Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2009 13:29:15 GMT -4
Have you seen the video of the town hall meeting that Sen. Arlen Specter held in PA today. They're going well wouldn't you say. Once all the yelling, not listening, shouting, shoving, disrespectful displays are done and any health care reform goes down in flames and cost continue to rise.....what's the solution.
We all can't work for the government. Besides, based on the continued theme I keep hearing at the town hall meetings is that government can't do anything right, so why would anyone want to work at a place that is useless anyhow. Don't you government employees feel bad taking home paychecks from an organization that is useless, corrupt, inefficient and wasteful. Do we really need NASA, EPA gone, ATF out of here, what does the DOE really do, Medicare & Medicaid drop it, Social Security freeze it, how many spy agencies do we need.........yeah, there's a lot of sarcasm and extremes there to make a point.
Doing nothing doesn't seem to be the right thing. An example, we've been dealing with out of control energy prices for over 30 years now and a lot of do nothing hasn't made that any better.
So really, what's the fix on health care.
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Aug 11, 2009 14:29:11 GMT -4
I don't know the answer but i did like the older lady who yelled at her congresman saying " i don't want to governments hands in my medicare"....
|
|
|
Post by jetskibrat on Aug 11, 2009 15:48:51 GMT -4
sure is scary if you are an older citizen congress and pelosi wont use it WHY do we have too pricks............... if gov't touches it, it will be screwed up more than before. sorry i had to vent
|
|
|
Post by outlaw on Aug 11, 2009 16:05:02 GMT -4
I don't know the answer but i did like the older lady who yelled at her congresman saying " i don't want to governments hands in my medicare".... I've seen people yelling about Medicare too, but Medicare IS a federal government program. The government already runs it. I must be missing something.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Aug 11, 2009 16:28:50 GMT -4
I think we should ask the 40,000,000 illegals what health plan they like the best. How free are you when the fruits of your labor bail out the rich cats, and pay for non citizens?........The ball is rolling, violence will be next. In the end, if the law is not enforced with justice, our way of life will be over. Push 1 for English.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Aug 11, 2009 16:29:31 GMT -4
If the issues was about health care but its not! The government (obama) wants to control us from before we are born until we die! I can't see it happening, its alarming how the president and his minions want to tell us" WE THE PEOPLE " what we want!
How can anyone want uncle sam to run the health program? Lets look at the postal system, military spending, the highway systems and any other govt program! How will this help us!
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 11, 2009 17:18:24 GMT -4
About the protesters. I'm sick of hearing Pelosi cry about how "These people can't be legitimate. Its an organized assault on President Obama"
Deal with it. Its about time the Democrats got a little of their own medicine.
I was at plenty of political events in both the '04 and '08 campaign for both Republicans and Democrats. The style of protesting these recent town hall meetings are seeing in exactly what the Republican events saw all throughout both campaigns. All Kerry got was disgruntled Veterans gathered into a remote area holding protest signs and not saying much. Obama's events were always stacked with love-struck people singing praises like he was the Pope.
Now they have the White House, and both houses of Congress, and they still can't get anything done. They whine anytime they are confronted with dissent, and think we should all just shut our mouths and let them do what they want.
Tick-Tock goes the Clock. 2012 is just around the corner. However, the way things are going, our elected officials just might push the country into riots and open revolt before we have a chance to vote them out of office.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Aug 11, 2009 17:38:00 GMT -4
Two words: Animal Farm.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Aug 11, 2009 18:44:17 GMT -4
What a difference since 2003, now the shoe is on the other foot, AINT IT?
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Aug 11, 2009 18:46:38 GMT -4
Tick-Tock goes the Clock. 2012 is just around the corner. However, the way things are going, our elected officials just might push the country into riots and open revolt before we have a chance to vote them out of office. Sickening. 2010 can make a little bit of a difference if, If, IF some DEMS get the boot. This is going to get really bad before it turns around.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 11, 2009 19:36:26 GMT -4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2009 21:34:21 GMT -4
Angry Crowd Confronts Lawmaker At Town Hall On Health Care Reform
LEBANON, Pa. (CBS)
Voter fears of a government takeover of health care and rampant costs were on stark display Tuesday at a longtime senator's noisy town hall, a session that underscored the challenge for President Barack Obama and Democrats in overhauling the nation's system.
Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter faced hostile questions, taunts and jeers as he gamely tried to explain his positions. It was likely a moment of deja vu for the five-term lawmaker facing a tough re-election next year. Just a week ago, Specter encountered a tough crowd at a Philadelphia town hall.
