution to take money from a working person in order to give it to another. The only obligations of this congress and the only thing aloted by law is the military, roads and border security. If the government would but out, quit stealing our money and put the regulations back to the state, jobs would sore, unemployment would be almost non-existent and people would be working. They would have healthcare.
We need reform Yes we really need to reform our government, the welfare system, the schools, the illegal population (who actually is one of the few making good from the stimulua money) and our president needs to stop slobbering over communist counties, stop flying to New York for date nite, stop yelling about Fox news and start looking out for the best interest of this country.
Man, I really hope that the Independents and Conseratives come out in groves to take this country back and bring back the American dream before we are known as America the terrible.
Oh yes, BTW, when the government mandates that every american MUST spend their money to buy into a government program, then you know it is no good for america. Last I knew this was a freedom country and we had the right to JUST SAY NO!
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Charlene – is your husband a prison guard in New York State, perhaps? Mine is and when he comes home and tells me what perks the inmates get it drives me crazy! He had to escort one not long ago to a hospital for a liver transplant. I have a good friend who is on the waiting list for a liver transplant. She was told it could be years. Yet, a convicted murderer gets one first (completely paid for by the state). Go figure…
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
To Dozer–Medicare-Disability?
Karen’s sister would have to apply for Social Security Disability, which typically takes 2-3 years to be approved, as the normal first steps are to deny coverage. Through appeals and finally with a Hearing, she may be approved. And once she’s on Disability for 2 full years, she’d qualify for Medicare.
So many of you think it’s so easy. I had to jump in, because the disdain, hate, intolerance and bullying must be commented upon. There is no discourse, no open discussions in this forum. Just a bunch of “know-it-alls,” with closed minds and I must add, inaccurate facts and figures.
The stories portrayed are real, yet you feel you know how to solve their problems, or worse yet, show scorn and minimize them. If that’s the America you represent, then we certainly do need change.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
Cindy – Might want to look into how great you think the healthcare providers think this is. First and formost a study was just released and there is a large amount of doctors from each specialty who will walk away from the profession and retire if ObamaCare comes into play.
Other provisions of this healthcare plan are – that you must take the doctor of their choice in a local community. Now looking at my community there is no doctors around that I trust that come even remotely close to speaking clear english. Would my symptoms even be heard correctly. I have twice changed doctors because I could not understand what they said to me. Thats what you will get.
Treatment will be denied as being to expensive. Most cancers, sorry to say, will not be covered. Cancer is the most expensive and even France at this time is denying medications for stage 3 cancer patients. To expensive to include in government run healthcare.
What do you have left, well you have the middle income americans paying taxes for coverage, you have corporations laying off more people and some closing the doors because they cant any long stay in business with the additional taxes and demands from the government. You have many many people out of work, and guess what will come out of that unemployment check even before taxes. Yes you guess it. Your insurance premiums, because if you dont have it, you will be fined by the government and it will be controled though the IRS and you WILL have to pay one way or the other.
This is not the answer for FREE America. The govenrment already has GM, the Banks, AIG and other companies. You really want them to bankrupt the Americans private healthcare system too. Oh what a world you are leaving for your future generations. Glad I wont be here to live that life.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
To Rose:
I believe that we all should be able to choose when to stop fighting. It is certainly your right to fight on, to struggle to evade death until the end. But I also believe that heath care professionals should be honest and let the patient and family know what the options are and what the costs (not just financial but quality of life) will be. I believe that the overhaul of the health care system should include insurance options for those who wish to continue treatment in place of hospice care. I believe we should all have choices and be able to make informed decisions. While I was not advocating for government assisted suicide, I am advocating for individual rights, and for individual responsibilities and accountabilities that should always accompany rights.
I have been the primary caregiver for my father, who dies of lung cancer. I watched him drop 120 pounds, with doctors advocating more treatments- treatments that added weeks to his suffering. When we moved to hospice care, he was able to stay in my home, surrounded by family, with sufficient pain medication. I cared for my mother, my father in law and my brother in law. I dealt with the bills and with doctors who advocated for painful, and expensive procedures. Were their lives changed by the additional weeks of suffering? Would they have preferred that the doctors honestly say: we have done all we can but you are not going to recover- we can prolong your life a few weeks or months by aggressive and painful treatments? Should they have had the right to have the information and make the decision?
If health care costs are to be contained, we must address end of life care. I believe that you should have the right to make the decision, you have the right to be informed, and you should be able to purchase insurance that will cover that level of end of life care. I believe that a general policy should be available that replaces the “fight to the end” coverage with hospice care or something similar. And I believe that not only private insurance, but government insurance should have both options.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
To Wendy,
It actually is Medicare Disability – speaking of knowing facts – and it isn’t easy. I never said it was. But it is there, and when first denied(as they always do; I agree with you), they will eventually approve someone like Karen’s sister. Plus, they will even back-date the coverage to when the problems started, going back years to cover the bills. You must have never billed Medicare insurance before.
P.S. I thought you said you were done with this post.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
“What happened to all these people who say they want to help their fellow man? I guess that’s only if you don’t have to lose YOUR bigger RV or Boat.”
Cindy, me helping my fellow man is A LOT different than the government taking my money and deciding who gets helped. There are fundraisers done all the time in communities and churches to help people raise money for cancer treatments and health issues for individuals in their neighborhoods. Don’t you think your loved ones would help you if you asked? You would be amazed how generous people can be when they are allowed to give their money freely instead of being told they have to or just have it taken by the government.
You imply the rest of us are selfish and then you tell us we all need to pay for your health care. You are in a tough situation and were dealt a rotten hand and for that I am sorry. It sucks. But if I work hard and I can afford an RV or a boat, who are you to say I can’t have it because you want the money instead? Who is being selfish here? You want Barack to be your savior and help you out and the rest of us be damned. Well, I have a Savior. He died on the cross 2000 years ago for my sins. What I need is a President who actually rolls up his sleeves and works instead of giving 2-3 speeches EVERYDAY in between basketball games and trips overseas to campaign for the Olympics that cost the taxpayers at least a million dollars. Here’s a thought, maybe instead of jetting all over the world campaigning (psst, Barack, you already won), he could put that money toward health care!
Nothing has every been fixed by waiting and relying on the government. What makes (made) this country great is the people finding the solutions themselves. Cindy, you are really, really passionate about this. Maybe instead of waiting and putting all your faith in a government that can’t buy a hammer for less that $500, (and you think they’ll make the costs less???), you could start your own business. Work with other survivors to come up with ideas that allow you to help more and more. But relying on the government and everyone else to fit the bill is a receipe for distruction. No country has effectly been able to do it. England and Canada are having real trouble. Why do you think many of their citizens are coming here for care? You just can’t provide good care to all citizens on the people’s dime for a long period of time.
I’m not against reform. I’m just saying there are other options out there that won’t cost me an arm and a leg (no pun intended) to pay for illegals and the abundance of abuse that comes with every government program. I just don’t see the benefit of $2 trillion in health care when a large portion of that will be abuse. Don’t believe me. Just try to find out where all the stimulus money went. Good luck!
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
To Joan:
I am so sorry you had to go through this with your father also. I finally had to say to my dad’s oncologist that he needs to be honest with my father and us….that if he wasn’t going to ever get better with chemo, he needed to just tell us that. He did, the chemo stopped and my dad died at home with hospice care (who are wonderful by the way). The doctors need to stop looked at the money aspect of treatment and think of the patient first.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
To Tracie:
What world do you live in? Plenty of hard-working people cannot afford health insurance. Expand your surroundings…volunteer to work with the disadvantaged. Maybe you’d see how the other half lives….and a lot of times not by choice.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Joan, People certainly deserve the right to be informed of the treatments available, cost of those treatments and the probable outcome the treatments will provide. It is also their right to decide if they want the treatments or to put their future in the hand of God and ask to be kept comfortable till He takes them home. The concern of many who have seen some of the wording of the health care reform bill is that this decision will become the right of a panel who will decide whether a person has the right to be treated or if it is just too expensive and not in the interest of the collective good. My dad suffered heart failure and literally died 8 times in one night. He was put in a medical coma for 5 weeks till his body had time to heal and then returned to us for another 5 and a half years. We all treasured those years beyond measure including this dear man. But when he was first admitted to the hospital and stabilized the decision needed to be made whether to put him in the life-saving coma or do nothing and let nature take its course. A nurse approached my mom and advised her that Dad had led his life and it was time for him to go. It wasn’t right for us to use up medical care on him. That nurse is an extreme example, I know, but she is an example of what more and more in the medical field will be encouraged to do if people don’t take a stand and say “This is wrong. People need to be given the chance to live. It is not for the government to decide who is worth keeping alive and who isn’t.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Cindy, I live in the same world you live in. My mother had breast cancer, shes retired on medicare. They have no secondary. They could not qualify for medicaid because my father has a life insurance policy. Thats your government regulations working for the American people. All our family helped by they still had to file chapter 11. Now you tell me, if government regulations were not in place holding companies and people hostage, this would would be much better off.
