Obama makes a familiar promise
Thursday, September 10, 2009
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period.”
So said President Obama to a joint session of Congress Tuesday, making the promise to a chamber full of people who have made the same promise themselves, again and again, for program after program, and not kept it. No doubt they recognized the technique, saying you will spend no more on a program you vow to spend more on, saying a panel of experts will root out enough waste, fraud and abuse to cover the tab.
In his speech the president said much that was correct and rarely contested. Health care reform is morally and economically necessary. The system that has evolved to finance health care in the United States encourages, to an enormous degree, rapidly rising costs without markedly improving the nation’s health or well-being. It pressures business and government, displacing investment for the public good. It tolerates far too much suffering at too great a cost. It is indefensible. And yet Obama, again, offered little to remedy the basic problem. He proposed a greater investment in the current system, perhaps by $900 billion or $1 trillion in a decade, without doing more than nibble away at its greatest faults. He said little that hasn’t been said already, hashed and rehashed over the summer. “We’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system,” said Obama, and in the audience heads were nodding.
The president’s proposal, like most proposals in Congress, will deal directly with some of the unjust results of the system — 45 million uninsured, policies denied or canceled due to illness or mere suspicion of illness, policies lost with employment, bankruptcy, needless suffering, even death. But he would change little in the system that brought about these injustices. The fundamentals — doctors paid by the procedure, health care purchased through employers with untaxed wages, costs hidden from the patient, everyone expecting someone else to pay — none of this would change.
There was an article in the September issue of The Atlantic that New York Times columnist David Brooks recommended to President Obama, that people have walked into my office and asked me about, that my doctor recommended to me this week as he was about to perform an expensive procedure. It is titled “How American Health Care Killed My Father,” by David Goldhill, and outlines a liberal Democratic businessman’s frustrations and sorrow with the health care system, a system that ultimately serves insurance companies and government, not patients. “Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results,” writes Goldhill. “Incentives that emphasize health care over any other aspect of health and well-being. That emphasize treatment over prevention. That disguise true costs. That favor complexity and discourage transparent competition based on price or quality. That result in a generational pyramid scheme rather than sustainable financing. And that — most important — remove consumers from our irreplaceable role as the ultimate ensurer of value.”
The most serious result of the system — its uncontrollable, unsustainable runaway costs — was certainly recognized by president Obama. “We will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.” But he would solve that problem by buying more from the existing system with taxpayer dollars and then relying on bureaucrats to root out enough savings to pay for it.
This is politically plausible. It makes for a good speech. But it is not much reform. We’ll pay for it. We always do.
Tracy Warner’s column appears Tuesday through Friday. He can be reached at warner@wenworld.com or 665-1163.
Comments
Want to comment on this story? Registered users can use the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.
crkbeach (Carolyn Kinne) says...
Interesting that the Wenatchee World would print a picture of President Obama with the caption, "So was he lying about anything?" In the 8 years that Mr. G.W. Bush was president, did a caption under HIS photo ever say, "So was he lying about anything?" (Weapons of mass destruction, anyone?) Wenatchee World, your bias is clearly showing.
September 10, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
It was ok for the liberal whackjobs to call Bush every name in the book as well as accuse him of anything and everything.Now when the coin is flipped its not ok to do so.They used to say he was stupid....well he sure did not need a teleprompter to speak.Shame on you liberals!
Obama makes promises he can never keep and his nose grows longer every time he does so.
September 10, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
I love the teleprompter "issue" that never seems to go away. Who gives a speech without notes? Did Winston Churchill? Ronald Reagan? Walter Cronkite? What's the difference between notes on paper and notes on a teleprompter? Are you certain, Ron, that Bush didn't use one? Are you certain that it makes a difference?
.
When you spend your time complaining about non-issues, ie. teleprompter, birth certificate, is he a "secret Muslim", it adds stregth to the argument that you don't have any substantive basis to criticize him.
.
As to the article here, there are two valid questions:
1) does he believe what he said (necessary to determine whether it was a lie or not), and
2) Is his assertion realistic?
September 11, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Ask any CPA if the math DC uses when estimating costs, or in this case calling something "deficit neutral" is the same math the private sector uses and you'll get a resounding "no." So did Obama lie? Probably. But no more so than any other politician. Does that make it right? that's for you do decide for yourself come election time.
September 12, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Michael (Michael Michael) says...
Ron, I don't care what anyone calls Obama -- in fact the drones on the DC mall over the weekend DID call him "every name in the book." Unfortunately, he wasn't "lying" about immigrants and health care. Go look up HR3200 SECTION 246. The evidence is right there - I'm not an Obama supporter, but he was making a truthful statement. And Joe Wilson gets a slap on the wrist. We have reached a new age of idiocy, led by the right wing loud mouths who are nothing more than a bunch of 5th graders on the playground bullying. And not doing their homework -- obviously Wilson hasn't read the bill he's supposed to be voting on. I do hope the wingnuts keep exercising their right to free speech so we can continue to point out how divorced from reality they and their idiotic claims are. Obama the socialist: that's a good one. The people screaming that wouldn't know socialism if it won a majority in their Duma.
September 15, 2009 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LiveFREEorDIE (Kyle Read) says...