At a crowded community college, Specter heard from speaker after speaker who accused him of walking all over their constitutional rights, adding to the federal deficit or allowing government bureaucrats to take over health care.
"You'll be gone, by God the bureaucrats will still be here," said one man.
"My children and grandchildren are going to pay for this," said another.
"One day God will stand before you and judge you!" shouted a third man before security guards approached and he left the room.
Specter insisted he wouldn't vote for a bill that adds to the deficit. He also said he wouldn't support a bill that extends coverage to illegal immigrants. None of the bills in Congress would provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.
Specter explained repeatedly that there is no single Senate bill yet for him to talk about since the Finance Committee hasn't finished writing one. That explanation was usually met by boos from the crowd. Many had read portions of a bill passed by three committees in the House and tried to get Specter to respond to that.
One woman tried to make it personal for Specter, alleging the Democrats' plan would not provide care to a man in his 70s with cancer, like Specter had.
"You're here because of the plan we have now," she said.
Specter showed some heat at that.
"Well you're just not right," he said. He called her claim a "vicious, malicious" rumor.
The passions of the crowd illustrated the problems for Democratic lawmakers around the country as they try to use the monthlong August recess to promote Obama's health care overhaul agenda. There's not a single plan to promote, which Specter later told reporters made his job harder, along with the complexity of the issue. The House bill is more than 1,000 pages long.
And, Specter said: "The objectors have gotten ahead of the curve." Asked why, he cited talk radio, among other factors.
Democrats are trying desperately to regain control of the debate, with the White House posting a new Web site designed to dispel what it called "the misinformation and baseless smears that are cropping up daily." House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office designed to help lawmakers answer questions about the legislation.
Though his popularity is slipping in polls, Obama himself is repeatedly trying to make the case to the public for passage of comprehensive legislation this year to bring down costs and extend coverage to many of the 50 million uninsured.
Specter said that in a long life in politics he hadn't seen anything like what he witnessed Tuesday and at a town hall last weekend that turned even uglier.
"There is more anger in America today than at any time I can remember," Specter said.
Many in the crowd said they came of their own accord, and several told Specter they objected to Democrats characterizing them as mobs or organized opposition shipped in by lobbyists or the Republican Party. National conservative groups are encouraging people to attend town halls, but liberal groups are doing the same — with less apparent success.
Several in the crowd wore T-shirts proclaiming: "Proud Member of the Mob."
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 12, 2009 6:54:20 GMT -4
But for American workers peering anxiously through their family portholes, the economic ship is still sinking. You can put whatever kind of gloss you want on last week’s jobs numbers, but the truth is that while they may have been a bit better than most economists were expecting, they were still bad, bad, bad.
Some 247,000 jobs were lost in July, a number that under ordinary circumstances would send a shudder through the country. It was the smallest monthly loss of jobs since last summer. And for that reason, it was seen as a hopeful sign. The official monthly unemployment rate ticked down from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent.
But behind the official numbers is a scary story that illustrates the single biggest challenge facing the United States today. The American economy does not seem able to provide enough jobs — and nowhere near enough good jobs — to maintain the standard of living that most Americans have come to expect.
The country has lost a crippling 6.7 million jobs since the Great Recession began in December 2007. No one is predicting a recovery in the foreseeable future powerful enough to replace the millions of jobs that have vanished in this historic downturn.
Analysts at the Economic Policy Institute noted that the economy has fewer jobs now than it had in 2000, “even though the labor force has grown by around 12 million workers since then.”
Two issues that absolutely undermine any rosy assessment of last week’s employment report are the swelling ranks of the long-term unemployed and the crushing levels of joblessness among young Americans. More than five million workers — about a third of the unemployed — have been jobless for more than six months. That’s the highest number recorded since accurate records have been kept.
For those concerned with the economic viability of the American family going forward, the plight of young workers, especially young men, is particularly frightening. The percentage of young American men who are actually working is the lowest it has been in the 61 years of record-keeping, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.
Only 65 of every 100 men aged 20 through 24 years old were working on any given day in the first six months of this year. In the age group 25 through 34 years old, traditionally a prime age range for getting married and starting a family, just 81 of 100 men were employed.
For male teenagers, the numbers were disastrous: only 28 of every 100 males were employed in the 16- through 19-year-old age group. For minority teenagers, forget about it. The numbers are beyond scary; they’re catastrophic.
This should be the biggest story in the United States. When joblessness reaches these kinds of extremes, it doesn’t just damage individual families; it corrodes entire communities, fosters a sense of hopelessness and leads to disorder.