You want your healthcare and limits of care to be taken over by the same people who run medicare, medicaid, social security and the VA. They are all broke and you cant fix that. Good luck hun.
Also remember that the amount of people they are saying are uninsured is a bogus number. Those numbers include all illegals (who get free healthcare anyway) the students who choose not to get health insurance and the working people who can afford healthcare but choose to take their trips, buy new cars and send their kids to england and france during their summer breaks. There are very very few people in this country who truely cant afford health insurance and those are the people we need to help. Not tear up the best healthcare in the world to make sure that those couple of million and yes its a couple of million get their care they demand.
Sorry dear, your the one who just doesnt get it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
To Pam and Charlene:
I’m glad that you have family members who ahve enough money to pay for your health insurance or health insurance costs. I have a very small family…lost a lot of them to cancer. What I have left aren’t wealthy or even well off….they have their own bills to pay. No they couldn’t help pay $500.00 for medicine a month or my follow up testing in visits…one test costs $20,000.00. Sure,,,they have that laying around in the cookie jar.
I am one of the whiners and I do not have a cadillac…I have a colbalt, I live in a small house, very small wardrobe of clothes (inexpensive clothes) but I believe that ALL Americans should have access to decent health insurance. Like I said before, I have to pay for a war that I don’t believe in…I’d rather that money stayed here to help our own.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Cindy, good luck to you. I hope you are prepared when ObamaCare passes and they too tell you:
“$500 a month for meds and a $20,000 test are too much for the government to pay for. You’ve lead a good life but don’t you think it would be best not to drain the government’s couffer?”
At that time there will be no other options.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Cindy, good luck to you. I hope you are prepared when ObamaCare passes and they too tell you:
“$500 a month for meds and a $20,000 test are too much for the government to pay for. You’ve led a good life but don’t you think it would be best not to drain the government’s couffer?”
At that time there will be no other options.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
To Rose et al:
I agree with you: Government panels are not the solution. Neither is the “one nurse” solution sufficient. But providing information and advice from qualified professionals who give you ALL the information so you can make an informed decision is appropriate. Offering options is appropriate. But in any form now out there, health care reform is not health care reform, and huge costs will be passed on to us in many forms, and to our children and their children.
This is a complicated issue, with many facets, and increasing taxes, penalties, fines, and opening the door for even more governmental control is not going to address the very real problems of health care delivery and cost containment.
A rush to a “fix” that has far reaching unintended consequences must be avoided and the forum should be opened so that all the best ideas can be considered and evaluated.
Many who have spoken out in this forum have good ideas- so why are we talking only to each other and not to our representatives? I invite each of you to write to your governors and to your congressional delegation and share your ideas on how we can contain costs while providing quality care without breaking the federal and state piggy banks. Our collective bank of solutions/ideas are surely better than what is on Capital Hill these days!
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Amidst all the opion and political rhetoric in these posts, one comment really stuck out for me…
“Cari Says:
October 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
After reading these posts (rants) for the last 2 days, I can’t imagine how the “American Public” could agree enough to make any decisions…They would be arguing about it forever and never achieve a solution.”
Cari: EXACTLY! There will never be a one-size fits all insurance program. It will fail based on the logic behind your question. No two of us posting want the same thing and even the ones who say they believe this way or that qualify that with conditions or admit its not their first choice.
HEALTH CARE, HEALTH INSURANCE OR THE LACK OF EITHER OR BOTH SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL AND NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT
I resent being thought of as cold-hearted or judgmental if I don’t support goverment programs that provide for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves. I don’t think that is the proper role of government and I believe the US Constitution backs up this belief by limiting the federal powers. It is not within the scope of the federal government to have this involvement in financial transactions. Believe it or not, the health care industry is a business. People makes choices whether or not to become providers and they have the right to set pricing and refuse service. Anything less than that is slavery. No one has the RIGHT to health care period!!!
The government needs to stay out of the health care industry, the auto industry, the housing industry…etc and get back to its proper role as described by the Constitution.
I know there are people who are not as fortunate as others and I do feel for them. I would like to see their situation change. I would like for them to earn an income and not receive a handout. There is only one way to do this and that is to find them employment that will allow them to provide for their needs. Therefore, I tend to make my decisions about what to support and what not to support based on what is most likely to result in more, higher-paying jobs. This health care bill will lower wages and eliminate jobs which will make the problems worse instead of better.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
So, LAJELI, you must not be happy that your tax dollars are supporting the war in Iraq since it is a war fighting someone elses battle who cannot do it themselves???
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Just a tidbit…we are not facing ‘Obamacare’ The idea of health care reform is not new nor unique to Obama, it was tried by Hilary in the 90’s. 16 years later, I wonder what “personal” investments those proponents of ‘affordable health care for all’ have made toward this “noble” cause. How many vacations have they canceled to help a “needy” person get care, how much of their personal wealth has been shared to this cause. They cry aloud about the hideousness of these cases and such a wealthy nation neglecting them, but where are they with the means they already have within their control? No one can stop them from giving freely to help them. Why do they not suggest the campaign contributions instead be directed to fund help for these needy persons? Why do they insist this can only be addressed by their getting the authority to tax others for this cause?
The answers to these show the real agenda of this group of legislators and their closest supporters.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Joan, A lot of us do talk to representatives. Problem is they know what we dont want and they simply do not care. I for one would like to see the health care reform bills submitted by the republicans that Nancy Pelosi has hidden and wont let out.
There are a lot of different solutions to look over, but the only one the government seems interested in 100% complete control over all our healthcare needs and this is a very very big problem. The tax parties have spread and they still do not listen. One only hopes they will listen to what America wants once they start losing their seats in congress November 10th, 2010. I am sure a lot of these representatives will be packing their desks, but they need not worry about themselves. They have voted theirselves a very good benefit and pension plan upon their retirement. I believe its something like 100% for life. Could be wrong but I really dont think I am.
Oh and to Cindy – I am a boat owner, I also own a rv and jet skis (2 of them). I get up every morning at 5am and commute 2 hours each way to work. I put in 60 to 65 hours per week at my job, sometimes more. I think at the end of my very busy and always hectic week, if I should desire to spend time at the lake on my boat or camping in my RV, that you, the government or nobody else should tell me I cant. After all, I have the right to rest up, spend MY earnings as I see fit for the start of my next hectic week. Its not easy but I do it. And I have the right to do it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Cindy, Why the apples/oranges comparison? What does anything in Iraq have to do with health care in America? They don’t relate in any way. If you want to challenge what I said, fine but the war in Iraq discussion probably belongs in response to an article about the war in Iraq and not here.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Good for you Tracie! Congratulations on taking the same chance we were all given and making a great life for yourself! I am sure you get accused of being selfish a lot more often than you get congratulated for working hard and keeping some of the rewards of success to yourself instead of giving it all away.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ”
Benjamin Franklin
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
To dozer,
We agree that the Social Security Disability process is lengthy, and frustrating, but keep in mind that 2 or more years to wait for eligibility, is an important factor when you have a serious and often fatal disease. What does the applicant do to pay for food, medicine, housing, utilities, in the meantime? And if you survive the ordeal (and I mean literally), sure, Social Security Disability will backdate payments, but it’s extremely difficult to live on disability income.
Writing off Karen’s sister’s problem as a non-issue is ignoring reality.
Too many important problems are dismissed as non-issues–”let’s drive the poor out of poverty.” Just like that! and a response that Not-for-profits and community organizations can take care of the disabled, mentally ill, homeless as they always have? Yeah, right. As they always have.
