Healthcare

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Pouring billions into useless projects has a very, very small success rate, and the chance for corruption through lost funds is higher. The last stimulus is a prime example. We don't have a clue where that went.

Well, now, I've heard tell that we do know where the majority of it went.....to keep the banks' ledgers out of the red and also into the pockets of the greedy bankers as obscene bonuses. The banks sure haven't turned around and started loaning it out, that's for certain!

As for small businesses being burdened by increased health care costs, I can't imagine that those costs wouldn't be passed on in the form of higher prices, considering that they will be a reasonable business expense. It will increase inflation a bit, yes, but in the past year we haven't had any inflation at all, so a "bit" won't be as burdensome as is asking us responsible taxpayers who carry our own private insurance to pay for routine medical care for the uninsured and the illegal immigrants in the ERs. At LEAST every quarter the county commissioners where I live have to dedicate additional tax dollars to "indigent care"....yep, you guessed it, those same illegal immigrants I see on a daily basis abusing "...the system". IMHO the abuse by the illegal immigrants exceeds the abuses of welfare....at least those who get welfare are our citizens, the illegal immigrants are criminals and deserve nothing but deportation (and we should find a way to make them pay for that!!).

I think it would be good to open up the state and national borders re: ancillary medical expenses. Lots of U.S. citizens from where I live go to Mexico on a regular basis for their dental work and to buy prescriptions, in fact the "senior" organizations organize bus tours for that specific purpose. Yet, the government, which seems intent on protecting the profits of the wealthy drug companies (you don't suppose it's b/c of the huge sums the drug companies donate to election campaigns, do you :stunned: ), recently refused to pass a bill that would have allowed U.S. citizens to shop unencumbered by limits for Rx and medical insurance in Canada (and I can't imagine Mexico wouldn't also have been included in that bill).

So, we talk about a free economy, but yet we are all PO'ed about the Free Trade Agreement and the problems it causes for us U.S. citizens.....there seems to be no real answer, but at least we have the freedom of speech to gritch about it!

Check out the "Let's See if I Have This Right" thread in the paddock, you'll find a great speech by one of the Australian pollies......we ought to grow some balls and get smart as the Aussies are (or at least aspire to be).

Doug
 
Well, now, I've heard tell that we do know where the majority of it went.....to keep the banks' ledgers out of the red and also into the pockets of the greedy bankers as obscene bonuses. The banks sure haven't turned around and started loaning it out, that's for certain!

I feel the same as you about bonuses, but the banks are the only one paying the loans back, with interest. Now BO wants to levy a tax on them to pay for the loans that are not being paid. That's like saying "YerDugliness, you've been paying your mortgage on time every month but we have these people that are being foreclosed on, so I'm going to levy a tax on you to help pay for the defaulted loans". And who do you think this tax on the banks will get passed on to?
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
YEE-HAW!!!!!! :thumbsup:

It looks like the Republican candidate Scott Brown won in Massachusets! The Democrats have lost their supermajority....:idea:

It might seem a bit incongruous to those of you who have read my posts to find me happy about this development, b/c I am a proponent of universal health care and not a fan of the Republican legacy, but I am absolutely NOT a proponent of the totally partisan manner in which our House/Senate have been conducting business. This will mean that in order for anyone to get anything done, both parties will have to work together. Either that or there will be total gridlock and nothing will get done.........in which case I can see good reason to vote 'em all out during the next election.

I predict fireworks and a lot of rhetoric, but in the end I figure it can't have been any worse that what we've had, so let's see.........

Doug
 
Doug, Once again I agree with you. Maybe I ought to see a doctor, just kidding. The Brown election was refreshing, I sent emails to friends to get contributions for him, he got help nationwide. He ran a nice clean campaign. I hope he does what he says! Democrats like Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, Nebraska's Nelson and others that haven't been representing their constituents wishes should be rethinking their employment options. Obama is 3 for 3 now with Mass, New Jersey, and Viirginia, the kiss of death.
 
Dick Morris said that the Republicans can pick up as many as 48 seats in the Senate. I guess as BHO continues to move with his agenda (and the comment is that he will be undaunted by the results) he will continue to lose popularity.

