Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2009 8:56:15 GMT -4
Tort Reform probably should be on the list for health care reform. Isn't it only one piece of the problem dealing with health care. From my understanding, there's conflicting numbers on how much defensive medicine and lawsuits adds to the overall cost of health care. Also, a lot of states have taken this matter into their own hands already and have limited the amount to be awarded for malpractice claims. Is it working, I'm not sure. There's info that Texas is having success with tort reform, but at the same time has some instances of the highest cost per person for Medicare in certain parts of the state.
I think tort reform is a good idea myself. That alone still doesn't deal with the problem of the uninsured, those who have lost insurance due to job loss, strain of premiums on small business and one of my favorites the cost to all taxpayers for the incredibly generous compensation plans given to government employees compared to similar private sector jobs.
This health care issue is very complicated. There's the lawsuits, malpractice insurance premiums, VA care, Medicare and Medicaid.....the uninsured and illegal aliens.....for profit driven insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, medical and equipment manufactures. What about the personal responsibility of patients contributing to the problem with the ever increasing issue of obesity, which could be dealt with to help decrease obesity related health care cost too.
Is there really only one fix to this complicated and costly problem.....
|
|
|
Post by misternuke on Aug 19, 2009 19:01:55 GMT -4
I think tort reform is a good idea myself. That alone still doesn't deal with the problem of the uninsured, those who have lost insurance due to job loss, strain of premiums on small business and one of my favorites the cost to all taxpayers for the incredibly generous compensation plans given to government employees compared to similar private sector jobs. .... mj, I'm pretty sure dej wasn't implying that tort reform alone would be the sole magic bullet solution, but I do think tort reform in conjunction with clamping down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud would go a long way toward lowering costs for those of us that pay for our healthcare benefits. Also, as an FYI, regarding government employee benefits, ... as a Federal employee, I'll tell you that my very average Blue Cross PPO-type plan is very much like those available in most private sector benefits packages AND I certainly pay a substantial employee contribution to get it. Maybe you were thinking of the Congressional health benefits package? Now there's a gold-plated plan, if you care to cast stones......
|
|
|
Post by - on Aug 20, 2009 18:35:45 GMT -4
Here is an email I got from our Congressman today based on our conversation recently around health insurance. Dear Mr. Broker: Thank you for contacting my office to share your thoughts on healthcare reform. As you are aware, Congress is currently considering numerous reform proposals, including H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act. H.R. 3200 was recently amended and passed by the House Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means. However, as a result of my efforts and those of my colleagues in the Blue Dog Coalition, further action on H.R. 3200 has been postponed until September to give all Members of Congress more time to listen to their constituents about this important issue. I felt strongly that it would be a mistake to force a vote on this bill before my colleagues and I had enough time to fully review and consider this complex legislation, and so I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion with me. In my view, comprehensive healthcare reform is necessary and long overdue. Healthcare costs have been on the rise for years, and these costs represent one of the biggest threats to our nation's fiscal health. If we fail to act and allow the status quo to continue, then healthcare inflation will continue to burden families, small businesses, and the federal government with unsustainable costs. It is important to remember that this is not just an issue that impacts the uninsured; many middle class families with health insurance are paying more in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses every year as employers struggle to keep up with the rising cost of health care. We therefore must carefully craft legislation to expand health insurance coverage while reforming the healthcare delivery system to reduce costs and improve quality. We must also ensure that any reform proposal corrects regional inequities in the Medicare reimbursement formula that make it difficult for rural areas like Maryland's Eastern Shore to attract and retain enough skilled healthcare providers. Healthcare reform is one of the most important legislative issues that will be considered by the 111th Congress, which is why I have been urging both the White House and Congressional leaders to take the time to develop a deficit-neutral plan to fully address the priorities of coverage expansion, cost containment, and rural access. While the process of developing this legislation is still ongoing, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you the enclosed op-ed from the July 26th edition of the Baltimore Sun that lays out a number of my thoughts on this important debate. I have stated that if H.R. 3200 were to come to a vote in its current form, I would vote against it. It is my opinion that this bill does not currently do enough to reduce long-term health care costs, which I believe must be one of the central goals of this debate. I also have concerns about the impact that some of the bill's provisions might have on small businesses; in these difficult times, we might take extra care not to burden small businesses with new mandates that might have adverse impacts on job creation. However, while the current legislation is not yet at a point where I can support it, I still recognize the need for significant reforms to get costs under control and to preserve and expand consumer choice. That is why I will not rule out the possibility of voting for a bill if changes