Blame these problems on the Obama administration too, why don’t you, because they must be brand new as of January 20, 2009.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Cindy, believe it or not, one of the only real duties and powers the Constitution does give our Congress is to protect this county, including going to war if deemed necessary. President Bush received the authority from Congress to use force (which means war) if necessary, including yes votes from many Congressmen who later said they did not support it. They claimed they didn’t have all the facts yet they had all the documents Bush had. If they didn’t read them, then they have to take responsibility for that. But with that said, these are the some of the same politicians who are promising you all these wonderful things with the Health Bill and many of those are outright telling you they have not and will not read the bill before voting on it! Do you not see a pattern here??? What’s going to happen in 5-10 years when the things they promised don’t happen, our economy falls apart and we still have millions uninsured? Opps?? Oh, that’s right, they’ll blame Bush. If they failed so miserably on protecting us from going to war, why are you so anxious to give them your health care???
I’m off subject though. What you are very much confusing is the right to be protected from our enemies (a Constitutional right) and the right to health care (NOT a Constitutional right). One of the only things our tax dollars were ever suppose to do was to be spent to protect the county, whether be it on the armed forces, a wall on the boarder, and even wars. So, in essense, comparing spending money on a war and spending money on health care are unforunately two different realities and trying to equate them is just trying to divert from the issue.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Thank you Pam!! I am always suprised at how many do not know and understand the US Constitution but still somehoe have very strong opinions regarding what the US government should or should not do.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Wendy, you say”a response that Not-for-profits and community organizations can take care of the disabled, mentally ill, homeless as they always have? Yeah, right. As they always have.”
I budget 12% of my income to charities that ensure that at least 90% or more of the money donated goes to help those in need. I also participate regularly in fund drives for the causes I believe in. I hae about 29% of my income taken against my will. My 12% to charities gets me a thank you and a chance to see how the money is spent. In a lot of cases, I get the opportunity to meet the people I have helped and can see the difference in their lives that the charity has made. In return for my 29%, I get told that it is not enough and that it is none of my business who gets the money or how it is spent. Anecdotes are not facts so I will not bore you with the specifics of this person was helped and this person receives benefits under false pretenses but it should be obvious why anyone in my position would be concerned about paying more taxes knowing it will result in fewer US jobs.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Wendy, I give at least 10% to my church and then I donate to other organizations and charites as those opportunities arise. I often end up with charitable giving of about 15% a year when I do my taxes. How much do you give? Or do you prefer helping the poor by demanding the government (i.e. the taxpayer) pay for it?
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You may support charities, and for that, you are to be commended, but do you really believe that the amount you’re able to donate will help the hundreds, if not thousands, in your community, or county, or that everyone helps equitably? I’m not downplaying charities, and I contribute as well because I believe in what they do, but no way, no way, can they survive on donations if they had to deal with the numbers of people that would be left unsupported by government programs, and now dependent on charitible organizations. I asked earlier–call the Administrator of your favorite charity or church, and ask how they’re handling their budget, and if they could help provide support, counseling, and therapy to even more, on a permanent basis. If there’s a lot of money available for non-government run programs from people like you who nevertheless give generously, I’d be very surprised.
Also ask if their government grants dried up (as many already have), how many people they can still help.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
To Wendy,
Getting insurance coverage for anyone is not a non-issue. It is a big deal. However, while waiting to get medicare-disability for 2 yrs or so, a person can receive medicaid coverage. Again, I know this because I have billed Medicaid and Medicare at a hospital. I have helped people apply for these insurances and waited until they were covered, finally, by Medicare-Disability. This is not an easy process, but it should be an appreciated process since it is free healthcare provided by the people for the people. It is a government program and doesn’t work efficiently. Over the last 10 years, Medicare and Medicaid have been outsourcing their own work to insurance companies because insurance companies are even better and more efficient than the government programs. Everyone here on this post can think of scenario’s of healthcare and government issues, but we should be talking about the concepts of healthcare and new or revised solutions for healthcare. I feel that the government is not talented at providing healthcare and that as an administration they need to refocus on what they can do well rather than doing everyone a disservice by doing many things poorly. Insurance companies are talented at insurance. They are regulated greatly by the government already. I am sure you have heard of HIPAA; well that regulates healthcare to a great extent.
Living on disability income is just as easy on living on any other income. It takes a budget and discipline to do it. I am not saying it is easy, don’t take this the wrong way. But I don’t think it is any harder than what I have to do to live within my own means. Frankly, I personally know people who need Medicare-Disability and who are able to provide for their family just fine on that income.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Wendy, you’re right. Oganizations, charties, businesses, and personal budgets are all having to tighten up, make some tough decisions and get by with what they have. It seems like the only ones who are spending every last dime they can find are our lovely friends in DC. They never seem to go without, do they? I wonder how many of them are willing to pay a premium for their health care?
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Well sure it’s difficult for charities to take care of EVERYONE–that is the point. There is an alarming amount of people looking for help out there right now due to the changes in the economy brought on by excessive demands placed on employers by labor unions and by government over-involvment in industries like housing and health care. The answer is to reduce the number of people who need help by creating GOOD, HIGH-PAYING JOBS in America. Once everyone who can works does work and we can reduce health care costs to the consumer by eliminating as many transactions as possible between doctor and patient, the number of those who need help will be low enough for charities and churches to fill the gap.
Just a thought…if I only had 10% taken forcibly from my paycheck, I might be willing to increase my 12% for charity to maybe 24% and my own children would still have better college funds thus granting them a stronger protection against ever needing help from the system themselves. Or I could invest it and reduce the likelihood that I or my spouse would draw from the already drained social security system.
Wendy: You have ‘demanded’ that people give you facts in some of your posts so allow me this request…For every dollar of taxes collected by the US government, what percentage helps the homeless, the sick, the disabled, the poor and the mentally ill?
Do you know? Do you know how to find out? Do you think they would tell you if you asked?
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Oh and do the math on this…
12% to charity
29% to gov
6% to health insurance
That’s 47% of my income…now add in 10% tax on whatever I buy (yep, my sales tax in my state is 10%!) and factor in that ever-popular car tag tax and the mandatory car insurance and that lovely property tax…me? angry and resentful at being over taxed?? You bet your boots I am…I work really hard and make darn good money and still find myself living paycheck to paycheck because just about 70% of my income is spent as required by the same government who is now telling me that they need more…considering that they work for me…hmmm how much of your income would you give to your employee?
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
My company has lost over 22% of its employees, I personally got to sit in on every single lay-off discussion. It was depressing and frustrating and I will tell you right now that one of the biggest factors that drove us in the lay-off in the first place was the ever-growing high cost of benefits. I wish it were different too. I wish we didn’t have to decide between offering benefits and keeping employees but we do. We just leard that our benefits costs in 2010 will be 11% higher than this year. We will have to let more people go now. We don’t want to but we have no choice; it’s either let people go or cancel benefits. Thanks to the problems with the health care system, a lot more people just got added to the pool of uninsured Americans…how high will unemployment go before people realize that the employer cannot bear the burden of high benefit costs. What choice would you make Wendy, let people go or drop health benefits?
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I hear you, Lajeli. We also have had to layoff 20-25% of our workforce. We actually “idled” to of our manufacturing plants altogether. Partially because of the slowdown in sales, granted. But, our health insurance costs are a huge drain on the company. Unfortunately, now there are several hundred more people out of work.
And yes, our costs will increase by 10-11% per employee again this year. We are self-insured, have trimmed costs and shifted costs every way we know how at this point in an effort to be able to continue our medical insurance plans. Honestly, I don’t know how much longer we can. The company pays 90% of the premium cost. But, our employees just don’t understand how expensive it is. When we have to raise their rates even a few percent, they get outraged because they don’t realize how lucky they are to have an employer who covers so much of the cost – or more to the point, how much it would cost them to get insurance elsewhere.
I agree with you on the tax thing. We are taxed for everything imaginable now. We simply cannot afford more taxes of any kind regardless of whether the cause is noble or not. The government just does not seem to understand that if they STOPPED taxing everything, people would have more money to spend which would drive the economy again.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Yes, Lorie absolutely right
I too, work in manufacturing and we are only paying 70% of benefits. I have had more than handful of employees drop their coverage to meet expenses and a few others pick up ins with us b/c their spouses were laid off from other companies. It’s so crazy! Plus in maunfacturing we have incredibly insane comp rates even though we have only had one accident all year (and it was minor). We used to be self-insured including comp and there were months we lived in absolute terror after someone was injured knowing that the expenses would be straight out of pocket.
The idea of laying someone off while paying someone else to be home with a never-ending soft-tissue injury caused me some grey hairs and ulcers I can tell you!
Knowing that we will be laying off people who have worked for us longer than 10 years and are excellent employees who are loyal and decent really breaks my heart…some have spouses who have also lost their jobs this year.