FYI, I spoke to a small business man in Chicago (he employs 48 and is in the metal finish business). Over the past three weeks, he said that he talked to various customers. All like he had over 50 employees in good times and with the pending legislation in place, none of these companies will add new employees to move their new total over 50. I suspect unemployment will stay where it is until the Democrats change their position.
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
BARBARA BOXER is next!

Ya know, the only real job BO has had in his life is community organizing getting out the vote campaigns. HOWS THAT WORKING FOR YA DEMO'S.

TEA party. Taxed Enough Already
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I guess as BHO continues to move with his agenda (and the comment is that he will be undaunted by the results) he will continue to lose popularity....... I suspect unemployment will stay where it is until the Democrats change their position.

I'm not sure the problem really IS Bee-Oh (ya gotta say it like the old deodorant commercial where it meant "body odor") or the democratic party. IMHO the problem is the partisan polarity that developed due to the inequities and heavy handedness during the Bush/Delay dictatorship....the current leadership is just carrying on with the status quo (which is IMHO a problem, when we were promised more bi-partisan cooperation by BO). BOTH parties are equally guilty here, it's not just the Democrats.

There has been a lot of rhetoric lately about the misinterpretation that occured within the Democratic party after BO was elected. IMHO the country just wasn't happy with heavy-handedness as a routine SOP in politics, but the Dems misinterpreted the election results as a sign that the country wanted to move to left-of-center politically. IMHO, we didn't, we seem to be a central to right-of-center leaning society (not necessarily me, but I honor the "majority rules" democratic system) and idealogically we still want the country to maintain that stature, regardless of which party feels it is "...in power". I like the way Scott Brown says that the seat he won isn't anyone's or any party's, it's the people's. THAT'S the philosophy we need from more of our elected officials......the government belongs to the people, not the elected officials, and we ought not be so enamored of tenure in politics (which, admittedly, does have it's advantages in our current system) as much as how well the politicians represent the PEOPLE.

I know it would be very difficult to enact, but I'd like to see all bills in our congress "voted" upon by the general public rather than by the HOR and Senate, perhaps through some sort of online system in public libraries, and decided in that manner. We use this populous system with bond issues in local elections, why can't we devise some manner in which to extend the concept to national governmental issues that involve taxation? Our current system of representation was necessary during the founding years of our country, but with the technology we have these days the representatives/senators seem to be more counterproductive than effective. Until the elected officials can get the idea through their sick, egocentric skulls that they represent the people (and not believe that they were elected to forward their own agendas), we'll be stuck with a hamstrung :thumbsdown: system, unfortunately.
 
Democrats or republicans being elected has little meaning as far as curing the problems in our government. Until we the people are willing to hold them accountable and are prepared to stop allowing bills to be butchered by all the add ons, the pols will stay in control. Most of the elected gurus are interested in gaining wealth, not in preserving ours. How many pols have you heard that talk like Scott Brown. Precious few from either party. If republicans think they are on a roll, they had better find some real candidates who the people believe have the countries best interest at heart - not their own. I hope Scott Brown is a precursor to a change in attitude of our elected officials, but I am not holding my breath. We in Calif. are really in need of candidates to challlange the likes of Pelosi, Boxer etc. So far none of them have come across to the voters like a Scott Brown. They still seem like just another politician. I continue to have faith but sure wouldn't bet the farm!
 
40Bud, I agree with you.

One of my Italian friends told me along time ago that once a politician or business man gets a position, his total job is about keeping that seat no matter what happens.

I liked what Brown said, and wonder if a Palin / Brown ticket makes sense (probably still too early).

When I was in business school, I thought that my generation (read ours) would really work towards real life improvements. Boy was I wrong.
 