How is Obama not a socialist? He is using public money to pay off the debts of private enterprises, and in the process he is making our dollar worth less and less each day. Pretty soon China will stop buying US debt and we'll really be screwed.
September 15, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Private enterprises have been bailed out by the government many times in the past, yet nobody screamed socialism. The Chrysler corporation in the 80's, the S&L bailout, and so on. "Socialism" is just a scary word thrown around to frighten people who don't know what it means.
September 16, 2009 at 5:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
And what is the natural end result of government intervention in private enterprise? Chrysler was perhaps an anomoly compared to AmTrak and the National Endowment for the Arts--among many other money sucks sponsored by representatives on both sides of the asile. Or to put it into perspective consider this: in the late '80s the IRS seized the old Mustang Ranch, just outside of Sparks, Nevada. They attempted to run the brothel on a tax lein and actually LOST money selling SEX and BOOZE! GM should've been allowed to fail, as Chrysler before and after it, as well as several banks now. Delaying necessary market corrections with public dollars is patently irresponsible under even the best of circumstances.
September 16, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
VICTORY! The Dems grew a brain and threw out the public option on healthcare. Thank you for all Americans who marched on the Capital this past weekend. I can't wait to see the article in the World......
September 16, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Chuck- I have info for you on the Mustang Ranch. I worked for the Accounting firm that was putting together the prospectus for it to go Public. The thing was one long gut buster, we all kept a copy just so we could show our grandkids, because nobody would believe this stuff. And you are totally correct! The business was making a very healthy profit to say the least. How anyone could screw that up can be summed up in one word. GOVERNMENT.
September 16, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FerdBerfel (Ferd Berfel) says...
Michael Michael, You say, "Unfortunately, he wasn't "lying" about immigrants and health care." Obama may not be overtly lying but He is certainly misleading by omission. Let us not forget that one of the democrats big platforms is to give illegals "a path to citizenship". So, while they may not get healthcare benefits immediately under Obamacare, they will certainly get it later. The question then becomes, how can we add tens of millions of "citizens" onto the rolls and still be budget neutral?
September 16, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
francis (benny hill) says...
The difference between Bush and Oboma is Bush was caught in lies over and over at the expense of human life and profit,And for the first time in history felony warrants where served at the WHITE HOUSE just Google bush caught in lies and see the hundreds on the net and he was obviously the worst pres.we ever had,So say the majority of voters.And Oboma wants to save lives and finally get profit out of human life! We are the only country in the world that does not have Socialized MED> .Does that make the whole world socialists?Wake up people.do you really think its good to put profit ahead of life.
September 16, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
francis (benny hill) says...
Ferdberful,Its not the dems that allow e legals to become citizens,it always was a part of the USA.It was haw we became the USA.I challenge you to tell me were exactly was Oboma misleading. Without being misleading:)Its sick that republicans are so blinded by there anger,they cant see that the world is leaving are bully filled country behind.We are to cold and heartless to be understood why we want profit in are healthcare,and if we take out profit for life we are a richer country.And stop the spear chucking,and kill are pressedent posters that the GOP is handing out:( the difference between Rep. and Dem. protests are ones for love peace and human life and the other is pushing hate and kill.
September 16, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Francis, consider two things: 1) the Canadian government is actually looking to private insurance to cover the shorcomings of their system; and 2) a woman was denied an entry visa into New Zealand-in spite of her qualifications as a nurse in a region that, by the government's own admission, desperately needed nurses-due to her weight being a potential drain on the system. Innovation goes out the window when the profit motive is taken away, plain and simple. So you would have "all" of us get mediocre care at the expense of the excellent care that the majorit of us get through our employers anyway? and don't tell me we can keep our insurance--when the gov't plan comes in at a cheaper, taxpayer subsidised rate, your employer will have no choice but to drop your good coverage; kicking you out of the Cadillac and throwing your happy ass into a 3rd rate Geo Metro, comparitively speaking.
September 16, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
And all of you should seriously consider the following article posted in Investors Business Daily recently. Not only does the AMA represent a minority of doctors, but of those polled, 45% would at least seriously consider quitting under the Obama plan. Just follow the link if you dare. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnaly...
September 16, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Art, one more aside on the old Mustang Ranch. A new ranch was built just down the street, called the Bridge Ranch. They have a shuttle service from the Alamo truck stop (an amazing structure, listed as #2 on the Travel Channel's "Top Ten Truck Stops in the World") and by all accounts seem to be doing a robust business. If nothing else, stop by for a drink and a firsthand look at a glaring difference between capitalism and socialism, in that at the ranch, they're screwing people honestly. LOL
September 16, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Medicare administrative costs are 3%; private insurance administrative costs + profit are 20%.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBFKkX...
September 16, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Here's another for ya, Chuck: the "socialized" US military compared to the "capitalist" private mercenary corporation Blackwater:
.
"According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators.
.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.
source: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arch...
.
Tell me more about how the government is absolutely always less cost-efficient than the private sector.
September 16, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Glad you made the military claim Norm. Consider Sierra Leone for a moment: Executive Outcomes did a better job of holding that ground for $35million annually than the UN forces could for $607 million.