Right now, half our company is working on a furlough program of 3 weeks work and 1 week off. They get unemployment for that 1 week but we already know that will cost us BIG TIME through our unemployment rates next year…we are barely afloat and I can’t imagine what will happen if we are forced to bear even more of the benefit rates so the employees can pay less.
It really sucks and the plan being offered now will guarantee almost all mid-sized and small companies in the US will face this dilemna…WHY? Why put more people in the cloumn of “Needs Help” if we can all agree (even Wendy) that there are too many people in that column already??
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Points to Ponder.
When we were all born into this world, we were not given a guarantee that life would be easy. We were not given a right to have everything our neighbor has. We were not promised that we would work harder than someone else and reap the same or better rewards. We were not assured that we would not suffer or have hardships others did not have. But what this country did promise us is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Life – we will decide what direction we take in our health choices and no one, including the government, can or should do that for us.
Liberty – we have the freedoms, freedoms many people across this world can’t even image – like being able to post these submissions on a blog or who to vote for in an election.
Pursuit of Happiness – we may not always achieve it, but we have the right to go for it, to decide what career, what company, what home, what religion, what car, what direction we steer our lives that we believe will make us happy.
The Constitution promised us the freedom that we would have choices and decide our own destiny. We were never promised that our lives would be perfect or that things would be fair, but we were guaranteed the chance to live the way we decide and make our own choices when opportunities and/or pitfalls crossed our path and yes, even pay the consequence when we choose the wrong course. I just don’t understand why so many are so willing to just give up and lay at the feet of the government like a servant to a master. This country still does suffer from the ills of slavery, yet now government is the plantation owner and we are willfully going to the cotton fields happy to be of service to the whims of the master hoping for some bread crumbs at the end of the day.
God Bless America. May he have mercy on us all.
Good night, all. Have a wonderful evening.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I am with you Pam
Thanks for the inspiration and the reminder
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Seems to me we are all born with the same rights.
You have the right to attend school, if your poor and cant afford college you should know that by the time you hit middle school. Study hard and earn a scholarship. There are many to choose from.
Get into college and earn a degree or a skill. Not everyone is made for a 4 year college but you can go to a technical college and get certified in a skill or trade. Do something with your life.
All I have been hearing lately is how hard it is for people and how they dont make enough money. Well where is that my fault. As a teen I got pregnate at 16 and had my baby. I finished school at the top of my class and grauduated with honors. I attended school by scholarship programs, grants and the desire to support my child and yes I did marry the father and we are still married to this day so dont even go there. I have managed to make something of myself and shown my children that it can be done. So when my daughter became pregnate at the age of 17, well here we go again. She now is married to the same man with 4 little girls and is a elementary teacher Her love of kids is amazing. Her husband is a engineer. Cant be done huh?
So dont sit there and complain to me about wanting my money because you dont make enough. Seems to me is very much your fault and you could have done better. I know its true because I did it.
WHEN LIFE GIVES YOU A LEMON, MAKE SOME JUICE……………………….
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Thank you Tracie and congratulations on being self-sufficient and not falling into a victim mentality!
I saw that movie, “The Pursuit of Happyness” and about an hour after it was over I realized why it impressed me so much…this guy had plenty of reasons to feel sorry for himself and more than one person who treated him unfairly. Granted, it was a movie but it was based on a true story and I believe he made success happen by never giving up the control…never admitting that he was the only person that would determine his success or failure. He never gave up the responsibility for his life and that is why, in the end, he was able to meet the goals he set for himself.. I can’t tell you how many unsuccessful people I have met who will not take responsibility for their own situation. It’s always someone else’s fault they aren’t happy, rich, successful, still married…etc. That is the thinking that caused their problems and anytime anyone affirms that to them by agreeing that they cannot do it themselves, you just perpetuate the problem…When this country was first settled, everyone (children included) was expected to help with the daily work of the colony. The motto was “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”. Those that wouldn’t help had to sit outside the wall of the colony at meal time. Those that could not work due to illness or whatever also received no portion of food but a family member who earned food could share with them (but not with the one who wouldn’t work). That is the foundation of America and that is what led to a victory in the Revolutionary War. That mentatliy was present through the 1920’s whcih were the most prosperous decade in our history until Hoover in the 1930’s which turned out to be the worst decade in our history. Keep in mind that the federal reserve was started in I think 1928, then we had the great depression (casued by the government’s involvement in trying to stop a recession–sound familiar?) and ever since then, our personal property rights and right to wealth has been eroded away, bit by bit by a government that wishes to have power by controling the wealth in this country…there is so much to this…When you step back at the 60,000ft level and look at how things got he way they are, the thought of turning helath care over to the government should scare the daylights out of you but so many people keep thinging that the Progressive movement and FDR-style policies are the answer…but they are not the answer! Please read histoy!!!
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
whoops…I said “never admitting that he was the only person that would determine his success or failure.” when I should have said “never admitting that he wasn’t the only person that would determine his success or failure.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Very interesting conversations and points of view. I leave you all with these quotes to ponder:
“The Government has been compelled to levy taxes which unavoidably hit large sections of the population. The Italian people are disciplined, silent and calm, they work and know that there is a Government which governs, and know, above all, that if this Government hits cruelly certain sections of the Italian people, it does not so out of caprice, but from the supreme necessity of national order.”
– Benito Mussolini
(1883-1945), Italian dictator during WW2
Source: Speech delivered by Prime Minister Benito Mussolini before the Italian Senate, June 8, 1923. Reproduced in Mussolini as Revealed in His Political Speeches (London & Toronto: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1923), pp. 317-318.
“Fascist intellectuals, such as Ugo Spirito, made the round of conferences preaching the virtues of postcapitalism fascism and in fact tried to nudge the structure in a ‘leftist’ direction by calling for more collective control and even corporative ownership of the economy. Mussolini looked abroad to find that Franklin Roosevelt was merely seeking to emulate Italy’s innovations.”
– Charles S. Maier
Historian, professor, Director of the Center for European Studies
Source: In Search of Stability: Explorations in Historical Political Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 81.
“I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished
and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and
seeking to prevent general European trouble.”
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
(1882-1945), 32nd US President
Source: on Mussolini, 1933, Letter to U.S. Ambassador Breckinridge Long, 16 June 1933; Breckinridge Long Papers, Box 135, Library of Congress.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Since when did health care become a right in this country? If you think this socialized system will work at 8% of the income, you had better look at what is happening in Canada and throughout the European countries. After all, the government has done such a great job with the Social Security funds that it is going to be bankrupt. What makes anyone think they can get this right? Doesn’t give me warm fuzzy feelings! We need more accountants in government and a lot less attorneys! How about capping malpractice cases-but that would hurt the attorneys pockets. Hmm.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
To dozer:
Disability, Medicare and Medicaid are all wonderful programs. My sister has been in the disability application/approval process for nearly a year. Because of her health issues; which include diabetes, congestive heart failure and now terminal cancer, she is unable to work. What private insurance company would even consider covering her? During hospitalizations prior to applying for disability, she was told by social workers that she was not eligible for Medicaid because she is single and has no dependents. She was considered a cash paying patient.
As a single mother, my sister worked and supported herself and her daughter. She paid taxes and health insurance premiums for 40+ years. Health problems and unemployment happen to people and those people shouldn’t be treated as if they are nothing more than a burden to society. Our family, being middle-class working members of society, has been helping her.
I am amazed and appalled at the intolerant and insensitive comments that I have been reading. All of the freedoms and rights that we have as US citizens couldn’t change my sister’s genetics, nor will it change yours. The fact remains that she, and many other uninsured people in this country, should have access to affordable medical care. Unexpected things happen to people. Apparently, many of you don’t think they will happen to you or your family. I’m pretty sure your opinions would change, if you were suddenly unemployed and uninsured.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:02 pm
You should be amazed and appalled at an ideology that pits neighbor against neighbor as it forceably extracts peoples property to provide an economic right on others against the principles and Constitution of this country. We are good people who have historically given to those in need when that charity was not forced or coerced by those who care for themselves first and those they profess to help second. This was once a charitable nation beyond any other. That was destroyed by a group of progressives and liberals who rob from one neighbor and give to another. It will only get worse until we return to those principles many gave their lives and their fortunes to create, defend and protect.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 am
to Jim:
No this country was ruined by the era of greed of the last 8 years. The rich wanted to get richer at the expense of others.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 am
Cindy – Interesting statement. Can you please expand on your comments? Are you basing your opinion on facts or political campaign slogans? Candidly, Jim’s opinion is the reality of today’s political direction. I’m inclined to learn more about the greed of the past 8 years when the economy was smoking for 61/2 – 7 of those years. I’m obviously ill informed and would like to know more of your mindset?