Democrats or republicans being elected has little meaning as far as curing the problems in our government. Until we the people are willing to hold them accountable and are prepared to stop allowing bills to be butchered by all the add ons, the pols will stay in control. Most of the elected gurus are interested in gaining wealth, not in preserving ours. How many pols have you heard that talk like Scott Brown. Precious few from either party. If republicans think they are on a roll, they had better find some real candidates who the people believe have the countries best interest at heart - not their own. I hope Scott Brown is a precursor to a change in attitude of our elected officials, but I am not holding my breath. We in Calif. are really in need of candidates to challlange the likes of Pelosi, Boxer etc. So far none of them have come across to the voters like a Scott Brown. They still seem like just another politician. I continue to have faith but sure wouldn't bet the farm!
I believe that the vote for Brown is a call to accountability. I think the people just told the government that they are sick of business as usual. That election is probably the biggest upset in my time. I have a friend in Mass that is friends with Brown, he said that he really is what he projects, let's hope so!
 
Listening to Michael Medwed last night (over the internet), he suggested that Brown's victory was not about healthcare or anything like that. The real reason the Mass. voters went over to Brown is on terrorism, and the BHO move to try the Gitmo detainees in New York.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I believe that the vote for Brown is a call to accountability.

I am not sure I want accountability........not to say that isn't important, but I'm just not sure that's what is important to me.

What IS important to me is that our elected officials represent the will of the (majority of the) constituents in their respective area on each and EVERY issue (which means that there will be times when that representative's personal opinion does not match that of the public in his/her area). That's why accountability isn't important to me, it seems to mean that if an elected official doesn't represent the will of the constituents (s)he should be "thrown out". Quite the contrary, if (s)he was not ready to do just that (s)he should have never run if (s)he was so egocentric as to believe that (s)he was elected to forward his/her own agenda.

What ever happened to the concept of elected "representatives" ? No wonder we, the public, feel disenfranchised :furious: !!!
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Good point Doug, I know little to nothing about the American health system, but I too feel dis-enfranchised. We have two major parties both of which have a policy that "you must toe the party line". Any politician that does not and actually tries to "represent" his constituents if it goes against the party policy will be forced to resign. Not really my idea of democracy.
 
I don't live in Mass., consequently could not vote for Scott Brown. If you are looking for the reason for his popularity, I don't think you need look for any magic cause. Just listen to the man. He claims to be what we all seem to be screaming for - a politician of the people, not the party. Time will tell if he is to good to be true or really is what he claims! We can only hope!!
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Good point Doug, I know little to nothing about the American health system, but I too feel dis-enfranchised. We have two major parties both of which have a policy that "you must toe the party line". Any politician that does not and actually tries to "represent" his constituents if it goes against the party policy will be forced to resign. Not really my idea of democracy.

Well, Pete, it appears that the Republican Party in the U.S. like your system....here's what I mean:

"HONOLULU (AP) — The Republican National Committee, pressed to find a way to more clearly distinguish itself from Democrats, on Friday adopted a rule that requires GOP candidates to support the party's platform to obtain financial support."

All this after Obama, during his State of the Union address, pleaded for more nonpartisan cooperation in an effort to jump-start the recovery for the U.S.

The Republicans have been referred to as "the party of NO", it sounds like they really like that and now, instead of the partisan polarization diminishing, it looks like the Republicans are going to up the ante.

You can read the whole thing right here (but hurry, Earthlink doesn't leave their enews articles up for long--BTW, the source is the Associated Press, an organization well known for not being biased):

EarthLink - Top News

A sad state of affairs, indeed :sad: ......it looks like any effort to provide our less fortunate citizens with an avenue through which to gain medical insurance is due for an uphill battle as the "War between the Parties" escalates.

