IM JUST WONDERING WHAT YOU GUYS AND GALS THINK OF THE HEALTH CARE DEAL IS IT GOOD OR BAD. I KNOW JOHN M WAS PUSHING IT WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRES. OR IS IT JUST BAD CAUSE THE DEMS ARE THE ONLY ONE'S WORKING ON IT NOT ALLOWING ANY REPUBLICANS TO HELP. I ONLY KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT IT. I WAS WATCHING THE OTHER DAY AND THE DEMS SAID IT IS A GOOD DAY FOR AMERICANS WE PASSED THIS FOR THEM BUT IT FEELS LIKE THEY PASSED IT FOR TEDDY KENDY AND OBAMA WANTS THERE NAME ON IT SO BAD ITS NOT FUNNY. WHAT MAKES ME MAD ABOUT IT IS WE WILL BE FINED IF WE DONT GET IT OR MAYBE JAIL TIME THAT IS WHAT I HEARD ON TV THAT IS AGAINST ARE CONSTITUTION . ANY WAY I JUST WANT YOUR THOUGHTS CAUSE IM TO LAZY TO READ 1500 PAGE'S
17 replies [Last post]
Sun, 2009-11-08 15:21
Mon, 2009-11-09 01:23#1
There's not enough bandwidth on this site to capture my opposition to this. A few thoughts:
- If we can't afford health care, how can we afford health care plus a bloated government bureaucracy to administer it?
- Do you want to socialize one sixth of the American economy?
- Do you want your health care run by the same organization that runs Amtrak and the Post Office? Do you want to wait for care like you wait at the DMV? There's a reason you wait at the DMV, by the way -- it's because they're the only game in town and the incentive is to be cheap, not responsive. Socialized medicine works much the same way.
- Do you want government to have that much power over your life? Think about it -- a health care provider that has the power to legislate what you eat and how you live your life in order to cut costs. We've already seen that argument used against tobacco and fast food restaurants.
- The Repubs argue that costs can be driven down by deregulating private industry and doing things like letting them compete across state lines. Makes sense to me -- why won't the Dems support it? Why do they insist that the only way to reform the system is to socialize it?
- People over age 65 comprise 12 percent of the US population, but consume 60% of the health care dollars, including 74% of prescription drug spending and 51% of over the counter drug spending. There's a reason for all of the "death panel" and "duty to die" discussion. The incentive is to deny care to the elderly, and anything that extends life takes a lot of money away from younger demographics. In a crude way of looking at it, the best thing for the government would be for you to drop dead the day after you retire.
- Our existing health care system provides better care than socialized systems in places like England and Canada. If that isn't enough, ask anyone who has had to rely on government health care in the US -- i.e. military folks. Whether it's active duty people or people accessing VA hospitals, you'll hear horror stories.
- Part of the Dem plan is penalties and jail time for people who don't buy into the program. If the problem is people who can't afford to buy health care, how does the threat of jail time help them?
- If the problem is only a portion of the population, then why do we need a plan that addresses everybody?
Jefferson said it best: a government that's big enough to give you anything you need is strong enough to take everything you have.
Mon, 2009-11-09 14:24#2
I agree Expat. If the Government administrates health care like they administrate everything else I give us all six months before we're dead or broke or maybe dead broke.
Mon, 2009-11-09 21:02#3
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Would you rather buy a car built by the government or one built by private industry? I'm not just talking about GM here.
Would you rather buy a computer built by a socialist government or one built by private industry?
Name a product. Which would you rather spend your money on -- one made by the government or one made by private industry?
Almost every time, people will reject the government model. Why? Usually because the government version is overpriced and less capable. The government version also tends to be built to satisfy political criteria, rather than what the customer wants. If you doubt me, Google "Trabant."
So why would we think that when it comes to health care, government will deliver a better product at a lower price?
Tue, 2009-11-10 14:39#4
Does anyone know what is actually in this bill? After all the weeks of wheeling and dealing who knows what's even in it!
I hope and pray that the senate does the right thing and does not pass this mess.
Wed, 2009-11-11 01:47#5
I'm currently reading a biography of Samuel Adams. Studying the founding fathers really affects your perspective.
The Boston Tea Party, for example, wasn't caused by an exorbitant tax driving up the cost of tea. The British gave the East India Company permission to sell tea direct to the colonies, rather than having to go through England first. This would reduce the price of tea below what even smugglers could do. But along with it they enacted a tax of 3 pence per pound of tea. It wasn't the price of tea, because the colonists were actually better off. The tea party was about people rejecting growth of government power over their lives.