I’ve read many of the heart wrenching stories of the previous posts? I’ve experience personal tragedy as well with 2 family/close family members in their 20’s / 30’s who lost tragic battles with leukemia. In both cases, they had no insurance. Bad things happen to good people every day without explanation and govt. intervention will not stop that. Our political leaders (current and past) are creating a financial disaster for our Children with entitlement policies that cannot be sustained.
Greed is not the culprit in my minds eye but political corruption makes me raise my eyebrow.
I’m curious to know your thoughts Cindy on the proposed exemption that Congress and Unions be exempt from the penalty on Cadillac plans? Is that the greed you’re speaking of or the corruption that I’m suggestion?
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:40 am
A note to those out there who understand the realities of our society, yet who are criticized, demeaned and scorned by others who quote the Constitution and think that the problems are solely due to high taxes and government greed–it’s fruitless to attempt to debate the issues or rebut their callous comments. You’ll just get more of the same rhetoric about our founding forefathers, and how things were, and we can’t take care of everybody (let them rot in the streets mentality) and how those opposing their views need to do their homework. They can quote anyone they like. It takes action to clean up the mess of the past Administration, not failed ideology.
I’ve truly given up. Periodically I pitch in, but more and more, it’s become easier to just delete the hate and ridicule.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 am
It is fruitless – because if you study history you know what caused the mess we are in. Remember that the founders were fleeing from a repressive government, one that taxed and plundered its citizens. To think that is what this country is now all about (taxing and plundering the citizens for the benefit of votes and power) is ridiculous. Why would we return to a state that the founders were attempting to flee? Once again, you fail to see the charitable nature of man when charity is not forced (ie, taxes) – but you ave to read histroy to know that.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:54 am
You right, Cindy & Wendy. Greed and corruption never existed in this county until Bush took office. We never had anything like Enron, a President impeached, a President sued for sexual harassment inflated internet stock prices which lead to a recession at the end of the 1990s, the government paying $640 for a toilet seat or $435 for a hammer http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=4314. You’re right. The corruption happened during the Bush terms when:
- U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) is under criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for possible bribery in exchange for promoting business deals in Africa
- Brett Pfeffer, a former legislative director to Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting bribery of a public official and conspiracy.
- Clarence Norman Jr., the longtime powerbroker of Brooklyn NY Democrats was found guilty of intentionally soliciting illegal campaign contributions.
- Five Democratic activists in Wisconsin accused of slashing the tires of vans rented by Republicans on Election Day 2004 are currently on trial
- Raymond Reggie, a New Orleans political Democratic consultant and fund-raiser who is Senator Kennedy’s brother-in-law was sentenced to a year in prison yesterday after pleading guilty to bank fraud charges.
(see more at http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Commentary/Corruption.htm)
Funny thing is you blame Bush of all the corruption and greed “And yet, in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Congress and the president created a law that was revolutionary in the changes it prescribed and the activities it proscribed in our capital markets. It ruled that officers, directors and auditors of publicly traded companies must tale new responsibility for the accuracy of the companies’ financial reports and face stiff penalties for failing to do so. How could that have happened? I believe it happened because in the course of the 1990s, many American business leaders got confused and their moral compasses stopped working.” http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3067 Hum, looks like this author believes the corruption may have started back in the Clinton years (though I believe the world has always had it). How interesting.
Cindy, as long as you continue to put blinders on and blame Bush for all the problems of the world instead of looking at the big picture of government as a whole as the issue, you too are part of the problem, not the solution.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 am
And Wendy, you are so insightful. How stupid of us to look back at our founding fathers who had it so easy. There was no disease, there was no hungry or poor. They had perfect lives, of course they could provide for those less fortunate. Oh, wait, there weren’t any of those 200 years ago. My gosh, how could we be so stupid as to think they we have it so much worse than they did. I mean we have doctors, medicine, cars, cell phones, insulated homes with heat and air conditioning, comfortable shoes and clothes, many jobs were we can sit and bloviate on a blog on a computer all day instead of working in the field from sunup to sundown. What could we possibly learn from those simpletons like Ben Franklin. I mean really.
All he did was invent the lightning rod, bifocals, the Franklin stove, a carriage odometer, and the glass ‘armonica’. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, soldier, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. He formed both the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Pennsylvania. He was an early proponent of colonial unity, and as a political writer and activist, he supported the idea of an American nation.[3] As a diplomat during the American Revolution, he secured the French alliance that helped to make independence of the United States possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Yes, Wendy, you are so more perceptive than he ever was.
“Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.”
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 am
Correction – “how could we be so stupid as to think they had it so much worse than we do?” Typing to fast.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:20 am
Pam – great post. Let’s not forget Tim Geitner, Charlie Rangel, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschele, and other tax avoiders. Hypocrisy runs rampant in Washington with their own personal money but not tax dollars.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:36 am
Cindy and Wendy: Wealth isn’t evil. Making money isn’t wrong. This country was built for the sole purpose of having a country where one’s wealth is determined by one’s work and not one’s condition of birth. Whether you like it or not and whether you know it or not, you live in a capitalist country governed by a document and not governed by men. It is a republic under a rule of law. You may want it to be different but ignoring the truth never changed anything. You cannot wish away the truth, argue away the truth, name call away the truth, dismiss the truth, vote away the truth. The truth is that you cannot override the Constitution and it would be in your best interest to read the document that determines your freedoms and defines your government before you spout off rhetoric that is generic, general, unsupported by fact and led almost completely by emotional froth for people who may or may not exist under conditions about which you know nothing. You will be more informed if you turn off NPR and television news. Learn from sources other than teleprompted speeches and talking heads. Trust me…I have read over 600 books on history and biographical works of world leaders. I spend about 45-60 minutes per day catching up on current events (local, national & global). I make it a priority to do this. I do not speak from comments overheard from radio and TV while I was really focused on something else. I listen to what the US leaders say and then I go and research the truth behind it. This is why I can provide facts and depth to discussions regaring my rights and responsibilities as a US citizen and my opinions of what our current and past leadership does or has done.
Cindy, you make unfounded accusations with no facts to back them up and when you are challenged on that, you cannot or will not provide facts.
Wendy, life isn’t fair and it isn’t meant to be. You ask for facts and when you get them, you don’t read them; you just change the subject
You have both been given many, many facts and reliable refernces to learn more facts but you don’t show any interest interest in the facts. Your conversations happen in sound bites which gives away your education by television. You don’t want to believe it but your posts make you sound uninformed (shown by your lack of ability to provide facts to support what you say)
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
Was it just Democrats who were involved in scandals? Come on! How about naming Republicans as well. If you want to attack Government, then name those from both parties who have evaded paying taxes, actually served jail time, avoided impeachment for lying to Congress–admit it, it’s on both sides of the aisle. Our representatives definitely run the spectrum with legal, financial and personal relationship problems. We expect them all to be perfect. Obviously, they’re not. I guess some have human frailties. But those that commit crimes should be prosecuted. And those who preach fidelity while having affairs are real hypocrits, in both parties. They cannot and should not be trusted.
If you want to continuously quote how life was when the Constitution was drawn up, feel free. But remember, we have The Bill of Rights, continuously evolving as times change. And they do change. Societal needs change, cultures change. Some rights that didn’t exist at the time of the Constitution were added later. Keep the Constitution in perspective, as a living document that frames our government. It doesn’t perfectly define it today.
Taxes are the mantra of the Republicans. Taxes were lowered under Republican Adminstrations. And led to a disastrous economy. But you’ll no doubt have a revisionist history to relate to rebut that.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Sorry, but history shows that when, for example Ronald Reagan came to office, faced with an economy worse in many regards – unemployment at 10%, interest rates at 21%, etc… his approach was not to institute massive deficit spending, but to actually stimulate the economy through individual and business tax cuts – which he did. We had the largest peace-time expansion of the economy under his leadership by taking a course 180 degrees opposite this president.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Name three republican presidents/federal senators or congressmen who were involved in public scandals in the last 15 years and describe the scandals.
Of those, who were tried for criminal activity?
What are the last 3 amendments to the constitution and the years they were ratified. What “rights” were changed in those amendments?
Please describe how a republicn leadership lowered taxes and how that worsened the economy.
See what i mean…lots of rhetoric and accusation but ZERO facts to back it all up
Thanks Wendy for proving what isaid earlier!