In that operation, it only took them two days to seize the central mining area in Kono from RUF forces, bringing much needed revenue back into government hands-a feat the UN never accomplished, even as they were failing miserably in their core peacekeeping role at a staggering cost as noted above.
Just goes to show that private sector competition, even in military circles, can and does make a difference. When profit is on the line, results well and truly matter-something one never sees from the public sector it seems.
September 16, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
From economicexpert.com:
"Reportedly, EO (Executive Outcomes) was paid US$20 million a year during its 1995 to 1997 stint in Sierra Leone, and routed the RUF forces with a force of less than 300 mercenaries, allowing elections to take place. By contrast, the UN peacekeeping force sent to Sierra Leone after the Revolutionary United Front retook the capital of Freetown consisted of 18,000 soldiers at its height and cost upwards of a billion dollars yearly, while arguably failing to defuse the bloody war for another 3 years. In terms of effectiveness, the UN peacekeeping force allowed the RUF to retake the capital twice while committing atrocities in its wake, and also stood helpless while a military coup led by Colonel Johnny Paul Koroma deposed the democratically elected Kabbah."
Looking at those numbers, although the EO troops commanded a higer per day price than UN troops, the end result from this private army was considerably more effective for the duration of their service both financially and militarily. Any questions?
September 16, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Yes, I have a question: Why didn't you address the question I posed of the value of Gen. Petraus compared to a middle manager in Blackwater?
September 17, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Your question only leads to more questions. Obvsiously, EO troops were deployed efficiently--which isn't likely the case with Blackwater, making it a question of leadership, either on the ground or back home in the office. That's all speculation however and I'll stand by the numbers I gave you on an excellent example of a "private" military force vs a "public one" as would millions of citizens in Sierra Leone I'd imagine.
September 17, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Or to put it even more bluntly, look at Field Marshal Erwin Johan Eugen Rommel as an example of how even the BEST generals whither under incompetent leadership. This is one thing that the public and private sectors have always had in common.
September 17, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
It's also well worth noting that UPS and FedEx are doing just fine wereas the United States Post Office is not.
September 17, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Contractors are very effective at what they do over in the sandbox.They don't have the strict ROE that our military does and that's a good thing.The current ROE puts our troops at danger.
September 17, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liberalinwen (Regina Falange) says...
I have a comment regarding the article that was written and the "you lie" statement made by congressman Jack ass.
The way I see it and I am no expert by any means. We currently have a health care system that isn't cost effective for anyone. When an illegal immigrant or anyone for that matter that doesn't have health insurance, the hospitals don't currently turn them away when they come in and need care they provide them with care and then send them to the billing department which gives them paper work to fill out so that their care can be covered under medicade/welfare. WELL the way I see it we are paying for that anyway plus some due to the fact that anything regarding the health care field costs a lot of money. So why it is such a bad thing that we provide a public option that allows folks that normally couldn't afford health care with health care? The public option does two things in my opinion 1 it finally gives these insurance companies a little completion something they have never had which should sooner or later hopefully drive down their premiums and 2. it frees up some of the tax dollars that would have been spent on medicade/welfare due to folks being able to afford this public option. Now I know that the public option would be paid for by tax dollars but what would you rather your tax dollars be spent on something that is not currently regulated or something that is regulated and in theory would hopefully drive down cost for us all?
September 17, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Why is it bad?Because WE pay for it and its not our job to do so!The majority of Americans do not want to pay for it so why should they be forced to?
September 17, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liberalinwen (Regina Falange) says...
I don't think you understood my post. We are paying for it now! How do you think welfare, medicade and Medicare get funded from you and I and everyone else that pays their taxes and you can't do anything about that. So why not support something that will reduce the need for medicade and will hopefully drive down your insurance premiums. I work pay taxes and pay for insurance. For a family of 3 which included 2 healthy young adults and one child we pay almost $600 a month for insurance that is insane! But what do you do, you have to have it. And again I am no expert on this topic but I think I get the gist of it.
September 17, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Now I know that the public option would be paid for by tax dollars but what would you rather your tax dollars be spent on something that is not currently regulated or something that is regulated and in theory would hopefully drive down cost for us all?<
Well, at least you got the "theory" portion and the "hopefully" portion of your comment correct. The President is trying to sell us all on his "theory" for health care reform. Only problem is that history clearly demonstrates that once Washington gets something of this magnitude signed into law that they can never control spending. It simply gets out of control in spite of all the lofty rhetoric to the contrary. I will always side with history because it is the only basis by which we can judge the merits of any federal program. This President's argument that major health care reform will be deficit neutral("hopefully") is simply another snake oil salesman approach to sell us on yet another magic elixir. History has it right; Every single program lawmakers have ratified in the Senate has ultimately resulted in the growth of federal spending. Sure, we can borrow this spending by selling U.S. bonds to anyone who believes we will pay them back with interest, but all debt obligations must eventually be settled and when the economy recovers we will all be required to pay much more in federal taxes just to try and appease the debt monster. With federal red ink now approaching 12 trillion dollars, how can any of us in good conscience honestly believe otherwise? There is no such thing as "deficit neutral" within the context of 12 trillion dollars in federal debt. "Deficit neutral" ANYTHING coming out of Washington is an oxymoron if there ever was one!