The unemployment that has wrought such devastation in black communities for decades is now being experienced by a much wider swath of the population. We’ve been in deep denial about this. Way back in March 2007, when the official unemployment rate was a wildly deceptive 4.5 percent and the Bush crowd was crowing about the alleged strength of the economy, I wrote:
“People can howl all they want about how well the economy is doing. The simple truth is that millions of ordinary American workers are in an employment bind. Steady jobs with good benefits are going the way of Ozzie and Harriet. Young workers, especially, are hurting, which diminishes the prospects for the American family. And blacks, particularly black males, are in a deep danger zone.”
The official jobless rate is now more than twice as high — 9.4 percent — and even more wildly deceptive. It ticked down by 0.1 percent last month not because more people found jobs, but because 450,000 people withdrew from the labor market. They stopped looking, so they weren’t counted as unemployed.
A truer picture of the employment crisis emerges when you combine the number of people who are officially counted as jobless with those who are working part time because they can’t find full-time work and those in the so-called labor market reserve — people who are not actively looking for work (because they have become discouraged, for example) but would take a job if one became available.
The tally from those three categories is a mind-boggling 30 million Americans — 19 percent of the overall work force.
This is, by far, the nation’s biggest problem and should be its No. 1 priority.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 12, 2009 6:55:13 GMT -4
Questions Should You Find Yourself at a microphone at a 'Town Meeting':
1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer?
2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada?
3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea?
4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense?
5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation?
6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system?
7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us?
8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person?
9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's d**n what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now?
10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer?
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Aug 12, 2009 7:55:03 GMT -4
Questions Should You Find Yourself at a microphone at a 'Town Meeting': 1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer? 2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada? 3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea? 4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense? 5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation? 6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system? 7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us? 8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person? 9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's d**n what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now? 10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer? Very good points! Interesting read dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf My major gripe with the whole situation is people seem to believe this is the greatest country in the world and no one does anything better than the United States. There are a few things we are still great at. But Healthcare is most definetly not. Perhaps all those who are against socialized medicine now should no longer be allowed to contribute to Medicare in there income taxes. But when your 65 and your no longer working and your job has dropped your insurance. Then you will now have to pay for your own insurance. My great grandmother in the past 10 years has probably spent well over a million medicaid and medicare dollars for her healthcare. Did anyone see the video in which the person in the audience said something along the lines of "well Glen Beck said" and the congresman said "well maybe you shouldn't be watching glen beck". Too funny
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2009 8:34:45 GMT -4
Finally, some informative comments. The health of economy, good jobs and affordable health care are all connected. You can't have any one them without the others.
So, it's been almost a full day since I started this post. For the people that are against health care reform, what's the solution to it. I keep hearing a lot of trampling on our rights, socialism, the country I used to know.......
What's the fix? Is it to defeat any sensible attempts and wait till 2012. OK then, the pendulum swings the other way and republicans take over control again. Gingrich and Palin are in the White House. A new contract with America is implemented. What are the dynamic duo going to do. We are not going to deregulate business and cut taxes our way out of this problem or any one of the other big issues we got.
What would be different that did not get attempted or accomplished from 2000 - 2008. Also, to make it easier.....there's no Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Al Gore or any Kennedy and Clinton in sight of DC.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Aug 12, 2009 9:30:18 GMT -4
I am completely against comprehensive health care reform as it is now being presented to the American public. Of the approximately 40 million uninsured in this county, almost half of them CHOOSE not to be insured - they have the income and access to insurance and choose not to pay for it (their right, I believe). Of the approximately 40 million uninsured, it is estimated that 7 or 8 million are in this country illegally. Let's take a look at and address the remaining -- let's assist those whose income level does not allow for healthcare expenses. Let's assist those with chronic illnesses or pre-existing conditions with healthcare insurance. Once healthcare reform is done -- it will be impossible to undo.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 12, 2009 10:35:13 GMT -4
So really, what's the fix on health care. While not the only answer, one of the answers could be tort reform. The opening line of HB.3200, right under the bill title, says the purpose of the bill is "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes." Tort reform could go a long way towards reducing malpractice insurance. Doctors have also admitted to ordering some tests more as preventative measure against lawsuits rather than for diagnostic reasons. Both of these issues have been significant factors in rising health care costs over the last couple decades. Malpractice insurance costs and associated lawsuit threats have also been a factor in reducing the number of specialists in some fields and contributed to the shortage of doctors and specialists in rural areas, reducing the quality of care for some of these areas. While the word "reform" appears on almost all, if not every one of the 1000+ pages of this bill, the word "tort" NEVER appears. The Democrats writing this bill act as if the words "tort reform" belong on George Carlin's list of words you can never say on TV.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 12, 2009 11:05:14 GMT -4
There is a lot more to write later in response to the questions you pose, but to start:
Because this country is based on Capitalism, not Communism.