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:03 am
Wendy, the fact that you had to say the following, “admit it, it’s on both sides of the aisle.” tells me that you are really not reading my blogs. I believe in that same submission you are responding to I said “as long as you continue to put blinders on and blame Bush for all the problems of the world instead of looking at the big picture of government as a whole as the issue, you too are part of the problem, not the solution”. I guess the fact that I have said time and time again that I blame both sides, republicans as well as democrats (i.e. I blame GOVERNMENT) is just something you refused to see.
Also, since you missed this as well, I purposely used just Democrats because of your incessant mantra of blaming Bush for everything. I was trying to make a point by using facts. You should try it some time. How about going ahead and giving us some of those evil Republicans right now?
By the fact that you continue to accuse me of things when you obviously have not thoroughly read my submissions, how can I take you seriously when you also accuse all of us of being ignorant and close-minded?
Thanks Wendy. It’s been fun. But you have finally shown that you are just a talking point and not interested at all in listening to others or trying to educate yourself. If you disagree with this, ask yourself, how many of the MANY links that I provided in all my submissions have you gone to and read? Yep, that’s what I thought. I would have read yours, but alas, you never provided any.
You’ve told all of us 3 times now that you are done with us (another way to show how completely open-minded you are.) At this point I will say ‘Ado’ to you.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Wendy, ok, I lied, one more.
“If you want to attack Government, then name those from both parties who have evaded paying taxes, actually served jail time, avoided impeachment for lying to Congress–admit it, it’s on both sides of the aisle. Our representatives definitely run the spectrum with legal, financial and personal relationship problems. We expect them all to be perfect. Obviously, they’re not. I guess some have human frailties. But those that commit crimes should be prosecuted. And those who preach fidelity while having affairs are real hypocrits, in both parties. They cannot and should not be trusted.”
I do believe this. That’s why I think it would be a disaster to give them my Health Care! If you believe it, why are you so dead set in trusting them to take care of you??????
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:15 am
Lajeli – I was always amazed in the days of Hannity and Colmes when I would notice Sean always had stacks of papers including books, documents, reports, quotes, etc that he would refer to during the show and Alan always sat there with maybe 2-3 sheets of paper. I always thought that said a lot.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Let me tell YOU what is happening today…why we NEED health care reform. My daughter found out she was pregnant and then unfortunately lost her health insurance. My daughter had cancer when she was 19 so it has NOT been easy trying to get coverage that she could afford. She and her husband both work full-time but neither place offers healthcare. Right now my daughter is having some very disturbing symptoms and guess what? Not ONE of her doctors will take responsibility and say that she needs some testing done. They pass the buck and tell her to see one of her other doctors. She’s bleeding, no bladder control, puking, etc. So she is on the way to the ER where she end up with a huge bill and probably inadequate care. THIS is what happens when someone does not have health insurance. THe doctors could care less if my daughter has a miscarriage or if SHE is sick herself. It’s all about the money to them….not the patient. My daughter is scared to death her cancer is back (her blood work levels are off)….every survivor’s fear or that the pregnancy is in danger or both
How would YOU feel about health care if this was your daughter?
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Wendy you say
“we can’t take care of everybody (let them rot in the streets mentality)”
In response I say that there is a third option, they do not have to “rot” simply because I don’t feel a responsibility to take care of them. Do they want to “rot”? If not, have they considered avoiding “rotting” on their own? Have the tried? How? Of the people you personally know who are “rotting” in the streets due to the evil selfishness of consevatism in America, specifically, how have they tried to avoid “rotting” and how did that fail and even more to the point…HOW IS IT ANYONE ELSE’S FAULT THEY FAILED?
The third option is that they do the work to take care of them selves, they get jobs (2 or 3 if they have to) They turn to charities and churches first to seek help from those who give it willingly. When they do better themselves (and they will if they try), then they can donate their time, treasure and talent to helping others (willingly) and that my friend is how it is meant to work.
I now feel a need to challenge anything you post in this discussion and ask that you include facts and sources. No offense meant…I just can’t enjoy a debate with someone who brings no facts to the table and girl, you ain’t got em!
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 am
to Pam:
Did you happen to see Hannity’s show that Michael Moore was a guest? He had Hannity stuttering! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Michael Moore was so calm and confident with this answers and NEVER got rattled by Hannity. BUt Hannity sure did.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:24 am
I haven’t seen many facts from you either, Lajeli.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
Cindy,
Sad to hear of your daughter’s condition. Please get her to a doctor who does care; you going to the wrong places. If need be get an attorney to contact her physician regarding malpractice possibilities. (conversation of avoiding it not threatening to sue)
Government health care would not solve her problems, the same docs would likely be the one’s offered by the government plan (if anything like PCP’s in the government run VA system)
Not sure what state your daughter lives in, but in most, you cannot lawfully lose coverage due to a pregnancy. If this is what happened, again please consult an attorney.
If I knew where you daughter and son-in-law lived and their skills, I would be delighted to assist them in locating employment with health benefits. (Obviously, I do not expect you to disclose this personal data to a stranger online)
Most pregnant women, depending on household income, qualify for Medicaid to cover medical costs during pregnancy. I would suggest inquiring about this, otherwise, I would assume the household income would be adequate to purchase the COBRA coverage for her alone.
I wish her and your future grandchild well.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
Cindy…are you kidding?
Read back, I don’t have the patience to repost
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Cindy, yes I did see that. I thought both men were professional, calm and confident with their answers. I just happen to totally disagree with Michael Moore’s philosophy. I just can’t understand why he is such good friends with a dictator that oppresses his people and who murdered thousands more. If Castro is so great, why are so many risking everything, including their lives, to leave Cuba and come to this horrible country? Maybe an interesting exercise for all of us should be to step back and look through the eyes of an immigrant. Why did they come and why are they still coming here today? It’s very interesting. Most are coming for the same reasons they came 200 years ago. You know, when that pesky Constitution was written.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/381881/russian_immigration_one_familys_story.html?cat=17
http://screwattack.com/node/30225
http://media.www.thegramblinite.com/media/storage/paper926/news/2006/11/17/Opinion/Why-Do.Immigrants.Come.To.United.States.Of.America-2665777.shtml
Here’s a thought, if Michael Moore got sick, do you think he’d go to Cuba for his health care?
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Cindy, your daughter’s story is sad. I had a family member die fo cancer that was misdiagnosed as a disk problem in his back. I had uterine cancer that due to its placement was only visible because I was pregnant. They could tell that it had been there for a while but had never been caught on a test. After it was taken care of, I was told to make sure I was tested twice a year for the next 5 years. My husband joined the USAF and I was told that military insurance would not cover 2 tests per year. I was told by the government run insurance representative that I would “just have to take my chances”…nice. For the next 6 years, I got used to making appointments 2-3 months in advance (yep, even for a kidney infection the wait would be 2-3 months for an appt). Needless to say, we spent a lot of 8-12 hours trips to the emergency room (not for emergencies but needing to avoid that 2-3 month wait). It was a nightmare. I could go on and on about the 6 years with military hospitals and the even worse problems trying to use that insurance with non-military hospitals. I was in this situation during the Clinton years and while aspirin and doc visits were free…nothing says govt run health care like the signs that ask you not to use more than your allotted 5 minutes with the doctor hanging in the hallway a you head to your appointment.
I am glad you daughter has a mother who cares and will try to help as much as she can. I will do what I can by trying to ensure that she and your grandchild will live their future in a country with good jobs and enough competition in the health care industry to avoid the nightmare of government health care that I and many others I know have experienced and know is not good for anyone.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Cindy – great advice from mkh and I will pray for your daughter and her family.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Freedom and Benevolence Go Together
By John Stossel
I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming “20/20″ special on health care. It’s refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he’s a leftist. He told me that government should provide “food care” as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.
Moore added, “I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. … ”
He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:
“I gotta believe that, even though I know you’re very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart.”
Notice his smuggled premise in the words “even though.” In Moore’s mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn’t care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it’s in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one’s fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don’t see it that way.
Moore thinks respecting others’ freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where’s the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods — like voluntary charity — are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I’ve seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does.
Moore followed up with a religious lesson. “What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we’re gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?”
I’m not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it’s not virtuous; it’s compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.
If Moore’s goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.
Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. “John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That’s why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there’s this American get up and go.”
I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that “every man for himself” line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from “every man for himself.”
After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, “But I don’t think that what you believe is what’s going to allow us to survive.”
He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.
But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, “What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions.”
Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
This to Cindy — your comment on the Michael Moore and Sean Hannity discussion is amusing — it would be informative to know what kind of “mind filter” you use when watching TV. Michael Moore never met a dollar he didn’t like — he doesn’t have a problem making money and enjoying the high life and you can’t believe that charity is high on his mind. He follows the typical liberal mantra — let’s do good things other people’s money. Moore likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Do you people know that 1 in 50 children is homeless in the country. This is a fact from a reputable source. I was astounded and saddened that it could be this bad in this country
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
To Jim on the Stossel article: Thanks for sharing. I wished I’d have said that!
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
I am proud first that 49 out of 50 sets of parents have provided well for their children
I am sad for the 1 in 50 but honestly, while 0 in 50 is better, 1 in 50 (or 2/100 which is 2%) is not a number denoting a failure on the part of society. How many of those children were born to parents with addictions, mental illness…etc? Of that 1 in 50 number, how many have DHS stepped in to help? How many have charities helped? Are the parents still involved int he child’s life? have any been moved to foster care. There are already government programs in place to help these children so…where are they? Also, how many of these children belong to parents who lost their employment in the lateset economic catastrophe or are victims of the crash in the housing market that was caused by creating “affordable” housing and giving loans to people who couldn’t possibly pay them back all in the name of the government making things “better” by making things more “fair” by giving to people what they could not afford to maintain?
Do I want to help every single one of the children? Absolutely. Do I want to do it through the US government? No way? Do I think it was caused by greedy capitalist pigs? Nope. Do I think it was caused more by government involvement in industry? Yep…
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
The definition of homeless must be examined. 1 in 50 would imply 1.5 children are homeless. HUD tracks all homeless people for Congress – their last report showed 671,000 homeless people (including children). The UN reported 3,000,000 people homeless in Europe in their last report. The report you refer to includes estimates of those who are doubled up in other housing vs truly homeless. No child should be without a home but for reasons Lajeli cites, we have some truly homeless, but not 1 in 50. Even the authors of the 1 in 50 report (which the media and advocacy groups spread without qualification) admit their definition is debatable.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
Jim/John – excellent read. Unfortunately, the response to big business excesses (in this case, the medical insurance issue) tends to be an increase in big government. Smaller and more efficient is better in many things, I agree. Voluntary charity is a wonderful thing also, but when the paychecks are compromised by businesses taking more and more from them, voluntary charity is among the first things to go. That’s understandable – I need to take care of my family with my available resources before I help outsiders. Corporations simply are there for the proifit, not for the people. That’s how they were designed. The only resource we seem to have to respond to those who go overboard garnering those profits is the government, one of the biggest corporations of all. I’d like there to be a better way, but I don’t see it happening. Meanwhile, the cost of firearms and ammunition has gone through the roof. Along with everything else. Including healthcare. That makes for some interesting choices. You have no idea how much I’d like to have my bases covered so well that I could comfortably give 1/3 of my pay to charity.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Jim – thanks for the Michael Moore interview. Couple thoughts.
1. So those who want men to be free and allowed to live their own lives are selfish, right? Tell that to the thousands of men who fought and died in the Civil War to free the slaves. I guess they should have left well enough alone??? Lincoln really messed up then, huh?
2. Michael Moore spoke of religion in his interview with Hannity too. The problem with Michael’s thinking is when Jesus tells us to be kind and charitable, he is talking to us as individuals and as church communities. Michael Moore has interpreted that to mean the government should do it. If Michael wants to feed the hungry and clothe the poor than good for him. He has the freedom and the funds to do it. But isn’t he getting dangerously close to forcing his religious beliefs on all of us? Also, if Michael really wants the government to start doing what the Bible says then I hope he starts campaigning that the 10 commandments should be posted in schools and courtrooms again, prayers should be allowed in public places again, children can proudly say “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance again, teachers can wear crosses to school again without being sued by the ACLU. (Notice the word ‘again’!) Truth be told, Michael doesn’t want the government to follow God, he wants the government to BE god because if you read the Bible God tells us over and over again not to rely on man but on Him. “It is better to take refuge in the LORD than in man.” – Psalm 118:8 (Center verse of the Bible.) Either way how is what Michael is saying, using government to push a religious agenda, any different than say Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, or even George Bush? We all know how the left criticize them for using religion to guide their lives. Is that over now? Can we now bring religion back into the government? Michael can pat himself on the back because he thinks he is being noble and caring but I wonder if he has ever told Castro to be so Christian and caring of his people? Here’s another question, if Michael Moore really and truly believes the Bible then he believes in Creationism now too, right? I’m glad to have him part of the team. If he is not doing these items in question, then I have to wonder what his REAL motives are behind his new found philosophy on life (only because I’m seeing inconsistencies in what he says and does, not because I am questioning anyone’s religion).
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Cindy,
Did you contact your daughter yet to put to use the “options” I mentioned earlier?
I only ask because you do not seem to have missed a beat on posting your philosophy since my post. Surely, your daughter’s well-being is the more important.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Pam
The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery…believe me..this I know. Me and my husband are Civil War Buffs. It was about what all wars are about…land, money and power.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
To MKH:
Right now my daughter has bigger things on her mind…like saving her child.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Keith – I’ll give you my personal read. I see far too many people keeping up with the Jones. They live in houses they can’t afford, they are over-extended on credit, they don’t save, they must have everything now rather than saving for it later. Its an instant gratification syndrome that was instilled in children right after WWII. Our parents lived through the depression and the War and struggled and when the country prospered after the war they indulged their children – gave them what they never had. Those children, in turn, did the same to their children. We have at least three generations of people who have been indulged – given without working for – and they feel entitled. Politicians are crafty – they play into the entitlement mentality. That’s how all of these rights of late were born. You have a right to health care, if only you vote for me.
I had a father who instilled in me that I must work for what I receive – nothing, including college was handed to me. It took me 10 years of night school and a lot of hard work to get there but it meant so much more. Today, I have no debt (except for my home – which we could pay off easily). It wasn’t through luck this happened. It was through avoiding the self-indulgence – the new car every two years, the third car, the sending the children to public schools and colleges rather than private, the making the children work for the things they wanted. It was through careful savings, investing and planning. Along the way, through charity, I built a number of churches, raised poor children in far off lands, helped medical development, etc… It wasn’t easy and it wasn’t easy raising children to not keep up with the neighbors either.
Voluntary charity used to be huge in this country BEFORE the government started taxing (taking) income from people. Neighbor helped neighbor. But when the government created social programs, neighbor stopped helping neighbor in large part because the government was doing it and taking from them in the name of (forced) charity. By drastically reducing charity, government effectively broke the tight bonds that held communities together.
Government should regulate commerce to avoid the excesses we have witnessed – despite what most people believe – promote the general welfare meant do what ever was necessary to continue the free flow of commerce, not control it or run it however.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
You know, Cindy, I KNEW you were going to protest my Civil War comment and say EXACTLY what you said. Thanks for being consistent.
You are right in a sense though. The slave owners wanted their land, wanted their power and wanted their money. They wanted to keep their slaves who they made work for them and then takes the rewards of that work for themselves (nothing like what the government is doing today, right?). They did not want the annoying Northerns telling them to set the slaves free or pay them for their work. Again you have thrown out your opinion but I have yet to see sources. May I have those please so I can read them? I’d like to see how their conclusions differ from mine.
The truth is the war happened because Lincoln was trying to keep the United States together after states starting succeeding from the Union. Why did they do this? Several reason, one mostly being the difference of opinion between slave states and non-slave states. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
So, even though war was not declared because of slavery in and of itself, the mere institution was an underlying cause and driving factor that drove the differing states into such a conflict.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
SPHR Keith,
I am amazed given the acronym preceding your name that you think corporations could care less about the well-being of their employees. Why does your position exist? Because the “human resources” associated with every business is essential. I am not referring to the HR department, but the actual employees producing goods or providing services.
If your company does not value its employees, you should be fired and replaced for failing to provide the company with qualified capable individuals to meets the company’s objective. If the employees are qualified, capable and performing assets to the company, I have yet to find a company that did not value them as such. After all, without them, the company has NO profit potential.
Government extracts from companies and employees a lot of monetary resources, which otherwise could be utilized to improve facilities, grow the company (more jobs), provide better benefits to employees, etc.
The notion that more government will right these “perceived” and generally isolated evil employers, is ludicrous. Corporate greed is by far less significant than political greed. Companies do wisely seek to make a profit, but in the process render “profit” to its employees. (What the employee may do with it afterward will determine the “net” result of that resource.)
