I totally agree, it's a shame because it is ultimately harming race relations.
Healthcare
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Catch this one from MoveOn.
MoveOn.org Political Action: Video: Will Ferrell stands up for the real health care victims
Wish I could believe it.
MoveOn.org Political Action: Video: Will Ferrell stands up for the real health care victims
Wish I could believe it.
Comments from an old work colleague who left Czechslovakia in 1968 about the Obama Administration:
The Obama and US Democrats stuff reminds me what I grew-up with in communist paradise in Czechoslovakia. They have been fixing it for 20 years now, just like East Germany, and they are not done with it yet. Some rooted buyrocratic and corrupting behavior will still be there for a while.
The Obama and US Democrats stuff reminds me what I grew-up with in communist paradise in Czechoslovakia. They have been fixing it for 20 years now, just like East Germany, and they are not done with it yet. Some rooted buyrocratic and corrupting behavior will still be there for a while.
I agree somewhat. The vast majority of people who oppose the healthcare plan or other bills
are not racist, though there are quite a few who are just parroting what others are saying.
But, there are many who oppose Obama strictly because he is part African American, that
is undeniable.
But, as Obama himself said on Letterman - "I was actually black before the election". In
other words, the whole race issue is being blown out of proportion - even in his eyes.
Ian
OBAMACARE: TAXES FOR EVERYONE
Published on TheHill.com on September 22, 2009
Now that the various healthcare plans are being reduced to print, the financial details are emerging and with them a fundamental conclusion is becoming evident: The Obama plan is a giant tax increase for much of the American people (not just the rich).
Start with the mandate that falls on those whose welfare is the supposed object of the entire program -- the uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average uninsured person or family will have to pay between 15 and 20 percent of his or their total income on health insurance (counting premiums, deductibles and co-payments) before any of the subsidy in the Baucus bill kicks in. Even in the more generous House bill, the tab that the uninsured must pay is very, very high.
Most uninsured would likely be quite happy to avoid paying this much of their income for health insurance. But they will be forced to shell out the money under the program. Others would want catastrophic coverage (which for the young would likely not be too costly) but the Obama program requires comprehensive insurance that is costly to satisfy the government requirement.
Having spent the entire campaign speaking about "affordable" coverage, it turns out the program is not at all affordable, but a massive new tax on the average uninsured American.
Then there is the tax on health insurance premiums that is to finance about a quarter of the subsidy for the uninsured. This tax, billed as only to be levied on "gold-plated" policies, will, in fact, reach down to the average American. The Baucus bill specifies that the tax of 35 percent would be put on all premiums over $8,000 for an individual and on proportionately higher premiums for families. Current estimates are that about one-tenth of the current health insurance policies would be taxable. But the $8,000 premium level that will trigger coverage is not indexed for inflation, let alone for medical inflation, which typically runs twice as high. ObamaCare will take effect in 2013. By then, the percentage of Americans subject to the tax will doubtless expand dramatically. Indeed, this trigger is a new Alternative Minimum Tax waiting to happen. As inflation pushes more and more Americans into tax eligibility, it will become a universal health insurance excise tax of 35 percent. While the tax will be imposed on health insurers and employers, it will, obviously, be passed along to the policyholders.
So if you are insured, you will increasingly have to pay 35 percent more for the privilege. And if you are uninsured, you will have to pay one-fifth of your income in premiums, deductibles and co-payments before any subsidy kicks in.
And then there is the final piece of the puzzle -- the $500 billion cut in Medicare that will pay for the bulk of the subsidy under the bill. We are literally slicing services to the elderly in order to transfer healthcare to others. Obama's claim that only "waste and inefficiency" in Medicare will be cut is, at best, disingenuous. Most of the cuts will be in reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. That will lead to less care, shorter office visits, fewer tests, fewer surgeries and less care. And it will lead to fewer doctors. As a result, a survey by the Investor's Business Daily indicates that 45 percent of all doctors would "consider retiring or closing their practices" if the Obama bill passes. The result will be a greater scarcity of medical services, even as the patient load expands by at least 30 million people.
Each of these fiscal pieces is movable. The left will pressure Obama to increase the subsidy to the uninsured. But that will necessitate raising the Medicare cut borne by the elderly or increasing the tax on health insurance policies -- or adding to the deficit. Any of these options will alienate moderate senators. Balancing these competing priorities only works if the taxpayers don't know what is going on.
If the average middle-income American family realizes that it will have to pay one-third more for health insurance or the uninsured learn that they will have to pay a fifth of their income to get insurance, they will make their dissatisfaction felt by their Democratic senators.