September 17, 2009 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Private military contractors are not subject to UCMJ; that is not a good thing. As to their ROE, I'm not familiar with either theirs or the military's specific ROE there, so I can't comment on that.
.
In any case, paramilitary forces around the world are notorious for acting unlawfully - and in Iraq, they have not been subject to any law - Iraqi, US civilian law, or UCMJ. The "freedom" to ignore laws and the ability of their employers to escape responsibility for thier actions are the primary reasons for using mercenary forces rather than regular military forces. That is an unacceptable situation, and it should be outlawed.
September 17, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>For a family of 3 which included 2 healthy young adults and one child we pay almost $600 a month for insurance that is insane! But what do you do, you have to have it.<
No. You do not HAVE TO HAVE IT, but under Obama's plan you will have to have it or face a substantial tax penalty assessed on your individual 1040. We have always self-insured in our family and we do take good care of ourselves in the nutrition and good health departments. I for one resent being told by this President and this Congress that I will face a stiff tax penalty for not purchasing a health insurance policy simply because I can afford to do so. That is simply none of their business and they are overstepping their bounds.
September 17, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Mav said: I will always side with history because it is the only basis by which we can judge the merits of any federal program.
.
My response: It is most definitely Not the only basis on which to judge the merits of a national public health care system (which, by the way is much more than simply a "public option" insurance plan). There are approximately 190 other countries in the world, each with their own health care systems. The WHO ranks the US system 37th in terms of quality of health care provided.
.
We can look at the systems of the 36 countries whose health care outcomes are better than ours (and less expensive, BTW; we're number one in terms of per capita cost) to look for ways to improve our system.
September 17, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
They are most certainly not better then ours,talk to Canadians and they will tell you just how bad their system is,that's why many come here.Too heck with socialist medical care,thank god the country has woken up and the majority is against this.
September 17, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>The WHO ranks the US system 37th in terms of quality of health care provided.<
Norm, just because the WHO said it doesn't make it true! I read that same specious report and they also stated that Morocco provides better quality health care than the U.S.??? By that do they mean opium for the masses? LOL! "Babel" here we come. :-)
September 17, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liberalinwen (Regina Falange) says...
I know I don't HAVE to HAVE health insurance but uh yeah I do. I have a child that I am responsible for. It is my job as a parent to make sure that not only is my child covered in case something horrible happens but so am I and my husband. You never know if you are going to trip over something stupid fall and break your leg in 3 places or if you are going to come down with an illness. You have to be covered unless YOU want to pay for my medical expenses by way of welfare oh wait that wouldn’t work because my husband and I make too much money. We would have to pay for any medical expenses out of our pocket and if something catastrophic happened we wouldn’t be able to afford it so then we would have to file bankruptcy possibly lose our house that we have worked very hard for and anything else we have. This plan in my opinion is more to benefit folks of the middle class. Maybe all you are so financially stable that you are untouchable from a scenario like this or you fit into a lower financial class and you could fall back on Medicade or you are getting medicare which if that is the case you are a hypocrite. Lucky you.
And Ron I don't know what Canadians you have talked to but I have traveled through Canada and have been able to talk to a few folks in different areas and the ones I talked to wouldn't have it any other way. They think our system is a joke.
September 17, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Ron and Mav: Peer-reviewed scientific studies provide more reliable evidence than third-hand anecdotal stories. Would you rather have your pacemaker designed and built by scientists or some backyard mechanic?
September 17, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Lib- you make no sense. If you need to be covered for catastrophic insurance. Buy it. It will not break the bank.. Attach an HSA and bingo you are all covered and all medical expenses are deductible.
I do business cross border with Canadians, everyone of them comes down here, for anything important. Why? They would have to wait for understaffed medical system up there. You can not travel in Canada and ask them about comparison they only know what they read in the biased media unless they've tried both.
September 17, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
If our health care was so bad foreigners wouldn't be coming here,its that simple.Talk to people in the health care business locally,they don't want this either so stop trying to push the corrupt agenda on us.
September 17, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
So Art, Mav, and Ron seem to agree that evidence collected and analyzed according to the scientific method is inferior to anecdotal evidence, and that the only anecdotal evidence that is convincing is the evidence that agrees with their predetermined conclusion.
.
I'm glad you guys aren't doing surgery on me.
September 17, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Oh, and Ron? Look who else is "pushing this corrupt agenda" on you:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002154/
September 17, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
"my opinion is more to benefit folks of the middle class" Are you kidding? This is not some wind fall. From the AP today.
"Many middle-class people would pay more than they are paying today and would face the prospects of a penalty if they don't comply," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Finance Committee who wasn't involved in the negotiations.
Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine under Baucus' bill, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine.
Wyden said he would try to amend the bill to make it more affordable to the middle class, one of a host of amendments sure to be offered from both sides in the Finance Committee next week. Another worry for some lawmakers, including Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is that a proposed new tax on high-value insurance plans would hurt middle-class workers, particularly union members with generous benefits packages.
September 17, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Baucus' plan is corporate welfare.