are made to better address the goals of reducing cost, preserving consumer choice, and expanding rural access. It is important to remember that H.R. 3200 is still going through the legislative process, and additional changes are likely before it eventually comes to a vote before the full House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate is also considering alternative versions of health care reform legislation, any of which would have to be reconciled with House legislation before a final vote could take place. In other words, it is far too soon to say what exact provisions will or will not be in a final health care bill, which is why it would be premature for me to state unequivocally whether or not I would be able to support that eventual package. At present, I am taking the time to carefully consider this important proposal and to discuss its impacts with my constituents. I have already had numerous public meetings during this August Congressional recess, and will continue to meet with constituents, health care providers, and other stakeholders to hear their thoughts about this important issue. I am pleased that the Leadership and the White Housed heeded my calls and those of the Blue Dog Coalition to give Members of Congress more time for these critical conversations. It would have been a mistake to rush the process on an issue as important as health care. To that end, I am also pleased to tell you that I have signed on as a co-sponsor to H.Res. 554, a resolution that would require that all Members of Congress be given a minimum of 72 hours to review any piece of legislation before the legislation could be brought to a vote. It is imperative that we enact a strong bipartisan healthcare reform bill that works for all Americans. We must pass legislation that enjoys broad support and effectively and efficiently expands health insurance coverage, reduces costs, increases access, improves quality, and is deficit neutral. Healthcare reform must be considered with reasonable time allowed for thoughtful consideration to provide confidence in the legislation's real costs and to ensure that rural America is not left behind. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind and continue to communicate with you as Congress considers healthcare reform legislation. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future regarding issues that concern you. I believe that continuous communication with the residents of the First District is essential to helping me be an effective advocate for you in Congress. To stay informed, please visit my website at www.house.gov/kratovil. Thank you again for contacting me and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. Member of Congress
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 21, 2009 7:20:35 GMT -4
Here is an email I got from our Congressman today based on our conversation recently around health insurance. Dear Mr. Broker: Thank you for contacting my office to share your thoughts on healthcare reform. As you are aware, Congress is currently considering numerous reform proposals, including H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act. H.R. 3200 was recently amended and passed by the House Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means. However, as a result of my efforts and those of my colleagues in the Blue Dog Coalition, further action on H.R. 3200 has been postponed until September to give all Members of Congress more time to listen to their constituents about this important issue. I felt strongly that it would be a mistake to force a vote on this bill before my colleagues and I had enough time to fully review and consider this complex legislation, and so I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion with me. In my view, comprehensive healthcare reform is necessary and long overdue. Healthcare costs have been on the rise for years, and these costs represent one of the biggest threats to our nation's fiscal health. If we fail to act and allow the status quo to continue, then healthcare inflation will continue to burden families, small businesses, and the federal government with unsustainable costs. It is important to remember that this is not just an issue that impacts the uninsured; many middle class families with health insurance are paying more in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses every year as employers struggle to keep up with the rising cost of health care. We therefore must carefully craft legislation to expand health insurance coverage while reforming the healthcare delivery system to reduce costs and improve quality. We must also ensure that any reform proposal corrects regional inequities in the Medicare reimbursement formula that make it difficult for rural areas like Maryland's Eastern Shore to attract and retain enough skilled healthcare providers. Healthcare reform is one of the most important legislative issues that will be considered by the 111th Congress, which is why I have been urging both the White House and Congressional leaders to take the time to develop a deficit-neutral plan to fully address the priorities of coverage expansion, cost containment, and rural access. While the process of developing this legislation is still ongoing, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you the enclosed op-ed from the July 26th edition of the Baltimore Sun that lays out a number of my thoughts on this important debate. I have stated that if H.R. 3200 were to come to a vote in its current form, I would vote against it. It is my opinion that this bill does not currently do enough to reduce long-term health care costs, which I believe must be one of the central goals of this debate. I also have concerns about the impact that some of the bill's provisions might have on small businesses; in these difficult times, we might take extra care not to burden small businesses with new mandates that might have adverse impacts on job creation. However, while the current legislation is not yet at a point where I can support it, I still recognize the need for significant reforms to get costs under control and to preserve and expand consumer choice. That is why I will not rule out the possibility of voting for a bill