All of which begs the fundamental question: How willing are Democratic congressmen to commit political suicide? Are they willing to lose the elderly and to antagonize the uninsured as the health insurance cops chase them around the block? When does JFK's comment kick in: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much"?
Published on TheHill.com on September 22, 2009
Now that the various healthcare plans are being reduced to print, the financial details are emerging and with them a fundamental conclusion is becoming evident: The Obama plan is a giant tax increase for much of the American people (not just the rich).
Start with the mandate that falls on those whose welfare is the supposed object of the entire program -- the uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average uninsured person or family will have to pay between 15 and 20 percent of his or their total income on health insurance (counting premiums, deductibles and co-payments) before any of the subsidy in the Baucus bill kicks in. Even in the more generous House bill, the tab that the uninsured must pay is very, very high.
Most uninsured would likely be quite happy to avoid paying this much of their income for health insurance. But they will be forced to shell out the money under the program. Others would want catastrophic coverage (which for the young would likely not be too costly) but the Obama program requires comprehensive insurance that is costly to satisfy the government requirement.
Having spent the entire campaign speaking about "affordable" coverage, it turns out the program is not at all affordable, but a massive new tax on the average uninsured American.
Then there is the tax on health insurance premiums that is to finance about a quarter of the subsidy for the uninsured. This tax, billed as only to be levied on "gold-plated" policies, will, in fact, reach down to the average American. The Baucus bill specifies that the tax of 35 percent would be put on all premiums over $8,000 for an individual and on proportionately higher premiums for families. Current estimates are that about one-tenth of the current health insurance policies would be taxable. But the $8,000 premium level that will trigger coverage is not indexed for inflation, let alone for medical inflation, which typically runs twice as high. ObamaCare will take effect in 2013. By then, the percentage of Americans subject to the tax will doubtless expand dramatically. Indeed, this trigger is a new Alternative Minimum Tax waiting to happen. As inflation pushes more and more Americans into tax eligibility, it will become a universal health insurance excise tax of 35 percent. While the tax will be imposed on health insurers and employers, it will, obviously, be passed along to the policyholders.
So if you are insured, you will increasingly have to pay 35 percent more for the privilege. And if you are uninsured, you will have to pay one-fifth of your income in premiums, deductibles and co-payments before any subsidy kicks in.
And then there is the final piece of the puzzle -- the $500 billion cut in Medicare that will pay for the bulk of the subsidy under the bill. We are literally slicing services to the elderly in order to transfer healthcare to others. Obama's claim that only "waste and inefficiency" in Medicare will be cut is, at best, disingenuous. Most of the cuts will be in reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. That will lead to less care, shorter office visits, fewer tests, fewer surgeries and less care. And it will lead to fewer doctors. As a result, a survey by the Investor's Business Daily indicates that 45 percent of all doctors would "consider retiring or closing their practices" if the Obama bill passes. The result will be a greater scarcity of medical services, even as the patient load expands by at least 30 million people.
Each of these fiscal pieces is movable. The left will pressure Obama to increase the subsidy to the uninsured. But that will necessitate raising the Medicare cut borne by the elderly or increasing the tax on health insurance policies -- or adding to the deficit. Any of these options will alienate moderate senators. Balancing these competing priorities only works if the taxpayers don't know what is going on.
If the average middle-income American family realizes that it will have to pay one-third more for health insurance or the uninsured learn that they will have to pay a fifth of their income to get insurance, they will make their dissatisfaction felt by their Democratic senators.
All of which begs the fundamental question: How willing are Democratic congressmen to commit political suicide? Are they willing to lose the elderly and to antagonize the uninsured as the health insurance cops chase them around the block? When does JFK's comment kick in: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much"?
But, as Obama himself said on Letterman - "I was actually black before the election". In
other words, the whole race issue is being blown out of proportion - even in his eyes.
Ian[/QUOTE]
And this is even a bit racist, BO almost never acknowleges the fact that he is 1/2 white. he, his staff, Wright, Carter and other Dems are making it a race issue! I don't think race would have been an issue with Colin Powell.
other words, the whole race issue is being blown out of proportion - even in his eyes.
Ian[/QUOTE]
And this is even a bit racist, BO almost never acknowleges the fact that he is 1/2 white. he, his staff, Wright, Carter and other Dems are making it a race issue! I don't think race would have been an issue with Colin Powell.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Miranda Devine is an Aussie Journo, I thought her take on the health care issue would interest both sides of the debate.