September 17, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Norm, the Obama plan is public welfare--so what's the ethical difference? Either we pay companies or we pay the crown. Difference is that innovation comes from the public sector, never the private one. (also, as an aside on your opinions regarding private military contractors, please name ONE conflict the US has been involved in that DIDN'T involve mercenaries, please. From my perspective, we hired Indians in the Revolution, H'Mong in Viet Nam, Blackwater today, and various types in every conflict in between.) So to fully understand where you're coming from, how do you stand on gun control? the pending ACLU v NCRL case? property rights? global warming? what role, if any, do you see the private sector playing in any appreciable economic recovery? Do you feel that the bail-outs (trillions borrowed form potentially hostile nations) are working? and if so, why?
September 17, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
What is the Obama plan that you refer to? Has he written one of the bills? I don't like HR3200.
.
The difference between welfare and corporate welfare is that welfare goes to poor people who need financial assistance to obtain the basic necessities of life - food, shelter, health care, education, etc.; while corporate welfare goes to enrich those who are already wealthy. Its a significant difference. Another form of corporate welfare (beyond the requirement to buy insurance from private insurance companies) is student loans. The government covers any loss from those who default on these loans and private banks reap the profits from those who don't default.
.
I think you didn't intentionally write that innovation comes only from the public sector (that's government). Anyway, such absolutes are rarely correct. The innovation to put a man on the moon came from the public sector, as have countless other technologies (like the internet.)
.
I'm unaware of mercenaries being used in WW2 or Korea, and the native Americans and H'mong were interested parties (although I believe the Hessians in the revolutionary war could be more accurately described as mercenaries). They have never been used by the US on the scale that they are used today. Regardless, all of that is irrelevant to my ethical-based argument against their use.
.
Here's my other positions you asked about:
Gun control: People have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but that right is not, nor should it be, unlimited. I'm fine with handguns for personal protection and rifles/shotguns for hunting, but I don't think citizens should have access to weapons whose only legitimate use is military - cop-killer bullets, assault rifles, RPGS and such. I would like to see gun-show sales banned; gun sales should be restricted to licensed dealers in the same way that alcohol is, and I favor 5-day waiting periods and background checks on customers.
.
I'm not familiar with the ACLU case you mention, but I generally support thier positions.
.
Property rights must be protected, but they are not absolute.
.
Climate change is widely accepted as real and human contributions to it recognized by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. I don't claim to be an expert on it.
.
The private sector obviously plays a huge role in our economy, and in any economic recovery.
.
I'm not informed enough to have a strong position on the effect of the bail-outs. For the most part, I feel that any institution that is "too big to fail" is simply too big. The financial sector has too much influence over the government, IMO, and is a huge drain on the economy. Its basically a casino, whose players extract far more wealth than the value they add to the work done by the rest of us.
September 17, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Norm wrote; >Mav said: I will always side with history because it is the only basis by which we can judge the merits of any federal program.<
That's right, Norm, and if you re-read the context of my post you will see that I was referring to the uncontrolled spending side of the health care reform equation. Do you honestly believe that Obama's health care plan will not add to the deficit in the future? What is your favorite flavor of pie in the sky, Norm?
September 17, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Whether whatever health care plan that passes (again what does "Obama's health care plan" refer to?) adds to the deficit depende on a number of factors. Can a public health care plan be crafted that will not add to the deficit? Yes.
.
The astronomical rise in healthcare costs over the last couple of decades is unprecedented, therefore history is of only limited use as a guide.
September 17, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Whether whatever health care plan that passes (again what does "Obama's health care plan" refer to?) adds to the deficit depende on a number of factors.<
History disagrees with that, Norm. All Congress has to do is get it on the books and it will add to the deficit. Can you name any single federal program that is revenue neutral? You see, Norm, the only "factor" it depends on is whether or not lawmakers ratify it.
>The astronomical rise in healthcare costs over the last couple of decades is unprecedented, therefore history is of only limited use as a guide.<
How so? The rise in health care costs go hand in glove with the growth in federal spending. There is no difference, Norm. If you honestly believe that Congress can craft a revenue neutral health care reform bill then you have been hoodwinked by the Pied Piper.
September 17, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>(again what does "Obama's health care plan" refer to?)<
Surely you jest, Norm. Health care reform is Obama's main issue and it is the center piece of his administration. It has "legacy" written all over it!
September 17, 2009 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Mmmhmm a plan of genocide for our sick and elderly.Real smart folks.Nope I prefer to make my own choices and choose to see who I want,when I want and so do most Americans.That was kind of evident over the weekend with the biggest rally in history that was of course ignored by the MSM for obvious reasons.
September 17, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Suz (Suellen Harris) says...
Biggest protest in history?? I was in DC for protests on the mall during the Vietnam war and let me tell you that the little weekend protest by naive Americans who think reform means genocide and loss of choice was insignificant. Medicare, the public option, gives seniors complete choice of doctor and hospital etc. It is private plans like HMO's that limit choice. As for genocide, elders are living longer since Medicare. Why the heck are you all so fearful? I just don't get it. I think President Carter got it right and that a lot of what people are saying is motivated by fear of power in the hands of someone who is African American.