You seem to imply that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" would be a better situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2009 11:12:44 GMT -4
This illegal immigrant issue of getting free health care is a connected item that still needs to be addressed also. There's no doubt that they are here illegally and are getting free health care somewhere. What about the driving reason why they came to the country anyhow.....jobs. So they're here, what is supporting these people. Where is the money coming from for their living expenses, rent, food, gas for their vehicles. Obviously they must have jobs and someone is paying them some how. If the illegals can't get jobs, that would go greatly toward solving this problem of illegals being in the country.
I'm talking all jobs, no more paying people under the table. That's a huge issue right there. The day laborers, housekeepers, lawn people.....I mean all of them. No ifs, ans or butts. If your business can't survive without illegals, so be it. If you can't get your patio built, or yard cleaned up, crabs picked...oh well. Everyone has to do their part to help fix things. That's the right sacrifice for the better of the country.
Let's fix this issue so we can take it off the table as a reason health care reform can't be made.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 12, 2009 11:30:09 GMT -4
This comes pretty close to hitting the nail on the head. -- let's assist those whose income level does not allow for healthcare expenses. Let's assist those with chronic illnesses or pre-existing conditions with healthcare insurance. My healthcare coverage does NOT need significant reform. It helped my wife survive cancer 15 years ago. While there were issues with the insurance company about some of the procedures and treatments, they were worked out. My wife was able to participate in an experimental treatment that showed promise. Her participation required negotiations between her doctors, the insurance company and the universities running the study. One particularly expensive drug, and a doctor that was "outside the plan" were the sticking points initially, but with some concessions by all involved, it was made to happen. I feel my wife is still alive today because of that procedure. I have absolutely no confidence this could have happened with the "reforms" proposed now. I am not against reform. As Eileen points out, there are areas in need of reform. Instead of upending the whole system, maybe Congress and the President should concentrate on the areas of greatest need first. Many people do not trust the government to get it right, even when they take their time. The way the Democrats and the President tried to ram this through, has made people even more suspicious of what's in it. Very few people can read this monstrosity and be 100% certain of its aims and methods. It has also become painfully apparent that many politicians supported it while not really knowing what's in it. The only difference between these politicians and some people who blindly oppose the bill that Pelosi & Hoyer don't consider them unpatriotic. But in the end, these politician are still the same kind of sheep, being herded to meet someone else's agenda.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 12, 2009 11:49:50 GMT -4
Like Falger said, you wrote a lot to address. Some points I might buy into, some I don't, and some I'm not sure about. but for starters, I will address the one I am sure about. 7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us? I'm not sure I would describe this program as "popular" with the elderly. At least for my parents, in-laws, and many of their friends, "a necessary evil" would probably be a more accurate description on their part. The paperwork involved for both enrollment and even routine procedures, along with requirements for supporting documents can be extensive and confusing for some elderly. Anything less than perfection when this paperwork is submitted can lead to even more paperwork and supporting documentation. Actually, I was a little surprised you weren't more critical of Medicare, considering the Part D "donut hole' inflicted as part of the effort by Bush to reform it. You rarely pass on the opportunity for a "Bush Bash" ;D
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 12, 2009 20:44:23 GMT -4
Way too long, but I said I would write more. Questions Should You Find Yourself at a microphone at a 'Town Meeting': 1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer? I haven't studied the Canadian system (health care or political) so I don't have a real answer for this. But a question in response: How many Americans are enthusiastic about the American tax system and the IRS? If Americans don't like their tax system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in (well over) 35 years? As I wrote before, it's called Capitalism. Also, I don't believe the word "rationing" correctly describes the system. Health care is no more being rationed than groceries are. Sometimes I can go into a store and buy a lobster but there are many others who cannot. Is that lobster really being rationed? Should I be forced to buy a lobster for all the people in line behind me simply because I saved my money for a special occasion? Which companies are threatening people, the employers or the health insurance companies? Do you envision every employer being required to purchase health insurance for each employee? There is a lot of arguing right now about the impact of raising the minimum wage a few cents for that minority that actually is paid minimum wage. What will the impact be if employers now have to pay hundreds of dollars for each and every employee? Will you be willing to "buy American" when that now comes with the health insurance surcharge? Nope. Those that are not using health care now are not complaining about the lack of health care now. Those that are complaining (or those that will benefit) are the ones who want/need heath care dollars but are not currently paying into any health care plan. How will it help the situation to burden the existing pool with additional expenditures but no additional income? One, because they are our elected officials. We the people chose them to make these decisions and write these laws. Two, who would you have right the legislation? Should it be the elected officials who took money? Should it be those of us who like the current system and don't want it changed? Or should it be those who believe they have the most to gain if the legislation is written to their benefit? Are there really any disinterested parties in this? Big assumption there that the Canadian system is successful. I've seen as many endorsements of the system as I've seen criticisms of it. As someone else has already pointed out, anything is better than nothing and "free" wins most every time. You've paid into it all your working life, and now you get to take your millions back out of it! How many more millions do you think can be taken out of that system before it entirely collapses? And personally, I'll stick with what I have. The per-person average cost would go down but the total outlay would go up. With the income being fixed (everyone who can pay into Medicare already does) it will just hasten the collapse. It didn't trn the US into a soviet republic...yet. However, given that Medicare, socialized medicine for the elderly, is now being used as an example of what needs to be imposed on the rest of the country, it looks like it is well on the way to doing just that. Is this really true? Does it really surprise you that some Canadians have some national pride and feel their system is worth keeping? Why would you then be surprised that Americans have some national pride and feel the US system is worth keeping?
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 12, 2009 21:03:06 GMT -4
Perhaps all those who are against socialized medicine now should no longer be allowed to contribute to Medicare in there income taxes. But when your 65 and your no longer working and your job has dropped your insurance. Then you will now have to pay for your own insurance. My great grandmother in the past 10 years has probably spent well over a million medicaid and medicare dollars for her healthcare. Where did that million dollars come from? Did the Govt. just print a few extra pallets? In some ways, Medicare is a Govt. run, endorsed, and mandated ponzi scheme. The payouts today aren't coming from any real profit, they are coming from the investments of those who expect to receive payments tomorrow. The payouts today exceed what those who are receiving the payouts contributed in their lifetimes. The only way the system can survive is if the number of investors in future generations continue to grow. If the number becomes static or begins to shrink, the system will break down. Likewise, if the number of recipients suddenly increases, as it will if this is the route congress chooses to take, then the system will break down.
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Aug 12, 2009 21:10:29 GMT -4
All points well taken, Falgar.
My even bigger concern is, why does this have to happen this instant, what is the need for this has to happen so quickly? The fact that Congress mentioned pushing this through by using reconcilliation bills (meaning that it is fillibuster-proof, and not subject to what I would expect to be the rigorous debate that something of this magnitude should be accorded), and wanting to get a 1000-page bill moved through so quickly is something that I find terribly disturbing.
Yes, I think that there needs to be reform of our current health care system. The fact that there are a huge number of lawsuits that may or may not be meritorious but are settled just to shove issues "under the rug" is terrible, and frivolous lawsuits contribute to the ever-expanding costs. The number of physicians specializing in OB/GYN has declined due to the extraordinary cost of malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance for midwives is outrageous, too. The fact that there are preventative measures "out there" that could reduce our need for some procedures, but some of them aren't covered is also an issue. Tort reform is something that has been debated, but no one wants to touch that one (gee, could it be because so many of our representatives are, um, lawyers???).
There are other issues that we have said for years are terribly important, but those have gone completely ignored FOR YEARS. So, why are Congress trying to shove something potentially half-a$$ed through in the blink of an eye? I fully believe that most (not all) of our legislative representatives are being truthful (in the moment) when they say they want to keep this deficit-neutral, that there won't be a "Logan's Run" sort of take on who gets approved for procedures and who won't. However, there is a very good reason why my dad has kept the secondary insurance that my mom was so fortunate to have for both of them through her job, and that is that Medicare is not the "end all and be all" for seniors. He's one of the lucky ones..... AND, if he had to deal with the VA for everything, well, he might still be waiting. They have screwed up one of his medications, and he's been trying to get that straight for about 3-4 MONTHS! That's one federal agency at work, folks, and his bull-headedness is the only thing keeping his crazy daughter from driving over to Martinsburg and letting both barrels loose.
So, the government is not the complete answer, private insurers are not the total one either, but again, WHY is this headed at such break-neck pace when something as important as health care and health insurance should certainly be something that is looked at in a careful, deliberate manner, and not recklessly??? That's what, in the end, that I don't get about all of this.
|
|