Miranda Devine
Miranda Devine
A great civil voice in the ever increasing radical discourse occuring in politics today. Divine is right on the money about both sides. She sounds like someone that this country has lost in the last two decades...an intelligent person able to look starkly at both sides of opinion and get to the middle where all solutions must if there is to be progress without anarchy. Good Show!
Garry
Garry
Latest comments from a friend's friend in the USA.
Dear Jennie,
I read with great interest your recent editorial on health care reform (or is it health insurance reform). You have done a good job of reassuring us that AARP is on the job and we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, many seniors are better informed than that and require facts, not platitudes.
The overall theme started to be about "pulling the plug" on seriously ill patients and you state when critics raise the question they are lying. It's clear you are not aware that Obama's medical advisor is Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother to the chief of staff. It is also clear that you are not aware of Dr. Emanuel's widely published views on supplying, or not supplying, medical care to the very young and elderly based on their inability to make future contributions to society. In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. He said "However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated." Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not." The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys."
This is the man, the doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath, chosen by the president, standing by the president's side and advising him. Please don't tell us that these topics are lies.
Later in your editorial you promise to debunk myths "being spread by those who want to obstruct health care reform" and to provide the facts needed to counter the "scare tactics" being used by special interests. Sounds pretty noble, but since the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries as well as the medical profession and AARP are all "special interests" it sounds more like you are espousing the administration's view is the only viable one.
Further, your fireside chat statement about health care reform "shouldn't be about politics . It's about lives....". Please don't patronize your members with this drivel. Health care reform is working it's way though congress and will cost trillions of dollars. How can it NOT be political?
You claim AARP is "fighting" to eliminate fraud and wasteful spending in Medicare. We hear the same claims from the president and congress but no one has yet supplied any specific measures to accomplish this. Please supply the specifics you are proposing. All we hear about is the $500 billion cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals that will surely drive doctors out of the Medicare pool and reduce available services. We seniors just love that idea.
In closing, rather than supplying warm milk and cookies to us doddering old folks we need AARP to get out in front with a structured plan that is actionable. And we need truth, something that is in short supply on this issue.
But we do understand that more of AARP's funding comes from insurance company sponsorship than from members' dues.
My wife and I are multi-year members of AARP. The hotel discounts have been very useful since we were in our fifties. Now that we are in our mid-sixties and need AARP to be an advocate we are very disappointed and are seriously considering cancelling our memberships. AARP is not actually acting in our best interests.
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_5377e727-b070-434d-a6d4-a7f78d47bf10 -->
Dear Jennie,
I read with great interest your recent editorial on health care reform (or is it health insurance reform). You have done a good job of reassuring us that AARP is on the job and we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, many seniors are better informed than that and require facts, not platitudes.
The overall theme started to be about "pulling the plug" on seriously ill patients and you state when critics raise the question they are lying. It's clear you are not aware that Obama's medical advisor is Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother to the chief of staff. It is also clear that you are not aware of Dr. Emanuel's widely published views on supplying, or not supplying, medical care to the very young and elderly based on their inability to make future contributions to society. In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. He said "However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated." Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not." The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys."
This is the man, the doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath, chosen by the president, standing by the president's side and advising him. Please don't tell us that these topics are lies.
Later in your editorial you promise to debunk myths "being spread by those who want to obstruct health care reform" and to provide the facts needed to counter the "scare tactics" being used by special interests. Sounds pretty noble, but since the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries as well as the medical profession and AARP are all "special interests" it sounds more like you are espousing the administration's view is the only viable one.
Further, your fireside chat statement about health care reform "shouldn't be about politics . It's about lives....". Please don't patronize your members with this drivel. Health care reform is working it's way though congress and will cost trillions of dollars. How can it NOT be political?
You claim AARP is "fighting" to eliminate fraud and wasteful spending in Medicare. We hear the same claims from the president and congress but no one has yet supplied any specific measures to accomplish this. Please supply the specifics you are proposing. All we hear about is the $500 billion cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals that will surely drive doctors out of the Medicare pool and reduce available services. We seniors just love that idea.
In closing, rather than supplying warm milk and cookies to us doddering old folks we need AARP to get out in front with a structured plan that is actionable. And we need truth, something that is in short supply on this issue.
But we do understand that more of AARP's funding comes from insurance company sponsorship than from members' dues.
My wife and I are multi-year members of AARP. The hotel discounts have been very useful since we were in our fifties. Now that we are in our mid-sixties and need AARP to be an advocate we are very disappointed and are seriously considering cancelling our memberships. AARP is not actually acting in our best interests.