September 17, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
> I think President Carter got it right and that a lot of what people are saying is motivated by fear of power in the hands of someone who is African American.<
OMG! Oops, there it is! I believe you just played the race card. Obama isn't getting what he wants because we the people are racist against him? No, no, no, no...not in a million years! Obama isn't getting what he wants because we the people are not in favor of his policies. It's really that simple and when Jimmy Carter said what he said it was a vain and weak attempt to try and deflect from the fact of the matter--which is that support for Congressional health care reform continues to flounder.
Conclusion:Jimmy Carter got it wrong. David Brooks gets it right;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opi...
September 17, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Suz that's real smart believing anything Jimmy Carter would say.The most worthless president in our history.He showed just how stupid he really is by claiming Americans are bigots.Lets face it,liberals have no other card to play because this is the only excuse they can come up with and its pathetic.The democratic party is hanging itself with its insults and lies against American citizens who don't drink their kool-aid.
September 18, 2009 at 12:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
No, mav, I'm not jesting. Obama has laid out somr goals for health care reform, but to my knowledge he has not written a specific plan to reach those goals. All of the proposed plans that I am aware of are contained in legislation written by various members/committees in the House and Senate. If you know of some other plan, name it, link it, and we can discuss it. Alternatively, we can discuss the goals that Obama has laid out.
September 18, 2009 at 5:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
One of the more laughable arguments against health care reform is the idea that efforts to increase health care services are portrayed as some sinister plan to reduce health care coverage. The sad part is that so many believe the Orwellian spin of their media masters who peddle such nonsense.
September 18, 2009 at 5:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Here's some interesting info on your "biggest rally in history":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09...
September 18, 2009 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
yeah, the huffington post is a reliable, un-biased source! :p
September 18, 2009 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Here 'ya go--the natural end result of socialized medicine--a UK woman denied an entry visa to join her husband in New Zealand due to her weight--and yet too many of you support government medicine AND open borders? Just follow the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-n...
September 18, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Suz- Unfortunately you must still be in the purple haze from your Vietnam protesting days. All unbiaed reports are that this rally was the biggest ever. Carter is unarguably the worst president in history. Medicare??? Broke! Corrupt! Fraud ridden! Pays only part of the cost billed! Hospitals/clinics that relied on medicare too much have gone out of business. You do know that private insurance has provided Medicare supplemental insurance at a fraction of the cost the Govt. projected????
September 18, 2009 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
I like the juxtaposition of your claim of bias on the part of Huffpost followed by your link to the freepers. Was that a conscious self-parody?
.
The obvious truth is that no source is unbiased; this does not mean that it is impossible to get accurate information, it just means that all information needs to be cross-checked and verified.
September 18, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Art said: All unbiaed reports are that this rally was the biggest ever.
.
My response: That's called circular logic - all unbiased sources say X; bias is determined based on whether or not a source disputes X. Not even WorldNetDaily - the farthest of far right sources - backs your claim. They say that it "COULD be the biggest protest ever."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109628
.
In any case, the size of a protest says nothing about the quality of the arguments of the protesters.
.
As to your assertion that Carter was "unarguably" the worst president ever, I can easily prove that wrong: Carter was NOT the worst president ever. Your assertion has now been shown to be "arguable".
.
Do you have any substantive points to make, Art?
September 18, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
NO - You are an anti-American commie. Every argument you lay out is wacked and makes no sense. You might need to stick with fishing......
September 18, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liberalinwen (Regina Falange) says...
You are a right wing wacko. Just because people don't support automatic riffle toten, all about me thinking red neck ideology doesn't make them a commie. Give me a break. You think anyone that receives medicare or social security is a commie? Same dif! who of you are collecting social security or are receiving medicare?
September 18, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Nice threat, Art. I'm not frightened by the fact that you checked out my FB page (fishing reference). Kudos for recognizing that you have no substantive points to make.
September 18, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Threat????? I rest my case on the wacked and makes no sense. Thanks for making it crystal clear.
Lib- you might want to learn how to spell "redneck" among others words.....
September 18, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
>Obama has laid out somr goals for health care reform, but to my knowledge he has not written a specific plan to reach those goals. All of the proposed plans that I am aware of are contained in legislation written by various members/committees in the House and Senate. If you know of some other plan, name it, link it, and we can discuss it.<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL! Y'all got too much time on your hands! Anyone interested in picking some apples? :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now Norm, you know when I refer to Obama's health care reform agenda I am referring to the version(s) presented by legislators. We all know that the President doesn't have time to write this stuff for himself because he's too busy appearing on national television trying to sell it to all of us. He presents his ideas to the gofers and then they get busy putting it down on paper. Like I said, health care reform is Obama's child and it has legacy written all over it..takes a village to raise this one. ;-P
September 18, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Okay, let's see if we can find some common ground before we all self-destruct;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What's for breakfast?
Voise shoulder bacon/egg/parmesan sandwich on whole wheat bread with freshly sliced peaches and Kirkland House Blend coffee. Yumm!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After all, we all eat don't we? :-P
September 18, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
I expected that from you liberalinwen,
When liberals have no other argument they resort to the race card or immature name calling......next.
September 18, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Testing software for space between paragraph
testing space
testing space
Ah, much better.