if changes are made to better address the goals of reducing cost, preserving consumer choice, and expanding rural access. It is important to remember that H.R. 3200 is still going through the legislative process, and additional changes are likely before it eventually comes to a vote before the full House of Representatives. The U.S. Senate is also considering alternative versions of health care reform legislation, any of which would have to be reconciled with House legislation before a final vote could take place. In other words, it is far too soon to say what exact provisions will or will not be in a final health care bill, which is why it would be premature for me to state unequivocally whether or not I would be able to support that eventual package. At present, I am taking the time to carefully consider this important proposal and to discuss its impacts with my constituents. I have already had numerous public meetings during this August Congressional recess, and will continue to meet with constituents, health care providers, and other stakeholders to hear their thoughts about this important issue. I am pleased that the Leadership and the White Housed heeded my calls and those of the Blue Dog Coalition to give Members of Congress more time for these critical conversations. It would have been a mistake to rush the process on an issue as important as health care. To that end, I am also pleased to tell you that I have signed on as a co-sponsor to H.Res. 554, a resolution that would require that all Members of Congress be given a minimum of 72 hours to review any piece of legislation before the legislation could be brought to a vote. It is imperative that we enact a strong bipartisan healthcare reform bill that works for all Americans. We must pass legislation that enjoys broad support and effectively and efficiently expands health insurance coverage, reduces costs, increases access, improves quality, and is deficit neutral. Healthcare reform must be considered with reasonable time allowed for thoughtful consideration to provide confidence in the legislation's real costs and to ensure that rural America is not left behind. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind and continue to communicate with you as Congress considers healthcare reform legislation. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future regarding issues that concern you. I believe that continuous communication with the residents of the First District is essential to helping me be an effective advocate for you in Congress. To stay informed, please visit my website at www.house.gov/kratovil. Thank you again for contacting me and I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. Member of Congress Kratovil is a Jacka$$...
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 21, 2009 12:19:17 GMT -4
Kratovil's email replies frustrate me, as I can't usually tell where he actually STANDS on ANYTHING from his emails.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Aug 21, 2009 14:18:53 GMT -4
Kratovil's email replies frustrate me, as I can't usually tell where he actually STANDS on ANYTHING from his emails. He's a politician now, isn't he?
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 21, 2009 15:02:08 GMT -4
Yeah, but there are some who you can at least tell whether they're supporting your position or not from their emails.
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Aug 22, 2009 15:54:53 GMT -4
I pay a ton of taxes. I also pay a lot in SS and medicare tax, none of which I will ever be able to collect. I pay for my own health insurance and I don't want to pay for anyone elses.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 23, 2009 9:27:08 GMT -4
I think tort reform is a good idea myself. That alone still doesn't deal with the problem of the uninsured, those who have lost insurance due to job loss, strain of premiums on small business and one of my favorites the cost to all taxpayers for the incredibly generous compensation plans given to government employees compared to similar private sector jobs..... mj, I'm pretty sure dej wasn't implying that tort reform alone would be the sole magic bullet solution, but I do think tort reform in conjunction with clamping down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud would go a long way toward lowering costs for those of us that pay for our healthcare benefits. ...... misternuke got my point exactly. Tort reform won't fix everything, but it should be a major part of any REAL effort for health care reform and cost reduction. But with this Congress, it's totally off the table. That speaks volumes about how this bill is more about political agenda than it is about real reform.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 26, 2009 12:00:16 GMT -4
So, question: why not allow everyone access to Medicare? Since Medicare already covers people with expensive conditions (elderly and disabled), wouldn't increasing the number of recipients actually increase its funding (since the new recipients would likely be healthier than the current ones)?
Thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 26, 2009 13:05:36 GMT -4
So, question: why not allow everyone access to Medicare? Since Medicare already covers people with expensive conditions (elderly and disabled), wouldn't increasing the number of recipients actually increase its funding (since the new recipients would likely be healthier than the current ones)? Thoughts. I'm confused. How could adding to the number of people drawing out of a fixed-size pot make that pot increase? I can only see it making the available funds disappear faster than they already are. If Medicare was something where you had to pay to play, where you had to pay monthly premiums in order to be a part and collect benefits, then adding people who would contribute more than they take out would help. But Medicare doesn't work that way, does it? The second problem with adding people to Medicare, even if they had to pay premiums, is that you would likely have to force them to join. My guess is my health insurance plan gives me better benefits at a lower cost than Medicare does. Until Medicare looks better than what I currently have, I'll stick with what I have.