Doug
 

Dave Wood

Lifetime Supporter
Democrats or republicans being elected has little meaning as far as curing the problems in our government. Until we the people are willing to hold them accountable and are prepared to stop allowing bills to be butchered by all the add ons, the pols will stay in control. Most of the elected gurus are interested in gaining wealth, not in preserving ours. How many pols have you heard that talk like Scott Brown. Precious few from either party. If republicans think they are on a roll, they had better find some real candidates who the people believe have the countries best interest at heart - not their own. I hope Scott Brown is a precursor to a change in attitude of our elected officials, but I am not holding my breath. We in Calif. are really in need of candidates to challlange the likes of Pelosi, Boxer etc. So far none of them have come across to the voters like a Scott Brown. They still seem like just another politician. I continue to have faith but sure wouldn't bet the farm!
I fall right into that line of thinking. Mass. illustrates what the BIG problem IS. The only way you get rid of those old over entitled geezers is for them to die. Strom Thurmond and many others show that, Dead Ted is the current example. You CAN NOT represent the people if you only live off the taxpayers...and quite well. I have no insurance( Health or Life), I don't want it and have always paid for my medical care out or pocket as well as any dental work. I will NOT pay to insure a bunch of overweight lazy asses that don't take care of themselves. I already pay for crappy drivers and don't like that either. If it is mandatory, I will not participate. Hell if they throw me in jail, I'll get free medical...says something doesn't it. In a FREE country requiring ANYTHING is in direct violation of the constitutional guidelines concerning an overzealous federal government. Since I think the largest increases in medical costs are 2 fold, health insurance itself and prescription drug companies. When was the last time there was a cure for anything found?? Polio maybe, but man can they create drugs that will alter anything and everything and if they are prescribed, most times it's picked up by insurance companies. In that context, HOW can creating a Federal office of ninnies and dumasses that will cost billions every year( with a constant upward crawl) lower the cost of anything? It would be cheaper to give every citizen that money and let them pay for their own. Don't Tread on Me.
Let me sound a little bit American here, I don't care what other countries do. IF I wanted to live there I would, I don't, I choose to live here. Sometimes I wonder for how much longer.
 
I am not sure I want accountability........not to say that isn't important, but I'm just not sure that's what is important to me.

What IS important to me is that our elected officials represent the will of the (majority of the) constituents in their respective area on each and EVERY issue (which means that there will be times when that representative's personal opinion does not match that of the public in his/her area). That's why accountability isn't important to me, it seems to mean that if an elected official doesn't represent the will of the constituents (s)he should be "thrown out". Quite the contrary, if (s)he was not ready to do just that (s)he should have never run if (s)he was so egocentric as to believe that (s)he was elected to forward his/her own agenda.

What ever happened to the concept of elected "representatives" ? No wonder we, the public, feel disenfranchised :furious: !!!

When I said "accountability", I meant being accountable to your constituents, to the will of the majority. It seems that when a politician goes to Washington, they forget who put them there and who's wish they are supposed to carry out.
 
Found this on Pelican Parts forum:

Here is the latest post on my blog in response to the Obama proposal on the health care bill. You can access it at Home - Connelly. In addition, I have added it as an attachment in case you want to send it directly as part of an email. Keep up the fight,
Michael

Michael Connelly
Personal website and Blog Home - Connelly
Author of "The Mortarmen" a book about my father's unit in WWII; "Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends of Philmont Scout Ranch" ; and my just released novel "Amayehli: A Story of America".
I also teach law courses via the Internet through colleges and universities worldwide. To find a college or university near you, go to Education To Go's website at ed2go online course - Online adult & continuing education provider.
New: Check out my radio talk show every week called "Our Constitution" at this link: Radio Sandy Springs - Listen Now!


Quote:
OBAMACARE 5.0

After much anticipation, at least by the so-called mainstream media, the White House has released the new and improved version of Obamacare. Since I have already had to read two previous versions of these monstrosities in the House and two more in the Senate, I call this version Obamacare 5.0 and it is actually an easy read. It is not hundreds or thousands of pages long and it doesn’t take long for people to realize that it really changes very little.

It must be remembered that this is not a Congressional Bill, but simply the President’s proposal to make the bill more palatable to the American public and even some members of Congress who have grown increasingly more concerned about the implications that these proposals have for freedom in this country. In that regard the proposal fails miserably. Despite the use of smoke and mirrors to hide what is really going on with the proposal and the spin that is put on it by the Whitehouse to make it sound like Obama is the smartest man in the world and has found a solution to the problems that couldn’t be resolved by the 535 members of the House and Senate the White House proposal is basically Senate Bill 3590 with a new hairstyle and thicker makeup. This is all an attempt to hide the fact that the bill is still blatantly unconstitutional.