September 18, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Great article on the size of the crowd by Newsmax (by an actual witness) and how the Liberal media is downplaying it. What a surprise!
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/91...
September 18, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
With respect to the 9/12 crowd size here are a couple of good links and even a video;
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/...
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/...
September 18, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liberalinwen (Regina Falange) says...
I went to that website, what a joke!!!! you want to talk about one sided media give me a break. For crying out loud the add that is jumping out at you is for T-shirts that read "I voted for Obama and all I got was this recession" Uh news flash we were in the recession long before Obama got elected.
September 18, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
And all BO's bailouts, takeovers, and increased Govt. spending has done is plunge us deeper into recession. Or is that not what they've been reporting at msnbc. I think you were whining about needing some economic relief a few posts back were you not? You're not making sense again........
September 18, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liberalinwen (Regina Falange) says...
I don't necessarily need any economic relief I simply feel that our health care industry needs some over hauling; I feel that insurance companies charge too much for premiums, prescriptions are priced too high and all in all its corrupt and I feel that Obama is working very hard to try to pass a bill so the overhaul can be done. What is your brilliant idea? What do you think we should do? Or do you think things are fine they way they are?
And regarding the bail out. Dude! Come on why do you think the government had to step in? How would you feel if the government hadn't bailed out the banks and you went to your local bank to pull out some money from the ATM and YOU COULDN'T because there wasn't any money for you to pull out? Do you know that is how close we were to total financial melt down. Or was that little bit of news not able to penetrate your little bubble you live in. You want to point some fingers lets look at the administration that got us into this mess. Obama is just trying to fix it.
September 18, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FerdBerfel (Ferd Berfel) says...
francis (benny hill) Remember on the 16th when I said "Obama may not be overtly lying but He is certainly misleading by omission. Let us not forget that one of the democrats big platforms is to give illegals "a path to citizenship". So, while they may not get healthcare benefits immediately under Obamacare, they will certainly get it later." and you challenged me to tell you exactly where Obomba was misleading?
Below is the link to an article where Obomba as much as publicly announces that he intends to make the illegals legal so they can get healthcare. I should have bet you $$$.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ob...
September 18, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JeffR (Jeff Reister) says...
I understand why people are angry about government overspending. Odd that they waited until 2009 to march on DC.
.
Maybe they had to wait until this year so they could gather in mass to return their uncashed stimulus checks from 2008. Yes, that must be the reason, but the liberal media is not reporting it.
.
And if John McCain had been elected, and he had spent a million fortunes bailing out various industries (which he almost certainly would have done), they would be just as angry.
September 18, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liberalinwen (Regina Falange) says...
Hey Ferd are you a native american? and I mean 100% native american. Because if you aren't you or your peps came to this country as IMMIGRANTS! Your comment is pretty hypocritical unless you are 100% native american in which case I apologize and I would be pissed too if I were you.
September 18, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Ahhh yes that old and used up claim "its all Bush's fault.I got news for you Bush's is not the POTUS,about time you blamed the man in office and stop using that excuse.Besides Bush inherited all of Clinton's mess to begin with.
Did MoveOn.org send you here?Stop drinking the kool-aid.
September 18, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
You might want to re-read the article you linked, Ferd; here's the quoted words of Obama:
.
"That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.
.
Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
.
and here's the editorial spin added by the newsmax writer:
.
"Mr. Obama said legalizing illegal immigrants is a way to take the sting out of the entire issue. "
September 18, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chuck (C. Ulysses Farley) says...
Norm, the UK sun put the DC rally at between 1.2 and 2 million people, making it at least one of the largest in history, period. I doubt that Huffington put it anywhere near those terms. As for the UK woman denied entry to NZ due to her weight and its effect on their socialized medical program, would you categorically deny that strictly because of your opinion of the source of that article?
September 18, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Ron's argument:
1) Obama didn't inherit an economic mess from Bush.
.
2) Bush did inherit an economic mess from Clinton.
.
Must be a bummer when facts disagree with your ideology, huh?
September 18, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Well, Chuck, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about whether paying a Blackwater mercenary in charge of 30 people twice the salary of Gen Petraeus (who was responsile for 160,000 American troops) was an example of how the private sector is always more cost-effective than the pulic sector, but I'll go ahead and answer your questions.
.
1) My HuffPost link was pointing out how many rightwing news sources were using a picture from a different protest to "prove" the attendance number at the recent DC teaparty.
.
2) As I've said before, the number of people at a given protest says nothing about what sort of health care system is best.
.
3) Of course I don't automatically believe that the source of a claim is proof of that claim's truth or falsity; I'm from the reality-based community.
September 18, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
milo (Milo Klanke) says...
The crowd size for the 9/12 rally was officially estimated by the park service at 65,000 to 70,000. That makes it an average size D.C. rally, nothing at all remarkable or even newsworthy. In contrast the crowds for Obama's inauguration were over one million and shut down most of the city. To state that the tea party crowd was anywhere near one million is ludicrous.
September 18, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
milo (Milo Klanke) says...