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Aug 26, 2009 18:30:28 GMT -4
So, question: why not allow everyone access to Medicare? Since Medicare already covers people with expensive conditions (elderly and disabled), wouldn't increasing the number of recipients actually increase its funding (since the new recipients would likely be healthier than the current ones)? Thoughts. I think you have a good point. Imagine your health and body is a car. It will last much longer and work better if its properly taken care from the day one. Now I believe as a healthcare professional I see all the time that people who have regular physicals and updates with phsicians are much healthier in the long run. If people don't have insurance and use the Emergency Room as their primary care physician have a worse outlook and lack the preventive medicine to keep them healthy. In theory if everyone has access to primary care providers to help maintain a healthy life style in the long run costs could come down. Look at european companies for an example. In the work place they allow an hour to go work out for free in the gym which is provided by the company. The employees are healthier and less likely to call out sick from work, work harder, which increases work preformance.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Aug 27, 2009 7:34:13 GMT -4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2009 7:44:14 GMT -4
It's just an FYI. I came across this piece and thought others might be interested in it.
The truth about Canadian health care I’ve been treated in the American system and have lived with universal care in Canada. Guess which one is freer — and more humane. By Patricia Pearson
TORONTO — This summer, I went to a family picnic and counted 11 octogenarians, all hale and hearty, gabbing away while dining on chicken salad and roasted corn. How can this be? We live in a country with universal health insurance, here in Canada. According to rhetoric in Town Hall, USA, my aunts and uncles ought to be dead. Why haven't they dropped into their graves from cancer, heart disease, untreated ear infections, gangrenous limbs, or even euthanized by "death panels"?
None ever rushed across the border to avail themselves of American doctors when they were ill. Are they genetic standouts, capable of surviving the Orwellian nature of universal health insurance?
Or are reform opponents spinning increasingly freakish yarns about life beyond American shores?
Congress might not endorse a universal health care system this fall, for a whole host of reasons. But it is shocking and even a little tragic to think that uninsured Americans might be bullied out of access to basic medical care via nonsensical rumor-mongering about how the rest of the West tends to their citizens.
Consider the bogeyman of the meddlesome government bureaucrat, who in some TV ads stands — quite literally — between patients and their doctors, smiling and waving his finger — nuh uh uh — as he nixes this or that procedure. Yet, the only time in my life that I have ever had to plead my case for health treatment to a bureaucrat was when I lived in New York City.
I had purchased out-of-country medical coverage from a private insurance company in Toronto, where I normally live, for the time I would be spending in the USA.
Health care their way As luck would have it, I had an attack of appendicitis while I was alone on the fourth-floor of an apartment building. The issue I had to clear on the phone with the insurance company was whether I was allowed to call an ambulance, given that I was in too much pain to walk. That conversation, in turn, evolved into a debate about whether I was experiencing a pre-existing condition, which was difficult for me to articulate or even ponder. (Projectile vomiting will do that.)
Eventually, it was deemed permissible. Hurrah. Whereupon the only lasting harm done was my ongoing fear that I might ever get sick again on a private insurance company's dime. To me, it was a novelty and a horror to have to justify my experience of suffering to a stranger who seemed more concerned about the company's bottom line than my pain.
Why hadn't that ever happened to me in Toronto? Because our government funds health care, but doesn't micromanage it. There isn't the case-by-case nickel-and-diming that many American patients experience with HMOs. All doctors and specialists are available to us. When my daughter needed a hernia operation, our pediatrician felt that one particular Toronto hospital was best for that procedure — and off we went.
The point is not that the Canadian system is superior, per se, but that in many ways it feels freer, and more humane. Canadians believe that no individual's frailty should be profited from unless that individual chooses to allow someone to profit. That is a core belief. It is why we voted the politician Tommy Douglas, actor Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather and an early advocate of universal health care, to be called "Greatest Canadian."
A uniquely American fear Acting on this belief has served us well. Canadians have lower mortality rates from heart disease and injury than Americans do, according to World Health Organization data, and are roughly on par for dying of cancer. We may wait longer than insured Americans do for non-urgent care, but we are willing to if it means the specialist is highly skilled, in demand and attending to sicker patients first. (Once you've seen that specialist the first time, the follow-up appointments are swift.)
