Skip to main content

Gloves Off

OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL, passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government.


The far left liberals like to point at SOCIAL SECURITY  as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evidence. For a program like this to be a success requires that it be fiscally responsible. Social Security was fashioned (and then modified) with no provision for funding in the future. Social Security is a bankrupt and therefore failed program.

The same far left liberals also point to MEDICADE as a representative success. It is not. Like Medicare it was established (and later modified) without provision for future funding. Legislators can vote on whatever they want to, but if their is no able source of money to pay for it,  how can anyone possibly consider it a success?

Together these two social programs (alone) are so far in borrowed debt that it our descendents can not be expected to retire the loans. 

America did produce a similar social program that was a wonderful success. It was beyond our government's means at the time, and was funded by loans that would be paid by future generations. It was acceptable, well thought out, and benefited the country well into the future. It stood as a shining example of a proper liberal program that all Americans, including the future generations necessary, were properly obligated to pay. The program was THE G.I.BILL THAT FOLLOWED WORLD WAR II. 

I bring this up to illustrate that well designed liberal social programs may result in benefits that help our society move forward.

The recent health care legislation is badly conceived, badly wrought, minority driven, and politically stupid. This kind of radical change reguires a bi-partisan, citizen approved, and economically possible approach. It received non of these from our government.




Rain said…
If Medicaid is bad, how would you take care of the poor who need medical care? Or do you let them die?

As for SS, if what Reagan had said had happened, it would be funded for many years to come. After his big tax increase to fund it, there was a good sized excess which was supposed to be a trust fund. The looting of that, to pay for things that the government does (like the Iraq war) but will not pay for as they go, is why SS is in trouble and it's the only reason. It still could easily be fixed by taxing all income for SS but that's not going to be popular.

I disapprove of this health care bill but not for the reasons you do. I suspect it's going to pass anyway. If we had Republicans in charge, like we did for the previous 8 years, we would not even be discussing this problem. Bush added the drug coverage but typical of him and the Republicans, there was no method for paying for it. That is why Medicare is in trouble.
Greybeard said…
You assume again Rain...
Have you ever been in an ER?
Take a look around for the sign that indicates what care will be provided, in spite of ability to pay.
The idea that kids die in the U.S. because of lack of health care insurance is "horse plop".
(I'm in the health care industry, remember?)
Word verification... unmess... no foolin'!
Rain said…
What I am talking about are things like chemotherapy. You don't get a lot of treatments without insurance. An agent down in Tucson described what one man went through when he needed treatment and the hospital demanded he show he could pay the copay. That guy had insurance but the copay would be high and without it, he would not get care. And we aren't talking about just kids. We are talking about any age. Yes, you can go into an ER but getting treatment regularly for say high bp isn't so simple if you cannot afford the medications. Talk to people who are among what would be considered the working poor and then tell me you know it's not so. I know it is so. And getting treatment in an ER is the worse place and time for it. It's past when it should have been given. But what you said is you would like to see Medicaid ended which is where kids get vaccinations from families who are poor. What would you do instead?

Incidentally the few times I have been in an ER, it's been people there who had accidents, not looking for preventative treatment to avoid a heart attack.
Rain said…
The current bill though is very questionable for its value. Read Kay's blog today. The problem is not that we don't need better health care but that I don't believe this bill will give it. It will benefit the insurance companies the most.
Greybeard said…
If you start giving chemo to everyone, you'll definitely get Ezekiel Emmanuel's "death panels" Sarah referred to that ARE in the bill, in spite of the lies we hear. Chemo is too damned expensive to give to everyone, believe me. Do you want to be on the panel that chooses who does, and who does not get the treatment, Rain? 'Cause some bureaucrat WILL soon be making that decision.
Health care is available to anyone in the U.S. that seeks it. The question we'll now face is, who is in charge of telling that lifetime-smoking lung CA victim they can't have care because they didn't take care of themselves.
It's coming. I'm 62. The care you and I receive won't be what it would have been before this bill passed, and the overall cost of the care we receive will be higher. Remember that next year in November, folks.
Rain said…
Well we will have to agree to disagree about this. I am one of those who thinks we should all get the opportunity to live and some things like chemo for say leukemia give people a chance to live and go on with their lives. It can be a cure but it won't be for those who are poor. They will just die. If a person believes only the well off deserve health care, then they obviously would see this very differently.

And the cost of the care will go up because of this bill but it didn't have to do that. The Republicans are as guilty of making this thing be a bonanza for insurance companies as the Democrats. Those guys are out there saying please don't throw me into that briar patch, bre'r bear. Yeah right. I am disgusted with the lot. The death panel exists now but it's insurance companies making the decisions.
Greybeard said…
"The Republicans are as guilty of making this thing be a bonanza for insurance companies as the Democrats."
Horse plop.
Which Republican Senator voted for this Obamanation, Rain?
Rain said…
The Republicans did it by waiting 8 years and now saying they would have done one -- except they didn't when they could have. Voting no doesn't fix anything. Do nothing won't fix what is wrong and that's all they offer. I say both parties are the same and their only real concern is corporate profits.
Greybeard said…
Did you miss the question, Rain? (You do this WAY too often!)
Name the Republican Senator that voted for this horrible bill.
Thank you.
Rain said…
I didn't miss the question. It was clearly rhetorical. What I said was that their leaving this mess is part of the responsibility for where e find ourselves. They did nothing for eight years. They made Medicare a worse mess in perhaps a hope to destroy it. They voted in lock step, all 40 of them-- to do nothing now. I didn't need to answer what we both knew was true. But what you are denying and not answering is-- why didn't they deal with this when they had the presidency and the majority?
Rain said…
To make it worse, they engaged us in a war that took all of the beginning surplus that might have dealt with this. They did that without paying for it. I would say that the Republicans have as much responsibility for where we are as the Democrats. And frankly it's like taking any problem anybody has. Is it more noble to try and fix something or to look the other way?
Greybeard said…
Rhetorical? Not at all!
More horse plop.
Please answer my question,then tell me how Republicans should take any responsibility for this fiasco at all.
I think this is one time constituents will have LONG memories.
Rain said…
It is how you see it. You ignore the last eight years and concentrate on this one bill. It's your privilege but I think you spent eight years choosing a president who led our country right into the toilet. And it was rhetoric because you and I both knew and so did anybody who paid attention that on this specific vote all Republicans voted no. They did not want anything good to pass and wanted to see Obama fail. They spent all those years doing nothing. IF they had done something, this might not be where we are. To me to stonewall any positive change is as bad as doing something. You keep voting Republican and you will see even more damage if they ever win power again. Two wars, butchering our Bill of Rights and demolishing our economy wasn't enough? The Republicans have plenty of responsibility for what we are now seeing. IF there had been no health care problem, I might agree with you that doing nothing didn't matter, but anybody who pays attention knows there is a problem and has been. They could have lessened it in their own way if they had addressed it. They did not. What they did do was a prescription drug benefit that sends Medicare nearer to its own failure. No paying for anything. And if they keep on this way, they will lose in '12. They, along with Democrats have blocked buying prescription drugs from Canada. Explain that one to me except as a sell out.
Greybeard said…
Define "Good" as you have used it above.
I thought you agreed this bill stank! You should be thanking Republicans.
Make up your mind.
Greybeard said…
Oh, and you threw out the word "fascist" earlier.
Care to define that for me too?
(Now that IS rhetorical!!!)
Rain said…
delighted to explain both. Fascism is a political system that uses religion and patriotism to get its desired goals which amounts to an authoritarian state where the good of the 'nation' is more important than the good of individuals. Although we have a so-called democracy, we don't. We have a representative government where we as individuals cannot vote on what we want done but instead elect those who will represent our interests (we hope). Many of us saw those tactics in what Bush did with his 'decider' talk, the administration's authorization of torture to get someone to say what they wanted to hear, that administration's secretive going to war and telling us to trust, and even the first election in Florida where 'double' voting led to a very narrow win if it wasn't gained by fraud. It seemed we were always told by one subset of Republicans that we must ignore our individual rights for the good of the homeland. To be honest, I can think of situations where the right or left could use tactics like that to get people to ignore what is in their own best interests.
Rain said…
And on good. I mean that sometimes people start out to do good things but they don't. That's how I see some of the Democrats on this bill. They wanted to do something good but my opinion is they are not. It's like the interfering do-gooder who actually makes things worse.

One other thing I wanted to make clearer is why I said the Republicans are responsible. We have a situation which everybody agrees something needs changing; but that situation has been going on for a long while, just gradually getting worse. When the Republicans had power, they could have made changes that might have never given the Democrats this opportunity to make a huge shift that may or may not end up good (right now doesn't look good to me).

An illustration of what I mean for them being at fault would be a divorce. You see a marriage break up and you see one person saying I want a divorce and acting really nasty about it. The other one sits back and acts innocent; but if you trace the history, you find the other one could be the main instigator of the troubles in that marriage.

I realize Republicans might use that illustration the other way around turning it on Democrats in various situations and I would agree. For instance, neither party has done anything that I know of to get more doctors in the field. That would help as it would give more compeitition. I think the AMA has not wanted it to happen. Now we will have this sudden influx of insured people who may want treatment and not enough doctors which has led to many getting their care through PAs.

Democrats at least have for a long time taken on the attempt to get routine health care to be more possible for all Americans, but Republicans have ignored the problem other than a pilot program to see if tort reform would keep costs down (Texas) which didn't work on that level anyway.

I see Republicans ignoring health care as a problem until Democrats bring it up. Or they support corporate interests over Americans and it's at least partly responsible for getting us here. You could say Democrats did some of that when it impacts their core constituency.

AND they both are responsible for blocking us buying our drugs from Canada through the Internet which would help a lot of families very quickly. In our case, a copay on one of our prescriptions in this country equals what we would pay for it with no insurance if we could order it online from Canada. But this bill won't let that happen and will further make it hard to get generics into the market faster to also help with costs.

In short I consider it a bad bill but I do think some who worked on it had good intentions. I don't see those good intentions from the right wing who sat on their hands for years and continue that as their winning tactic with their base. The good intentions on the left though won't make this thing work if the bill is bad. Good intentions have very little weight in how something actually works out.
Greybeard said…
Okay, so let's agree that we can agree on one thing...
Spending is absolutely out of control and must be contained.
Does this bill do that?
Who voted for it?
Straight party line dems.
Rain said…
I have said I didn't like the bill but more because I think it costs a lot to do nothing :(
Rain said…
and i am concerned about the deficit. I was when they didn't pay for the Iraq war by tax increases. Or the tax cuts by balancing with spending cuts.

Popular posts from this blog

Intellectual / Incompetent / Liberal

We all know that there are serious problems with ou American political system. The federal government and national media have been telling us that we continue to lead the world in just about everything. Unfortunately, we do not. Measuring our status against other nations is difficult as it entails comparison of different attributes and characteristics. Comparisons are, at best, crude.  Surely, if we look, it's clear that America is no longer dominant among the world's communities. 

For decades following the 1929 economic depression, America has enriched foreign industries at the expense of our own. We have subsidized foreign military powers while allowing the depletion of our own. We've defended other nations borders while, at the same time, not defended our own. We've spent trillions of dollars to subsidize unworthy governments, and let our own infrastructure to fall into disrepair. 

The use of our economic power as a diplomatic tool may have been the correct thing to d…

Cruel and Thoughtless . . .

A disheartening situation has hit our family. A cousin, one that we don't know very well, has reached 93 years of age. Most of the Chapman family made it to the mid 80's, but Mary Lou Chapman has managed a few years more. And, she's not gone yet. Mary was unmarried her entire life. She grew up in a good home, was well educated, has always hd a good job, and has enjoyed pretty good health - until just a few years ago. While she is still very much alive, I sometimes speak in the past tense as if she had already died. Mary is either confused or in her own little world now. She began losing some of her sparkle a few years ago. At first it was mild memory loss, and then mild hearing loss, and then drifting in her speech as she lost track of what she wanted to say. Her Doctor said it was a mild dementia coming on with old age, and nothing to worry about yet. A few month's passed by before she began to have problems driving herself to the market and appointments and so forth,…

The Reluctant Liberal

I've a grandson that has been exposed to political liberalism all his life. In it's modern version the words "left wing" means the liberal side of politics, and "right wing" describes the more conservative side. In our two party system each term may be used to describe a member of either party. Believe it or not, there are a few conservative Democrats.
Today, the Democratic Party has become  overwhelmingly "liberal" and the Republican Party more conservative.  At times it has been difficult to find enough reasonable cooperation between parties and that is, unfortunately, how it is today. With President Trump now in the saddle, the Democratic Party has refused any level of cooperation -  and our government has slowed to a walk.

The simple explanation is probably the correct one. The hard left wing, usually members of the Democratic Party, allows no other point of view. They each consider moderate and conservative opposing ideas to have no merit. This…