A little history. When Clinton left office we were running a huge SURPLUS. When Bush left office the talk was of the possible total collapse of the entire world economy. A situation that Obama turned around in only EIGHT months in office. So why the hate for Obama and not a parade?
September 18, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glory74 (Ron Huges) says...
Norm my "ideology" comes from a good upbringing and from my years in the heavily left-wing controlled school system.Teachers with your kind of political agenda,trying to force it down the throats of their students.
Looks like that brainwashing did not work on me and thank god it didn't.
Hate you claim Milo?How about hate from your side of the fence?Ive been hearing it for some 9 years now.All the name calling your party and the MSM resorts to against Bush and anyone with a different view then yours.All those in the media who foam at the mouth with rage.(Olbermann,Cooper,and Maher come to mind)I think your side needs to take a look in the mirror before you point fingers.
September 18, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
artmann (Art Mann) says...
Milo the ACORN lover is telling us that Clinton balanced the budget......And here again everybody else thought it was Newt and his contract with America. Wasn't it Clinton who was chasing interns and getting impeached. I'm glad your not writing history books. The Newt era was also riding the coattails of the greatest 25 year economic boom in world history thanks to Reagan and Milton Friedman (Not Marx or Carter- Milo). Your liberal/socialsit view is maybe better suited for eastern Europe.
September 18, 2009 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FerdBerfel (Ferd Berfel) says...
liberalinwen(Regina Falange) As a matter of fact, I am a 100% Native American, I was born here. If you mean am I an American Indian then no, I am not. Just a lesson in semantics for you, both American Indian and Native American are misnomers. If we were to properly address those fine people we should refer to them as Aboriginal Americans because that would be technically correct.
But to your point, you're right, my ancestors were immigrants, LEGAL immigrants. They came to this country with proper papers from Ireland thru Ellis Island. That (LEGAL vs ILLEGAL) is the distinction that you fail to make in this discussion.
September 18, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FerdBerfel (Ferd Berfel) says...
Norm, I read the article in it's entirety and the first sentence said "President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage." That's pretty clear. In my original post on the 16th I said, "Let us not forget that one of the democrats big platforms is to give illegals "a path to citizenship". So, while they may not get healthcare benefits immediately under Obamacare, they will certainly get it later." This has been Obombas stated plan all along. I'm truly sorry that so many voters have short memories.
September 18, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Looks like you need to read my last post again, Ferd. I was pointing out the difference between what Obama said and the spin put on his words by the newsmax writer. Oh, and that's a really clever way to write Obama; it clearly signifies an adult level of discussion.
September 18, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavulous (mav ulous) says...
Norm wrote;
Ron's argument:
1) Obama didn't inherit an economic mess from Bush.
.
2) Bush did inherit an economic mess from Clinton.
Here's the truth about the above;
1) Obama did inherit an economic mess.
2) Bush did inherit an overheated economy headed into a steep decline. The stock market peaked during the spring and summer of 2000 and was already selling off rapidly months before Bush was sworn in the following January.
The point being that neither Bush nor Obama inherited anything from the previous President. That's because Presidents are not responsible for the state of the economy. They merely preside over them. Although they can encourage and promote legislation that may support or undermine economic growth, the truth is that for for the most part they merely preside over good economies and bad ones. Only difference is they boast and claim responsibility for good economies on their watch and keep mostly silent when they are in the tank.
Also, to proclaim that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget and producing a budget surplus is like saying that the sun rises because the cock crows. Basically, economic growth is the result of business taking investment risks and being rewarded for doing so.
Lastly, if you think that Obama has produced a good economy in merely eight months since he took office, you best think again. He has thrown trillions of debt at the system in an effort to stabilize and boost investor confidence in order to soften the blow of a very serious recession. That's all well and good, but there is no economic growth at this time and unemployment remains at double digit levels. So he hasn't turned anything around and to be fair, we shouldn't expect him to be able to do so. All he's done in conjunction with the Fed is authorize, support, and provide a stop-gap measure in the form of a massive debt infusion that will eventually come due with interest in the future. IOW, he has delayed the inevitable in the hope that economic growth will help reduce the debt before the economy goes into decline yet again. A very dangerous game to say the least, but possibly the best course of action to buy some time in the near term. The monkey may be off our backs today, but the gorilla is lurking and waiting his turn. Might be why he's in such a rush to pass health care reform this year.
September 18, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FerdBerfel (Ferd Berfel) says...
(Norm Messer) Sorry, I had no idea that humor was not allowed in adult discussions. So sorry to have insulted your obviously highly evolved intellect & sensibilities.
Some of us believe that Obomba is a ticking time bomb bent on doing serious damage to our country & way of life, hence the sarcasm.
September 19, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cactus (Jerry Patterson) says...
"We’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system,”
Finding savings (translation into plain english)= cutting corners and services.
Health care is big money run by big business. With the trillions of dollars a year they have wrapped up in sucking the blood out of americans...do you REALLY think big business is going to let our healthcare system go "public", and undercut their sky-high profits? Yeah, right.
I don't care who the president is...money will always win in the end.
September 21, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rick13 (Rick Holt) says...
Come on sports fans.Let spell the wonderful insightful words you are writing correctly or check them before you press send to set a good example for our kids.Thanks.
September 24, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )