.
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.AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER.
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.
End.
.
Comments
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.
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'!
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.
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.
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.
Horse plop.
Which Republican Senator voted for this Obamanation, Rain?
Name the Republican Senator that voted for this horrible bill.
Thank you.
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.
Define "Good" as you have used it above.
I thought you agreed this bill stank! You should be thanking Republicans.
Make up your mind.
Care to define that for me too?
(Now that IS rhetorical!!!)
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.
Spending is absolutely out of control and must be contained.
Does this bill do that?
No.
Who voted for it?
Straight party line dems.