Best regards,
Jim Shaughness
Atlanta, GA
The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax, predicted:
"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_5377e727-b070-434d-a6d4-a7f78d47bf10 -->
Here is a data point for you. I have the priviledge of turning 50 years old in a couple of weeks. Whoopie. Today I get a form letter from my Health insurance company that says something along the lines:
Dear valued HealthNet member,
In order to continue to provide the best service to you at a reasonable cost, starting December 1 your premium willl be $800+ a month. This represents a 46% increase over your current premium. The ADJUSTMENT TO YOUR POLICY PREMIUM IS DUE TO YOUR AGE (my caps). Blah blah blah, bend over and take it.
So they have known this for years (that I would be turning 50), yet they wait until one month out to spank me like a baby gone bad. All I have ever done is make my payments on time, get one physical a year and take my Lipitor daily. I have never (except for my recent colonoscopy - recommended for all folks my age), had a medical claim.
The good news is that I am self insured and don't have to take it. I will take my business elsewhere. I can see how this would put a moderate income family over the edge. It really pisses me off - but not enough to raise my blood pressure to an unhealthy amount.
Mike
Dear valued HealthNet member,
In order to continue to provide the best service to you at a reasonable cost, starting December 1 your premium willl be $800+ a month. This represents a 46% increase over your current premium. The ADJUSTMENT TO YOUR POLICY PREMIUM IS DUE TO YOUR AGE (my caps). Blah blah blah, bend over and take it.
So they have known this for years (that I would be turning 50), yet they wait until one month out to spank me like a baby gone bad. All I have ever done is make my payments on time, get one physical a year and take my Lipitor daily. I have never (except for my recent colonoscopy - recommended for all folks my age), had a medical claim.
The good news is that I am self insured and don't have to take it. I will take my business elsewhere. I can see how this would put a moderate income family over the edge. It really pisses me off - but not enough to raise my blood pressure to an unhealthy amount.
Mike
SpyderMike...
Wouldn't the "right" thing to do in that scenario be to invest that money you pay for a monthly policy, since you rarely actually use it? That way, when a "what-if" scenario arises, you have the cash to apply to it. That is after all, what an insurance policy is...a "what-if" fund.
Color me crazy, but isn't that basically what an insurance provider is? A cash pool for investments, with proceeds going to policy pay-offs or stockholder pay-outs? Why not just cut out the middle man?
Wouldn't the "right" thing to do in that scenario be to invest that money you pay for a monthly policy, since you rarely actually use it? That way, when a "what-if" scenario arises, you have the cash to apply to it. That is after all, what an insurance policy is...a "what-if" fund.
Color me crazy, but isn't that basically what an insurance provider is? A cash pool for investments, with proceeds going to policy pay-offs or stockholder pay-outs? Why not just cut out the middle man?
I am with you Wyoming...it is already in progress...an HSA account is essentially that. Tax free investment invested as you choose - totally portable. This covers more than your monthly nugget and can grom tax free and be withdrawn form at age 65 for other thayn medical. I will just get minimal premium high deductible catastrophic insurance to cover the big surprise.
What you describe its the way it should be. People pooling money to spread the financial risk - insurance as a concept. I think what has happened is that it has become a way to take in the pool of money, but figure out through actuarials and complex policies, how to not have to pay out. I am guessing that HealthNet want people who are healthy and between the ages of XX and 49. I am healthy, but I will hit their age barrier soon. If I present too much risk for them then they price me out. Nice business.
Now, how many of you have tried to get quotes from Health Insurance only to find out that to get a quote you need to pay for at least a month first. My business partner had to pay for three months before he could get a firm quote with Aetna. What kind of deal is that?
Mike
What you describe its the way it should be. People pooling money to spread the financial risk - insurance as a concept. I think what has happened is that it has become a way to take in the pool of money, but figure out through actuarials and complex policies, how to not have to pay out. I am guessing that HealthNet want people who are healthy and between the ages of XX and 49. I am healthy, but I will hit their age barrier soon. If I present too much risk for them then they price me out. Nice business.
Now, how many of you have tried to get quotes from Health Insurance only to find out that to get a quote you need to pay for at least a month first. My business partner had to pay for three months before he could get a firm quote with Aetna. What kind of deal is that?