The proposal leaves intact the mandatory provisions of the Senate bill that require every resident of the United States to buy health insurance and to further only buy that insurance approved by the Federal government. Sections 1301-1302 of the Bill set forth the requirements that each approved plan shall have, leaving consumers with no choices about what is best for their needs. Sec 1501 requires that everyone have insurance and provides stiff penalties for failure to comply. In fact, under the President’s proposal the penalties get higher and progress eventually to 2.5% of a person’s income. All of this exceeds the authority granted to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and violates the 9th and 10th amendments that protect the rights of people and the states.

The Obama proposal also leaves intact the provisions under Section 3403 that establish an “Independent Medicare Advisory Board” that will oversee the severe cuts in Medicare and the services provided to seniors. In other words, the Executive Branch of government will ration healthcare for the elderly while at the same time controlling how much everyone else pays for health insurance and what treatments they can be provided with.

Obamacare 5.0 doesn’t eliminate any of the massive tax increases already in the Senate Bill. It plays games by delaying some of them for a short time or changing the name of the fee or tax. For example, the proposal calls for changing the fee to be charged on all medical devices to an excise tax that will raise the same amount for money. The stated purpose for that is to make it easier for the IRS to handle. (Doesn’t that make you feel better about this legislation?).

By the way, one of the new taxes established in the Senate Bill and left in under the Obama proposal is the “Indoor Tanning Service” tax. This is provided for in Sec. 10907 that amends the Internal Revenue Code to set up a 10% tax on the use by consumers of indoor tanning services. I can only conclude that this came about because of the frustration in Congress over the fact that they have not yet been able to find a way to tax the American people for enjoying the sunshine. Therefore they have gone to the next best thing, taxing tanning booths. I would love to hear someone try to explain what that has to do with health care reform.
The Obama proposal delays the implementation of taxes on the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans in order to appease the labor unions but still will ultimately result in massive taxes on people who have good health care plans and place additional taxes on businesses that don’t provide government approved health care plans to their employees, even if both the business owners and employees are satisfied with what they have in place.

The plan also calls for increases in fees on brand named pharmaceuticals. It sets this increase to be administered by the IRS. Who will ultimately pay for these increases? The American taxpayers of course, and frankly I am losing count of all of the new taxes being imposed on our citizens under the health care proposals.
In addition, while the Senate and House versions of the bill add layer upon layer of new Federal bureaucracies to control our access to health care, this is apparently not enough for President Obama. He would add still another new bureaucratic agency called the Health Insurance Rate Authority to “provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.” The definition of oversight is obvious; it means Federal control of State regulations of insurance companies and is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
So, what is the bottom line of Obamacare 5.0? It places control of our personal health care decisions in the hands of unnamed Federal Bureaucrats who care nothing about us or our individual needs. It provides instant access for these same bureaucrats to see or medical and financial information, it massively increases our taxes and ultimately our insurance premiums, and it reduces our access to the health care that we need. It takes away our choices and our personal freedoms and it increases the Federal deficit that will eventually land on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

I believe that the Obama proposal is in fact a ruse. It is designed to lure us into believing that the health care bill is actually about affordable health care when it is really about taking control of our lives and limiting our freedoms. It is a cover for the fact that the Senate will try to pass this bill as a “budget reconciliation act” that will only require a simple majority in the Senate instead of the usual 60 votes. We must act now to let our representatives in the House and Senate know that we are not buying into these deceptions and that they will pay a price in November at the polls if this is forced on us.

If it passes, this legislation will be challenged in the courts. I am currently working with the U.S. Justice Foundation that is preparing to file a lawsuit to challenge the Constitutionality of the legislation if it is adopted. We will not go down without putting up one heck of a fight for our freedom as Americans.
Michael Connelly
Home - Connelly
[email protected]
__________________
 
Sorry I can't put a confirmation up, but I was talking to someone in Chicago who said the following:
- startdate for Obama 5.0 moves from 2013 to 2018
- taxation starts immediately
- BHO will try to reduce his deficit by cutting medicare and increasing taxes

So if BHO and the Democrats are concerned about people going bankrupt, why wait until 2018?
 
Back
Top