So how do you think our founding fathers would have reacted if King George had decided to make all the hospitals and doctors the property of the crown, giving him control over every colonist's medical care?
Sun, 2009-11-15 15:30#6
if they do pass this one I hope everyone in their state vote's them out i how ever did read a little and i don't like what is in it. maybe we need some kind of reform but not this one. most of the public wants kids and elderly in it so they should make up something like kids 1-18 will be covered and then when you hit 40 their should not be any reason a 18 or a 20 year old cant get a job and provide for them selves iv done it since i was 18. if you go to school colldge then you may be able to stay till done heck i don't know i was just wondering what everyone else was thinking about this topic, a lot of my questions were answered. thanks I do think a reform should come from both sides but not a gov take over. I did learn that the insurance co can talk to one another about price's and that is not right. and for the tax issue i would like to see 2 ro 3 million people not pay and just go exempt how else could we get them to listen to us. what makes me mad is they work for us. WE NEED TO REFORM OUR GOV IN 2010 AND 2012 MOST STATE'S CANT BALANCE BUDGET SO THEY WANT TO RAISE ARE TAXES WHAT THE HELL IS THAT WHY CANT THEY LAY SOME OF THEIR OWN OFF!
Thu, 2009-11-19 08:21#7
My opinion is from an observers and historical point of view. I had posted this a few weeks ago and it was directed at the new healthcare plan. Only Cowgal seemed to respond to it. Here it goes again:
To the Congress:
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.
The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new b***h: the American taxpayer.
And finally, to set a new record:
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
With all due respect,
Are you crazy?
Thu, 2009-11-19 08:47#8
There's a horrible ad running up here from the local GM dealer with a stereotype "Japanese" guy saying people should buy American.
Sorry, Dude...I'm a patriot. I'll buy a car from Japanese capitalists long before I buy one from American socialists. If I find cancer in my body, I don't feed it and help it grow -- I isolate and remove it before it kills me.
Thu, 2009-11-19 16:30#9
Hey the sad thing is I had a ford and it was made in Mexico and a Chevy truck that was made in canada. The toyota I am driving was put together herein the US . To top everything the Tacoma has 426,000 miles on the original engine and transmission. Neither my ford or chevy came close . The toyota I had before this one went to 300,000 and I gave it away because of the body rusted out . A year later the guy I gave it to was still driving it.
Fri, 2009-11-20 07:46#10
I guess you got your money's worth with those Toyotas even if that money ended up sprucing Japan's economy. With all this talk about you guys being right wing conservative pro-Americans I'm a bit shocked that you guys won't buy American. There are plenty of Ford, GM, and Chrysler vehicles made here in the USA. Of course a lot of stuff made in this country have always been made with global components in some amount or another. But I can see why some people would want to boycott GM and Chrysler. Maybe this whole mess will be a big wake-up call to all major American industries.
My experience with Toyota has been different. Not terrible, but a bit disappointing considering all the hype about Toyotas and the fact that I'm fanatical about automotive care and preventative maintenence. I had a timing chain break at 70,000 miles, the chains aren't supposed to break. And let me tell you, that's a big time job to replace that chain. That same vehicle started consuming oil at 1 qt every 2 months long before it ever reached 100,000 miles. Owned a 1998 VW Jetta too and let me just say without going into details that the Germans made a much better vehicles prior to 1989. That Jetta started having major mechanical problems before 60,000 miles. I owned a 1995 Jeep Cherokee that I bought new and racked up 160,000 miles before any of the few major mechanical problems started showing up. That thing eventually lasted to almost 300,000 miles before donating it for a tax write-off, but it still ran just fine. My current 2002 Grand Cherokee had almost 170,000 miles on it and so far the only minor mechanical problem with it has been replacing the rear main oil seal a couple years ago, and just recently discovered that the front seal is leaking, but jeeps leak when they get old. I expected to have to replace the water pump at least by 130,000 miles, but haven't had to yet and so far so good. I do all my own preventative scheduled maintenance myself on all our vehicles and I do the vast majority of repairs on those vehicles too. I must say - I've been much more satisfied with my American automobiles than I have with any Japanese and German vehicles I've owned. Plus I find American vehicles to be much more straight forward to work on when you have to work on them. But how did we get into talking about cars? Anyway back to healthcare.
As far as cancer goes Expat.....you take care of it from the inside/out before it kills you. Same can be said for our own country, dispite all the cancer in our government.