Mike
Last edited:
Can you imagine other businesses behaving that way? A barber shop for example...you get any haircut they decide to give you for the going rate, and to have any specific requests, they charge you extra for the perceived "risk". Or a fast food restaurant...you get whatever they give you for their going rate, but when you ask for no pickles or extra ketchup they opt out as it being unfavorable to their franchise owner.
I have never ran into that situation with my health insurance, though I did get a nasty surprise when I bundled my auto insurance with my home insurance. State Farm assured me I would save $XX a month, and quoted me a combined policy rate with discount. 3 months in, I discover that my auto insurance is almost 3 times what I was quoted. AFTER I had dropped my other carrier...and lost my discounts for being a long-time customer. Of course my insurance now was higher with Progressive, while still being cheaper than State Farm...for some inexplicable reason. No tickets, no driving offenses...just a raise in rates because I quit them. Now we all deal with rising rates due to supposed pay-outs for Katrina (what...5 years later?), when almost every story you read in the news regarding Katrina policy holders is that they are denied for whatever reason. So what blackhole is this invested sum disappearing to?
I have never ran into that situation with my health insurance, though I did get a nasty surprise when I bundled my auto insurance with my home insurance. State Farm assured me I would save $XX a month, and quoted me a combined policy rate with discount. 3 months in, I discover that my auto insurance is almost 3 times what I was quoted. AFTER I had dropped my other carrier...and lost my discounts for being a long-time customer. Of course my insurance now was higher with Progressive, while still being cheaper than State Farm...for some inexplicable reason. No tickets, no driving offenses...just a raise in rates because I quit them. Now we all deal with rising rates due to supposed pay-outs for Katrina (what...5 years later?), when almost every story you read in the news regarding Katrina policy holders is that they are denied for whatever reason. So what blackhole is this invested sum disappearing to?
This is a call for you to contact your representative and tell them to vote NO on the healthcare bill. Reid and Pelosi et al have, behind closed doors written, rather rewritten the bill(3200) to include everything and more that was cut out of the bill in order to get people like Olympia Snow(Rep.) to vote for it. They the Dems are going to schedule a vote on Saturday to pass this bill, when most members of the house will be at home or in their home state. I am sure most will be staying to fight this.This is inexcusable.
After the upset victories of Tues. a call for a rally in D.C. on Thurs. drew 30-40,000 people, with many speakers and shouts of kill the bill. You won't hear about it on the mainstream news, but it is all over talk radio. Most are staying and going into the halls with pieces of the legislation asking their congressmen what that section of the bill means(as if they really read it) Want to hear some of the B S in this bill? Here it is straight from the house floor.
HEALTHCARE REFORM SCARIER THAN TERRORISTS - Nealz Nuze on boortz.com
The Republican alternative, which few have heard of, was introduced in JULY '09. The CBO which is an independant arm of congress came out with the facts that the Rep. bill(3400) would ACTUALLY lower healthcare cost.
The bill that the Dems are trying to pass will generate 53 new burocracies and at least 13 new taxes.
Even if you are a Dem. you should be afraid of this bill. It is comming from the most radical element of your party who don't care what you think or want, they are going to get control of you and this contry and make you dependant on government for everything.
I know this sounds hysterical, but you need to do some research and see what is happening.
Bill
After the upset victories of Tues. a call for a rally in D.C. on Thurs. drew 30-40,000 people, with many speakers and shouts of kill the bill. You won't hear about it on the mainstream news, but it is all over talk radio. Most are staying and going into the halls with pieces of the legislation asking their congressmen what that section of the bill means(as if they really read it) Want to hear some of the B S in this bill? Here it is straight from the house floor.
HEALTHCARE REFORM SCARIER THAN TERRORISTS - Nealz Nuze on boortz.com
The Republican alternative, which few have heard of, was introduced in JULY '09. The CBO which is an independant arm of congress came out with the facts that the Rep. bill(3400) would ACTUALLY lower healthcare cost.
The bill that the Dems are trying to pass will generate 53 new burocracies and at least 13 new taxes.
Even if you are a Dem. you should be afraid of this bill. It is comming from the most radical element of your party who don't care what you think or want, they are going to get control of you and this contry and make you dependant on government for everything.
I know this sounds hysterical, but you need to do some research and see what is happening.
Bill
What really bothers me is that the politicians don't seem to give a hoot about what their constituents think! All the protests and pointing out of bad points in the bill just seems to embolden the pols to add more bad stuff to the bill ! It sure looks like it is time to take notes and not forget how your Washington freinds have voted come re-election time!
Exactly!
I see that at the local level also. That's exactly what I do; take notes and vote accordingly in the next election.
Charlie
Similar threads