We also believe that no citizen's health care choices should be dictated — an argument Republicans have been making, albeit with a sleight of hand. It isn't government-funded health care that's at issue so much as government involvement in anything. Opposition to public insurance taps a current of fear about government that is uniquely American, among the Western democracies, and comes across as superstitious rather than rational. Bureaucrats must be warded off like the Evil Eye.
The fact that Canadians and Europeans don't feel that way doesn't mean we're willing to be mistreated by our governments. We have opposable thumbs with which to press buttons in the voting booth. We view universal health care as an evolving business in constant need of innovation and finesse. How can wait times be reduced for — say — hip replacements without lowering the quality of overall care? Should fertility treatment be covered by taxpayer dollars?
Many Canadians have private benefits to cover prescription drugs, dental care and visits to chiropractors or marriage counselors. This affords them more choice without draining the public coffers. But the bedrock upon which the system continues to grow is the belief that no citizen should ever have to choose between health care and rent, or between her care and that of her children.
As long as Americans continue to lack consensus at this bedrock level, there will be no clarity to the objectives for reform. Rumors, slanders and tangential, confusing arguments about scary bureaucrats and oppressed foreigners pining for Dr. House will be the death of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 27, 2009 10:01:29 GMT -4
Here are some more interesting truths about the Canadian health care system.
When Democrats claim what they are trying to implement is not a Canadian style system, they are telling the truth. There is a reason why Obama stressed we are not looking to copy their system during his recent meetings there.
Maybe if our Congress tried to implement universal health care the same way that Canada did, there would be much less resistance. The intial programs were initated in the 1940's and 1950's by individual provinces. When Canada passed the Medical Care Act in 1966, it essentially set up a program of setting basic national standards, and a central tax collection system for cost sharing with the provinces. It was up to each individual province to establish their own universal health care program, including the negotiation of fees with doctors & service providers. What the Democrats have proposed keeps all the control & decsion making in Washington. They would never support a plan that gives states the kind of control that Canadian provinces have over their programs.
Prescription coverage is not included in any province, requiring either out of pocket payment or a private prescription insurance plan. The exceptions to that is coverage through Canadian military, Veterans Affairs and RCMP. On the plus side, there is NO collection of patient health information at the Federal level. There is still a need for private insurance in Canada because not all provinces chose to include vision or dental care in their programs. I can't envision any of these scenarios being acceptable to the Democrats.
Another major factor in controlling costs is medical malpractice insurance. In the U.S. a specialist like a neurosurgeon will generally pay over $200,000 a year for malpractice insurace. In Canada, for the same specialist, malpractice insurance costs may range from about $11,000 a year in Vancouver to almost $30,000 a year in Toronto. Costs are controlled in a couple key ways. The malpractice insurance is purchased from a non-profit association, the Canadian Medical Protective Association. In the U.S. it's fairly common for insurers to arrive at some sort of out-of-court settlement, regardless of the case merits, just to make the case go away. The profit margin is high enough for most insurers to do that. Since the Canadian Association is non-profit, it will generally force most cases to go court to be decided on merit. While a few cases are argued in front of juries, most are heard only by a judge, who also determines the amount of the judgement. There are also caps on damages. This type of system would never be acceptable to the Democrats and the trial lawyers that own them. Obama made that very clear back in June when he told the AMA that limits or caps on judgements would not be considered in his plan to "reform" health care.
The Democrats love the concepts of unversal coverage and a single payer system found in the Canadian system. But other facets of it, like giving control to the state level and capping damages, guarantee they will never try to pass a bill that truly mirrors the Canadian system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2009 8:11:13 GMT -4
dej,
Direct me to the site with the alternative republican proposal on health care reform. If there is a comprehensive one, I'm having trouble finding it. You would think there would be one coming from Mitt Romney, the republican front runner for President in 2012 in most polls. He created a universal health care plan in Massachusetts that looks very much like the proposed Obamacare. He's been pretty silent though.
Back in 1993, when the Clintons tried health care reform a prominent republican John Chafee offered a creative and some said superior alternative. It was quashed from within the republican party by hardliners with "Don't Help Clinton". Sounds a lot like the "I want Obama to fail" remark made by the voice of the right.