When is the last time you saw the “government solution” politicians offering to downsize government? To trim its profits (reward to itself and leaders)? Do a little research, and see how many of the same crowd is heavily vested in corporate ventures for “profit.” It is not about the solutions to citizen’s problems, but leveraging an investment (our tax dollars) to their profit (even if only in the form of greater power) while returning as little as they can get by with back to the taxpayers/citizens. Don’t forget, government offers what is unlawful to corporations; not just a monopoly, but one that can forcibly require doing business with it. (Try not paying taxes! Unless you are Timothy Geithner, of course)
Government solution, is more of an oxymoron than the humorous rendition of military intelligence.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Pam
It’s AMAZING how well you know me and haven’t met me. I don’t think so and, again, you are still wrong on why the Civil War was fought.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
My understanding of the civil war is that it was about states rights versus a strong central government…kinda what we are looking at now actually…How much power should the federal government have and what should be left up to the states.
I am a bit of a civil war era buff…more about the government of the time and not so much about the actual details of the war itself though and believe that what Lincoln did had to be done to maintain the union but he did open the door to a central federal government that could overstep its bounds…
I think that greed was a secondary issue and that the money really didn’t facto into it. You are dead on about the power though, Cindy…that was the true core issue. Who was going to have the power? Could one state force another state to do anything? Could the federal government force any state to do anything? Lincoln wrote and spoke often about how he wanted to lead as an extension of the founding fathers. he wanted to support the constitution and to never over-step the bounds of the powers given him as president. That is one of the biggest issues behind the emancipation proclimation. He felt that he had no right as president to free sl;aves. he strongly believed that it was an issue to be decided state by state even though he personally believed morally that slavery was very, very wrong. He actually ended up doing it as the Commander in Chief as war strategy.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Cindy,
OK. Show me where I am wrong. Send me some FACTS. Send me some SOURCES. I asked you for them. Why won’t you??????
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Cindy,
So you’re a civil war buff? Either you are intentionally vague on the facts or you need to be more diversified in your reading. The catalyst to the civil war was the north not wanting the south to industrialize. And Pam is correct. Although Slavery was a ’side bar’ it was an issue during the civil war!! On both sides of the line, alot of the men who joined, fought and died in the war did so led by their personal beliefs that all men should be free. And please remember, slaves were not only black!
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Direct quote from a letter from Lincoln to Horace Greely in 1862 where Lincoln states his fundamental purpose in not only the war but his entire presidency:
“I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
To LAJ:
I’m impressed. You know your Civil War history!
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
And proves what I said earlier to be true…
So, even though war was not declared because of slavery in and of itself, the mere institution was an underlying cause and driving factor that drove the differing states into such a conflict.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
To Pam:
THat’s not how I see it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Cindy,
Of course you don’t. The fact that the whole quote was about slavery and Lincoln not being able to reconcile that for the 2 differing opinions doesn’t support at all that the “the mere institution was an underlying cause and driving factor that drove the differing states into such a conflict”, does it?
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Pam,
It sounds like to me he didn’t care either way what happened with slavery. The fight would have fought with or without the issue.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Here’s a question, Cindy. Would the war have even happened if the entire country was either all pro-slavery or all non-slavery?
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Cindy,
Ok. What issue would they have fought over? And please include sources.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
dID YOU NOT READ lAJELI’S QUOTE? Honestly, I don’t have my history book close at hand at the moment. I’ll let you know when I do.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
What would they have fought over?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The Kansas-Nebraska Act (Douglas) was signed into law and described as granting what was known as popular soveriegnty which allowed each territory or state to decide issues such as slavery for themselves. Lincoln a Whig, not an abolitionist and not yet a Republican opposed this because he wanted the Missouri Compromise left intact to limit the spread of slavery to the north. This issue split political parties and created/detroyed some. Lincoln hesitantly found a political home with the newly formed republican party and ran for president. As President, he told Congress in 1861 that the war involved ‘the question whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy – a government of the people, by the same people – can, or cannot maintain its territorial integrity, against its own domestic foes’
IN 1863 in a letter to Chrles Drake he explains the reason behind the war “We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question; but in this case that question is a perplexing compound — Union and Slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the Union, saying nothing of those who are against it.”
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Lajeli – thanks.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
This has been any interesting discussion and one I have been following at many sites. 380 or so comments in just a few days says this is still a hotly debated topic that has been very polarizing for the country – not good. Regardless of solution now pending in Washington, it will continue to polarize those who feel entitled against those who are tired of paying for entitlements.
This is an example, I think, of how government intervention into the lives of people can divide a country rather than unite them – how declared economic rights (vs constitutional moral rights) can pit neighbor against neighbor which, in the end, benefits no one. We’ve covered health care, the civil war, colonists, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, charity and a host of other topics around the discussion of “reform”. People seem to be either polarized around protecting what little freedoms they perceive remain – preserving that which made this country what it is, the very principles upon which this country was founded and those who believe it is the government’s responsibility to intervene in the lives of people by redistributing wealth and property for the “common good” or providing them with the economic means to purchase a service for which they did not work from the pockets of others.
Yet our history is littered with examples of “common good” failing to do so – the war on poverty and related social security programs are excellent examples of government intervention squandering trillions of tax payer dollars with no value add to society. Poverty levels are the same today as they were when the “war” started. What makes the government “charity” different is that it is forced and political. Of course there are charities that act in similar fashion. But the difference is that people are free to give to whatever charity or cause THEY see fit and whatever level THEY can afford. If I value one cause over another, I may give to that which I value, but I may not with government. I am compelled to “donate” for many causes which I may not believe in.
That which I “donate” to the government should only be an amount that is necessary to preserve the freedoms the Constitution guarantees to each individual. Everything else should be my choice as a free person. As Franklin was quick to point out to people, this country is not a democracy but a representative republic. A democracy, he was quoted as saying, is like a sheep sitting down with two wolves and voting on what was for lunch. A republic recognizes the unalienable rights of the individual while a democracy does not – it focuses on group wants. Few current politicians seem to recognize this simple truism.
We will not get true reform on this issue with government intervention. Too much power and money involved. Only when the individual is free to contract directly with the provider without the influence of insurance companies or the government will sanity return to pricing and quality.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Slavery was definitely the catalyst but not the true cause. If slavery had not been the issue than foriegn trade might likely have been…the point is that, like now, when one group of people want to impose something ont he entire nation, the question of whether or not tey have the right to do so is brought back to the surface. It is an issue that we will continue to face over time. In 1860, the issue was slavery and the right for each state to determine their own policy. Today, the issue is healthcare insurance and whether or not the federal government has the right to force its citizens to purchase it. Personally, I don’t believe the government has that right. I believe the health care industry is a complete mess and I know it must be changed. I agree that while anecdotes are not facts and the issue cannot be resolved with personal stories of my neighbor this and her sister that, that we all have some stake in the outcome of this argument. I agree with Hillary Clinton that it does take a village to raise a child. I think that it is not a copincidence though that in European history, a village was considered a village when it established a church. A tribal leader and a tribal shaman co-exist each attending to different matters and both serving the tribesmen. Throughout history, when governments have over-stepped thier rightful roles and tried to do the jobs of churches and charitites it has led to disaster. Due to this being a favorite with unpopular leaders and groups such as Mao, Hitler and more recently Hamas in Lebanon, it understandbly terrifies free people when they hear it being discussed. I for one get pretty nervous when i hear my president talking about it. Why can’t we find a non-government solution or a state-level solution? Why the one size fits all policy? What about people who for religious reasons don’t want or need heatlh insurance? What about people who rely on holistic medicine? There will never be one good policy that suits everyone and even if you found on that came close there would always be exceptions because there will always be things doctors cannot cure. Death is inevitable. There will always be a sad story that is used to convince others that things need to change…child abuse, starvation, disease, war…no government can be all things to all people
Gerald Ford said “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have” (not a Thomas Jefferson quote but mistakenly attributed to him)
people need to be left to ther own devices and choices. We need the freedom to choose our future so that we may be free of limits. It’s about freedom and not about being taken care of. I loe my parents but one day I reached a point where my desire to provide for myself made it worth it to move out of their middle class home with amenities and into a lower income world and I knew it was the better world because it was mine and I was no longer subject to their rules but now to my own…one last quote “I ain’t got a dime but what I got is mine. I ain’t rich but lord I’m free” Geroge Strait
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Jim…you are brilliant:
“We will not get true reform on this issue with government intervention. Too