Is there a plan from the right? I would hope there is. Has this plan by Obama happened to fast, I think so. Based on the current upheaval over this, I doubt anything will get passed. The whole death panel thing probably killed it. And besides, we already have death panels now, they just prefer to be called insurance companies. They make the real life and death decisions. Some people get rejected by these death panels because of a pre-existing condition, or have hit their lifetime spending cap, drug co-payments that people can't afford, premiums that are so high that small business and individual s can't afford them so they go without insurance.
Health care reform can be added to the long list with the other national issues we keep ignoring.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 28, 2009 13:09:18 GMT -4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2009 15:35:23 GMT -4
funnel101, you know that, I know that.....there's still people who think it's true. That's the whole problem. It's the mis-information, the scare tactics, and the keep the status quo because change is bad mentality.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Aug 28, 2009 17:29:21 GMT -4
The problem is, there is what the bill says, what the bill means, and how the bill will be interpreted in the future. Some see the silver lining and others notice the cloud.
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Aug 28, 2009 21:36:04 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Aug 28, 2009 21:44:36 GMT -4
Yeah, I just posted that...
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Aug 28, 2009 22:10:58 GMT -4
Sorry. I remember seeing something about factcheck but didn't think to look back to make sure. Just saw this link on Time.com
|
|
|
Post by dej on Aug 28, 2009 22:37:26 GMT -4
dej, Direct me to the site with the alternative republican proposal on health care reform. If there is a comprehensive one, I'm having trouble finding it. www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary15p.pdfThis one ain't perfect either. Like the Democrats bill, there's just a little to like and a lot to dislike. It was drafted by Republicans because they were not allowed any participation in the Democratic bills. Maybe you can't find it because I don't believe the Democratic-controlled House has allowed it to be brought forward for a vote. It was brought out in late May or early June. In addition there have been a number of proposed Republican amendments to the various Democratic bills. To the best of my knowledge, none of them were accepted by the Democratic majority. Pelosi has made it very clear that Republican input is not wanted. Obama was the only Democrat out there that pretended to be interested in being bipartisan last fall, and the party leadership played along because it was a good talking point even though he never showed signs of working in a bipartisan manner in the Senate. That would have actually been the other candidate that had a record of major bipartisan bills. Once he won the election, Pelosi & Reid basicaly have told him you can talk about it all you want. but we ain't gonna let it happen. If Pelosi actually allowed allowed a Republican alternative come to a vote, she wouldn't be able to use the lie that the Republicans have no plan. And for the record, I have never bought into the death panel garbage. There's too many real problems with the Dem bills to worry about the fake ones.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Aug 29, 2009 10:28:36 GMT -4
Men and woman have died for this country's freedoms and are fighting now to keep you free! This healthcare is not about health its about control. Why should I have the obamacare forced on my family if we don't want it! I didn't vote for this man because of who his friends are, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn are far left radical who bomb military and police building in the 1960. Today obama has 35 czars that were put in place to help out obama to change our govt from a republic to communism, this is the change that obama was talking about! The czars are in place to advise obama on how to make this change and change is coming if we do not stop it! Did you know that the stimulus bill was written by a founding member of the weather underground ( radical group that Ayers/Dohrn were in) Jeff Jones and the apollo group which was founded by John Sperling who buddies with George Soros and Peter Lewis who found Progressive Corp and all three were big supporters of America coming together and Moveon.org. All far left organizations! Now were in the constitution does it say that the czars will run the govt? ? With czars appointed by obama, they are not accountable to congress or anyone else. We did not elect them but they dictate policy to us( We The People ) How can this be? Why are my tax dollars going to pay czars and I can't even get their salaries!! Now the obama admin wants to pass a bill that will give the U.S. President a kill switch on the internet called the CyberSecurity Act, didn't this internet kill switch thing just happen in Iran? I believe in freedom of speech do you? Mark Lloyd another czar and Fcc Chief Diversity Officer praised Hugo Chavez (Venezuela's left wing president) for his take over of the radio stations! Say what you will but as a free country we the people are in trouble, Its not about health care its about freedom! I was sworn to up hold the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, is obama up holding his oath? you make the call, its your choice Freedom or Oppression.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Aug 29, 2009 11:06:31 GMT -4
DiTTO everything that DS put up there. Dead on!
|
|